Worse Than An Episode of Jerry Springer
So yeah, it's a fucking tacky, illegitimate circus, one that's doubtless doing more to hurt any real, valid case against the defendant than any possible exculpatory evidence ever could.
You know what? Rummy and other compromised Republican and corporatist factotums be damned -- this trial really should have happened at the I.C.C.
Oh, what, important Bushites might suffer were a fair trial to take place? Boo-hoo, too bad -- were people connected with this man and his regime to be tossed out of their seats of power in the American government, we'd all be better off anyway.
Howdy, Teh. I recall watching a doc about Pinochet where some arrogant (British or U.S.) prick huffed that it would set a dangerous precedent should a head of state be put on trial (the Brits 'hosted' Pinochet-- I'm guessing as a favor to the U.S.
-- to spare him from the reach of Spanish justice). I guess that depends on what better serves 'western interests' at the moment: the crimes themselves, or the show trial.
Anyway, in the workings of the ignorant, reactionary mind, a 'murderous tyrant' like Hussein doesn't deserve
a fair trial. We all know who Saddam's 'trial' is being played to, and it ain't the 'Iraqi people.'
Teh, you know it cannot go down fair and square. It ain't the Bush way.
Bush believes in stripping my freedom, wire taping my house, forcing me to have babies and then not offer public assistance,forcing Christmas on me and I am an American. You know, one half the people who voted for Kerry!
Saddam or anyone else for that matter doesn't have a prayer against Bush and his sociopathic posse of fools.
Just another day in the life of Bush-the-DicKtator-2006!
I'm sure you're right, CS, but it just goes to show you this occupation, and the knuckledraggers stateside who are cheering it on, don't give one single solitary flying fuck about Saddam's victims or the people of Iraq at large.
If they did, they would have insisted on a real trial.
"I'm guessing as a favor to the U.S.-- to spare him from the reach of Spanish justice). I guess that depends on what better serves 'western interests' at the moment: the crimes themselves, or the show trial."
Reading the rest of that article, CS, I find that you may have misunderstood parts of it. The US is accused of trying to secure Pinochet's release to Chile, not pursuing arrest to keep him out of Spanish courts. This is not the same as the current situation. Right now, we are witnessing a show trial. A trial that should be held in the Hague.
The US wanted Pinochet back in Chile. Mostly because we are unwilling to admit an error in our rather silly fight against Communism in the 1970s. The CIA and Nixon administration helped Pinochet secure power and propped him up, much like Saddam Hussein.
The US is accused of trying to secure Pinochet's release to Chile, not pursuing arrest to keep him out of Spanish courts.
According to the documentary, England's 'house arrest' served to keep Pinochet from Spanish clutches; Pinochet eventually returned to Chile, where he enjoyed virtual amnesty for a while. In a sense, England's and the U.S.'s intentions regarding Pinochet dovetailed nicely. Sorry for the lack of clarity there. As far as the U.S.'s motivations behind keeping Pinochet out of an international court, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
In the case of Hussein, Teh is right: this trial can't be fair and comprehensive, because a lot of Saddam's accessories to genocide and what-not are tight with the Bushies. The point of my comparison, also not made clear, was to demonstrate a U.S. propensity for preaching about justice, then going out of its way to deny justice to others.
Preach to the choir!
Freedom Camp | Blogger Templates by layoutstudios.com and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Learn how to Make Money Online at GeckoandFly