Saddam Hussein’s trial resumes this week. I noticed that coverage by media sources has been relatively brief.

Saddam has had multiple outbursts during the trial and when court was last in session, he was boycotting the proceedings. The brief news usually tells the audience that Saddam had an outburst without the details.

The translation of Saddam’s words must appeal to more than one person. Initially it seemed like a “Saturday Night Live” sketch because it was somewhat entertaining — watching an ousted dictator stand up in court and appear as if he is trying in vain to retake his control.

The news was not his words, however, just that he had words. The report was incomplete.

Does he have information on our government of which most Americans are ignorant? Certainly this is plausible — as an adversary of our government he would know information to which we are blinded. But this does not seem like the major reason his words are not being reported.

Our media is not extensively reporting what he is saying because it is a forgone conclusion that he will be found guilty. After all, the court was established by the United States for the sole purpose of finding Saddam and a few others guilty. This has close to no logic. A courtroom, even in this case, is a place where one is innocent until proven guilty. It is still the philosophy of a trial even though impossible here.

It should be easy to play by the rules of a trial and still have no problem convicting Saddam of violating basic human rights. Lives have been dedicated to documenting the racial injustices of Saddam’s regime. So why can’t we be told exactly what Saddam is saying during his outbursts?

Maybe Saddam is actually making a good point. This notion is strange to think about, but if you read foreign news sources, it seems like he (and his legal team) have valid arguments. The presiding judge has a conflict of interest because he is a member of one of the oppressed Iraqi tribes. The court tried to appoint Saddam with lawyers when he was already equipped with a solid legal team. Finally, the mentioned legal team is being treated unequally.

It does not make sense to violate the rules of operation in a courtroom, especially in Saddam’s trial. No defense can exist to free Saddam, but the orchestration of the trial is actually giving him the ability to make rational arguments, which is annoying because there is no need to fix his trial. The underlying problem is back here in America.

Our legal system is far from just and often frowned upon. If a defendant has any status, it is well known said person has a better chance for acquittal. The point is when biases occur in our system, any system we develop is going to inherit the same troubles and more.

So why is everybody wasting time on a trial if it was determined before the trial that he is guilty? Karma (the eternal rationalization). Just a few years ago, it would have been hard to imagine seeing Saddam Hussein claim injustices applied to his personal life.

Perhaps quite fitting that, before he is put to death, he is told he will go through a democratic process only to experience something akin to the opposite.

> Comments