Entry 239, on 2005-10-20 at 14:56:47 (Rating 4, News)
On the news this morning there was a discussion of the trial of Saddam Hussein. He is being charged with "crimes against humanity", of course, related to executions carried out under his control when he was in power. He doesn't recognise the validity of the court, and he has a point.
We know the American invasion of Iraq was illegal, so surely any court set up as a result must be viewed with suspicion. Clearly this whole trial is all part of a propaganda campaign to support the actions of the occupying forces.
I think its good that Saddam, who was a brutal dictator, is gone from power. But is Iraq really better off? And does a new government set up this way have any more real legal or moral authority than the one it replaces?
Another interesting point is this. Why is he being charged for this particular act, and not some of the even worse ones from his past? Could it be that the other atrocities were done with the help of the Americans, and that it would be somewhat embarrassing for them to charge someone for war crimes carried out with their help? That might be something to do with it. How cynical and hypocritical can the US administration get?!
Comment 1 by George on 2005-10-27 at 16:02:28:
You don't think Iraq is any better off? We did Iraq a big favour rescuing them from a dictator. So a few people died. War is hell!
Comment 2 by OJB on 2005-10-27 at 16:20:12:
If war is hell why does George Bush want to start so many? A few people died! Try over 100,000. Is that a few? Tell the friends and family of those people that it was a sacrifice worth making for the good of the US oil industry!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE