HOME	Your Most Trusted Source of Foreign News and Views About the United States

October 27, 2005

Home Page (English)

Karl Rove: Pudgy, Intelligent, Likeable, and Dangerous.

The decision to limit the number of criminal charges against him and the postponement of Saddam Hussein’s next court session to November 28 are both part of the new U.S. strategy.

Charged in the 1982 killing of 143 Shia villagers, the former Iraqi dictator along with three close aides and four other members of the disbanded Baath party were arraigned by Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin in a courtroom in the heavily fortified Green Zone. The defendants face 12 charges in regard to the 50 complaints against them.

Since his country is being occupied by foreign forces and he believes himself innocent of all charges, Saddam still considers himself president of Iraq, and is being prosecuted in a show trial to further American national interests.

This was not the first court to bring criminal charges against leaders of the disbanded Baath Party. A similar court session was held in July 2004, but the trial process was suspended because if revealed, the facts would have negatively impacted U.S. foreign policy.

At the time, U.S. officials were insistent about trying Saddam at an international court like the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Tokyo War Crimes Trials of the 1940s, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which were established in the 1990s and are still prosecuting war criminals.

Judges at Saddam Trial: 'You question him ... No, No, not me. You do it.' [Khaleej Times]

Nevertheless, either the obvious illegitimacy of a closed trial or American fears that their support for the dictator during the Iraqi-imposed war on Iran and invasion of Kuwait would be exposed in open court, obliged Washington to revise its decision and limit the charges against him to several domestic crimes.

Even under current circumstances and with the way paved to try Saddam, American officials have insisted on postponing the trial, citing as a pretext, the need to take additional security measures.

However, according to other reports, the insistence of Baathist elements that Saddam not be executed and the vulnerability of American military forces are the main reasons for Washington’s decision to delay the trial. With the postponement of Saddam’s second court session, America’s role in the trial process has become clearer, but what is the United States looking for?

The adjournment of the Saddam trial was premeditated. In the first phase of the plan, the decision was made to try Saddam in a civilian rather than a military court. This delayed hearing criminal complaints of neighboring countries [Iran], and limited the charges to domestic crimes.

U.S. officials are well aware that holding a military tribunal within a country without a democratic process would generate more problems for occupation forces. The political culture of undemocratic countries do not allow for easy acknowledgement governmental error, particularly when there is a sense of ethnic or sectarian allegiance to the leadership.

Washington has postponed Saddam’s trial to manipulate the issue of national reconciliation for its own purposes. With the body-bag factor weighing ever-more heavy upon them, it seems that U.S. officials may look to strike a deal with Saddam loyalists, under which the former dictator would be given a life sentence, since U.S. troops would suffer greater casualties if Saddam is executed.

VIDEO FROM THE MUSLIM WORLD: 'AMERICANS KNOW THEY ARE LYING ABOUT IRAN'

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei

---