So which is it NY Times? Was Saddam’s trial “reasonably fair” or did Iraq get “neither the full justice nor the full fairness it deserved”

There is no distinction between the editorial page and the “news” coverage in the New York Times, so if anyone is loading up with an explanation that there is, save it.

“News” Headline: Hussein Trial Was Flawed but Reasonably Fair, and Verdict Was Justified, Legal Experts Say

…even critics of the trial said the five Iraqi judges who heard the case had made a reasonable effort to conduct a fair trial in the face of sustained pressure from Iraqi political leaders for a swift death sentence. American lawyers pointed to substantial evidence offered by the prosecution implicating Mr. Hussein in the crimes against humanity with which he had been charged.

“Did this meet the standards of international justice?” asked Jonathan Drimmer, who teaches war crimes law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. “The answer is no. But to look at the ultimate verdict, it certainly is consistent with the evidence presented.”

Miranda Sissons, a senior associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice, a group that has severely criticized some of the trial proceedings, said, “This was not a sham trial,” and added, “The judges are doing their best to try this case to an entirely new standard for Iraq.”

BREAK
Accusations by Mr. Hussein’s supporters that the trial was manipulated by United States officials were not borne out, American lawyers who followed the case said. An office organized by the United States Embassy helped the tribunal with the investigation and provided legal and logistical assistance. But the Iraqi judges frequently ignored their advice and generally insisted on sticking with familiar procedures from the Iraqi justice system.

“The U.S. government was not the puppet master of this tribunal,” Mr. Scharf said.

Mr. Drimmer said that “the trial conduct was a step back from the kind of international justice we had hoped for,” and added, “But ultimately having Saddam Hussein prosecuted in a transparent proceeding is a major step for Iraq.”

Vs.

Editorial:

Saddam Hussein’s horrendous crimes deserve exemplary punishment. During his own dictatorship, that would have meant a gruesome death, after a staged trial or no trial.

In an Iraq fully liberated from his evil thrall, it might have been something very different — an exemplary exercise in the rule of law, aimed at holding Mr. Hussein fully accountable, but also at healing and educating a nation he so ruthlessly divided.
Regrettably, yesterday’s sentence to death by hanging in a case involving the execution of 148 Shiites in the 1980s fell somewhere short of that goal. Mr. Hussein got a fairer trial than he ever would have allowed in his courts. But Iraq got neither the full justice nor the full fairness it deserved. President Bush overreached in calling the trial “a milestone in the Iraqi people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.”

From the beginning, the now dominant Shiite and Kurdish politicians have been determined to use Mr. Hussein’s trial and punishment to further their own political ends, as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has continued to do in recent days.

Mr. Hussein, as expected, repeatedly tried to mock the proceedings. More seriously, powerful politicians regularly tried to influence the outcome, judges were not allowed to rule impartially, and defense lawyers were denied security measures and documents they needed.

The appeals court that will now review the verdict can undo some of the damage by taking into account some of these deficiencies. At least, it should defer the carrying out of any death penalty long enough to allow the completion of a second trial, in which Mr. Hussein is charged with ordering genocidal massacres against the Kurds.

So what the Times is saying here is this:

1) Iraq is still in the grip of an evil thrall. I guess Saddam’s “evil thrall” has been “reopened under new management.”
2) That there is something else that would hold one of the most brutal mass murderers in human history more accountable than freakin’ HANGING. What kind of justice or fairness is the Times seeking for the Iraqi people? The Times is not interested in justice, but chaos and more opportunities to savage the Bush Administration.

3) That the real solution is an epic Saddam-Oprah sit-down…then, and only then, will the nation be “healed” and “educated.” This is the goal the Times has concluded was not met? Any wonder why Times’ circulation looks like a pebble dropping into a well?

4) That despite the New York Times’ best effort to maintain its balance on the credibility cliff, its subtle use of language betrays its innermost instinct…that Saddam and President Bush are one in the same. How many times have we read in the Times about President Bush as a “divider.” Now Saddam is little more than a “divider” too. I wonder if the Times would be lobbying for a “second trial” should their dreams come true and President Bush be convicted of SOMETHING, dammit!

Comments are closed.