Juan Cole makes the point that Saddam’s execution was not justice, but revenge:
Saddam Hussein was tried under the shadow of a foreign military occupation, by a government full of his personal enemies. The first judge, an ethnic Kurd, resigned because of government interference in the trial; the judge who took his place was also Kurdish and had grievances against the accused. Three of Saddam’s defense lawyers were shot down in cold blood. The surviving members of his defense team went on strike to protest the lack of protection afforded them. The court then appointed new lawyers who had no expertise in international law. Most of the witnesses against Saddam gave hearsay evidence. The trial ground slowly but certainly toward the inevitable death verdict.
There were clearly many grounds on which Saddam Hussein could have been tried and convicted (although I would argue once again that the death penalty - especially as administered in so barbaric a way as hanging - serves no good purpose and is in itself an act of revenge, not justice). But the way the trial and the execution played out, justice has been denied for both Saddam, and more importantly, the thousands of people he killed during his reign. What makes this even more tragic is that this injustice is likely to prolong and intensify the sectarian conflict which is promising the deaths of even more thousands of Iraqis in the future.
And the occupying Americans, who one would think have had a pretty good influence over the whole process, stood by and let it happen.
