before coming across some strange reactions to saddam's execution, i had no intention of blogging about the issue. i have no great insights to offer, but i at least know the difference between the icc and the world court. if persons unaware of this difference can make statements regarding saddam's death and the tragedy of iraq, i should be brave enough to blog. particularly since this blog was meant to aid me in articulating my thoughts.
yes, saddam's execution bothers me. yes, his farcical trial bothers me. what bothers me the most however, is that there are so many people who are not concerned by (or are unaware of) this.
if saddam's trial had truly been fair, he would not have been prosecuted for only the dujail massacre. if he had been prosecuted for all his crimes, including the destruction of the iraqi communist party and his invasion of iran, the terrible roles played by america, britain and other nations would have been revealed. saddam was a terrible dictator, but those who supported him are no better. genuine justice demands that all those involved in crimes are punished. and genuine justice is not the same as victor's justice.
i am astounded when i hear comments such as 'of course his trial was fair' or 'yes, there are other dictators who were not punished for their crimes, but anyway, it was saddam's time to die'. how can i argue with someone about saddam's sham trial when she is unaware of the principles of fair trial? and how can i argue with the notions of karma and fate?