In Moot Defense of Saddam
A "fair" trial does not include members of your defense team being shot to death.
A "fair" trial does not include the lead judge being removed for having the audacity to contradict other judges by declaring you "no dictator."
A "fair" trial does not include a panel of judges shaped by the very occupation force that attacked the country on the pretext that you were, in fact, a dictator whose activities were contrary to America's foreign policy objectives.
Saddam Hussein did not get a fair trial because a fair trial cannot exist under the present conditions in Iraq.
I include in this editorial no expected or required disclaimer about Saddam really, after all, being a dictator, a monster, a murderer, or whatever other word might display sufficient disapproval of him; and the reason I use no such word here is that I do not know beyond a reasonable doubt what is and what is not the truth about Saddam, the former Ba'athist regime in Iraq, or even Iraq, itself, either as it stands or as it was. Everythingeverythingabout Iraq has for years flowed to me and to just about every reader here through the filter of media in the West parroting propaganda pumped out by all manner of disreputable, suspect, and self-serving propagandists: Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and its paymasters in both the CIA and Iran, a cabal of American neo-conservatives drooling over the prospect of a live proving ground for their model of American global domination, the Israeli intelligence community, various Arab interests, and others, each of which had its own vested interest in toppling the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad.
Exactly how does the truth arise from a maze of lies that started with those that put and kept Saddam in power and then turned on him when he flexed the might of his military against Kuwait? How many readers know any of the grievances he had against the far wealthier country to the South? (Hint: try one that involved rich Kuwaitis feeding a thriving human trafficking trade in Iraqi women and girls for everything from housework to prostitution, an industry again alive and well.) How many readers here ever asked how in the Hell it was that the Presidential administration of George H.W. Bush knew for weeks before Saddam's invasion that he was massing troops in the South for what was obviously an impending attack on Kuwait, yet the U.S. was utterly incapable of doing anything at all about it before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait had to be rectified by a full-scale interventionary attack by a U.S.-led coalition?
Saddam Hussein's armed forces attacked Kuwait in 1990 because the latter country had such wealth that the Iraqis were willing to invade to take it? That's how the story went, and we swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
We attacked Iraq in 2002 because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Do readers here really think Americans were initially so wildly in favor of the war because of that, or have progressives figured out that the American public was ga-ga about the whole thing because we were by that invasion going to control the fourth largest reserve of crude oil on the planet?
Look at Iraq today. Find a military, geo-political, or even moral standard by which that country is now better than it was before our invasion. And for the bonus round, find a military, geo-political, or even moral standard by which this country is now better than it was before our invasion.
Hang Saddam? Let's watch the Iraqis do it, the same Iraqis who now live in an anarchy that the American media gravely but politely intones is on the verge of some "civil war," as if that over-used term even begins to describe what has already become of what was once a pro-Western power that served as a massive, unbreakable girder holding the Iranians in check to the West while those Persians were being held in check to the East by another of our subsequent basket cases, Afghanistan.
Hang Saddam? Let's watch George W. Bush and his neo-cons make this a crowning achievement in an alternative to Hussein that has cost as many as 650,000 Iraqi lives, nearly 3,000 American lives, and more than 300 billion dollars of American money, most of which we've borrowed from the ever-helpful Communist Chinese, to whom we shall one day not too long from now pay dearly for our self-delusion of being able to make the world just what we want it to be.
But, by God (or Allah, if you will), those Iraqis are going to learn to live in peace without fear of violence once Saddam gets his hands tied behind his back and chokes to death at the end of a noose. That'll teach those restive Iraqis how to resolve conflict without resorting to killing each other.
Yet one more fabulous step into a future degraded immeasurably and probably irreparably by the most incompetent cabal of fools who have ever tried to rule the world.
Even stipulating every nickel and dime of propaganda about Saddam Hussein, he was a mere piker compared to the man we haveby flag-waving support or ineffective oppositionallowed to be our leader these past six years; but George W. Bush will never get dragged kicking and screaming to the gallows. Unlike the Iraqis, we Americans were afforded the luxury of pretending that we chose our despot.
It would be terribly unseemly to then hang him for doing what he was expected to do.
The Dark Wraith has said his peace on this matter.