Second Hussein Trial Begins

Former Iraqi Dictator Faces Charges in 1988 Anfal Campaign

Washington Post Staff Writer Amit R. Paley was online from Baghdad, Tuesday, Aug. 22, at 11 a.m. ET, to discuss the second trial against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Hussein and Ali Hassan al-Majeed, also known here as "Chemical Ali," are accused of running the 1988 Anfal campaign, in which hundreds of thousands of Kurds were killed, tortured, maimed or displaced. Hussein and Majeed are charged with genocide and four other defendants are charged with crimes against humanity.

Get background and updates on the trials against Saddam Hussein.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Amit Paley: Lots of news in the past few days from Iraq. Saddam Hussein went on trial yesterday on the charge of genocide--only the second time in history that a former head of state has been tried for that crime. Sunni insurgents killed 25 Shiite pilgrims and wounded hundreds of others on Sunday during an a major holiday. And a former minister of electricity was just arrested today and charged with wasting $1 billion in government money. Just another week in Baghdad.

Bring on the questions.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: How does Hussein's trial in Iraq differ from a trial that we would be familiar with in the U.S.?

Amit Paley: The biggest difference is the charge: Hussein is being tried for genocide. This is only the fourth genocide trial in history. So international legal observers are carefully watching how things are carried out.

The Iraqi courts have been a lot more unruly than American ones. People just beginning shouting at various points and Saddam Hussein is allowed to make statements and question witnesses in addition to his attorneys. That's part of what lead to the shenanigans in the first trial.

And a big visual difference, of course, is the Hussein and the defendants are sitting in wooden cages.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Recent headlines: Bush Defends Iraq Policy , Iraqi Insurgents Kill 20 Pilgrims

_______________________

Arlington, VA: Is there any substance to the HRW report on the Hussein trial? Is there any chance that all the work from the first trial could be reversed if the trial is found to be unfair? If the proceedings were to be found illegal, what body would have the authority to weigh in there?

Amit Paley: It's hard to know how things are going to play out, but there would certainly be major political implications here in Iraq if the verdict was reversed (and of course in the US and around the world, too). There is an appeals process and judges will review what happened in the first trial and make their decision. Iraqi law, however, does not require that appeals process to happen in a certain time from, so who knows how long it will take.

Iraqi and US officials, though, disagree with Human Rights Watch's criticisms and believe the trial is fair.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I didn't realize a second trial was about to start until I saw your chat. Why hasn't there been as much news coverage as this than the first one? Or is this trial more a formality. How long do you expect this trial to last?

Amit Paley: This trial is certainly not a formality. There is a huge amount of work that has gone into the tribunal, planning by legal experts in Iraq and abroad, and tremendous amounts of money spent on setting up the court and security. The prosecutors may call 120 witnesses and introduce 9,000 pages of documents.

Perhaps Americans aren't paying as much attention because of a sense of Iraq fatigue. Or maybe it's just because this trial doesn't seem much different than the first. Who knows?

But certainly the Kurdish people are watching with rapt attention, hoping to finally see punishment for the men they believe are responsible for the Kurdish genocide.

The court and US officials hope to complete the trial within a year, but it could take five years if it proceeds at the same pace as the first trial. There are more than 180,000 alleged victims, so it may take a while.

_______________________

Capitol Heights, Md: I just have one comment to make. This man is truly guilty about the killings. I think the Iraqi government should just execute him immediately. What are they waiting for?

Amit Paley: That's certainly the sentiment among many Iraqis, particularly among the Kurds.

But why do we try confessed criminals in America? Because we believe in due process and the rule of law. Iraqis are hoping to set up a similar system in their country.

Also, it is not at all clear that Hussein and his six co-defendants will be found guilty of genocide, a notoriously difficult crime to prove.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Does anyone have a sense of urgency to complete Hussein's trial, convict and execute him? If this drags on and on and on, I can see Saddam Hussein regaining power.

Amit Paley: I'm not sure that a long trial would cause Hussein to regain power, but certainly those involved with the court--and US officials--want the trial completed quickly.

There was actually a debate in court today about the speed of the trial, which appears to be moving much faster than the first trial. The judge said justice is swift--then the defense attorney rebutted: Hasty justice is no justice.

_______________________

Genocide: "Also, it is not at all clear that Hussein and his six co-defendants will be found guilty of genocide, a notoriously difficult crime to prove."

Has it been proven before? What other genocide cases do we have to go on -- Bosnia, Rwanda?

Amit Paley: At least 20 people have been convicted of genocide for the 1994 killings in Rwanda. Coincidentally, several former Yugoslav generals went on trial yesterday--the same day Hussein's trial began--on genocide. The only other head of state, Slobodan Milosevic, who was tried for genocide died before his trial ended.

There was also a trial of a businessman in the Hague who was charged with genocide in connecting with providing chemical weapons used to gas the Kurds. But he was acquitted of genocide.

_______________________

Hyattsville, Md.: What happens to this second trial if there is a verdict from the first trial?

Amit Paley: The verdict from the first trial is expected to come in October, and then it will automatically be appealed. Iraqi law does not define how long that process would take, so we have no idea when it might come down. Officials close to the court are reluctant to even guess. If he is sentenced to death and executed, the charges against Hussein will be dropped but the case against the other defendants will continue.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: What are the ramifications for American policies in Iraq that this trial may bring about?

Amit Paley: I'm not sure that this trial will have any significant effect on troop levels or appropriations or that sort of thing.

But experts believe that verdict on the charge of genocide--the most heinous of crimes--may decide whether history views Hussein as one of the world's most brutal tyrants or simply a workaday dictator.

And that view of Hussein may affect whether future generations people the Iraq war was worthwhile or not.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Of course a long trial won't cause Hussein to regain power but the longer he is alive, the better the chance that he will be freed from captivity, reinvigorate the Baathists and they will emerge victorious in the civil war.

Amit Paley: The military doesn't disclose exactly where Hussein is being held, but you can bet that he is under tremendous security. So I think the chances of him escaping are almost nil.

I think the main concern for most Iraqis now are almost unimaginably bad living conditions and the seeming slide into civil war. Hussein coming back to power certainly isn't their number one fear.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: I am honestly curious, not just slamming them when I ask -- why do groups like HRW insist on making the perfect the enemy of the good? The fact that Iraqis are giving Saddam any trial at all is remarkable; the traditional approach to a deposed tyrant is a bullet in the back of the head.

Thanks for your hard work in reporting from Iraq.

Amit Paley: A lot of legal experts are following this trial very closely--and trying to hold it to a very high standard--because what happens here will set a precedent for future genocide trials.

So a lot of the concern is about perceptions of fairness and justice--but also about what it means for the future of international law.

For those who are interested there is an excellent Web site following the trial: http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial/index.asp

The Web site notes:

As arguably the most important war crimes proceeding since Nuremberg, the trial of Saddam Hussein is likely to constitute a "Grotian Moment" -- defined as a legal development that is so significant that it can create new customary international law or radically transform the interpretation of treaty-based law.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What is the level of Hussein's support among Iraqis today? Is he wildly popular or is he long forgotten? Would his execution/conviction affect the brewing civil war in any way?

Amit Paley: The sectarian conflict would certainly not end if Hussein were convicted or executed. The fighting between Sunnis and Shiites has in many ways moved beyond them. Factions of those groups have strong religious beliefs motivating them, and those beliefs are not predicated on Hussein being alive or dead.

As for the level of support for him, it's really hard to make any generalizations about the Iraqi people--because the sectarian divisions are so deep. Some people are so unhappy with the current conditions in Iraq--particularly in Baghdad--that they would prefer to return to life under Hussein. But you don't run into many people here in Baghdad who admire him.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Is there much interest among Iraqis, in the street, in this trial? How does it compared with the interest in the first trial?

Amit Paley: In Iraqi Kurdistan, there is tremendous interest in the trial. The Kurds believe they were the subject of a genocide that has gone unpunished for almost 20 years--they see this as their chance for justice.

But for other Iraqis, the trial is not on the top of their agenda. They are more concerned with a lack of electricity, a lack of oil, constant curfews, horrific daily violence and constant threats from radical groups. For them, today is more important than what happened 20 years ago.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Hi Amit, How are the Iraqi media covering the trial? Do Iraqis seem at all sympathetic/frustrated given all the courtroom drama?

Amit Paley: The trial's opening was carried live yesterday on television stations across the Middle East. It was on the front page of almost every major newspaper in Baghdad. So local media are definitely paying attention to it.

In terms of court room drama, there was actually a lot less of it at yesterday's opening than in the first trial. Legal observers want the court to seem more dignified with less frequent outbursts--because it makes the trial move faster and the process seem more just.

But the downside of less court room hi jinks is that it might make the tribunal seem more boring to the media and average Iraqis, and cause them to ignore the trial.

_______________________

Evergreen Park, Ill.: This trial is nothing more than a charade. Hussein will be found guilty and executed and Iraq will be lost to the Shiite majority. The question is when will Bush, Cheney Rumsfeld and others be tried for war crimes. Probably never as our foreign policy allows excesses on our side but no other country'. This administration is MORE guilty than the past president of Iraq is.

Amit Paley: I've received several comments like this, so thought I would share one:

_______________________

Anonymous: How do Sunnis view the Saddam trial? Individual Sunnis may hate the man, but as a group do they view the trial as recrimination by Kurds and Shia whose rights they still deny?

Former Ambassador Galbraith writes in the NYRB that Iraqi Parliament speaker al-Mashhadani collaborated with al Qaeda allies Ansar Islam and Ansar al-Sunna. What is his present role and influence?

Amit Paley: It is true that the Sunnis in general held greater power under Hussein, but many of them detest Hussein and harbor no ill will towards Kurds or Shiites. There are many cases of intermarriage between all three sects. So while there clearly are Sunnis who support Hussein and believe it is their religious obligation to slaughter Shiites, there are many who hope for reconciliation between all Iraqis.

As for Mashhadani, he appears to be on his way out as speaker. He has made many provocative comments that embarrassed his colleagues and it is expected that he will soon be replaced by a less outspoken Sunni.

_______________________

Amit Paley: Thanks for all your questions. Good night from here in Baghdad.

_______________________

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. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.