Alan M Dershowitz writes an interesting analysis on Saddam’s impending trial. He tries to answer the familiar questions of the fairness of the trial–because it seems to result in what is known as the “victor’s justice.”

The first question that must be asked of the Baghdad tribunal is whether, in light of the manner by which it was established, it will have the independence to rule against the interests of the U.S.–and the current Iraqi government–if the law requires it to do so.

America-haters all over the world are already whipping up a furious din over Saddam’s “unjust” trial, calling it a “puppet court,” and so on. The real test, as Alan says, lies in the independence (and courage?) of the judges to ensure fairness to both sides. If Saddam indeed is pronounced not guilty, will he return to power? If he does return to power–a remote call by any standard–it’ll be interesting to see the turn of events.

This is why Alan says,

It would have been much easier had Saddam suffered the fate of his sons–death in combat. But once he emerged from that spider hole with his hands in the air, we had no choice but to accept his surrender, because we are a nation of law and international law prohibits the killing of a captured enemy. Now, we have little choice but to submit him to the rule of law, no matter how problematic that may turn out to be.

Saddam is already seen as a sort of martyr–here’s where Islam and the Arab fraternity comes in; he is no longer an evil tyrant as he was viewed when in power; he is now seen as one among the Brethren precisely because he has fallen. It is a fine opportunity for the Middle East countries to whip up passions against America.

But the best course of conduct will be to let imperfect justice–as administered by the Iraqi judges–run its course without an American thumb on the scales.

Does it mean, “leave them to themselves, we’ve had enough?”