CURRENT TOPICS: The trial

If a man is caught breaking into a neighbour's house and trying to take forcible possession of an old chest which he claims once belonged to his ancestors, he has clearly committed a crime. He has then no conceivable defence under law. He is tried and sentenced summarily. When the same man happens to be the ruler of a nation and orders invasion of another country for real or imagined territorial dispute and in the process kills thousands, nothing happens to him if he wins the war. If he loses, there is an elaborate and prolonged trial to debate his guilt. No wonder Law is called an Ass.
Bush invaded Iraq for stated reasons which were ab initio contrived. No one including UNO believed the veracity and later have been proved conclusively false. And yet Bush is not only free but contesting elections for the second term. Saddam was defeated, ousted from power, went into hiding, hunted and arrested. Now we are witnessing what is called "The Trial of the century" which is expected to hold the attention of the world for a long long time. On the face of it the charges enumerated are irrefutable. He did invade Iran on the flimsy ground of border dispute. He followed it up attacking Kuwait because once upon a time the territory (and therefore the oil wells) belonged to Iraq. As regards the brutalities committed against his own people and particularly the genocide of Shias in the south, there is ample evidence to convince the blind, the deaf or the dumb, what to talk of the learned judges. But when justice is painted with politics it is not only delayed but tends to be devious.
Saddam once prancing as a peacock in the palaces of Baghdad was captured in a dungeon underground near his hometown Tikrit. Obviously he was betrayed for the bumper prize of 25 million dollars. Neither did he resist arrest nor took his own life. The occupation administration was jubilant and displayed him with glee on T.V. screens all over the world, all bedraggled and dishevelled with matted hair and bushy beard. He was spirited away to America. Now after six months he has been sent back to Baghdad tussed up in chains like a turkey.
The other day he was made to appear before an Iraqi judge for preliminary questioning and reading out the charges. Though trimmed and groomed, Saddam looked debilated but defiant and impressed the observers with his upright demeanour. He refused to be overawed and remained unbent. He was well aware that the judicial proceedings were under Iraqi law but obviously stage-managed and orchestrated by America. He made a dig that real criminal was Bush. He justified the invasion of Kuwait and contemptuously called them dogs. His ego was still intact when the judge described the profession of the accused as "past president of Iraq'; he promptly intervened to correct him by insisting that he was the current president elected by the people of Iraq. Simultaneously he mocked the judge by calling him "an American stooge". Saddam also took exception to his lawyers not being allowed in the court during this hearing. In their absence he refused to sign any papers even if innocuous. Incidentally he has engaged a panel of 5 lawyers - all Arabs - to represent him. His wife and daughters now in Jordan stated the other day that over 1000 lawyers of different nationalities have offered their services. I wonder why? Do they sincerely believe that he is innocent and would be railroaded but for their expertise in defence, or they simply want to bask in the international glare of publicity? Legal eagles have a heyday giving their unsolicited opinions. One expert stated that Saddam is clearly guilty of the charges enumerated, as 60 tonnes of evidence has been accumulated to convince any court. However, he went on to add that the only defence to save him from the gallows is to plead "impunity as head of state". Meaning thereby that he personally did not commit the atrocities he is accused of and his over zealous subordinates (which would include generals, soldiers, intelligence agencies and underlings) exceeded his orders. It would then be weighing the crimes of this magnitude not on the scales of justice but merely going by the letter of law.
Whatever is the ultimate fate of Saddam, but for the present his Arab followers see him as a challenger to the might of the sole superpower. In just one appearance he has rekindled the determination of the insurgents in Iraq and the Arab world to carry on their fight to death. It bodes ill for US presence and plans in the Middle-East.