I can understand the request to keep the name of the judge and the identities of the court officers secret. When you're in Iraq and you've got Saddam's remaining supporters looking to kill you for taking on their big boss, that makes sense.
Muting Saddam himself seems to be less justifiable. One can imagine the desire to prevent him speaking in some sort of "code" that his followers will understand to mean something specific. We've certainly seen similar precautions taken in the context of taped bin Laden messages, but it makes much less sense for Saddam. Al Qaeda needs to avoid leaving a trail of phone records and whatnot, in order to guarantee that the compromise of one cell doesn't disrupt another. Saddam's remaining loyalists are unlikely to be taking orders from Saddam any more. Saddam has absolutely no idea what the condition of his remaining loyalists might be, and there's unlikely to be much, if any, opportunity for them to have a back-channel.
So, I agree that it's difficult to justify all the secrecy. On the other hand, put Saddam's trial in perspective for how other former dictators have made out in the past. Saddam's lucky he isn't already hanging from a street pole.
Previous Topic
Index