Saddam verdict delayed amid fear any decision would result in bloodshed

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Judges postponed their verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial Tuesday, a long-awaited decision that once held out the hope of healing Iraq's wounds but now threatens to spark even more sectarian violence.

The verdict had been expected Oct. 16 but was delayed until at least the end of the month while judges take extra time to review the evidence and make sure their case is airtight.

But no matter how well crafted, the verdict could worsen violence that is already claiming dozens of lives daily. A death sentence for the former leader could enrage his Sunni Muslim supporters, while anything less is sure to infuriate Shiites who were oppressed under Saddam's regime.

That dilemma is a far cry from the hopes of many U.S. and Iraqi officials when the war crimes trial began nearly a year ago. They touted the tribunal as a way to help heal Iraq's divisions by exposing atrocities during Saddam's regime, establishing justice and opening the door for reconciliation.

In the past year, however, Shiite-Sunni divisions have grown, with thousands killed by Sunni insurgents and death squads from both Islamic sects.

Saddam and seven co-defendants face possible execution by hanging if found guilty on charges of crimes against humanity over a crackdown on Shiites in the town of Dujail launched in 1982. A five-judge panel will decide the ruling by a majority vote.

The judges adjourned July 27 to consider their ruling.

Court spokesman Raid Juhi told the Associated Press a session will be held Oct. 16, but it "will not be for the verdict. It's for the judges' review of the evidence." He did not say when the verdict would be issued.

A court official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to release the information, said the verdict could be put off until late October or early November.

Juhi did not link the delay to worries over tensions in Iraq. He said the judges have been reviewing the evidence and testimony from the trial to determine "whether it is complete or is lacking." He said the judges will decide whether they need more information.

The intense review of the evidence aimed to ensure that the verdict -- which will be accompanied by a report explaining the court's reasoning -- is airtight and can be fully justified in the face of criticism from either side, the court official said.

A guilty verdict for Saddam is widely expected -- but the official suggested there were differences over what sentence to impose and that the judges were aware that violence was possible either way.

"The verdict mustn't be weakly supported, it has to be accepted and not raise doubts," al-Suneid said.

The Dujail trial, which began Oct. 19, is the first for Saddam. A second trial of the former Iraqi leader and six other co-defendants began Aug. 21 on genocide charges for their alleged roles in a 1987-1988 crackdown against Kurdish rebels.

The genocide trial was adjourned last week until Monday after a stormy session during which the chief judge expelled all the defendants amid a boycott of the trial by the defense lawyers.

Saddam and his co-defendants can appeal any verdict, but if a sentence is upheld Iraqi law says it must be carried out within 30 days after appeals are finished.

The Dujail trial heard extensive testimony from Shiite survivors of the crackdown, recounting torture while in prison and the deaths of loved ones. The crackdown was sparked by a 1982 assassination attempt on Saddam.

Hundreds of Dujail residents were arrested, some tortured to death, and 148 Shiites were sentenced to death for involvement in the attempt to kill Saddam. The prosecution argued they were executed after a fake trial and that the crackdown aimed to punish the entire town.

The key evidence against Saddam was a series of documents signed by him -- the order for the 148 to be put on trial, the approval of their death sentences and an approval of rewards for several intelligence officers.

The defense argued the crackdown was justified in response to the assassination attempt, a feeling shared by many Sunnis.

"If a police car passes and gets shot at, what does it do? Doesn't it shoot back? So how can a president respond when there's an attempt to kill him?" Sunni lawmaker al-Alayan said.

Saddam's defenders also maintain the documents don't constitute a crime against humanity since he was performing his constitutional role in ordering suspects put on trial, then signing off on the verdict.

Simone Monasebian, a former prosecutor in the U.N. war crimes tribunal for Rwanda, said the judges may hope for a change in the law to enable a stay of execution on the first verdict until the second trial's verdict is delivered.

"Politically, (the judges) are not ready (to rule) because of their fear of the insurgency. Procedurally they are not ready because they might have to execute him before the next trial is completed," said Monasebian, an international law professor at New Jersey's Seton Hall University. "And thirdly they are not ready (because) they haven't reviewed the evidence."