Saddam Hussein Trial

An article I came across today got me thinking: Saddam Hussein is on trial for the deaths of 148 Kurds in 1982, a charge that carries the death penalty as punishment. The fact that the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq has directly lead to a minimum of 3,000 times that many deaths notwithstanding... doesn't anyone think it's strange that Bush II, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al. have set Saddam up on this trial for an act he committed the exact same year that Reagan, Bush I, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al. had Hussein's Iraq removed from the US. State Sponsors of Terror List so that he could be provided with military aid?

How does such a glaring irregularity escape the notice of the mass media????????????????????????????
Update 07-11-06
"Who will teach the White House some core values?" That's what I'm wondering. They claim Christian piety and yet applaud the handing down of a sentence of death on an adversary... have they never actual read Jesus' words "let whomever amongst you that is whithout sin be the first to cast a stone"? In other words, if you are completely innocent, then you are in a position to pass judgement. But there is no innocence in washington.

Instead, they set up illegal tribunals to try to vindicate an illegal war and scream out to the world that "justice has been served!" And yet the american "opposition party" agree with these policies, they want this "Iraq war" and they "want to win!" So therefore, all americans support the war, right? I mean, all of their politicians do, and in the american "democracy" the government represents the people... right?

This editorial was on Pravda.ru :

The Iraqi high tribunal has just announced the death sentence of Saddam Hussein. This should surprise no one. In fact, no other outcome was ever possible. From the moment he was captured in his underground hideout, Saddam's fate was sealed.

Saddam Hussein and the others were convicted for crimes that happened almost 25 years ago. 148 members of the pro-Iranian Dawa Party were executed for attempting to assassinate Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. The executions followed a two year investigation, involving the torture and imprisonment of entire families, and judicial findings that 148 people were guilty of sedition for supporting Iran in the war and plotting to kill their own president.

While none of us would condone the mass execution of 148 people, we know little about what actually happened. Anonymous witnesses were brought forth, and in some cases, the witnesses did not even appear, but submitted affidavits instead. These people testified to the terrible experiences they and their loved ones had in prison. But whether they received fair trials, or were summarily executed, no one really knows. The transcript of the 1982 proceedings, and the evidence used to convict the defendants were excluded from the trial of Saddam Hussein. It's ironic that Saddam will be executed, essentially, for the unfair way in which these people were dealt with, yet his own trial was so unfair that the earlier proceedings and evidence were inadmissible.

Many have commented on the unfairness of Saddam's trial. Some have remarked that the trial is a political circus, searching for reasons to justify the war and the ongoing . Yet few see the larger issue, which is that the court itself is illegal under international law, setting a terrible precedent that overshadows the need to avenge crimes of the Iran-Iraq war.

...it continues...

1 comment:

misneach said...

honestly, I hadn't been paying much attention (actually, no attention whatsoever) to the "trial" (any lawyers/solicitors out there would shudder internally at such a liberal use of the term) of Saddam Hussein, as we all know that the verdict will be Guilty and the punishment will be whatever the Bush administration feels will be in their best Public Relations interests at the time of sentencing. As such, I didn't really know which of his genuine crimes he was being "tried" for, and it was only today (how many years after he was captured?) that I happened upon an article mentioning that parts of Iraq were under lockdown (sorry, I mean "curfew") for the time his verdict is to be read. A one-sentence paragraph in a BBC article got me thinking; the sentence was that he was charged with ordering the deaths of 148 Kurds in response to a supposed assassination attempt on him (now, need I bring up the action of Bill Clinton when he ordered the firing of a dozen or so cruise missiles into Baghdad in response to a supposed assassination attempt on Bush I, which killed hundreds of innocent civilians, including hundreds of children in a shelter in Baghdad?), and his ordering of these murders happened in 1982. When they mentioned 1982, something clicked... I thought, hey, what else happened that year? Well, there was the Israeli invasion and the beginning of the occupation of Lebanon, there was the end of the "war on poverty" in America and the official beginning of the "war on drugs" (aka lets-napalm-and-then-strip-mine-columbia)(must Americans always have a war?), all the nuclear tests by the US, USSR, Britain and France... and, oh yeah! Iraq was the first (and only!) country to be taken off the state sponsors of terror list!

Imagine if they had gotten Bush I or the late Reagan to testify at Hussein's trial...
Defence Attourney: So were you aware, Mr. President, that Saddam was carrying out a mass murder through the use of chemical weapons in northern Iraq?
Reagan: I think I don't remember.
Defence Attourney: Was there any indication, to you, that Saddam might have such chemical weapons and the intent to use them on members of his own population?
Reagan: There might have been...
Defence Attourney: How so?
Reagan: Well, we gave them to him...