{"id":1752,"date":"2007-01-01T09:01:30","date_gmt":"2007-01-01T13:01:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/site\/?p=1752"},"modified":"2010-10-22T08:25:56","modified_gmt":"2010-10-22T12:25:56","slug":"issue_48-1_peterson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/2007\/01\/issue_48-1_peterson\/","title":{"rendered":"Unpacking Show Trials"},"content":{"rendered":"

Not since the trials of the Nazi leaders at the first international war crimes court in Nuremberg has such a prominent mass murderer been brought to account. The proceedings will doubtless be televised. With the eyes of the world on it, the [Hussein trial] will be a great show.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Introduction<\/span><\/strong>*<\/p>\n

On November 5, 2006, guards led Saddam Hussein into the defendant\u2019s dock of a tense courtroom in Baghdad.\u00a0 Ordered to stand, Mr. Hussein took a seat instead, telling the judge in a mocking voice that he could hear him just as well from his seat.\u00a0 The judge sent two bailiffs to raise the former dictator to his feet.\u00a0 When one touched him, Mr. Hussein cried out, \u201cYou stupid man, there\u2019s no need to twist my arm!\u201d\u00a0 Then he stood to hear the decision of the Iraqi Special Tribunal (\u201cIST\u201d) in the Dujail case.<\/p>\n

Chief Judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman proceeded to read the verdicts and sentences for Mr. Hussein and his six co-defendants.\u00a0 The court sentenced Mr. Hussein to death by hanging for willful killing, ten years\u2019 detention for deportation of citizens, ten years\u2019 detention for imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of international law, seven years\u2019 imprisonment for torture, and seven years\u2019 imprisonment for other inhumane acts.\u00a0 He was acquitted of charges of forced disappearances.\u00a0 As the judge pronounced the sentence, Mr. Hussein thrust his right forefinger in the air and shouted: \u201cLong live the people! Long live the nation! Down with the occupiers! Down with the spies!\u201d\u00a0 When the bailiffs moved to restrain him, he resisted angrily, then faced the chief judge, crying out: \u201cGo to hell, you and the court!\u201d\u00a0 He told the panel of judges they hadn\u2019t decided anything themselves: \u201cYou are servants of the occupiers and their lackeys! You are puppets!\u201d<\/p>\n

Five minutes later, Mr. Hussein was on his way back to his cell,\u00a0 but the drama outside the courtroom was just beginning. All across the country, Iraqis had sat glued to their televisions, awaiting the verdict with bated breath.\u00a0 Having heard the death sentence, people in Dujail celebrated, burning pictures of Mr. Hussein and defying curfew to gather in the city center for a banquet.\u00a0 Meanwhile, in Mr. Hussein\u2019s hometown of Tikrit, thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets in anger, some firing guns.\u00a0 A police vehicle, rather than enforcing the curfew, led a group of demonstrators down Tikrit\u2019s main street.\u00a0 In Baghdad, the Iraqi government shut down two Sunni television stations, claiming they had broadcast images intended to provoke violence.<\/p>\n

The verdict reverberated on the other side of the Atlantic as well. U.S. President George W. Bush immediately seized on the verdict, trumpeting it as \u201ca major achievement for Iraq\u2019s young democracy and its constitutional government.\u201d\u00a0 Others in the United States and Iraq expressed suspicion that the timing of the decision was driven by Republicans\u2019 desire to boost their chances in midterm elections, scheduled to take place two days after the verdict issued.<\/p>\n

The verdict and its aftermath put many of the IST\u2019s distinctive features on display, including the posturing of its insolent and infamous defendant, the rapt attention of its television audience, censorship, the ambiguous role of U.S. pressure, and the trial\u2019s major social and political ramifications both in Iraq and abroad. Reactions to the verdict cast in stark relief the rift between those supporting the conviction and those who thought it was wrong. Although the division was particularly evident at the time of the verdict, debate has been raging about the trial since its inception. Some observers are concerned that the trial\u2019s planners accorded the defendants inadequate rights and protections.\u00a0 Others have complained that the protections are too many; \u201cput simply,\u201d wrote one observer, \u201cin the trial of Saddam Hussein, the international community seems wedded to process at the expense of pageant.\u201d\u00a0 While numerous commentators have faulted the IST for failure to qualify as an international effort and for the extensive involvement of the United States in its design,\u00a0 others have defended its Iraqi location and use of Iraqi Arabic language, saying that the trial will promote \u201cinstitutional capacity building\u201d and avoid problems inherent in translation.\u00a0 Assessment of the conduct of the trial has been similarly discordant, with some observers complaining that Mr. Hussein hijacked the process for his own purposes and others complaining that he was silenced.<\/p>\n

If prior trials in the wake of mass atrocity are any indication, the debate over the IST is likely to go on for some time.\u00a0 I make no effort to bring it to a quicker resolution. Rather, I seek to advance the discussion by giving more substance to one of the terms that has figured prominently in the debate: \u201cshow trial.\u201d The term has been much bandied about: \u201c[T]he truth about Saddam\u2019s rule is so apparent that his defenders would rather make a show trial of the proceedings than face the facts,\u201d The Washington Times<\/em> stated.\u00a0 \u201cWhile the proceedings against Saddam may bring short-term satisfaction,\u201d wrote the Houston Chronicle<\/em>, \u201cthey run the danger of becoming a mere show trial.\u201d\u00a0 A commentator for the International Herald Tribune<\/em> warned that \u201cif leaders of Saddam Hussein\u2019s regime are prosecuted by, or on behalf of, the United States, Iraqis will view the prosecutions as \u2018show trials.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 And a Human Rights Watch official expressed fear that the Iraqi trials could turn into \u201cpolitical show trials.\u201d\u00a0 But what exactly is a show trial?<\/p>\n

In Part I, I propose a definition of \u201cshow trial\u201d that encompasses many of the common uses of the term. Part II moves from the theoretical to the more concrete, laying out eight characteristics that may be useful in identifying show trials as conceived in Part I. Part III uses these characteristics to determine that the IST\u2019s Dujail trial should be considered a show trial and situates it in comparison to several other well-known show trials. The conclusion considers the role Saddam Hussein\u2019s trial will play in the future of Iraq….<\/p>\n

* This excerpt does not include citations. To read the entire article, including supporting notes, please download the PDF.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On November 5, 2006, guards led Saddam Hussein into the defendant\u2019s dock of a tense courtroom in Baghdad. Ordered to stand, Mr. Hussein took a seat instead, telling the judge in a mocking voice that he could hear him just as well from his seat.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[123],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-print-archives"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZu3S-sg","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1752","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}