Despot or Street Thug: Saddam's Criminal Trial

Last night President Bush left no doubt that we can, should, and will go to war against Saddam if Saddam does not go into immediate exile. Even this morning I hear debate that focuses on our burden to prove that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. This is non-sensical.

Burdens of proof are legal principles for courts of law. In our hierarchical, modern thinking, we think of the results of certain actions as being on a range from frivolous, fun, benign, negligent, reckless, intentionally dangerous, destructive, to war. As we go through this range, the legal bent of common society is that any person who wishes to move from benign into more catastrophic and deadly force of war needs to have made a strong case for his action. This is patently ridiculous.

Long ago in Greece, a trilogy of dramas made the point. King Agamemnon returns from the Trojan war and is killed. His son Orestes seeks revenge on his father's killer, as is right by custom. His father's killer, though, is Orestes's mother. The Furies, gods of vengence, chase down Orestes for killing his mother. The godess Athena intervenes and appoints the world's first jury to sit in judgment of Orestes.

This story is instructive. Only within society subject to the rules of participatory justice is there a right and obligation of burdens of proof. Where there is no willing submission to these rules, why should a tyrrant have the right to claim that parties with little or no access to information should bear the burden of proof?

Despite claims of the existence of international law, there is little in the way of law that applies internationally. There are no established rules other than those dictated by the Security Council. That bears little or no resemblance to the legislative or judicial function of a parliament or court, respectively. It is an international brawl.

If Saddam were to submit to the jurisdiction of a body with a judge having the power to impose enforceable injunctions (i.e., orders to act) against Saddam, Saddam would be able to claim that the United States or other party has the burden to show that Saddam is wrong. Then the United States could seek recourse to the judge to seek permission to access specific areas or order certain documents produced. Similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37.

Since Saddam has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction of any court, the rules of brawl apply. Let's not be deceived by socialist calls for an international body to impose order on the world. This is just a way to bring the Soviet's Comintern back to life.

Saddam is not responsive to any other person, organization, or law. He is a despot. Let's not act like he is a misbehaving street thug that can be thrown in jail.