Being a lawyer generally does not land one at the top of the list of dangerous occupations. Members of Saddam Hussein's defense team are the notable exception to this rule. This morning, the body of Khamis al-Obaidi was found in Baghdad. He is the third lawyer on Hussein's defense team to have met a gruesome death since the start of the trial.
In all, eight people involved with the trial have been killed, most by Shiite militia members who storm into homes posing as police. Al-Obaidi tried to maintain some semblance of a normal life, choosing to continue living at home (with bodyguards) during the trial itself unlike other defense members who, for an understandable fear of their lives, live under constant police surveillance. The bitter irony is that Obaidi was an outspoken advocate for improved security for participants in the trial.
What is to be learned from the murder of Obaidi (beyond the most immediate fact that Iraqi defense forces are unable to adequately protect high-profile individuals)? The continued threat to members of Saddam's defense team is unacceptable. As Hussein, a person who genuinely deserves punishment, manages to live in relative safety, lawyers who stand up for the legal process in Iraq continue to be intimidated and murdered. Yet there is also a pragmatic reason to protect the defense team members. As his lawyers are gradually killed off, Saddam's trial is proceeding at a snail's pace. After every death, the defense must regroup and begin what must now be an almost impossible task--finding more lawyers. Saddam and his co-defendants, in turn, begin hunger strikes and decry the entire legal system. In this melee, the actual task of conducting a trial can hardly go on.
The solution? One option is to move the trial out of Iraq entirely. This could be misinterpreted as a move to reward Hussein himself. It is exactly the opposite--doing so would likely get him convicted much faster. Rather, it is a step to protect those who most desperately need it: the Iraqis who have taken on the monumental task of exonerating him.
Printer-friendly version
Comments
June 23, 2006 by Vaibhav (not verified),
Under the current situation I agree that moving the trial may be the best option. In addition to the reasons you have articulated above, people losing trust in the Iraqi legal system may be another pitfall of keeping the status quo. One of the hallmarks of effective legal systems is the protection of the defendants and those who have taken on the task of defending them (Saddam's lawyers in this case). The Iraqi people, seeing the ineffectiveness of the trial of someone as important as Saddam, may decide to shirk away from the legal system without a viable recourse.