Robinson on Hussein Trial

Washington Post Columnist Eugene Robinson was online Wednesday, Dec. 7, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his column on the trial of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's Courtroom Drama , ( Post, Dec. 6 )

The transcript follows.

____________________

Eugene Robinson: Hi, everyone. I'll be here for the next hour to chat about Tuesday's column (the Saddam Hussein trial) or last Friday's column (the impending execution of Tookie Williams) or anything else you'd like to bring up. I've spent the past hour trying to figure out what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this morning about U.S. policy on torture. I think she might have said we're now against it, which would be a switch.

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: Isn't the outcome of this trial predetermined?

Besides airing some of Saddam's crimes, what's the difference between this and a "kangaroo court?"

Eugene Robinson: I certainly would assume that we can guess the outcome of the Saddam trial, and I don't think it matters that the evidence so far hasn't necessary implicated him directly -- there's not much debate about who's in charge. I wouldn't minimize the value of "airing some of Saddam's crimes." I think that could be a necessary step in Iraq, whatever you think about the war itself. But that requires a proper trial, and I don't think we know yet whether this is going to be a real evidence-gathering process or not.

_______________________

Winnipeg, Canada: Your article gives a compelling account of a compelling event. I wonder, though, about your final assertion: "The only suspense is how long it will take for the judge, the prosecutors, the courtroom galleries and millions of Iraqis watching on television to realize that Hussein is now in their power, rather than the other way around."

I think it is equally possible that by defying the authority established to judge him, he in a perverse way he is speaking for the people who are unhappy with authority set up to govern them.

At a time when the former Iraqi prime minister, a person appointed by the occupying authority, says things were better under Saddam, Iraqis have the former dictator front and center on television, and giving a compelling performance.

This performance gives them a chance to compare Saddam to those in power now, and given the widespread dissatisfaction with the way the occupation has proceeded, I worry that Saddam's defiance will play well to the crowd. The description of the atrocities he committed might counterbalance any positive impression his heckling makes, but on the other hand the current authority has committed its own atrocities, and these are more recent.

Eugene Robinson: I think there's a real possibility that the trial will embolden Saddam's supporters rather than demoralize them. He acts as if he's still in charge, and he has an undeniable air of command. At times he makes the judge, the prosecutors and the witnesses look small by comparison.

_______________________

Punta Gorda, Fla.: Why does the trial judge allow all the abuse from Ramsey Clark and Hussein?

In the trial of Eichman by the Israelis, he was in an enclosed room that was soundproofed and bulletproof.

In a U.S. Court Hussein would be bound and gagged and Clark would be held in contempt.

Is it that the Magistrate has no direction or experience?

Eugene Robinson: I don't think any Iraqi judge has experience in trying to run a fair, orderly trial. You're right that allowing Saddam to say anything he wants whenever he wants, including heckling the witnesses and threatening the judge, seems absurd. But I can understand why the judge would be hesitant to shackle and gag him. The idea is to present him as a monster, not as a martyr.

_______________________

Fredericksburg, Va.: As long as Hussein is present, his trial will be a circus. Under Iraqi law can he be tried in absentia?

Eugene Robinson: They had a long meeting in chambers this morning when Saddam refused to come to court, and supposedly decided that they could go ahead and try him in absentia. But after a couple of hours then adjourned the whole trial for two weeks. I'm not sure anyone has any idea what Iraqi law says on the subject -- they kind of have to make it up as they go along, I guess. But they don't seem eager to go ahead without him.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Instead of bringing Saddam to trial for a blanket charge of "crimes against humanity," this trial is tightly focused on a specific event. Is this a deliberate strategy so that Saddam can be tied up in legal bonds indefinitely with individual charges rather than risk a "not guilty" verdict and possibly allowing him to go free? Even if he is convicted, it is likely that sentencing him to death would conceivably make him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters and further inflame warring ethnic and religious factions. Is this trial just the beginning of a incarceration "death of a thousand cuts?"

Eugene Robinson: I think there was a feeling that a general "crimes against humanity" charge might be harder to prove. After all, he was a head of state whose legitimacy was recognized by other nations. So then would a charge have to be brought under international law? I don't know, but it must have seemed easier and cleaner to focus first on one discrete massacre.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You think Ramsey Clark will call Rummy as character witness for Saddam? What with all the pictures of handshaking back when the crimes against humanity were supposed to take place!

Eugene Robinson: Well, I'll bet the defense team will be eager to remind everyone that while these atrocities were being committed, Saddam had the backing of the United States. And yes, I'll bet they'd love to introduce that handshake photo into evidence.

_______________________

Overland Park, Kan.: Saddam Hussein's defense lawyers appeared to be putting the U.S. occupation on trial with a line of questioning comparing Saddam's Abu Ghraib prison to America's Abu Ghraib. They asked one prosecution witness if Saddam's prison guards used dogs to intimidate or took nude photos of prisoners. (No, they broke bones with hammers and cut out tongues.) They failed to create moral parity between the two situations, so I assume this is part of a larger strategy by the defense team to support Hussein's claim that the court (as an instrument of the new Iraqi government) is illegitimate. Clearly this is an indefensible legal strategy, so what are they really trying to achieve? Thanks.

Eugene Robinson: I think you're exactly right about the defense strategy. They can't have any expectation that he'll actually be acquitted and allowed to walk away a free man. So I have to assume that the comparisons with Abu Ghraib etc. are meant for the larger public outside of the courtroom, both in Iraq and around the world. I think the idea is to suggest that this is an illegitimate government, under the thumb of the United States, and to present Saddam and co-defendants as the true Iraqi patriots.

_______________________

Fort Washington, Md.: Why is Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general, defending a dictator whom the United States waged a major war to depose?

Eugene Robinson: Ramsey Clark says he is there because he believes it is important that Saddam get a fair trial. He is no fan of this administration or this war.

_______________________

Milwaukee, Wis.: Hey Eugene. Love your work. But don't you think there's another element to the Saddam trial? While all the meat-grinding and shock-giving was going on, he was our bosom buddy, meeting with Rumsfeld and getting our help with the WMDs that the damn war is supposed to be about. I'm waiting for Ramsey Clark to subpoena Rumsfeld. Do you think the U.S. role will come out? Do you think Bush et al. should worry? Do you think anyone in this country will care?

Eugene Robinson: I think the U.S. role is pretty well known by now. We backed Saddam as someone who would guarantee stability in Iraq (who cares about the broken china?) and serve as a counterpoint to the mullahs in Iraq, who were seen as the greater threat. But maybe there are some details we don't know about.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Gene: is there any indication yet that the Saddam trial might drag on as long as another high-profile trial of a madman, Slobodon Milosevic? And if it does drag on, isn't there a risk that the real audience for Saddam's trial -- the newly free Iraqi people -- would lose interest, thereby minimizing the "educational" aspect of the trial?

Eugene Robinson: It seems to me it depends on the dynamics inside the courtroom and how the trial comes across on television. If it continues to look like Saddam is in charge, then I think the longer the trial, the worse for the government. That would just reinforce the idea that he might have been a monster, but at least he knew how to run things. But if Saddam begins to shrink or wilt, I think a long trial would help bolster the government.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I actually thought it was really smart of the judge to let Saddam rant a bit for a few days to remind the people of what an bully he is. In a democracy we trust people to see with their own eyes what they are dealing with. Eventually he may need to be restrained or removed but I just thought the initial loose approach was pretty clever and intentional rather than inexperienced. Anyone agree???

Eugene Robinson: How about it, folks? Anyone want to agree that letting him rant might have been a good idea? My view is that it's possible, but I doubt it. To me, it really looked as if Saddam were still the Alpha male and everyone else was less significant.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I have never been on Saddam's side. However, I have sympathy for him during the trial. Is there a chance that this trial could be a mistake? Out trials after WWII were when there was no doubt about who had won.

Eugene Robinson: You raise a good point -- the insurgency in Iraq is far from defeated, so the trial is being conducted while the war is still going on. That makes it possible that the trial might influence the conflict.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: If you'd asked me five years ago if it was bad for Saddam's soldiers to drag people to Abu Ghraib and then strip, humiliate, beat and sometimes kill them, I would have said of course. Now, I realize that that is acceptable. Do you think liberals owe the "moral values" crowd a thank you for teaching us about right and wrong?

Eugene Robinson: That's why the shameful U.S. mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was such a mistake, not just morally but tactically as well. Our soldiers' crimes don't begin to compare to Saddam Hussein's atrocities, and we ought to be able to make that clear. But by insisting on the right to kidnap, torture and detain without charges, we cede that moral high ground.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Robinson,

Please forgive a question unrelated to Iraq/Saddam. You have written on Katrina issues and observations over the past months. I am wondering if anyone from The Post covered yesterday's testimony to members of Congress by New Orleans residents/survivors. I can't find anything on the Post.com, and other sites have a very condensed summary of what was 2 hours of painful statements. There was clearly an accusation that race played a factor in the dismal response. I might argue that race played a factor in only five members of Congress even attending the session. I guess I am just looking for more coverage, more details, and your opinion.

Many thanks.

Eugene Robinson: This morning's Post doesn't have a full story on that hearing, but it does have photographs from the hearing and a picture caption on page A-3. Next to that spread is an excellent piece by Ceci Connolly from New Orleans about the lasting emotional impact of the disaster on the survivors.

_______________________

Va.: Why are you as a liberal opposed to Saddam's trial? And why do powerful blacks entertainment figures think Tookie Williams is cool? Black-on-black crimes are neglected by the NAACP and The Post.

Eugene Robinson: I'm not opposed to Saddam's trial at all. And I wrote a column last Friday arguing against any special treatment for Stanley Tookie Williams, the convicted murder scheduled to be executed by the state of California next week. Williams was a co-founder of the notorious Crips gang and was convicted of four brutal murders. He has since repented of his gangster days and written a series of books urging kids to stay away from gangs. Jamie Foxx was in a made-for-tv movie about him last year, and celebrities -- black and white -- are arguing for the Governator to grant him clemency. I oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons, but I don't see any reason to grant special clemency to Williams, movie or not. There's no last-minute evidence suggesting that he's innocent. I don't know what the NAACP is doing with its high-profile campaign on his behalf.

_______________________

Severna Park, Md.: I have to disagree when you say most people know about Saddam's relationship with the U.S. when these atrocities were occurring. I think most Americans associate Saddam and Iraq with Islamic extremists and not a secular dictatorship.

Eugene Robinson: Well, they shouldn't. I get a little frustrated at questions like this. The Bush administration has clearly -- and deceptively -- tried to link Saddam with Islamic fundamentalism, which is just not true. The implication is that somehow the press lets the administration get away with this, but I wish I had a dollar for every time we (collectively) have called them on it and pointed out that his was a secular regime. Sigh.

_______________________

Charlotte, N.C.: To further elaborate on previous comments, the timing of everything that has led up to this trial seems to be a continuation of the 'battle for hearts and minds' that is currently being waged by this administration. How could there be a positive outcome for the U.S. when the world's consensus is that America has long ago lost the moral high ground through several controversies and what, if any, will be the benefit for the Iraqi people still waiting for the lights to stay on?

Eugene Robinson: I have to agree that the timing is a bit strange, given that Iraq is still such a mess. I also have to assume that the U.S. administration played some sort of decisive role in the timing. So why now? Maybe there's a sense that it will give more of a feeling of "nationhood" to the Shiites and the Kurds, at least, even if it leaves the Sunnis feeling even more estranged.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: If you are taking an informal poll, I side with the view that it appeared that during the "rants" Saddam was the one in charge of the proceedings and that the judges seemed subdued, if not cowed, by his presence. It is clear that he still projects the image of a leader whose is being judged by inferiors.

Eugene Robinson: I agree. To me, he seemed large and in charge. That can't be the image the government wants to project.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: No, Mr. Robinson, I'm not willing to take you up on letting Saddam rant as a good trial strategy. The Iraqi people have had enough chaos over the past three years, and the decades before that; theatrics in a courtroom aren't going to shock and awe anyone. But someone stepping up to assert authority--in the face of the American liberators? That's an image that could come back to haunt a post-Saddam Iraq. I'm thinking if the judges had a do-over on that one, they would take it.

Then again, the question is how could you have silenced him. The soundproof booth mentioned earlier doesn't play well on CNN, and you can't fine him or hold him in contempt: he has nothing to lose.

Eugene Robinson: Exactly. If you tie him down and stuff a gag in his mouth, you're making him a martyr and it looks like a show trial. If you put him a soundproof booth, you're running roughshod over his right to free expression. (I know, there's no fundamental right to yell and scream in a courtroom, but I'm trying to imagine what it would look like to Iraqis.) So you have this odd situation where he gets to run the show. I assume that the judge will eventually figure this out.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: According to international law, the war was illegal, the occupation is illegal, and the legal proceedings against Saddam Hussein are illegal too. Saddam may have been a monster, but even a monster deserves a fair trial.

Eugene Robinson: I can't speak to the fine points of international law, but I agree that even a monster must be given a fair trial.

My time is up, folks. Thanks so much for joining in, and I'll see you next time.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.