Baghdad court sentenced deposed President Saddam Hussein to death last week for committing crimes against humanity. He was charged with the killing of 148 persons in jail in 1982.

Saddam and the co-accused are given a time frame of 10 days to appeal against the sentence. In case the appeal is rejected, the sentence will be executed within 30 days.

Two years ago, when Saddam was indicted in court, he asserted that he was still the President of Iraq and refused to put down his signature on the indictment. He also challenged the jurisdiction of the court.

He further compared the court to a drama and charged that it was President of America who is the real culprit.

During the course of the trial, at a certain stage, 69 year old Saddam appealed that in case he was sentenced to death he would like to be shot to death rather than hanged. But the court in delivering the sentence rejected his request. He appeared very brave through out the trial and even on the day the judgement was delivered he was resolute and was not submissive.

Anticipating violent outbursts in the cities of Iraq following the court order, a curfew was imposed and tight security arrangements were made by the American forces.

The question before us, today, is whether the Baghdad court had a moral right or jurisdiction to hear the trial. Why didn’t Bush and Blair take steps to try Saddam before an international court of inquiry? It was alleged that the trial was politically motivated. Saddam Hussaein had been found guilty by a court that had the blessings of the aggressors.

It is befitting to quote Castro of Cuba who made the following statement at a trial in 1957. “History will write my verdict”

An English translation of the Editorial in Thinakkural, a Tamil daily, based in Colombo

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed