Justice for Saddam.

Byline: The Register-Guard

As anyone knows who has ever trapped a wild animal inside a bushel basket, the question soon arises of what to do with the unwieldy beast.

In the wake of the capture of Saddam Hussein, the United States now faces a critical question: what to do with a former dictator whose crimes against his fellow Iraqis and neighboring nations could fill a looted Baghdad library.

The stakes are immense. If the former dictator is brought to justice in a legitimate, internationally recognized court that reveals and documents the extent of his crimes, then millions of victims will have a measure of justice and the way will be paved for the rule of law in Iraq. But a rush to try Saddam in an improvised, inadequate legal setting with scant regard for preparation or international opinion will deprive victims of justice and undermine the struggling new Iraqi government.

Saddam's crimes against Iraq are of a magnitude that demand the highest level of justice. His regime is responsible for the murder of a quarter million Iraqis. Mass graves contain an estimated 100,000 Kurds slaughtered during the 1988 Anfal genocide; the 30,000 Kurds and Shiites massacred after the 1991 uprising; the Marsh Arabs who died after the Iraqi government drained the marshes where they made their home, and countless other Iraqis who were singled out as enemies of the state.

So far, the Bush administration has been vague about plans for putting Saddam on trial. President Bush said Monday his administration will "work with Iraqis to develop a way to try Saddam that will withstand international scrutiny."

The Iraqi Governing Council has been more specific. Last week, it established a tribunal that is to be dominated by Iraqi jurists. Some council members say they hope to put Saddam on trial within weeks.

The idea of allowing Iraqis to try their own persecutor has appeal. Allowing the new Iraqi government to try Saddam could show the rest of the world, as well as dubious Iraqi citizens, that Iraq is becoming a democratic state where justice is no longer a myth.

But that's unrealistic in chaotic, present-day Iraq, where the new government is too new, unstable and dysfunctional to get the job done. U.S. officials should resist their knee-jerk distrust of all things international and turn the job over to the United Nations.

An equally strong argument against allowing the governing council to proceed is that it is perceived by the Arab world as being a hand-puppet of the United States. Any verdict by a tribunal created by the U.S.-established council will be viewed by Arabs (and many Iraqis) as "victor's justice," a phrase used by critics to describe the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

The council, already struggling with the burden of creating a new constitution and government, appears incapable of swiftly creating the legal system necessary to conduct a trial involving an array of complex legal issues. For decades, there has been nothing even remotely resembling a credible judicial system in Iraq. It seems unlikely that there are sufficient experienced and qualified prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges who could conduct such a trial.

Nor could an Iraqi have the standing and authority to prosecute Saddam for his many crimes against other nations, including Kuwait and Iraq. An international tribunal, one that could include qualified Iraqi judges and prosecutors and could be conducted in Iraq, would be far better equipped for such a difficult job and would meet international standards of justice.

Now that Saddam Hussein has been captured alive, the United States and the new government it is establishing in Iraq have an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that they are committed not to Saddam's law of revenge and domination, but to the rule of law.