Saddam not 'brainwashed'

June 3, 2004

Saddam not 'brainwashed'
PV Vivekanand

Saddam Hussein is suffering from fatique but has not been "brainwashed" during his detention since December last year. He has retained full control of his faculties and, if anything, has sharpened his argumentary skills, and one could expect to see verbal tirades from the ousted Iraqi leader during his trial at an Iraqi court on charges of crimes against humanity.
This much was from the 30-minute session where an Iraqi court formally read out the charges against him and he refused to sign a paper acknowledging that he understood the charges and proceedings.
While he was shown on television making his argument, his voice was not broadcast and Salim Chalabi, the man in charge of prosecuting him, said later hearings may not be broadcast live for fear of acting as a rallying call to insurgents.
Judging from the way he conducted himself, it was clear that Saddam has not changed a bit in his approach.
Probably it took some time for him to collect himself after being brought to the court in chains after the first few minutes of his being produced in court, was really the Saddam of the old: arrogant, scornful while focused and intense.
Every word he used was so typical of Saddam, starting with the overpowering approach where he could have been mentally taking charge of the courtroom by asking the judge to introduce himself and questioning his credentials.
"What is this court? Who are you? Under whose jurisdiction do you fall? I am the president of the Republic Iraq,"
His insistence that "I am the president of the Republic of Iraq" could be easily seen as a reflection of his self-assurance that he was elected with more than 95 per cent of the votes in the referendum he held prior to the war.
"I am the elected leader of the Iraqi people. Please do not take that away from me. ...Please do not strip me of the title," he told the judge.
 His description of the trial as theatre and US President George W Bush as the "real criminal," his dismissal of the charge that he had ordered the gassing of Kurds — "yes, I have heard about it" — his defence that his 1990 invasion of Kuwait was "for the people of Iraq" and his reference to Kuwaitis as dogs are vivid examples of his behaviour and approach while he was in power.
His response to the court's offer to appoint a lawyer for him if he could not afford one was again so typical: "As everyone says, the Americans say, I have millions of dollars stashed away in Geneva. Why shouldn't I afford a lawyer?"
On Kuwait, he told the judge: "How can you, as an Iraqi, accuse me of an invasion of Kuwait when Kuwait is part of Iraq? How can you call it an invasion? I was doing something for the good of Iraqis. These mad dogs were trying to put down the price of Iraqi oil and turn Iraqi women into 10-dinar prostitutes."
Waving a pen for emphasis while being polite Saddam questioned the legality of prosecuting him for crimes that he argued were covered by presidential immunity. He often showed anger and exasperation at the same time.
All these expressions underlined one thing: Saddam has not been "brainwashed" and left to be a mental wreck by his American interrogators. He has retained his faculties and it is a safe bet that one could get to see another Slobodan Milosevic in action once the trial gets going in earnest, perhaps in a few months' time.
Saddam being produced in court marked an unprecedented episode in the Arab World. For the first time, a former Arab leader was being put on trial in his own country to be judged by his own people.
Indeed, there are many firsts happening in Iraq, and some of them defy logic and reason if seen on their own outside the right context. However, putting Saddam on trial is an imperative of the interim government, which wants to send the strongest message yet to the people of Iraq that it is in control of the country and that not only the brutal era of the Baathists is over in an irreversible course of events but also that the former regime's leaders would pay for their doings against Iraqis.
International legal experts differ over whether a "fair trial" is possible for Saddam. Some say that they would have preferred to see Saddam put on trial in an international framework with UN involvement while others say that it is the privilege and right of the people of Iraq and their government to try the ousted president. All said and done, Saddam and his close associates during his reign in power have been put on trial before an Iraqi court made up of Iraqi judges and the process would take its own course regardless of what anyone has to say about it, including the opinion that Saddam never applied justice in the functions of his judiciary and thus he does not deserve fairness during his trial.
Then, there are those who are insisting that he should be given the death penalty while others believe that he should be subjected to prolonged imprisonment, which they feel is more appropriate for a man who had little mercy for others, including his own sons-in-law.
On the other side of the coin is the fact that it might even have been painful for Arab nationalists, given that Saddam was once seen as the most powerful Arab leader with all that it implies and as the strongest symbol of Arab resistance against biased American polices in the Middle East. To see him brought into court in chains and treated like a criminal was shocking and saddening to many who remember the way he used to conduct himself while in power.