In the face of death, happy sauce-loving, psychotic oddball exhorts his people not to hate the Jews, but nevertheless to unite against them.
The prosecution says, "We should be able to hang him within the next 30 days." The defense says, "They should not be allowed to hang him until 30 days have lapsed." Why is it that the defense and the prosecution cannot agree on what should be a very straightforward legalism? Simple: The ink, if any, hasn't yet dried on that particular clause. Why is it that President Talabani isn't even sure of his role regarding state executions -- whether he must sign off on one, for instance? Simple: There is no rule of law in Iraq.
Remember how Hussein was supposed to swing in time for the mid-term elections -- that is, until White House pollsters found the American people aren't yet half as gullible and are yet twice as cynical as they had previously estimated? Now, why do you suppose the answer to the question "Will he be executed?" has jumped from "yes" to "no" to "yes" again? And why has the proposed date for this strange fruit-viewing picnic jumped all over the place, with various contradictory legal justifications popping up at the oddest moments? Simple: because they're making it all up as they go along.
(Just this morning, one talking head, in response to the flapping of Heidi Collins's iridescent plastic lips, seemed to fault "government interference." In no way is that being vague or deliberately misleading: are we talking about interference by the American government, or Iraq's putative government? If the former, then yes disapprobation is in order. If he means the latter, however, it's as meaningless a phrase as the closer-to-home "judicial activism"; apart from the facts that a government should submit to checks and balances, and that writing and enacting laws is one job of governments, the other job being the judiciary's, to interpret and enforce those laws -- laws, by the way that in some cases have yet to be formulated -- apart from all that, we're talking about an incomplete government, one moreover that's a troop-surge away from collapse, and that exists only at the pleasure of George the Crusader and whatever rickety Shi'ite coalitions they can cobble together at any given time. Granted, our talking head -- analyst, my ass -- did mention how the mostly unnamed architects of the trial were trying to hew closely to international law. Needless to say, he also successfully elided why Hussein's bad noose is not being delivered by the ICC.)
For some reason, a makeshift court is conducting this trial. Were it an actual international court, we wouldn't be privy to half as many horrifyingly embarrassing pratfalls. He'd be at the Hague, doing the Nuremburg Shuffle. Judges wouldn't have to recuse out of fear for their own lives or the lives of their families. We'd know exactly how many appeals the guy's supposed to get, what his rights are and aren't, and in just whose custody he's supposed to be. The bloodthirsty could have their satisfaction, and the rest of us could partake of the edifying spectacle of real justice.
So why doesn't international law have anything to do with this? Yes, there is the American Right's traditional kneejerk animus towards the black helicopters and blue helmets of the New World Order. There are also the exigencies of public relations, which require that any trial not prosecuted by the victims of the accused and not supervised unilaterally by the United States must appear a failure of Bush "policy." But mainly because of one cringe-worthy, ear- and cheek-searing detail: Rumsfeld and anyone else from Reagan's cabinet who abetted Hussein's murderous behavior would be sitting on the defense bench right with him.
