Human Rights Watch accuses the U.S. of "political show trial" tactics in allowing the Iraqi government to try Saddam Hussein:

[T]he Iraqi Governing Council, taking its lead from Washington, last week established a tribunal that is to be dominated by Iraqi jurists. Despite the superficial appeal of allowing Iraqis to try their own persecutors, this approach is unlikely to produce sound prosecutions or fair trials. It reflects less a determination to see justice done than a fear of bucking Washington's ideological jihad against any further enhancement of the international system of justice.

Political show trials?

Pretty strong accusations. Usually, the word jihad is used to the describe activities of organizations like Hamas, Hizbollah, and al Qaida. You know, stuff like slaughtering innocent civilians?

Like, maybe, September 11?

But here's more:

because it can draw from a global pool of talent, it would be better able to secure the experienced and fair-minded jurists than a court that must look only to Iraqis. An internationally led tribunal could still conduct trials in Baghdad and involve Iraqis as much as possible, but it would be run by international jurists with proven records of overseeing complex prosecutions and scrupulously respecting international fair-trial standards.

Despite the obvious merits of an internationally led tribunal,Washington is adamantly opposed, which largely explains the path chosen by the Iraqi Governing Council. But Washington's opposition reflects its ideology, not concern for the Iraqi people.

Hmmm..... Concern for the Iraqi people means that the man who tortured and murdered them for decades must be allowed to live? Yes, because according to this group, the death penalty for Saddam Hussein would bring "broad international condemnation."

I found this horror thanks to Michael Radu, who disagrees with HRW and Amnesty International's idea that putting Saddam on trial is like Stalin's show trials of the 1930s:

By all standards, Saddam Hussein is one of the worst mass murderers of recent times – not an “alleged” or “suspected” murderer. If he does not belong in the company of Stalin, Mao, or Hitler, it is only because there were not enough Iraqis to kill to put him in this first rank. HRW’s likening of a trial that has not even begun yet – the Iraqis’ trial of this tyrant – to Stalin’s show trials of the 1930s is absurd. It casts Saddam’s victims in the Stalin role. It is Saddam, not they, that are in that role here.

I guess it all depends on how you define "fair-minded."

HRW and Amnesty International seem to think it means that:

a. Saddam Hussein must be allowed to live;

b. trying him in Iraq would constitute Stalinist style "political show trials"; and

c. the U.S. is guilty of "jihad."

Stalin show trial analogies partricularly bother me, because I have studied that period extensively. The "fair-minded" international community at the time all believed Stalin's show trials were quite fair:

....[T]he public and the press were convinced of the legitimacy of the trials. This was particularly the case in Stalin's first three show trials, where he invited several international observers as witnesses. These observers included reporters from the New York Times, the U.S. ambassador to Moscow, and British diplomats. All agreed that the trials were reasonable and fair. For example, the International Association of Lawyers declared the 1936 show trial to be entirely lawful: "We hereby categorically declare that the accused were sentenced quite lawfully. It was fully proven that there were links between them and the Gestapo. They quite rightly deserve the death penalty (cited in Vaksberg, 1990, p. 123)." New York Times reporter Walter Duranty similarly accepted the verdict of Stalin's second show trial: "It is a pity from the Soviet viewpoint that no documentary evidence was produced in open court," yet still concluded "taken all in all . . . the trial did 'stand up' (January 30, 1937, cited in Heilbrunn, 1991)." The same sort of acquiescence was also largely given to the later satellite state trials, which were often treated as political intrigue stories by the west.

Fair minded international consensus does not have the world's greatest track record.

Ask Stalin's victims.

As for me, I do not wonder whose side Walter Duranty would be on today.

The penalty for obfuscating tyrants' murders seems a small one, which perhaps explains why there's so much of that going on.

You even get to call yourself "fair-minded" while you're doing it!