The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
At 04:12 AM 12/19/03, you wrote: >Dear Peter & List, > >The issue of putting Saddam on trial is indeed a very >complicated one. The article referred to by Muhammad >attempts to portray the trial of Saddam in Iraq as a >step towards returning sovereignty to the people of >Iraq. Forget about the fact that Iraq remains under >occupation; forget the Geneva conventions; forget that >the attack on Iraq was in itself a violation of >international law and a war crime; forget that only a >sovereign state can have a sovereign legal system... >How can a state be sovereign under occupation?? This is a very key point. What are the reasons for trying Saddam? Deterence for other would-be dictators? No -- that threat would never stop a man of great ambition. Justice? How is possible to sort out any idea of justice considering the complexity of circumstance? To keep Saddam from regaining power? He can hardly do that with the negative sentiment against him in Iraq, and the lack of US the support which he relied on to start. There are two (three) reasons. The first is to give a sense of satisfaction and resolution to the survivers of his brutality. The second is to establish a semblance of law and sanity, to try to re-establish standards of a leaders behavior and responsibility, and to help legitimize the presence of a real Iraqi government. For this to happen, an elected Iraqi government is required -- else it must be a farce. And the third reason -- that from the US point of view would be disasterous -- is to bring out all the facts. It is this consequence, which the US will resist, and by so doing defeat the first two purposes. A kangeroo court run by the US or its puppets can not resolve the issues, nor provide a sense of justice to the victims if the US support for Saddam is unanswered. Neither will satisfaction -- or retribution, of one wishes -- be satisfied unless the Iraqis make the judgements, and not an invader. A kangeroo court will also repress the evidence and testimony implicating the US and Europe in hold Saddam had, and in the role of the sanctions in providing him with a situation where his power was enhanced. The situation, then, is one where the only proper action is to put any trial on hold until the situation in Iraq is resolved and they have a real Iraqi government of their own making. Anything else must result in dissatisfaction, more pain and anger, confusion of issues and truths, and further strife among the Iraqi factions. Given Bush's propensity to rush into a situation blindly, and "follow his gut" (which is apparantly composed largely of the extreme ideologues who talk in his ear, and his strange pseudo-religious convictions), it is probable that the situation will be completely botched. It will be the "classic compromise" where no one will be happy with the outcome. _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk