|
have in Saudi Arabia, or what's-his-name (can never remember his name) in Uzbekistan, or George Bush, for that matter (Stolen Election II). The key is recognition by other governments, and by the United Nations.
I believe that the UN took care of the legal legitimacy of the current Bush Cartel-imposed government of Iraq. That's the end of it. It should, in fact, be a UN protectorate, but the Bush Cartel had some more looting to do (of Iraqis and Americans), and wouldn't permit it.
I can't imagine Saddam ever being recognized again, even though his overthrow was completely illegal and a war crime. (Who is going to hold the Bush Cartel responsible? Really, only the American people can do that, if we ever recover our right to vote. The UN doesn't have the raw power that it would need to time-machine back to Saddam's rule, and there probably isn't anyone who would want to.)
But I have certainly thought that, if I were Saddam's lawyer, a good case could be made for the illegality of his overthrow, and the illegitimacy of the current gov't (and its right to try him). He WAS the legitimate, recognized head of Iraq at the time of the US invasion--an invasion for which we had no UN mandate, and no justification whatsoever at the time. It's interesting that this was among the first things that Saddam said, before they shut him up, at that first hearing (where press were present)--that he is the president of Iraq and that the court is illegitimate. As for his crimes, there are half a dozen heads of governments these days (at least) as guilty as Saddam of crimes against humanity, if not more guilty. Why aren't they on trial?
These legalities ARE important--very important--for this reason: If the niceties and forms of legitimacy are not followed, then the current, structured world of nations, and diplomacy and international law, could just crumble away, and those with the biggest armies would just invade and topple anyone weaker than themselves. This is the terrible precedent that the Bush Cartel has set.
So you address the president of Uzbekistan with respect, and permit him to send a representative to the UN on behalf of his country--even if you are aware than he boils dissidents in oil. If things get bad enough there--or he violates the niceties of international law and diplomacy (say, by invading a neighbor)--then the UN--if it can get major country support--might do a peacekeeping mission, as was done when Saddam invaded Kuwait. I know that was a crock, but that was the nicety being followed, and also being used as an excuse--because Saddam had decided to trade in euros, and had broken off with Rumsfeld and allied himself with the Russians.
But at least following the niceties (Bush I doing it through the UN) permits debate, dissent and time for all parties to think things through. (For instance, Saddam could have pulled out of Kuwait.) And the bulk of the countries of the world support this international order, which tends to keep people in line. It was all designed post WW II, to prevent another Hitlerian rise, and has worked, albeit imperfectly, until now. Now, it is the US that is way out of line--and has committed a war crime--and no one was able to stop them.
A bit of a backtrack: The US Senate could have stopped them--but had been anthraxed, and also had the example of Paul Wellstone to think about. And a number of Democrats, tied into the military-corporate complex, wanted war in the Middle East, and so willingly believed the lies about Iraq WMDs (despite UN inspectors info to the contrary). They put all sorts of caveats in their speeches--like, Bush making a sincere effort to get UN support (right)--but they really wanted war. Twenty-five voted against it, to their credit--but the other 25 made it a rout for Bush. (--100 in the House voted against it, not enough). And both houses have, since that time, larded the billions onto Halliburton, Bechtel and the rest of the war profiteers. A sorry tale.
So, I imagine that Bush and Cheney, if they were in the dock for their war crimes, could point to the US Congress, just as Saddam is pointing to his former legitimacy as head of government. (His elections were a bit more of a farce than Bush's--he got 90% of the vote, as I recall. Diebold and ES&S had the grace to re-install Bush with a rather slim margin--and had to really work the secret, proprietary programming, and had to combine with Rovian tactics in Ohio, to produce it. In short, they maintained the illusion of democracy, and its forms and some of its niceties.) (Shorting black precincts and purging black voters wasn't very nice, however.)
Do we want the edifice of international law to just come crumbling down? I don't think so.
Upshot? Saddam should not be in US hands, nor in the hands of a US-installed gov't in Iraq. He should be under UN supervision, or in the custody of the Hague (World Court). That's what SHOULD BE happening. That it is not happening is a great disorder and disturbance of the very delicate balance of international order. Saddam could very well argue that, and could ask for protection, or asylum somewhere--if they ever again permit him to speak.
He should properly be in the custody of the World Court, in my opinion, and should be tried for his crimes objectively and fairly--not by some kangaroo court under heavy US influence amidst the chaos of a US-caused civil war.
Are we vengeance seekers? Lynchers? Tribalists? A law unto ourselves? Or are we a lawful people? That is the question.
We have been holding hundreds of people in prison in Guantanamo Bay for years, with no charges against them, no court of law, no convictions. And we have furthermore tortured many people, there and in Iraq (and probably in secret prisons around the world). Is this what we have become? The world's outlaws?
I think we should act immediately to restore a sense of lawfulness and order in the world, and to signal our support of the UN and of the Geneva Conventions. And if that means foregoing Saddam's inevitable execution by the US-installed Iraqi gov't, so be it. This continued disorder is extremely dangerous; it is frightening other countries; and God knows what it could lead to.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
