As one of those who regards the death penalty just one more form of murder, and those who impose or advocate it as murderers or collaborators, my views regarding the killing of Saddam Hussein are not at all conflicted. But those who gleefully welcome this event, or those who think there is some justice in it, might want to first take a look at the "trial." All the Complicit Media has shown is a bit of shouting, but Human Rights Watch has been watching closely. Read their report, and then tell me that if you think the murder of Saddam Hussein is a just outcome, or just one more lynching.
The following is from
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11/20/iraq14589.htmThe full report is at
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/iraq1106"The proceedings in the Dujail trial were fundamentally unfair," said Nehal Bhuta of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. "The tribunal squandered an important opportunity to deliver credible justice to the people of Iraq. And its imposition of the death penalty after an unfair trial is indefensible.”
The report, entitled "Judging Dujail: The First Trial Before the Iraqi High Tribunal," is based on 10 months of observation and dozens of interviews with judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers, and is the most comprehensive analysis to date of the trial. Human Rights Watch, which has demanded the prosecution of Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants for more than a decade, was one of only two international organizations that had a regular observer presence in the courtroom.
The Iraqi High Tribunal was undermined from the outset by Iraqi government actions that threatened the independence and perceived impartiality of the court. Members of parliament and even ministers regularly denounced the tribunal as weak, leading to the resignation of the first presiding trial judge.
"Judging Dujail" reports previously undocumented and serious procedural flaws in the trial, including:
• regular failure to disclose key evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the defense in advance;
• violations of the defendants’ basic fair trial right to confront witnesses against them;
• lapses of judicial demeanor that undermined the apparent impartiality of the presiding judge; and
• important gaps in evidence that undermine the persuasiveness of the prosecution case, and put in doubt whether all the elements of the crimes charged were established.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
