Saddam Hussein's death verdict evokes mixed response worldwide

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's death sentence verdict handed down by a Iraqi court recently has evoked mixed response worldwide with Saddam's supporters vowing to get him released.

A divided and violence–ridden Iraq broke into starkly disparate displays of emotion on November 5 after judges in Baghdad condemned former president Saddam Hussein to hang for crimes against humanity.

The former Iraqi dictator and six subordinates were convicted and sentenced for the 1982 killings of 148 people in a single Shiite town after an attempt on his life there.

"Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!" Saddam trembled and cried out after the verdict was passed by the chief judge, Raouf Abdul–Rahman, who declared the former leader guilty and sentenced him to hang.

Televised, the trial was watched throughout Iraq and the Middle East as much for theatre as for substance. Saddam was ejected from the courtroom repeatedly for his political harangues, and his half–brother and co–defendant, Barzan Ibrahim, once showed up in long underwear and sat with his back to the judges.

The nine–month trial had inflamed the nation, and three defense lawyers and a witness were murdered in the course of its 39 sessions.

With justice for Saddam's crimes done, the U.S.–backed Shiite prime minister called for reconciliation and delivered the most eloquent speech of his five months in office.

"The verdict placed on the heads of the former regime does not represent a verdict for any one person. It is a verdict on a whole dark era that was unmatched in Iraq's history," Nouri al–Maliki said.

Praising the Iraqi judicial system, U.S. President George W. Bush called the verdict "a milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law."

"It's a major achievement for Iraq's young democracy and its constitutional government," the President said, adding, "The victims of this regime have received a measure of the justice which many thought would never come."

The leaders of the "opposition" party in the US, the Democrats, joined with Bush in celebrating Hussein's sentence. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called the court's decision "a great verdict," adding that Hussein "is a war criminal and he's getting what he deserves."

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York claimed that the verdict was a new chance for the Bush administration to improve its performance in Iraq. "Now that Saddam is finally held accountable for his misrule of that country, I hope people will be able to move forward," she said.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad issued a statement saying the verdicts "demonstrate the commitment of the Iraqi people to hold them accountable. ...closing the book on Saddam and his regime is an opportunity to unite and build a better future."

The U.S. media also welcomed the decision, though several newspapers acknowledged that the the trial proceedings were fraught with "unfairness."

The New York Times grumbled that while in the best of all possible worlds the Hussein trial might have been "an exemplary exercise in the rule of law," the actual court proceeding "fell somewhere short of that goal." In indicating the deficiencies, the newspaper provided a sketch of what was, in fact, a grotesque mockery of judicial procedure: "More seriously, powerful politicians regularly tried to influence the outcome, judges were not allowed to rule impartially, and defense lawyers were denied security measures and documents they need." ("Denied security measures" was the Times' diplomatic allusion to the assassination of three defense lawyers in the course of the proceedings.)

The Washington Post adopted the same cynical approach, acknowledging that the trial was not "the model of fairness that the Bush administration and many Iraqis hoped for," but concluding, "There nevertheless can be little doubt that justice was delivered."

"For all its flaws, the trial of Saddam Hussein was the first time in memory that a nation has tried and sentenced to death a dictator who terrorized its people. For all the messiness of the nearly three–year–long process, that is no small thing," USA Today echoed.

However, many European nations voiced opposition to the death sentences in the case, including France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, speaking to reporters, said he opposed the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, joining several other European leaders and European Union officials who announced their opposition to the sentence. When pressed by reporters, Blair spoke of his longstanding opposition to capital punishment. He said he did not intend to protest the sentence, and condemned Hussein's brutality.

"There are other and bigger issues to talk about," he said. "The trial of Saddam gives us a chance to see again what the past in Iraq was, the brutality, the tyranny, the hundreds of thousands of people he killed, the wars in which there were a million casualties."

Blair's view was widely shared by European leaders, many of whom noted their opposition to capital punishment but welcomed Saddam's trial and conviction — as did the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand.

European leaders said the heinousness of Saddam's crimes did not change their view that state–sponsored killing was wrong.

Several warned that putting the former leader to death could worsen sectarian tensions and lead to more bloodshed in Iraq.

"A country ravaged by violence and death does not need more violence and especially not a state–orchestrated execution," said Terry Davis, secretary–general of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. "Saddam Hussein is a criminal and should not be allowed to become a martyr."

Italian Prime Minister Prodi said the guilty verdict mirrored the world community's judgment about Saddam, but emphasized Rome's opposition to capital punishment.
"Italy is against the death penalty and so even in such a dramatic case as Saddam Hussein, we still think that the death penalty must not be put into action," he said after meeting Blair in London.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that while it was "right and important" that Saddam had faced trial, her country opposes his execution.

"It is clear that there is fundamental skepticism and rejection of the death penalty," Merkel said.

Amnesty International has, meanwhile, announced that it "deplored" Hussein's sentence, describing the proceedings as "deeply flawed and unfair."

In Iraq, the Muslim majority, Sunnis, and the minority, Shi'ites were also divided in their response to the news of the verdict.

In the streets of Dujail, a Tigris River city of 84,000, people celebrated and burned pictures of their former tormentor as the verdict was read. In Baghdad, the Shi'ite bastion of Sadr City exploded in jubilation.

But in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, not far from Dujail, 1,000 people defied the curfew and carried pictures of the city's favorite son through the streets. Some declared the court a product of the U.S. "occupation forces" and condemned the verdict. Policemen wept in the streets.

"By our souls, by our blood we sacrifice for you, Saddam," the Tikrit crowds chanted.

A trial envisioned to heal Iraq's deep ethnic and sectarian wounds appeared rather to have deepened the fissures.

"This government will be responsible for the consequences, with the deaths of hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands, whose blood will be shed," Salih al–Mutlaq, a Sunni political leader, told Al–Arabiya satellite television.

Meanwhile, the death sentences automatically go to a nine–judge appeals panel, which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.

Speaking to the Associated Press, a court official said that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted. If the verdicts are upheld, those sentenced to death would be hanged despite Saddam's second, ongoing trial for allegedly murdering thousands of Iraq's Kurdish minority.

"The problem really is that this tribunal has not shown itself to be fair and impartial – not only by international standards, but by Iraqi standards," said Sonya Sceats, an international law expert at the Chatham House foreign affairs think tank in London.

According to political analysts, Saddam's Sunni supporters, the bulk of the insurgency that has killed the vast majority of American troops in Iraq, could still explode in violence once an open–ended curfew is lifted in coming days.

But the former leader's chief lawyer, Khalil al–Dulaimi, told The Associated Press his client had called on Iraqis to reject violence and refrain from taking revenge on U.S. invaders.

"His message to the Iraqi people was 'Pardon and do not take revenge on the invading nations and their people,'" al–Dulaimi said.

"The verdict of guilty and the trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has failed the Iraqi people and failed the rule of law. It is an abuse of justice," said Curtis Doebbler, international human rights lawyer and an American member of Saddam Hussein's legal defense team. "Politically it sends a clear message to the Iraqi people: if they want to defend themselves they cannot look to law, they cannot look to the US government, they cannot look to the occupation government the US setup in Iraq...they must defend themselves using all necessary means by which national liberation movements are permitted to defend themselves."

"On 1 September 2006, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had declared the trial unfair and a violation of international law...the defense lawyers were not allowed by the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) to see the site of the alleged crimes or to interview witnesses," Doebbler recalled. "Notably four defense lawyers were killed, allegedly by Iraqi government agents, some with American soldiers nearby."

"The defense was given no time and no facilities to prepare a defense, even the President' money was stolen from him when he was captured by the Americans. All exculpating evidence was withheld from the defense; defense witnesses were threatened by court officials; defense lawyers were assaulted by US officials; and the defendants we not given the charges against them until eight months after the prosecution had started presenting evidence and the day the defense was required to start its case. The list of violations is long and undoubtedly the reason why every independent expert has found the trial unfair," he said.

"The Dujail trial is one of the worst abuses of justice in modern history. If Nüremberg was victors' justice under difficult circumstances, the trial of the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was victors' injustice founded on George W. Bush's crime of aggression," the lawyer concluded.

In the Arab world, many dismissed the verdict as a product of an unfair trial, decrying the lack of control of the proceedings by the judges, the seeming contradictions in procedures and the generally politicized nature of the proceedings.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak broke an uneasy silence of Arab leaders over Saddam Hussein's verdict, warning that hanging the former dictator would lead to more bloodshed in Iraq.

Mubarak, a regional heavyweight and a top US ally, warned against the execution. His comments published recently – among the first of any Arab leader – appeared to reflect the unease of many in the region at seeing a former President tried and sentenced.

"Carrying out this verdict will explode violence like waterfalls in Iraq," President Mubarak was quoted as saying by state–run Egyptian daily newspapers.

The verdict "will transform (Iraq) into blood pools and lead to a deepening of the sectarian and ethnic conflicts," the Egyptian President said in what appeared to be the most high–profile Arab comment yet on Saddam's sentencing.

Leaders in neighboring Saudi Arabia, another regional powerhouse and US ally, have all but stayed quiet about Saddam's sentencing.

The presidents of Libya and Syria have avoided comment, but the Syrian government has said it opposes the sentence.

Meanwhile, India has reacted guardedly to the news of the verdict saying such verdicts should not appear to be "victor's justice" and should be acceptable to the people of Iraq and the international community.

"Such life and death decisions require credible due process of law," External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in New Delhi in a statement.

Mukherjee said India has always stood for a peaceful resolution of the problems of Iraq and "we hope that this verdict will not add to the suffering of the people of Iraq."

However, India's left parties, formidable allies of United Progressive Alliance (UPA) the coalition government at the center, have responded more vocally, taking protests to the street and demanding that the death sentence be lifted.

The Communist Party of India–Marxist (CPI–M) Sunday denounced the death sentence against Hussein, terming it a 'rigged verdict' and demanded that the Indian government must intervene to get it rescinded.

"The Polit Bureau denounces the death sentence to the ousted president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein," said the party's top decision–making body in a statement issued here soon after the verdict was announced in Baghdad. "This is nothing but a totally rigged verdict delivered after a farcical trial. The defence lawyers representing Saddam Hussein were murdered and the chief judge was changed twice in the course of the trial."

"The British and the US government should realise that, if executed, this sentence will be seen only as a 'judicial assassination' and they will be held responsible for the consequences," the statement said.

Protesters shouted "Hang Bush and Blair, release Saddam" as they marched in the heart of Kolkata, capital of the communist–ruled state of West Bengal. Activists also burnt an effigy of U.S. President George W. Bush.

"They changed the judge and rigged the trial completely," Biman Bose, a communist leader said.

"This is an outrageous decision. It is a rigged verdict through a trial which is a farce," CPM general secretary Prakash Karat said.

The Indian government has rejected the Left's demand that the UPA government actively intervene to get the death sentence passed against former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein rescinded and dismissed allegations that the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh regime had succumbed to US pressure by failing to condemn the sentence.

"There is no question of interfering in matters of another country. There is also no question of toeing anyone's line," UPA spokesman Abhishek Singhvi said, expressing hope that peace and tranquility and democratic process would not be impeded by the Court's decision.

The death sentence verdict has also divided the Muslims in India.

In Lucknow, capital of India's largest state of Uttar Pradesh and home to 30 million of this country's 140 million Muslims, the verdict divided the two main Muslim sects, Shi'ites and Sunnis.

While leading Shi'ite scholars and clerics see the verdict as divine retribution for a man who is accused of killing Shias when he ruled Iraq, their Sunni counterparts condemned it as an American design.

"Saddam Hussein was responsible for the brutal massacre of hundreds of thousands of Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq. Even a hundred death sentences would not be enough for him," Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, a Shi'ite scholar and senior vice president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, has declared.

Maulana Mirza Mohammad Athar, who heads the newly formed All India Shi'ite Personal Law Board, also came out in support of the Iraqi court verdict.

"A tyrant must be punished for his tyranny," he told journalists.

Asked if he was happy, Maulana Athar shot back, "This is not an issue over which one can be happy or unhappy. All I can say is that the man has met his nemesis, that's all."

However, Sunni religious heads held a diametrically opposite view and blamed it all on the US.

Sunni Imam Sayed Ahmed Bukhari, the head of New Delhi's Jama Masjid – India's largest mosque – led protests against the verdict by arguing that U.S. President Bush should be the one facing justice.

"We denounce the verdict which was planned by the invader of Iraq. The judgement has been announced by a puppet tribunal of the US," he said in a statement.

"Instead of Saddam Hussein, Bush should have been put on trial for his crimes in Iraq where more than 700,000 people have been killed since US–led forces invaded the country," he said.

"It is not a court verdict; it simply demonstrates the high–handedness of the President George Bush who had personal scores to settle with Saddam Hussein," said Maulana Khalid Rasheed, the Naib Imam of Lucknow. “After all, Bush's repeated allegations that Saddam was secretly holding on to weapons of mass destruction turned out to be baseless and false."