HorsesAss.Org

I suppose the PR folks at Microsoft thought it a savvy move to send free computers loaded with Vista software to dozens of tech-industry bloggers. But rather than generating glowing reviews, the Redmond software giant’s outreach efforts have created an online controversy, with charges of “payola” and “bribery” flying in all directions.

Microsoft’s efforts to woo influential bloggers by sending them free computers loaded with the Vista operating system is generating controversy, with some online writers attacking would-be Vista reviewers for taking what were tantamount to bribes, while recipients defend their editorial independence, arguing that journalism-style rules prohibiting such gifts are outdated.

[…] In total, Microsoft and AMD gave away 90 PCs, all loaded with the highest-end version of Windows Vista, the 64-bit Ultimate edition. Most received Acer Ferrari laptops that list for between US$2,000 and $2,400 at retail stores. Others received media center desktops made by Velocity Micro Inc.

Microsoft says it has “no expectation of any editorial payback,” and some of the bloggers who have benefited from the company’s largesse argue that professional journalism ethics simply don’t apply in an online world where many bloggers could not afford to review products if they had to pay for them themselves.

Hmm. If Microsoft were to send me a new Acer Ferrari laptop, I suppose I would be faced with quite an ethical quandary. On the one hand, accepting such a gift might compromise my credibility when writing about Microsoft or its new operating system. On the other hand my current laptop, a time-worn Apple iBook, is now over five years old.

So I guess the only way for me to adequately consider this controversy and determine for myself and my readers on which side I fall, is for Microsoft to send me a free computer too. Personally, I’d prefer a new MacBook Pro. (I understand that Vista runs fine within a copy of Parallels Desktop for Mac.) But I guess I’d take one of those Acer laptops if that’s all you have lying around.

So, hey Microsoft, drop me an email and I’ll give you my shipping address. And I absolutely promise you… no editorial payback.

Don’t you just love irony?

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he’d take his oath of office on the Koran — especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow’s ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We’ve learned that the new congressman — in a savvy bit of political symbolism — will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

Rep. Goode — who took Rep. Ellison’s election as an opportunity to warn his constituents that unless we “wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office” — represents Jefferson’s birthplace of Albemarle County Virginia.

Hmm. If we don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there might be more Thomas Jeffersons elected to office.

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Really.

Take a much needed break from the sober realities of the holiday season, and join me for a night of hoppy beer and hopped up political debate.

Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.

I don’t follow college football all that much but I gotta say, man… what a finish to the Salty Corn Chip Bowl last night between Boise State and Oklahoma. A hook-and-lateral to tie it up with 7 seconds left, and then a Statue of Liberty play on a two-point conversion to win it in overtime.

And then the star tailback proposes to the head cheerleader live on national television. (I’d love to follow up on that story 20 years from now.)

I’m not sure what possessed me to tune in, but I sure am glad I did.

Washington state’s minimum wage went up to $7.93 yesterday — an automatic cost-of-living adjustment — $2.78 higher than the federally mandated minimum wage of $5.15/hour paid just across the Idaho border. And according to an AP story in today’s Seattle Times, that’s great for minimum wage workers like James Randall, a University of Idaho student who lives in Moscow but delivers pizza 30 hours a week in Pullman.

“It’s kinda hard to make ends meet,” Randall said. “I’m just glad the state of Washington has tied the minimum [wage] to inflation. That way it’s advantageous to everyone.”

But of course, this article was written by a professional journalist, and thus there must be two sides (and usually only two sides) to every story. If our state’s higher minimum wage is good for workers on both sides of the border, then it must be bad for businesses here in Washington, right?

Yeah, well, so one Pullman business owner “thinks” while another supposes that it will “catch up to me eventually,” and that’s enough for the AP to spin the other side of the story. Of course there are tons of academic and government reports studying the economic impact of minimum wage hikes here and elsewhere, but why bother with hard facts and numbers when one can report anecdotal suppositions to back up your thesis?

Hmm. Well if this whole debate amounts to little more than a thought experiment, how about this angle: if a higher minimum wage is bad for Pullman businesses because it squeezes profits and forces prices higher, what kind of impact does it have on Idaho businesses who can’t attract and retain qualified employees like Randall while paying them only two-thirds the wage available just across the border? Workers are just as mobile as customers after all, so you think maybe WA’s minimum wage law is forcing wages up in Idaho towns all along the border? So wouldn’t that relieve some of the economic pressure on businesses in WA border towns?

Of course, I could do a little research to find some studies that back up my thesis, but I’m striving for journalistic professionalism here, so I wouldn’t want to stray from pure conjecture and supposition.

In fact, there is pressure on Idaho to raise its minimum wage and tie future increases to inflation, and just such a bill made some progress in the Idaho legislature last session.

Idaho’s minimum wage has been at the federal level of $5.15 an hour for about 10 years. A state bill to increase the wage to $6.15 an hour — and mandate yearly increases tied to inflation, like in Washington — died in an Idaho House committee this spring because some lawmakers feared it would lead to higher prices, increase unemployment rates and reduce incentives for low-paid workers to improve themselves.

That’s right, because we all know that, um… it’s not the employers who choose to pay a sub-subsistence wage that are at the root of the problem, but rather the lazy workers who choose to take these low-paid jobs. I mean, if we pay people like Randall a living wage, he’ll never have the incentive to improve himself. He’ll just drop out of college and deliver pizza for the rest of his life.

Yeah. Right.

I hope everyone had a great New Year’s Eve. I know I did, and if you listened to Goldy’s show and heard my call-ins, you know I did! Let’s just say that the lyrics to Auld Lang Syne turn into some mash-up of Def Leppard’s Pour Some Sugar On Me and ABBA’s Dancing Queen after a few Heinekins. You know you had a good time when you wake up in your bed with a pounding headache, and not in jail, or dead. Let that be a lesson to all you folks… take a cab. It’s cheaper than a Deferred Prosecution for DUI.

On to the links!

Blatheresolutions!!! Moderate-ish predictions! On the Road to 2008 checks predictions made one year ago. Democratic congress? Check! Local races go big for Dems? Check! Machines rise up to take their rightful place above humanity as the dominant species? Wrong on that one, Dan!

Chinchilla Blogging is back!!!

Dan Savage: Basketball is overrated.

Wingnut blogger Jonathan Gardner claims there has not been a single case of torture by American forces or our allies. Effin’ has the scoop.

Erica C. Barnett is 25 percent “male.” Since when does being the toughest reporter in Seattle make you guy-ish?

When I say the liberal interest groups should be more like conservative interest groups, this is what I’m taking about.

One day in 2002, Stefan Sharkansky started writing hit pieces on Rep. Nancy Pelosi. After Stefan declared victory against Pelosi and moved to Seattle, Pelosi was never heard from again. First Nancy Pelosi, then Chris Gregoire, and now Ron Sims, is there any progressive whose career is safe from Stefan’s cutlass of righteousness? (That’s cutlass the sword, not the car.)

Robert Reich writes about how the GOP foments cynicism, and how it helps their agenda.

UPDATE

I never thought I’d see the day: someone has questioned the Democratic credentials of Ivan Weiss (the chair of the rock-solid, top-notch 34th District Democrats). I don’t see eye to eye with Ivan on some things (viaduct!), but if ever there was a guy who gets it, it’s Ivan:

I won’t win many friends here with this opinion, but whatever the “progressive movement” is and whoever is to decide, it is not going anywhere without its vehicle, which is the Democratic Party. The “progressive movement” does not nominate any candidates that I am aware of, any more than the “religious right,” whose vehicle is the Republican Party, does.

The “progressive” movement should do like Howard Dean did a few years ago: if you don’t like the Democratic Party, take it over! A note to the diarist: when someone comments on your diary in a critical way, you shouldn’t knock them for commenting. If you don’t want comments from folks who disagree with you, don’t diary.

A last item from The Left Shue:

As we come to the end of this “Year of Transition” in Iraq, we note the death of the 3000th American service member to die as a result of duty in Iraq, the death of former president Gerald Ford – the man who brought us George HW Bush (CIA), Dick Cheney (Chief of Staff), and Donald Rumsfeld (Department of Defense), and Saddam Hussein – a man both embraced and despised by this country as it fit our purpose. However, as noted by Riverbend, perhaps the most significant “transition” is the loss of Iraq itself.

If anything, in ’06 we’ve seen most Americans turn against the war. Rep. Jack Murtha was right: the American people are ready for a change, perhaps more ready than their own leadership.

Oops. I’m an hour late with the post, but I’m on the air again today filling in for Ron & Don from 4pm to 7pm on Newsradio 710-KIRO.

Hour 1: Was Saddam Hussein’s death worth 3000 dead American soldiers and half a trillion dollars of US taxpayer money?

Hour 2: What is the stupidest thing you’ve ever done?

Hour 3: Can’t afford health insurance? Blame the insurance companies… and your politicians for not giving you (gasp) “socialized medicine.”

Maybe it’s just me. But this Seattle Times editorial, seemingly celebrating Washington State’s achievement of gender parity in politics, comes off as slightly misogynistic in the very last sentence:

Voters, as well as skilled politicians at several levels, understand that men do a very good job at a lot of things and, quite often, women do, too.

On Saturday I documented some ways that the Special Iraqi Criminal Tribunal—the extra-judicial Tribunal under which Saddam Hussein was convicted—was a sham. The root of the problem is that the U.S., while acting as an occupying power, needed to create the Tribunal for ideological reasons: to avoid the International Criminal Court so despised by Bush, and to ensure that capital punishment would be on the menu. The Tribunal was a sham in numerous ways:

1. The Tribunal was created by an occupying power, which is prohibited by long-standing treaties and conventions
2. The Tribunal’s process was an American style adversary-accusatorial system rather than an Iraqi style inquisitorial system (modeled after French law)
3. The Tribunal’s charges were in violation of the nullum crimen legal principle (and Article 19 of the Iraqi Constitution)
4. The implementation of the tribunal included numerous procedural flaws like an indictment issued seven months into the trial

My point wasn’t to defend Hussein. Rather, I argued that the U.S. and Iraqis, in prosecuting a dictator for his abuse of judicial power, should have taken the moral and legal high ground, and set an example for the world of good democracy. The prosecution of Hussein should have been unimpeachable—not for Hussein’s sake, but for the sake of restoring some credibility for American democracy (you know, after illegally invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses) and to empirically establish legitimacy for the new Iraqi government.

So, we missed that badly needed opportunity.

Today’s New York Times further documents illegitimacy in carrying out the sentence:

The American role extended beyond providing the helicopter that carried Mr. Hussein home. Iraqi and American officials who have discussed the intrigue and confusion that preceded the decision late on Friday to rush Mr. Hussein to the gallows have said that it was the Americans who questioned the political wisdom—and justice—of expediting the execution, in ways that required Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to override constitutional and religious precepts that might have assured Mr. Hussein a more dignified passage to his end.

Uh-huh. The U.S. government had concerns and questions about what was going on. But, in the end, they handed over Hussein anyway.

That works for me about as well as the excuse “but…but…but, Your Honor, I really did have concerns and questions about the legitimacy of robbing that bank….”

One political concern was realized during the execution. A video of the hanging showed an…

…unruly, mocking atmosphere in the execution chamber.

This continued, on the video, through the actual hanging itself, with a shout of “The tyrant has fallen! May God curse him!” as Mr. Hussein hung lifeless, his neck snapped back and his glassy eyes open.

The cacophony from those gathered before the gallows included a shout of “Go to hell!” as the former ruler stood with the noose around his neck in the final moments, and his riposte, barely audible above the bedlam, which included the words “gallows of shame.” It continued despite appeals from an official-sounding voice, possibly Munir Haddad, the judge who presided at the hanging, saying, “Please no! The man is about to die.”

The Shiites who predominated at the hanging began a refrain at one point of “Moktada! Moktada! Moktada!”— the name of a volatile cleric whose private militia has spawned death squads that have made an indiscriminate industry of killing Sunnis — appending it to a Muslim imprecation for blessings on the Prophet Muhammad. “Moktada,” Mr. Hussein replied, smiling contemptuously. “Is this how real men behave?”

Of course, the issue isn’t about dignity for Hussein. The concern was that by coming off as a Shi’ite lynch mob, the execution further contributes to the sectarian divide in Iraq. It will fuel the civil war. It will translate into more dead and maimed Iraqis and U.S. soldiers. And that Hussein came off as dignified in the face of a lynch mob is a symbolic failure for the U.S. in “fostering democracy” in the Mideast.

The U.S. was correct when it…

…counseled caution in the way the Iraqis carried out the hanging. The issues uppermost in the Americans’ minds, these officials said, were a provision in Iraq’s new Constitution that required the three-man presidency council to approve hangings, and a stipulation in a longstanding Iraqi law that no executions can be carried out during the Id al-Adha holiday, which began for Iraqi Sunnis on Saturday and Shiites on Sunday.

It was Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki who pushed for an immediate execution. The largest snag for Maliki was that, by the Iraq constitution, he needed

…a decree from President Jalal Talabani, signed jointly by his two vice presidents, upholding the death sentence, and a letter from the chief judge of the Iraqi High Tribunal, the court that tried Mr. Hussein, certifying the verdict. But Mr. Talabani, a Kurd, made it known that he objected to the death penalty on principle.

Rather than adhering to the Iraqi constitution and law, Maliki developed a work-around.

The Maliki government spent much of Friday working on legal mechanisms to meet the American demands. From Mr. Talabani, they obtained a letter saying that while he would not sign a decree approving the hanging, he had no objections. The Iraqi official said Mr. Talabani first asked the tribunal’s judges for an opinion on whether the constitutional requirement for presidential approval applied to a death sentence handed down by the tribunal, a special court operating outside Iraq’s main judicial system. The judges said the requirement was void.

Apparently, everyone was willing to be convinced by the Tribunal judges who opined that the legislation creating the Tribunal (Law No. 10, passed on 9 Oct 2005) took precedence over Article 70 of the Iraqi constitution that requires the President to “[r]atify death sentences issued by the competent courts.” But, the Tribunal cannot override the Constitution; Article 92 prohibits “Special or exceptional courts.”

Without presidential ratification, the hanging violated the clear rule of law (as codified in the Iraqi constitution). It really was a lynching.

The fact that Iraqi law prohibits executions on holidays was never fully addressed. Instead, the Iraqis used simple psychological tricks on us to secure Hussein:

‘Who is going to execute him, anyway, you or us?’ The Americans replied by saying that obviously, it was the Iraqis who would carry out the hanging. So the Iraqis said, ‘This is our problem and we will handle the consequences. If there is any damage done, it is we who will be damaged, not you.’”

To this, the Iraqis added what has often been their trump card in tricky political situations: they telephoned officials of the marjaiya, the supreme religious body in Iraqi Shiism, composed of ayatollahs in the holy city of Najaf. The ayatollahs approved.

It is untrue that there would be no damage to the U.S. The U.S. needed the trial and execution of Hussein to be above reproach. There is only one way that the U.S. can achieve something resembling a “victory” in Iraq, and that would be to leave behind a functioning democracy.

Instead, we have replaced a lawless Sunni dictator with a lawless Shi’ite theocracy. And Iraq is led by a Prime Minister who has now committed one of the crimes that Hussein was guilty of: a lawless execution.

And to what end? What difference would it have made if Hussein’s execution had to wait for a week or wait for several years until a new President was elected?

None of the Iraqi officials were able to explain why Mr. Maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait.
[…]

But the explanation may have lain in something that Bassam al-Husseini, a Maliki aide closely involved in arrangements for the hanging, said to the BBC later. Mr. Husseini, who has American citizenship, described the hanging as “an Id gift to the Iraqi people.”

Hey, well, you know…whatever it takes for Happy Holidays.

It’s New Years Eve, and I can’t think of a better way to celebrate than to stay home tonight, turn on the radio, and tune in to “The David Goldstein Show” tonight from 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO. Subject to change, here are the topics for tonight’s show:

7PM: What will 2007 bring us? I’ll be making my predictions for the new year. Call in and give me yours.

8PM: Are you drinking and driving tonight? Well don’t. Sgt. Monica Hunter of the Washington State Patrol will join me for the hour to talk about the patrol’s stepped up DUI enforcement efforts this holiday weekend, and what you can expect if you’re pulled over and blow a .08. (It ain’t pretty.) We’ll also dispel a few popular myths about how to fool the breathalyzer.

9PM: Gen. JC Christian welcomes the end of the times. Gen. JC Christian of the far right-wing religious blog Jesus’ General comes back on the show to talk about the unique way he and his family celebrate the New Year, and to clue us in on his design proposal for the George W. Bush Presidential Library, and his plans to use robots to defeat Iran. Really.

Also, fellow HA blogger Will may call in from time to time with a live update on New Years Eve revelry from various Seattle hotspots. Won’t that be fun?

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

PROGRAMMING NOTE:
If you’re not too hung over, tune in to 710-KIRO tomorrow afternoon from 4PM to 7PM, when I’ll be filling in for Ron & Don.

Saddam Hussein wasn’t the only person to die in Iraq over the weekend. According to icasualties.org — which Reuters describes as “an authoritative Web site tracking war deaths” — the US military death toll hit the 3000 mark on December 28 with the death of Spec. Dustin R. Donica. According to the same web site, US military personnel have also suffered an additional 46,880 non-mortal casulaties.

The 111 US fatalities suffered in December was the highest monthly total since November 2004, and the third highest since the US invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Here’s hoping for a happier new year for US military personnel and their families.

Tune in to a special Saturday night edition of “The David Goldstein Show” from 7PM to 10PM tonight on Newsradio 710-KIRO, as I fill-in for Frank Shiers. Subject to change, here are the topics for tonight’s show:

7PM: Do you hate America? Apparently I do. At least that’s what the angry righties are saying after I commented on Saddam Hussein’s execution by reminding readers of our government’s complicity in supporting Saddam’s dictatorship back when the convicted war criminal still served our interests. (You know, killing Iranians.) Hmm. How unpatriotic of me.

8PM: Are we building “concentration camps” to house illegal immigrants and their US citizen children? Author/blogger David Neiwert says yes, and what’s more, it’s time we start using the appropriate term.

9PM: TBA

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

PROGRAMMING NOTE:
I’ll be on at my usual 7PM to 10PM time tomorrow night, and then filling in for Ron & Don, Monday from 4PM to 7PM.

Saddam Hussein was hanged early this morning in Baghdad. (He was hanged, not hung—big difference there.)

President Bush said he was “executed after receiving a fair trial.”

Fair trial, my ass.

Hussein was found guilty of crimes against 148 Iraqis from al-Dujail who were accused of trying to assassinate him in 1982. The people were convicted, sentenced to execution, and then executed. Hussein admitted that he ordering the trial of the 148 individuals, but argued that he was entitled to do so under the laws of Iraq. Apparently, Hussein’s crime was to use his powers as dictator to deny justice to these individuals. The 149 people were convicted by a court that likely failed judicial independence—in short, a kangaroo court.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending Saddam for any of his crimes. Hussein had a well-deserved reputation as a murderous and brutal dictator. It seems likely that he committed numerous crimes that warrant execution.

My problem with Hussein’s conviction and execution is that he was tried in a kangaroo court. The judicial process that Hussein was tried and executed under was highly flawed—essentially, little better than the kangaroo court Hussein used to execute other people.

Let me take a moment here for a preemptive strike against our treasured Wingnut readers. My arguments here involve complex issues of international law and the Iraq legal system. If you are not willing to read this essay carefully, just shut the fuck up and go smoke your little green footballs or whatever it is you do to maintain a postmodern haze over reality. If you read carefully, you will learn that this essay isn’t about Hussein. Rather, it is about flaws in the process used to convict him—a process ill conceived by the arrogance and stupidity of the Bush administration. They fucked up another opportunity to offer Iraq some semblance of legitimacy.

All Americans have common ground in wishing for a peaceful, legitimate Iraq. It would solve our collective needs to get the hell out of Iraq and stop hemorrhaging money and American lives in support of the Bush administration’s past mistakes. Until late 2006, the Neocons wanted to pretend that Iraq was stabilizing, that the government was achieving legitimacy within and outside of Iraq, and that the U.S. had made the right decisions for post invasion Iraq. No more.

Last July when Bush held a joint press conference with Putin, he said (video):

I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there’s a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same.

To which an incredulous Putin sniped back:

We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq…quite honestly.

Free press and free religion is a joke for a nation under the grip of violence and chaos. (That Bush would even suggest something so idiotic to Putin is beyond belief!)

The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT or Tribunal), likewise, has caused harm to any semblance of legitimacy that the Iraqi government may have had. There are many reasons for this. Some reasons result from the execution of the Tribunal itself, but ultimately the problems boil down to (1) uninformed decisions made under the rule of the Coalition Provisional Authority (i.e. while the U.S. occupied Iraq), (2) prior “issues” the Bush administration had with the International Criminal Court (ICC), and (3) rotten decisions made under the fog of wingnuttery.

The realization of the Tribunal was a debacle from the get-go. We all cringed in embarrassment as Hussein managed to make a mockery of the court’s early proceedings. The whole world squirmed as events unfolded. We squirmed as two defense lawyers were killed—not just because the murder of a defense lawyer is unconscionable (although “spraying” one in the face with bird shot can be pretty darned entertaining), but because replacement of a defense lawyer threatens the integrity of the defense. Didn’t we all want to take the high-road by convicting Hussein through an unimpeachable process? We squirmed when one judge was killed. Finally, we flinched in embarrassment as the Iraqi government removed the chief judge in a second Tribunal for making minor statements that appeared sympathetic to Hussein. What integrity remains knowing that the government removed a judge for some minor statements? Can we really believe that judges in the first trial were completely free to weigh the evidence for and against Hussein with judicial disinterest?

In fact, the SICT was established outside the normal Iraqi judicial system. It was enacted on 10 Dec 2003 as the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) under Order No. 48 of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The Iraqi government later abolished the IST and reestablished it, nearly wholesale, as the SICT under Law No. 10 on 9 Oct 2005.

The IST is at the root of the court’s kangarooness. The laws under which Hussein was tried were, largely, a U.S. concoction that fails standards of international law, Iraqi law, and even U.S. law.

You may recall an awkward period following the capture of Hussein when the Coalition had no idea what to do with their prized prisoner. Would there be an international tribunal in The Hague (a la Bosnia)? Would there be an Iraqi tribunal with assistance of the International Criminal Court (a la Rwanda Sierra Leone)?

In fact, neither of these happened. The Coalition (i.e. the U.S.) could not accept oversight by an international court for a number of political reasons, like the fact that the Bush administration had been openly hostile to and attempted to undermine the ICC, and eventually withdrew from the treaty. Perhaps the most important political consideration, though, was that any oversight by the ICC would exclude the death penalty for Saddam Hussein. That was “unacceptable to the Iraqi people,” as the Bush administration told us. But more importantly it was unacceptable to the Bush administration.

Instead of relying on the ICC, BushCo decided to “roll their own” and they established a Tribunal that took an unprecedented, and legally questionable, track: they established an Iraqi national extra-judicial process to prosecute Hussein and others for international crimes. This had never been done before. In fact, such special additions to a national judicial system by an occupying power are explicitly prohibited by article 23 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Convention IV of the Fourth Geneva conventions of 1949. The short story is that these binding international conventions prohibit occupying powers (i.e. the U.S. at the time) from changing the legal system, changing the status of judges, changing the penal system, changing any tribunals, or even prosecuting anyone for acts committed prior to occupation. In legal parlance, the construction of the IST effectively made it an instrument of victor’s justice, the very thing that international laws attempt to prohibit.

Finally, the Tribunal violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that requires fairness, openness, and competence in trials, requires independent and impartial justice, that is conducted by established applicable law (i.e. it explicitly prohibits special tribunals). As I explain below, the Tribunal bore no real resemblance to Iraqi law.

The Tribunal’s difficulties began immediately. Salem Chalabi, nephew of the infamous Ahmed Chalabi, was appointed General Director of the IST upon its establishment in May of 2004. He, in turn, created the structure for the IST, and appointed the initial panel of seven judges and prosecutors. Whether or not Salem Chalabi was qualified for the position (he is a U.S. educated lawyer), his appointment by the Executive branch, and the nepotism, certainly gave the appearance that the U.S. was running the show. This was confounded by serious conflicts of interest in his U.S. business and ties to “Neocon Central”—The Project for a New American Century. In August, 2004, an arrest warrant for suspicion murder was issued against Salem Chalabi while he was in London. The charges were later dropped, but Chalabi resigned as the IST General Director. The U.S. took over administration for the duration of the IST, a clear violation of judicial independence that further undermined any sense of legitimacy.

With much fanfare, Paul Bremer announced that the IST would be funded by $75 million from the U.S., a figure that was to double. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently provided teams of investigators and prosecutors to collect evidence and develop legal strategies. The U.S. trained all the Iraqi judges and prosecutors.

In 2005, the Iraqi government took the IST decree and passed it legislatively as the Iraqi Special Criminal Tribunal, thus lending the Tribunal some legitimacy. The damage was done, however. A Tribunal initiated in violation of international and domestic law is a pariah, and can, at best, achieve bastard status in the eyes of Iraqis and the international community after being patched. Unfortunately, the ISCT was not changed to be consistent with the Iraqi system of laws. Nor did it correct other legal problems as they existed in the IST. As the courtroom drama played out, there was nothing to dispel the perception that the victor’s justice was being served.

An immediate concern with the Tribunal law was that Iraqi law had no prior provisions for crimes against humanity, war crimes, or some other crimes that the Tribunal was charged with investigating. Thus, the Tribunal violates the nullum crimen principle that is fundamental to every modern legal system. This principle prevents retroactive application of criminal laws against a defendant. If the laws were not on the books prior to 2003, Hussein and his henchmen cannot be prosecuted for violations of a law decreed (by the occupying power) in 2003 and passed legislatively in 2005. Note that if the ICC had prosecuted the case, this would not be an issue, since these laws were established internationally. But, international prosecution would have excluded a capital sentence. Here is a clear example where a Bush administration political requirement undermined the integrity of the process.

A huge difficulty with the Tribunal is that its procedures bear no resemblance to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, it is based on the U.S. legal system. Iraq’s laws are based on the Egyptian legal system which, in turn, is modeled after the French legal system. Under the French inquisitorial system, the judge acts as an investigator, using evidence provided by prosecutors prior to trial. The U.S. legal system is an adversary-accusatorial system complete with introduction of new evidence and cross-examination occurring during the trial. The roles of judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer differ significantly under the two systems.

It can hardly be surprising then that the Tribunal started off with an air of incompetence. None of the participants had any experience with the American-style legal system. And it showed. As one scholar described it:

The proceedings were choreographed as an American hearing where an investigative judge read an indictment and asked the defendant to plead guilty or not guilty, and was thus more American than Iraqi. There is no such procedure in the Iraqi criminal justice system. The investigative judge, sitting behind a table facing Saddam, was obviously uncomfortable. On the table where he sat facing Saddam Hussein was a copy of the 1971 Iraqi Code of Criminal Procedure, which does not provide for such an American-style arraignment procedure. The investigative judge asked Saddam to enter a plea, something unknown in the Iraqi system, and Saddam, who has a law degree, realized this.

As a result, Hussein not only succeeded in disrupting the proceedings, but he succeeded in undermining the court’s credibility. Imposing a system so foreign enforced the idea that this was a kangaroo court. When the arraignment took place on 1 Jul 2004, both supporters and detractors saw an illegal concoction, created by an occupying power, and designed simply to convict and execute Hussein and other Ba’ath party officials.

This view was reinforced by numerous anomalies in this case. For example, the indictment against Hussein was apparently not handed down until 15 May 2006, almost two years after the arraignment and seven months into the trial. This violates all legal principles (including International and Iraq domestic law). Due process demands that a defendant be promptly notified of the charges brought against him prior to the start of trail.

It is easy to say that Saddam Hussein got what he had coming to him. However, the Tribunal, to be successful, had to administer real justice in a way that lent credibility to the fledgling (but now failing) Iraqi government. Instead, Saddam Hussein was convicted and executed under a cloud of illegitimacy not unlike that he used to execute 147 residents of al-Dujail in 1982. Sadly, his execution will make him a martyr to some and will deepen the civil war.

What bothers me about this is that it could have been done correctly. An international court exists and has the experience and mandate to prosecute crimes against humanity and war crimes. A conviction in that court (with the likely outcome of permanent incarceration) would have avoided making Hussein a martyr and likely would have been far less disruptive of the Iraqi government. Now it’s too late.

Chalk it up to another massive fuck-up by a Bush administration driven by incompetence and ideological extremism.

Of course, I was being intentionally provocative when I commented on Saddam Hussein’s hanging by posting a picture of Saddam shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld, followed by the simple caption: “Hmm. One war criminal down.” That so many readers chose to infer “one to go…” is out of my control, though surely understandable given the historic context.

What I found a tad surprising though is the earnestness in which some on the right are determined to use Saddam’s execution as an opportunity portray their political opponents as allies of the brutal dictator. And the vehemence in which they have attempted to go personal. For example, over on the local right-wing Drudge-clone Orbusmax, my post was featured under the following headline: ‘PROGRESSIVE’ 710 KIRO TALKSHOW HOST ON RUMSFELD: “Hmm. One war criminal down…”

Huh.

Of course, that’s intentionally misleading. Saddam Hussein was the only war criminal executed yesterday, so of course my caption was referring to him, not Rumsfeld. As far as I know, Rumsfeld is still breathing, so could not possible be “down,” and besides, I never once described him as a war criminal. Still, it’s a catchy headline, so thanks for driving some traffic my way Orb.

But notice, that though I have made my mark as a liberal blogger, and the post in question appeared here on HA, that Orb chose to describe me as “710 KIRO TALKSHOW HOST.” I assume it’s not because he wants to promote my radio career. And it wouldn’t be the first time that some on the right have attempted to generate outrage over something or other that I have written or said in the hope that it might convince KIRO to take me off the air.

I find it flattering. And revealing. And in any case, futile.

KIRO knew full well what they were getting when they gave me a shot back in June, and as far as I know they have no plans to dump me. I’m still a relative novice and have tons to learn about the medium — and I don’t yet feel that I have completely found my on-air voice — but KIRO seems to be giving me every chance to succeed. And if in fact my blog creates the occasional controversy, then all the better. Advertisers don’t really care if the audience likes me or not, as long as they’re tuning in and hanging on through the commercials.

So for those of you angry righties who just discovered HA through Orb’s courteous link, I invite you to tune in to 710-KIRO tonight from 7 to 10PM, when I will surely have more to say on Saddam’s execution. And if you don’t like what I have to say, then give me a call at 877-710-KIRO and tell me to my face.