I was watching the CBS news this morning during coverage of the Saddam trial. They showed a video clip whose audio was removed (censored) by the American "intelligence". As the viewers watched, we got to listen to the news commentators as they explained to us how evil and belligerent Saddam "looked".
They continued to play the clip for several minutes while they paraphrased what Saddam "may" have been saying. Including him denouncing the legitimacy of the court, and delcaring he is still the President of Iraq.
First of all, just how much of a democracy has the US bestowed on Iraq, when they continue to censor what should be a very public and transparent trial?
Second, doesn't Saddam have a point? His sovereign country was invaded and his government overturned in what was a questionable fashion. Must he recognize the new government or the legitimacy of the court? Should we be surprised by his reaction?
After all, the United States failed to recognize the authority of World Court when members of the administration were being charged and tried on charges of terrorism during the Iran-Contra fiasco.
And they further vetoed a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling on all states to obey international law.
And quite recently, we have had US state sponsored killing, torture and illegal confinement all under the authority of the Bush administration. Why isn't anyone considering charges against Mr. Bush in international court?
By no means construe this post as support for Mr. Hussein. I am merely pointing out some obvious faults in the whole affair that could jeopardize the legitimacy of any rulings in the newly formed Iraqi courts which appear to be heavily (mis)guided by the US.
One last point…if Saddam is formally charged and suffers the fate of being "hung by the neck until dead" can you imagine the huge backlash from his supporters? Would it be a wise thing to do?