Now that Saddam has been captured, questions arise
as to the nature of the justice he will receive, and how such justice might be
compared to with those who apparently are not entitled to it.
The inevitable capture of Saddam Hussein,
inevitable given that recent specific descriptions of him using a taxi to get
around in, (which proved to be true) and given that some of his closest henchmen
have been recently captured seemed to indicate that his days were numbered,
raise questions of how justice will be administered, and of how such justice can
be compared to the fate of other combatants in the "war on terror." It seemed
apparent that the region in which he was hiding was confined - to the extent
that resources could be focused there, and unlike Osama Bin Laden, there was
little chance of Saddam finding sanctuary elsewhere in the middle east or other
The question I pose is as follows.
If it is considered valid to imprison lesser combatants in such hell-holes as
camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, with no charges laid, no contact with family, no
legal assistance, and apparently no legal status, why is it so important to
provide such reassurances about a fair and legal trial for the one whose guilt
is (apparently) beyond question? No-one knows how many of the wretched
inhabitants of Camp X-Ray are totally innocent, swept up in the fervour of
revenge and justification which followed the 9/11 atrocities. There were rewards
offered for people 'dobbing in' suspected Taliban supporters during the
Afghanistan war. Who is to say that people weren't fingered as an easy (and
profitable) way of dealing with an enemy, a debtor, a spurned lover or any one
of a thousand reasons why one could take advantage of a complete lack of legal
process to put someone out of the picture.
Even those who are guilty, (and it is
debatable whether people involved in an internal war well under way before the
US's intervention can be said to enemies of the US) are surely entitled, even as
lowly foot-soldiers, to justice, whereas the apparently most bloodthirsty and
murderous of all is accorded justice galore.
Not perhaps, because the US would prefer it
that way. The spectre of 600 heavily armed troops blasting an elderly man to
pieces in a hole in the ground is hardly heroic, and a pitched battle along the
lines of that which brought Hussein's sons to their bloody end would have been a
more suitable result for Mr Bush. The US did of course, attempt to blow Saddam
into eternity on many occasions during the course of the war, and success to
that end would have enabled the US to avoid a show trial, which obviously comes
with the danger of Saddam using the occasion to list ad infinitum, the support
he has received from the US. The US backed war against Iran, supplied weapons,
and supplied the ingredients for Saddam’s chemical warfare. The jovial
photo opportunities between Rumsfield and Saddam during the ‘eighties,
should all provide fascinating insights into the trial the US didn’t
necessarily want to have.
could be issued a subpoena, as a witness for the defence?
Posted: Thu - September 21, 2006 at 04:41 PM