Dear folks,
Saif Al-Islam is in the hands of the Libyan authorities but I don’t think he is enjoying his food right now. A lot of people may not understand why I still support NTC after the way they handled Gaddafi on capturing him but let’s give them more time. To be fair, they are doing better than some people expected. Yes, militias are still independently controlling some regions but I’m still optimistic that the situation will change for the better. I’m not like the owner of the Independent Magazine, Andrew Mwenda, who has been exaggerating on capitalfm from the start that Libyans will slaughter themselves as it is in Somalia, as soon as Kaddafi goes. These guys seem to be a bit more organized and nationalistic compared to the Iraqis after the fall of Saddam Hussein or Afhaganistanis after the fall of the Taliban.
I'm, however, a bit worried that Saif Al-Islam may not get a fair trial in Libya because there are a lot of emotions running deep in the country as far as the Gaddafi family are concerned. The ICC still has an upper hand over this if they sense that Saif may not get a fair trial in Libya but the international laws allow the host country to try their guy first if they assure the ICC that he or she will be given a fair trial.
Let us also remember that ICC lost some kind of credibility as far as project ‘Saif-Al-Islam’ is concerned. The court was viciously ridiculed by critics after it “confirmed” Saif’s capture by rebels in August, saying it was in the process of bringing him to The Hague for trial. He embarrassed them when he appeared in a Tripoli hotel — supposedly under rebel control —later that day to lead a crowd of cheering supporters and foreign journalists on a tour of the city.
I don’t know which kind of evidence the ICC or the Libyans have got against Saif but by the look of things so far, it looks like the evidence is not as strong as the one Ugandans have reportedly got against our first son, Muhoozi Kainerugaba. Gaddafi tried to keep him away from military affairs as he was mainly responsible for the financial management of the country’s affairs rather than military or intelligence. It was the other brothers that were reportedly more involved in military and intelligence affairs.
That's why I still think that president Museveni made a mistake to involve Muhoozi in the military because it is very easy for anyone to build a case against you if you are involved in matters of life and death. Already people are saying he is responsible for the death of people at Kasubi tombs and somewhere in Karamoja, and it’s kind of difficult for any judge to rule against that if your father is no longer in power. Judges are human beings like anybody else, you know.
So, I think Saif should be handed over to ICC but that is a real dream because there are people who want to see his neck on a platter. Even the two tribes: Gadhafi and Waffala tribes, that highly protected him, cannot protect him anymore while in Libya.
There is an argument that people like: Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and their sons will never have a fair trial anywhere in the world. The end result is always the same: death. So, instead of wasting people’s time and money, they are usually eliminated on the spot. They are usually assassinated as soon as troops find them hiding in some cave, drainage or house somewhere. For instance, Saddam’s sons were shot down on the spot but their father got a ‘fair trial’ that ended with his death. The Saddam supporters could not argue that he did not get a fair trial; after all, he continually received 100 percent of the votes during Iraqi elections. They loved him there! On the other hand, Gaddafi and two of his sons were killed on the spot but Saif Al-Islam may also end up with another ‘fair trial’ with the same predicament as Saddam’s if he is tried in Libya.
What do you think would be the reaction in the U.S. if Osama bin Laden got a smart lawyer like USA’s Johnnie Cochran (RIP) or Uganda’s David Mpanga, and got himself acquitted like O.J Simpson. It is possible for anybody ‘guilty’ to walk out of the court ‘not guilty’ with a good lawyer. There is something in legal terms called "exclusionary rule" where even perfectly good evidence can be thrown out on the basis that it was illegally obtained. I don’t know whether we have got this too in Uganda but it is common in developed nations. A murderer who confesses his crime can still be acquitted simply because the cop forgot to read him his rights first.
Nonetheless, I personally still think people deserve a fair trial whatever the circumstances and I can’t see Saif Al-Islam getting one in Libya. Let us examine one historical trial in USA where Alger Hiss, an American lawyer who was one of the founders of the UN, was accused of being a Soviet spy in 1948 and convicted of perjury in connection with this charge in 1950. There was massive government misconduct against Hiss, including: 1. An FBI agent who knowingly lied on the witness stand, 2. the withholding of evidence by the FBI which would have acquitted Hiss, and 3. the infiltration of the Hiss defence team by the FBI. The Hiss defence team contained an FBI informant.
If any of these three major areas of government misconduct had come to light at the time, the Judge would have declared a mistrial and he probably would have prohibited any further prosecution of Hiss by the government. The single witness against Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, had changed his story many times, including his grand jury testimony, in effect making him guilty of perjury, had the government prosecuted him.
Hiss spent the rest of his life trying to clear his name, and struck pay dirt with the Freedom of Information Act, when, in the mid-1970s, the knowledge of government misconduct at his trial became public. Courts reversed his disbarment and he was allowed to practice law again.
Unfortunately for Hiss, when his case finally reached the Supreme Court, it was loaded with Nixon appointees. Rather than confirm Nixon's deceit in convicting an innocent man, the Supreme Court let the Hiss conviction stand. Hiss died shortly thereafter (in 1996).
So, we all need a fair trial whatever our backgrounds. Hopefully, Ugandans treat the Museveni family fairly in case the Libyan experiment becomes a reality in Uganda some day.
Byebyo ebyange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Mr. Semuwemba,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that you do your hero of judicial injustice, Saif Al-Islam Al-Qaddhafi, any help when you compare his case with that of Alger Hiss -- or are saying that the nature of these political trials is so similar, rather than different (in which case, most people would probably feel that you hurt the case of Alger Hiss)?
Regardless of those considerations, when you examine an historical trial in another country like the Hiss Case in the U.S., you may wish to read more side than one before you make your pronouncements. Clearly, you have read only-pro-Hiss accounts.
The only reason Hiss (and Chambers and others) did not receive prosecution for espionage is that espionage law at that time had a ten-year limit. It just so happens that Whittaker Chambers defected from the Soviet underground in April 1938, while HUAC subpoenaed him to appear before the committee on August 3, 1948 -- 10 years and a few months later. (Give points, then, to the U.S. for not trying to prosecute anyone for treason.) Thus, the Hiss trials of 1949 prosecuted perjury, not treason -- though clearly implying that Hiss had lied about his communist connections and espionage activities.
You also leave out the Baltimore Papers ( http://whittakerchambers.org/2011/11/17/baltimore-papers/ ), which included numerous pages typed on the Hiss Family's Woodstock typewriter, much less notes handwritten by Alger Hiss and the even more important Harry Dexter White.
Hiss was convicted by the testimony of Whittaker Chambers and the evidence of the Baltimore Papers, which was sufficient for conviction under U.S. law. (The Pumpkin Papers were more of a political bluff pulled by Richard Nixon to suggest to the US Department of Justice that they should indict the uncooperative Hiss and not the cooperative Chambers.)
In addition, you fail to note the testimony of Nathan Weyl and Hede Massing, both of whom said that Hiss had partaken actively in Chambers' spy ring. That is to say nothing of revelations since the Hiss Case.
As for your charge that Chambers "had changed his story many times," there was only one time, when he reversed his grand jury testimony by stating that espionage had (rather than had not) formed a major part of his group's activities, thus implicating himself and all others named.
This led to the quandary in which Justice found itself about whom to prosecute.
The most important person named, Harry Dexter White, had died three days after denying Chambers' allegations. Most of the former Federal officials whom Chambers had named had pled the Fifth Amendment, so Justice had little hope of prosecuting them. Donald Hiss (Alger's brother) had denied charges but was not implicated by Chambers's Baltimore Papers. Hiss, however, had rejected all allegations immediately on August 4, demanded to be heard by HUAC on August 5, had been slow to sue Chambers for defamation at the end of September, and had then turned up all over the Baltimore Papers in November and December in 1948 -- all the while, slowly conceding that he "might' have known "George Crosley" (Whittaker Chambers) at some point in the 1930s...
I do not speak for the Republicans, or Richard Nixon, or anyone else, only for my grandfather, Whittaker Chambers, and the facts he stated. Hiss was guilty -- so was my grandfather. Both men paid for what they did, each in their own way. If I may, I would suggest that you read _Witness_ (1952) for a long account from my grandfather's viewpoint.
Meantime, in future please leave my grandfather out of political or other discussions which are clearly irrelevant.
Should you have any questions, etc., please feel free to contact me.
David Chambers | http://www.whittakerchambers.org/