President Bush says he wants the Iraqi people to conduct the trial of Saddam Hussein, the dictator toppled by the Bush-led invasion who rose to power on American shoulders but got out of hand fast.
But will it really be the Iraqi people conducting the trial? Or will it just be another American sham? A kangaroo court managed by puppets handpicked by the Bush administration t appear to be legal when in fact we all know the fix is in.
Why isn’t Saddam Hussein being turned over to the International Court in the Hague where other dictators and tyrants are tried?
You can’t blame people in the Arab and Muslim World from concluding that Bush has two "Rules of Law," one for him and one for his enemies. Clearly, Saddam Hussein is more of a personal enemy for Bush than an enemy of the United States. It’s Bush’s conduct of the war against Saddam Hussein that is in question, not the need to prosecute Saddam Hussein.
And Bush’s conduct has been questionable. The fact is that a case can be made before the International Criminal Court that the American war on Iraqi was criminal, and that the conduct of some American soldiers in Iraq is criminal, too.
The only justice for Saddam Hussein will be "Bush justice," which is not justice at all. Vigilantes who hung accused criminals, guilty or not, were just as guilty of murder themselves, and the Bush administration is a modern day vigilante mob. That’s why Bush opposes the International Criminal Court and wants Saddam Hussein tried outside of the International court system.
In 2002, Bush pushed through a law that vowed to forcibly "rescue" any American who is brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
In May 2002, Bush renounced the U.S. signature on the treaty creating the ICC. A month later, he vetoed continuation of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia in an effort to obtain permanent immunity for U.N. peacekeepers. In July, U.S. officials launched a campaign around the world to obtain bilateral agreements that would grant immunity for Americans from the court’s authority. The first country it muscled into supporting its position was Romania.
However, another provision of the bill allows the United States to assist international efforts to bring to justice those accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity – including efforts by the ICC.
There is a serious argument to be made that President Bush violated international law in unilaterally invading Iraq on March 19 and may be guilty of murder, too.
The charges would start with Bush’s attempted murder of Saddam Hussein and his family that same morning. The missile attacks missed the Iraqi dictator but resulted in the murder of scores of other innocent Iraqi civilians who were in the building.
The killings caused in that strike have been covered up by Bush, but it doesn’t stop there.
The war was justified on the assertion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. In fact, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States – he only aggravated Bush’s father, the former president who admitted publicly that he "hates" the Iraqi leader and he refused to abide by the demands of the United Nations. But the United Nations was in the process of responding to Saddam Hussein. Bush couldn’t do anything about that, but he could avenge his father’s hate.
Bush said Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction. In fact, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, save those brought to Iraq by the invading aggressors of the United States military.
But the alleged criminal behavior does not stop there. Since the war began and even long after it ended, American soldiers have been involved in numerous incidents where they have killed innocent Iraqi civilians. There is no accountability or explanation.
In fact, officials of the invasion army have declared they will stop counting Iraqi civilian deaths.
To avoid answering these charges, Bush wants Saddam Hussein prosecuted outside of the established International courts. And that is a crime on its face that is no less horrendous, immoral or unjust than anything Saddam Hussein has been accused of.
Saddam Hussein may be a tyrant guilty of every horrendous crime he has been accused of, from the gassing of the Kurds in 1988 and the brutal oppression of minority and political opposition.
There is no difference between someone responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians and someone responsible for killing only "a few" innocent civilians.
Saddam Hussein’s defense is that the people he killed were judged guilty by his corrupt regime. How is that any less criminal than being judge guilty by an equally corrupt system headed by President George W. Bush?