Oh bullshit Kharn-
If this a fair trial, which I doubt it will be, I am curious about how the trial will tilt. It's one thing for the US to impose order, but with an insurgency that has a habit of whacking people who work with the US, and given that this trial won't happen for awhile yet, there's a chance, although a thin one, that Saddam will get off.
I doubt it. There are still some serious charges pending.
However, if Saddam can make the argument that he was deposed illegally, than he might be able to say that he's still the sovereign ruler of the state. As sovereign ruler he benefits from the Act of State doctrine- making him immune from most political actions done within his own country.
As for proving that he did the crimes, you will still need to show evidence.
But I agree, the gassing of the Kurds is a big problem for him. Even if his excuse flies- that he didn't know about it until after the fact, then he is still responsible as military ruler.
That said, this trial will raise a lot of interesting questions- the legality of initiating war, the right of a soverign to stand above or below the power of his own people, the power of the sovereign to be immune from prosecution.
For many years the rule of law, be it national or international, was positivist law- meaning sovereigns are immune and war is a legitimate act of state craft. Only since around 1945 have those ideas been tested.
So yeah it will be an interesting trial. And considering the money being spent by Saddam on his defense (he is one of Fortune's 400 wealthiest people) than he can have a legal "dream-team" that beats what OJ could ever have fielded.
THen there is the same problem that the OJ prosecution had- it's own hands were dirty and the evidence was tainted. One could make the same argument that the Bush administration faces, as well as the question for the Iraqis as to whether, in the eyes of their people, they are legitimate administrators and a government, or merely the lackies of the US.
Then- you have the issue of impact. OJ wins in part because he gets a lot of sympathy from many people. There were blacks in the US who still think "OJ was set up" and "OJ didn't do it" even if OJ is one of the whitest black men that ever lived. Furthermore, the members of the jury went into the trial with the predetermined motive to vote OJ innocent.
Do you think that there are not a lot of Arabs in the middle east today, and especially in Iraq, who don't think Saddam was set up? Hell there are a lot of people there who blame everything on the US (remarkable power for a country that often can't get the mail to the right place). If you have similar sentiments that this is all a show for the US, and the middle east has been feeling like it's on the shit end of the world's heirarchy for ever. And they blame the US.
Last, OJ was a showman. So is Saddam. This will be interesting. And regardless of Saddam's reputation for being ruthless, he's also pretty savy- but his argument in court last week.
So yes, this will be better than OJ.
And bullshit if you think that this is not a case of showbusiness. You televise a trial and it will be a show. Iraqis were watching the TV and every trial is a drama unfolding.
