The Saddam Hussein Defense team just got a whole lot stranger:
The daughter of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan president, will help defend Saddam Hussein in court, a Jordanian lawyer and member of Mr. Hussein’s legal team said Friday.
Aicha Muammar el-Qaddafi, a law professor in her late 20’s, will become part of a Jordanian-based multinational defense team, the lawyer, Ziad al-Khasawneh, said Thursday.
A statement issued Thursday by a charity association led by Ms. Qaddafi said she wanted to guarantee that Mr. Hussein received a fair trial based on “the principle that all accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
Which got me to wondering something I’m sure our good friends with JD’s can shed some light on. If the Iraqi courts and Iraqi judges indicting Hussein are seen as legitimate enough to try Hussein (as opposed to trying him at The Hague, a la Milosevic), wouldn’t that require a presupposition that the new government is legitimate because Hussein was disposed of legitimately. In other words, Hussein was already presumed guilty.*
*And no, I don’t care if they blow his head off “accidentally.” Don’t misinterpret the question please.
This is exactly why you don’t pretend that war and policing are the same thing.
” In other words, Hussein was already presumed guilty.*”
Doesn’t follow.
His position as no-longer head of state and arbiter of the law is unrelated to his guilt or innocence on the specific charges against him.
Doesn’t follow.
His position as no-longer head of state and arbiter of the law is unrelated to his guilt or innocence on the specific charges against him.
I always get these thing mixed up, but let me try again, so at least I can figure out where I’m wrong:
There is a new court in Iraq backed by a new government. That government is considered legitimate because the world and the Iraqis recognize it as such. The world and the Iraqis recognize it as such because they recognized as legitimate the coalition instituted regime change. They recognized that regime change as legitimate, I assume, because they recognized Hussein as guilty of something worthy of be disposed for.
Therefore, the legitimacy of the courts depends on the presumption that Hussein is guilt of something worth being disposed for. No?
forgive typos please computer is being very bad…
Whether the new government is legitimate or not has no bearing on whether Saddam was legitimate or not.
But that is irrelevant, because Saddam is not on trial for being an illegitimate ruler, he’s on trial for various other things (Halabja, for instance).
“They recognized that regime change as legitimate, I assume, because they recognized Hussein as guilty of something worthy of be disposed for.”
No, it’s legitimate because he was deposed and they’re the replacement. There’s no necessary relationship (although there is some in this case) between the casus belli for war and the criminal charges brought against him, as Sebastian (I think) points out.
sidereal:
Please don’t take this as being snarky or nit-picky since I only intend it to be helpful. You express yourself so well! “Casus belli” means, in Latin, “cause for war” or “case for war”. Consequently, “casus belli for war” is redundant.
Sidereal,
I’m not trying to be dense, but it sounds like you’re saying that the legitimacy of the current Iraqi courts exists in a vaccuum…that Hussein cannot challenge it…is that so?
Therefore, the legitimacy of the courts depends on the presumption that Hussein is guilt of something worth being disposed for. No?
I’d say no. Let’s say that the only bad thing Hussein ever did was invade Kuwait and have WMD programs. That would be enough for violations of international law. Presuming a coalition deposes him for those reasons, the subsequent Iraqi government would not have any likely reason to try him for those crimes, as they weren’t against the Iraqi people per se.
Edward, as I understand it – and I say this as an onlooker, not as a lawyer or, indeed, an expert of any sort, so caveat lector – the government itself is not illegitimized by the fact that the court must assume that the charges against Hussein are false until the prosecution demonstrates otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. It might call into question the motives for removing Hussein from power, but not the legitimacy of the removal itself.
(Moral legitimacy is another issue, and one which I won’t tackle here, except to say that even if Hussein is cleared on all charges, I doubt that very many people are going to support his return to power.)
“Consequently, “casus belli for war” is redundant.”
Quite! I should really stay away from Latin. We’ve never gotten along.