The situation surrounding Saddam Hussein's trial in Iraq is tenuous and the United States has to be extremely delicate in balancing the insurance that the citizens of Iraq are happy with the results of the trial, and enforcement of the democratic value of a fair trial over popular justice.

The body of evidence against Hussein is so overwhelming and well-documented that the trial against the remnants of the Ba'ath Party might seem to be over before it starts.

Regardless of the clamoring of the people, Iraq's newly formed judicial system must play by the rules - or risk losing sight of overall justice forever.

The trial could have been held in the World Court, similar to former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic's trial. Logically, the motive on the part of the U.S. government in relinquishing Hussein to Iraq instead would be to appease the people of Iraq. The United States' role in the trial, along with the world, is to monitor the proceeding and provide a voice of reason in the trial.

President Bush has voiced his desire that Hussein receive a life sentence, and this should always be a viable option to the judge and jury, regardless of the anger against Hussein, many Iraqis feel.

With the prisoner abuse scandal, America might not appear as the wholesome voice of freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq, as the government would like. Nevertheless, America should endorse the right to due process as our own constitution demands.

The death penalty in Iraq was recently reinstated for limited use against Iraqis who murder their own countrymen. Our biggest fear is that this foreshadows the intentions of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, created to try the Ba'athist regime. Hopefully, this does not imply an preconceived verdict.

Yet, the wishes and values of the newly sovereign Iraq, which might be independent of the United States' own views, should be respected and protected. The world should only intervene if, unthinkably, justice falls to a mob mentality.