Hussein's Trial: A fair hearing? You bet. A victim? Hah.

Dallas Morning News | Editorials:

"Demonized? Give us a break. Try that line on the families who lost relatives to savage slayings. See what they say about him being a victim. Mr. Clark would do well to stick to his fair-trial theme. His attempt to get us to know the inner Saddam will give civil liberties a bad name."

I wonder what DMN considers is an appropriate defense in a fair trial? Other than just pleading guilty and asking for the death penalty.

Saddam could deny atrocities were committed. But the evidence is overwhelming. Or he can admit atrocities happened but plead exculpatory circumstances. He can plausibly claim that Iraq was fighting a war against Iran, a war against Islamic extremists, a war against rebel Kurds, even a war against America. Extreme measures are sometimes necessary in wars. Civil rights are sometimes restricted, even for one's own citizens. It'll be up to a jury to decide whether Saddams's extreme actions were justified by this line of defense.

DMN might have prejudged the answer. I might have prejudged the answer. The families of Saddam's victims might have prejudged the answer. But if Iraq cannot assemble a jury that has not prejudged the answer, then Saddam cannot get a fair trial.

Even demons deserve a fair trial. Dialogue from Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons applies:

ROPER: So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

ROPER: I'd cut down every tree in England to do that.

MORE: Oh, and when the last law was down and the devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.