While overall the testimony provided by witnesses of Saddam Hussein’s massacres has been damning, the overall “court experience” has been nothing less than a circus. I am not talking about the accusations by human rights groups like Amnesty International which accuse that the trial is well below international standards due to the inherent and legal bias against the defendant. Such things, like the fact that the tribunal does not have to find Saddam guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” are true, and were certainly existent in the infamous Nuremberg trials. However, what I am talking about is the fact that there is no order in the court, allowing Saddam to create the kind of chaos that he is so good at.

Just yesterday, the chief prosecutor, Munqith al-Faroon, accused the judge of outright bias in favor of Saddam and said that he had “allowed this court to become a political podium for the defendants.”

Saddam’s antics are well-known and famous throughout the world. He stands up and shouts to no end. He threatens witnesses with death. And he calls on the insurgency to continue their fight, leading to even more destruction. This is only possible because the judge has allowed it to be so. When I think of the trial being below international standards, I think of the intimidation that witnesses bear and the undue voice that Saddam gets at inappropriate times.

His outbursts are no accident either. Back in late June, his lawyer outlined the general defense strategy to the New York Times. All of it is part of a strategy to further ignite the insurgency and disrupt the court process so that, in the end, he will have to be released in exchange for calming down the situation.

What is surprising to me is that the judge presiding over the trial has defended Saddam’s reputation, even as a a Kurdish man testifies to losing his entire family along with some 180,000 Kurdish civilians. When the man, Abdullah Mohammed Hussain, was telling his story, an exchange occurred that goes like this:

Saddam Hussein asked the 57-year-old witness: “Why did you try to meet me when you knew I was a dictator?”

“You were not a dictator. People around you made you Älook likeÅ a dictator,” the judge said.

“Thank you,” Saddam Hussein replied.

The interjection only serves to prove the chief prosecutor’s point. Saying that Saddam is not a dictator and that his aides only made him seem like one is like saying that he’s really a nice guy if you get to know him. Saddam is a dictator because he was able to control the people around him, not vice versa. Thankfully, this has been one of the most well-documented trials in history, with trunks full of Ba’ath regime documents proving exactly the opposite of what the judge just said. If Saddam is able to find an escape hatch through this judge, however, it can only lead to worse.