Commentators saw in Saddam's trial more of a theatrical play that misses both truth and justice. By Rasha Saad "More a publicity stunt than a legal trial" was how Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed described the trial of Saddam Hussein. In "The trial of Saddam: a theatrical play", Al-Rashed wrote in the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, " the play is being directed by the defendant and not the prosecutor, as is usually the case." The political message behind this legal experiment, according to Al-Rashed, is that the new Iraq gives full rights to even the biggest murderer in its history, to defend, argue and demand, with the judge giving in when he sees his demands acceptable. As the proceedings of Saddam's trial resumed last week, Al-Rashed said the new Iraqi government's enemy number one, Saddam , sat comfortably in the dock and stood elegantly, attacked witnesses and lawyers, criticised the government, derided the world's only superpower and its military guarding the courthouse and made his voice heard in all corners of the globe. "If this was the intended message, it has certainly reached its audience. However, if it was a hastily arranged plan, its authors have lost the first round to Saddam who has fared rather well, irrespective of the heinous crimes he is being tried for." However, Al-Rashed believes that with a scornful Saddam, crying witnesses and a patient judge, "the trial marked a unique event in the Arab world. At times, it was hijacked and transformed into a political celebration of Saddam and his aides, which seldom occurs even in the most open and forgiving of courts." Al-Rashed called on all parties to enjoy this trial "as we do not want to deprive the toppled president of his right to self-defence or provide the current regime with the opportunity to execute him behind closed doors away from the eyes of the world," Al-Rashed wrote. Al-Rashed said the new Iraqi government should be pleased if it really intended to implement a transparent system that will open the door for further trials and respect human rights while signalling the advent of a new era by trying Saddam. However, Ghida Fakhri wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat that Saddam's trial is a missed opportunity to seek truth and justice. "Having started as a tragic-comic TV show last month, Saddam's trial resumed this week in a fashion that makes a mockery of what should have been something historic." According to Fakhri, for this trial to be truly historic it will require that one aim be attained: the lifting of the veil of secrecy that shrouded a regime accused of gross violations of human rights and of other crimes as defined by international law. "The trial of Saddam Hussein and by extension of his regime, should have been a historic opportunity to seek a truth that a people who have been the victim of crimes perpetrated by a political system, yearn for." Fakhri wrote that if Saddam Hussein should be afforded a fair trial, it is not merely to meet international standards of justice, but first and foremost not to miss a historic opportunity to record a shadowy part of Iraq's history and its complex relationship with foreign powers, particularly one that houses Saddam's palaces in the Green Zone, and under whose direct custody the former president remains. A fair trial, according to Fakhri, would allow his defence to call important witnesses like Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush Sr, American ambassadors to Iraq, and other senior foreign officials who were in decision-making positions at the time when their governments were providing all kinds of aid to the Iraqi leader when his regime perpetrated the worst crimes of the 1980s, including the notorious gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988 and Iraq's invasion of Iran. "In October 1989, let us recall, President Bush issued a national security directive, declaring that 'normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East,'" Fakhri wrote. In the London-based Al-Hayat, Zouheir Kseibati wrote, "the utmost manifestation of bitter irony is for Saddam Hussein to wonder in the hall of his tribunal: 'where is justice?'" Kseibati believes many Iraqis will mock Saddam's complaint that he is not allowed to smoke, "considering that he is the one who burned the country with the fire of wars that killed millions." Assuming that the witnesses' testimonies on the massacre of Dujail are feigned or invented to lead the ousted president to his execution, Kseibati argues, the testimonies of the region's inhabitants on wars, with all the crimes involved therein, are incontestable. However, many Iraqis other than Tikrit's and other members of a nation bereaved of its citizens' rights, are still entitled to claim the repudiation of an injustice that does not exonerate another, even if it involves massacres and collective graveyards. Wrote Kseibati: "But the chapters of Saddam's trial complete the tragedy of a nation, where occupation is still called for, or else the crisis will escalate."
