Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The fascinating trial of Saddam Hussein
What we have is a narrow sectarian government, still struggling to come up with a nationally inclusive constitution, that is conducting what looks like a show trial, borrowing noxious elements of Baathist law to speed the way toward an early and politically popular execution.
ABC News wondered whether Saddam would get a fair trial, or rather quoted unnamed "human rights groups" that claim he won't. The Times' news coverage this evening leads with Saddam's defense, rather than reporting the prosecution's arguments. (In fairness, perhaps the NYT assumes that we already know the prosecution's case. That assumption would be in error, but understandable.)
Taking all of this in, Power Line posed an interesting thought experiment: "[W]ho do you think will get more favorable treatment in the American press, Saddam or Tom DeLay, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby?" That's a toughie.
Wretchard, as usual, has the last word, at least as far as I'm concerned:
I wrote earlier that any trial of Saddam Hussein would automatically bring in recent history as a co-defendant. I guess that the "internationalists" feel they are the only ones with the moral authority to judge the former President of Iraq. To the question 'what law applies', their answer will be the 'international law' they have been at pains to construct. Any law but those of who at all events have disqualified themselves from all power of judgment by removing Saddam Hussein by force. Yet the "internationalists" cannot hold themselves entirely blameless. Implicit in Saddam's trial is the another question: 'how did such a monster carry on for so long in the face of an international system that pretends to civilization'? And would Saddam, even now, be gassing Kurds and throwing living human beings into woodchippers if any but those whose moral qualifications are now doubted not acted against him?
One gets the feeling that the editors of the New York Times don't read The Belmont Club. Their loss.
3 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Wed Oct 19, 11:47:00 PM:
"One gets the feeling that the editors of the New York Times don't read The Belmont Club. Their loss."
Something tells me that even if they read it, they wouldn't get it. They are simply too fixed into their worldview to change.
Perhaps some are amendable to change, but not all.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Oct 20, 08:09:00 AM:
And would [Bush], even now, be [torturing Arabs in U.S. prisons] and [rattling his saber at Iran in an effort to initiate another preemptive war of choice] if any [of] those whose moral qualifications are now doubted n[had] acted against him?
By cakreiz, at
Thu Oct 20, 09:53:00 AM:
There will be endless debate about the merits of preemptive action and WMDs But there's a sweet sense of justice in watching a tribunal headed by a Kurdish judge determine a butcher's fate.
