IU professors respond to historic Saddam trial

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is on trial in possibly the most important case postwar Iraq has seen. \n"Everything (has ground) to a stop and (the Iraqis) are glued to their television sets," said John Walbridge, chair of IU's Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. "It's the biggest TV event as long as anyone could remember."\nThe circus-like Saddam trial resumed Sunday, only to be cut short as the former Iraqi leader stormed out in protest after an outburst resulted in the ejection of his half brother and co-defendant Barzan Hassan. Seven trials, a month-long recess, controversial behavior and the appointment of a new chief judge have hindered the proceedings in Saddam's court case.\nThe former Iraqi leader is being tried for a massacre in 1982 which killed more than 140 Shiites in the town of Dujail, according to The Associated Press. If Saddam is found guilty, he could face the death penalty. \nBut the fairness of the trial has been questioned after a change in the chief judge, assassinations and courtroom outbursts by Saddam. \nAnother controversy revolves around setting the trial in Iraq rather than in the International Court of Justice. \nLaw professor Craig Bradley said that if Saddam is acquitted, future cases involving similar circumstances will be more likely to be heard in the International Court, rather than in the home country of the accused. \nBesides the significance the United States has placed on his conviction, the case is also important in Iraq because it reflects the power struggles between Iraqi Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis.\n"The Shiites hate him, and so do the Kurds. So if he is convicted, they will be happy," said political science professor Jeffrey Hart in an e-mail. \nHart said it is unlikely that Saddam will be found not guilty, but if he is, it "will set back prospects for future war crimes tribunals in other places and will provoke a strong backlash from Kurds and Shiites in Iraq -- maybe even some Sunnis who were victimized by Saddam." \nSaddam's conviction also holds social and legal importance for the people of Iraq. \n"If convicted, some Iraqis who were victims will feel that some justice was done," Hart said. "Saddam supporters will be outraged, but at least there will be a paper trail of evidence of his misdeeds."\nLast week court officials named Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman the new chief judge, after the preceding chief resigned in response to complaints that the court proceedings lacked control, according to the AP. \n"Apparently, Iraqis are not used to seeing such trials, especially when broadcast on television," Hart said. "They did not like the behavior of the judge who was dismissed because they thought he was too permissive of Saddam's bad behavior in court. But again, there was no single Iraqi reaction to the trial because of the sectarian struggle among the major factions, and because some Iraqis actually supported Saddam's regime."\nAnother concern is that the trial's legitimacy may suffer because of the various outbursts and controversies surrounding the case. \n"Obviously any problem with the trial is going to affect its credibility. It's hard to know; most people hope that the trial will be conducted in a way that is being fair," Walbridge said. "Most people would prefer that he be convicted. ...(But) it's not as though the new government has a lot of credibility, either." \nDespite the controversial questions of fairness, Walbridge added it's "just one step toward the goal of establishing rule of law in a society rule that it has not had for a long time"