Gwynne Dyer
It's easy to tell the difference between the trial of Saddam Hussein and the Nuremberg tribunal. That was a grave and dignified affair; Saddam's trial is more like a French farce, with a large and confusing cast of characters who rush onto the stage to deliver a few lines and then vanish again. But it's a pretty black comedy: seven people associated with the trial, including two defense lawyers, have been assassinated since it began ... another defense lawyer has fled Iraq in fear of his life. ... would have been possible to try Saddam Hussein and his companions before an international court, too. ... But an international court would have had to try Saddam on charges of waging aggressive war (against Iran and Kuwait) and pursuing a policy of genocide (against the Kurds), which would have brought up all sorts of awkward history from the days when the U.S. and Saddam Hussein were effectively allies ... Washington's point of view, Saddam had to be tried in an Iraqi court .... judges will find Saddam guilty, no doubt, and then they will hang him as fast as possible. But the court is accomplishing the improbable feat of turning this monster of a man into a hero and a martyr in the eyes of many people across the Arab world, and even in Iraq itself.
0 comments:
Post a Comment