[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 133 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8956-H8957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, if this were a sermon, I would use as the 
text Romans 12:19 which says, and I want to remind the House that we 
are a Christian Nation, that says, Avenge not yourselves, for it is 
written, vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord.
  Now we are in the process of beginning a trial which is going to be 
the trial of the century. I think the United States people and the 
Congress should think about what it is we are setting out to do. On 
Wednesday, the trial of the century will begin. It will start at a 
secret Green Zone location by an anonymous court and under extreme U.S. 
military-imposed security measures.
  It is a made-in-the-USA affair in administrative and financial terms. 
The court and the training and the whole proceedings cost us $75 
million of our taxes. About 300 people, all hired by the Americans, are 
working on the trial. The five secret Iraq judges, Shiites and Kurds, 
no Sunnis, are paid by the Americans, are living inside the Green Zone 
and are protected by the Americans from being either kidnapped or 
killed. They have received special training from U.S. and British and 
Australian legal experts, and they have even staged a mock trial.
  If the defendant in this case is convicted, he will be able to file 
appeals and then will, within 30 days of those appeals being denied, be 
hung in that country in which he lives.
  Now, this special Iraq tribunal was substituted by former American 
proconsul, Mr. Bremer, in December 2003, curiously almost 3 days before 
Saddam was captured, supposedly. Now, that is the view of this case 
from the Arab world. That comes from an article in the Asia Times by a 
reporter named Pepe Escobar, and it is called ``The Occupiers' Trial.'' 
This is how it is seen from the Arab world.
  Now, you say, well, you know, that is just those Arabs. Pick up 
today's New York Times and there is the story on the editorial pages of 
the New York Times: ``Saddam and Iraq on Trial,'' and here is what it 
says: ``The opportunity created by the trial of Saddam Hussein to 
introduce the rule of law and the ideal of national reconciliation into 
Iraq has been largely squandered . . . At almost every turn, ill-
conceived decisions by the United States and Iraqi-dominated Shiite 
religious and Kurdish nationalist parties have put politics and score-
settling first.''
  Remember that quote about vengeance:
  ``The cost has been an indifference to legal scrupulousness and they 
are waging a costly vendetta by Kurdish and Shiite victims against 
Sunni Arabs who were once their oppressors.''
  That is the New York Times talking to our President who insists on 
doing this.
  Now, the question you might ask yourself is, Why did they do it this 
way? I mean, any reasonable person might ask that. Well, this trial was 
set up this way for a variety of reasons. It should have been a 
scrupulously fair trial where you would have at least one Sunni among 
the judges. I mean, Saddam Hussein is a Sunni. We insist on a jury of 
your peers, and we have gone to a lot of trouble in this country to 
make sure there are peers on the juries, but not in this case.
  We are looking to prove him personally accountable. Now, in the case 
in Iraq where legal training and appointments have been bent for 
decades to the political whims of the political, they should have 
called for enlisting help from international legal experts and used 
relevant precedents in international criminal law.
  Why did they not do that? Why did they not call in an international 
tribunal like they did at Nuremberg at the end of the Second World War? 
This is the New York Times talking. Bush administration and its Iraq 
allies strongly oppose that step because it would have precluded the 
death penalty. They want a public hanging.
  Now, once that decision was made, Iraq lawyers and American lawyers 
were the ones they were going to rely on. They were not going to get 
anybody national. They should have been well insulated, those people 
who were doing, this from political pressures. Instead, this special 
tribunal who organized the trial has been subject to constant 
manipulation and intimidation by Ahmad Chalabi. Remember him? The 
ceaselessly conspiring emigre politician who wants to make anti-
Baathist vendettas his latest political platform.
  We are setting ourselves up for a serious problem.

                       [From the New York Times]

                        Saddam and Iraq on Trial

       The opportunity created by the trial of Saddam Hussein to 
     introduce the rule of 1aw and the idea of national 
     reconciliation into Iraq has been largely squandered even 
     before the courtroom proceedings begin. At almost every turn, 
     ill-considered decisions by the United States and Iraq's 
     dominant Shiite-religious and Kurdish-nationalist parties 
     have put politics and score-settling first. The cost has been 
     an indffference to legal scrupulousness, as well as a failure 
     to distinguish between pursuing the specific crimes of a 
     dictator that must be punished in a court and waging a 
     collective vendetta by Kurdish and Shiite victims against the 
     Sunni Arabs who were once their oppressors.
       There is still time to shift this exercise in victor's 
     Justice to a more constructive course because the trial will 
     adjourn for several weeks after today's televised opening. 
     For that to happen, the Iraqi lawyers and judges will have to 
     stand-up to intense and continuing pressures from their 
     political masters for a choreographed proceeding that seems 
     timed to gain short-term advantages at the expense of 
     national healing and an airing of recent Iraqi history.
       When invading United States forces drove Mr. Hussein from 
     power two and a half years ago, Americans naively expected 
     rejoicing throughout Iraq and rapid efforts at democratic 
     reconstruction. One main reason that did not happen, apart 
     from the well-known mistakes by the American occupation 
     authorities, was the arbitrary, violent and fragmented nature 
     of the society left behind by the dictator, who had ruled 
     through murder, fear and persecution.
       One of the best ways to repair such a damaged society is a 
     systematic judicial investigation of the regime's crimes. 
     That should be followed by a scrupulously fair trial of those 
     found personally accountable. In the case of Iraq, where 
     legal training and appointments had been bent for decades to 
     the political whims of the dictatorship, that should have 
     called for enlisting help from international legal experts 
     and using relevant precedents in international criminal law. 
     The Bush administration and its Iraqi allies strongly opposed 
     that step because it would have excluded the death penalty.
       Once the decision was made to rely on Iraqi lawyers and 
     American Advisers, they should have been well insulated from 
     political pressures. Instead, the special tribunal organizing 
     the trial has been subjected to constant manipulation and 
     intimidation by Ahmad Chalabi, the ceaselessly conspiring 
     emigre politician who has made anti-Baathist vendettas the 
     latest political platform.
       Finally, this prosecution would have been conducted 
     differently if it were a serious attempt to uncover the murky 
     lines of authority and responsibility within the Baathist 
     regime and establish Mr. Hussein's clear personal 
     responsibility for at least some of the roughly 300,000 
     murders committed in his name. It would have built up its 
     case methodically, from the field operatives carrying out the 
     killings to the officials who gave them their orders and on 
     up the chain of command to Mr. Hussein himself.
       Instead, today's trial will begin with what prosecutors and 
     politicians decided was the easiest case to prove, a mass 
     execution in a Shiite town that followed a failed 1982 
     assassination attempt against Mr. Hussein. These killings 
     ought to be prosecuted. But if the aim is to uncover the 
     broader criminal conspiracy in order to punish the truly 
     guilty and absolve those guilty only by association, other 
     trials should have come first.
       What we have is a narrow sectarian government, still 
     struggling to come up with a

[[Page H8957]]

     nationally inclusive constitution, that is conducting what 
     looks like a show trial, borrowing noxious elements of 
     Baathist law to speed the way toward an early and political1y 
     popular execution.
                                  ____


                          The Occupiers' Trial

                           (By Pepe Escobar)

       Occupied Iraq has virtually no security, e1ectricity, water 
     or jobs. Last Saturday, instead of basic necessities for a 
     decent life, Iraqis had a referendum--already suspected of 
     massive fraud--on a constitution few have even seen.
       Starting on Wednesday, Iraqis, and the rest of the world 
     for that matter, get a running soap opera--the trial of 
     Saddam Hussein, under whose regime, for all its terror, and 
     then 12 years of economic sanctions, Iraqis at least had 
     security, electricity, water and jobs.
       This ``trial of the century''--or at least the early 21st 
     century--starts at a secret Green Zone location, by an 
     anonymous court, and under extreme, U.S. military-imposed 
     security measures. It's a made in U.S.A. affair--in 
     administrative and financial terms.
       The court, the training and the whole proceedings cost U.S. 
     $75 million--courtesy of U.S. taxpayers (the budget was 
     allocated in May 2004). About 300 people--paid by the 
     Americans--work on the trial machinery. The five ``secret'' 
     Iraqi judges--Shi'ites and Kurds, no Sunnis--are paid by the 
     Americans, live inside the Green Zone and are protected by 
     the Americans from, being kidnapped or killed.
       They have received special training from U.S., British and 
     Australian legal experts and have even staged a mock trial in 
     London. They are supposed to be ``independent'' in a country 
     on which ``the United States continues to wield vast 
     influence'', according to the understated Associated Press. 
     Human Rights Watch has warned on the record that the trial 
     may be ``violating international standards for fair trials''.
       The initial charges against Saddam will focus on the 
     killing of 143 Shi'ites in the village Dujail, north of 
     Baghdad, in 1982, after an assassination attempt against him. 
     Recently disclosed images from Iraqi TV at the time show 
     Saddam touring Dujail in triumph--but not the hostility of 
     the crowd.
       The assassination attempt was claimed by the Shi'ite Da'wa 
     Party. Current Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari happens to be a 
     leader of the Da'wa Party. As far as he's concerned, Saddam 
     should be pronounced guilty in no time. ``We are not trying 
     to land on the moon here . . . It's enough [to try Saddam] on 
     Dujail and Anfal. The tribunal is just and open, he has a 
     defense lawyer and the verdict will match the crime . . . I 
     don't want to intervene in judicial proceedings, but why do 
     we say now that more time is needed?''
       Six other people are being tried alongside Saddam. They 
     include his half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti--who was the head 
     of the terror-inflicting Mukhabarat intelligence services; 
     his notorious henchman Taha Yassin Ramadan; Awad Hamed al-
     Bander, the judge who sentenced many in Dujail to death; and 
     four Ba'ath Party officials. The prosecution charges that 
     Saddam himself, as head of state, certified the executions 
     pronounced by an Iraqi special tribunal presided by Bander.
       This won't be an American-style courtroom drama. There's no 
     jury. The chief judge will question a number of witnesses. 
     Many have already been interviewed before the trial. The five 
     judges decide whether Saddam and his six co-defendants are 
     innocent or guilty. Saddam will have the right to call 
     witnesses.
       If he is convicted, his defense team will be able to file a 
     number of appeals before the sentence--expected to be death--
     is applied. If it's death row, Saddam must be executed--in 
     fact hanged--within 30 days of the ruling on his last appeal. 
     The description of the trial procedures is provided, once 
     again, not by Iraqis, but by Americans--at the National 
     Security Council and the State Department.
       This special Iraqi tribunal was instituted by former 
     American proconsull Paul Bremer in December 2003--curiously 
     only three days before Saddam, according to the official 
     Pentagon version, was captured in his hole on the ground. The 
     tribunal is supposed to judge crimes committed by Iraqis--
     inside and outside the country--between July 17, 1968 (when 
     the Ba'ath Party took power) and May 1, 2003, as well as war 
     crimes perpetrated during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and 
     the invasion of Kuwait (1990-1991).
       So a string of trials may be in the offing--concerning, for 
     starters, the Anfal campaign of 1987-1988 which killed at 
     least 5,000 Kurds, the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the 
     suppression of the Shi'ite uprising of 1991 (which may have 
     killed 200,000 people) and the widespread assassination of 
     Shi'ite religious leaders, like the Grand Ayatollah Baqr al-
     Sadr.

                          ____________________