Saddam's Circus

Via Reuters:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein refused to attend his trial for crimes against humanity on Wednesday, bringing the often chaotic proceedings to a halt before the presiding judge decided to press on with the televised hearing without him.

After telling the judges to "go to hell" the night before, the former dictator boycotted what would have been the fifth session of his trial and spent most of the day in talks with lawyers and a battle of wills with the Kurdish presiding judge.

Judge Rizgar Amin discussed the stand-off with Saddam's attorneys behind closed doors inside the marbled courtroom in Baghdad before eventually deciding to push ahead.

Such antics and the court's seeming inability to assert its dominance over Hussein are exactly the types of things Power Line's John Hinderaker discussed yesterday when he described the near-chaotic situation that has emerged during the trial.

It's good that Saddam has finally been put on trial, although it may have been better yet if he had simply been shot. The idea that his crimes need to be "proved"--as though there were some doubt about them that could be resolved through a "trial"--is ridiculous.

But if Saddam is to be tried, some basic norms need to be observed. A court can only function if it is accepted that it has power over those who come before it. In this case, that basic premise is unclear. Many Iraqis still fear that Saddam could return to power; most of the witnesses against him do not dare to reveal their identities for fear that they will be killed by Saddam's allies. And Saddam himself rejects the authority of the court. That's OK, up to a point; many criminals who have no respect for the American judicial system are nevertheless tried, convicted, and on rare occasions put to death by that system. What is essential is that the tribunal assert its own authority[.]

The decision by Judge Amin to press on with the trial in Saddam's absence is definitely a step in the right direction. Ed Morrissey explains:

A defendant has a right to attend court and face his accusers, to cross-examine witnesses and to argue on his own behalf. That doesn't equate to a necessity of the defendant to attend the trial. If a defendant refuses on his own accord to show up and exercise those rights, then the People still have a right to continue the trial. Even if the defendant does want to attend, the rights of the defendant to participate do not automatically override the rights of the People to a fair trial. Disruptive behavior can and should result in removal of the defendant from court when it becomes contemptuous of the court's authority.

Indeed. If Saddam would rather rot in his cell than attend his trial, so be it. Warms the cockles of my heart to think about how enraged he must be to now find himself so emasculated before those he once terrorized, anyhow.

UPDATE (11:16): Or, maybe the court's not headed in the right direction.