IRAQ WAR - LOOKING GLASS NEWS | |
The Show Trial of the Century |
|
by Ghali Hassan The Centre for Research on Globalisation Entered into the database on Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 09:59:49 MST |
|
Saddam trial is a theatre. It is a Hollywood show to divert attention
from the destruction of Iraq and the massive war crimes committed against the
Iraqi people. Like the invasion, the “tribunal” is illegal and has
no legitimacy in occupied Iraq President Saddam Hussein's “trial” before a U.S.-orchestrated Kangaroo
Court is hailed as the “trial of the century”. Those who committed the crimes are rewarded and protected, while their victims
are put on a show trial. It is not Saddam who is on trial; it is the international legal system. According to Professor Charif Bassiouni of DePaul University, an expert on
International Criminal Law and former U.N. human rights investigator in Afghanistan:
“All efforts are being made to have a tribunal whose judiciary is not
independent but controlled, and by controlled I mean that the political manipulators
of the tribunal have to make sure the U.S. and other western powers are not
brought in cause. This makes it look like victor's vengeance: it makes it seem
targeted, selected, and unfair. It's a subterfuge”. This is the accurate definition of a Kangaroo Court. “The Americans are
intent on making this pure theatre, a show trial”, said one of Saddam’s
lawyers. Saddam trial is a theatre. It is a Hollywood show to divert attention from
the destruction of Iraq and the massive war crimes committed against the Iraqi
people. Like the invasion, the “tribunal” is illegal and has no
legitimacy in occupied Iraq. There is overwhelming prima facie evidence to convict
George W. Bush and Tony Blair of crimes against humanity than to convict Saddam
Hussein. Under the U.N Convention, Bush and Blair are guilty of crimes against
humanity, torture, and guilty of wanton destruction of the Iraqi state. The reality is; the U.S. and its allies are not interested in a trial per se;
they are interested in the humiliation of all Arabs. Saddam is an Arab and a
Muslim. He is used as a symbol to further demonise Arabs and Muslims. The trial
is seen in the West as if all Arab leaders are on trial. It is orchestrated
and controlled by Western imperialism. It is a show trial for bullying and intimidation. The self-appointed Arab leaders or despots have failed to provide not only
a strong economy, but also failed to build a defence against Western imperialism
and remain vulnerable to its wrath at any time. Today, Arabs are sandwiched
between Zionism and imperialism. Their armies are only there for the purpose
of protecting them from the disfranchised masses. They betrayed everything Arab
and everything Muslim, and failed to understand the danger of imperialism-Zionism
ideology. The show trial provides Western journalists, pundits, and Western (mostly U.S.-based)
human rights organisations and NGOs the opportunity to show their loyalty to
the Occupation and imperialism. Saddam was demonised for more than 15 years
that he represents the epitome of everything bad today. Despite the complete
lack of knowledge of the man, every journalist and pundit has something to say
about Saddam. Saddam is resurrected to become part of Western schools curricula.
One hopes that the curricula will include Saddam achievements including, the
best education system and the best health care services in the Middle East.
Saddam provided complete rights for women, before the U.S. destroyed every thing. Remember, during the Saddam regime, human rights organisations and journalists
had no problem to go to Iraq and report on the human rights condition there.
Always negative, of course. They visited detainees in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere
with considerable access. However, since the invasion and occupation of Iraq
by U.S. forces, human rights organisations and journalists almost completely
refrained from even mentioning the massive abuse of human rights of the Iraqi
people by U.S. forces and their collaborators. These same organisations who
visited Iraq freely before the invasion, have no right to be anywhere in Iraq
today. Their meagre reports were only designed for deception. It is not surprising to hear Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch
(HRW) criticising the so-called “Iraqi tribunal”. This is the way
imperialism works. “We have grave concerns that the tribunal will not
provide the fair trial guarantees required by international law”, said
Richard Dicker of HRW. Can you imagine HRW “have great concerns”
for the rights of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – men, women and children
– who have been arrested, imprisoned, abused and tortured without charges?
Is Saddam responsible for the slaughter of the hundreds of thousands of innocent
Iraqis, mostly women and children? HRW and AI express no concern for the deliberate starving of the Iraqi population
by U.S. forces. Only when the wrong person is in the dock, does one hears the rumbling of human
rights organisations and NGOs. Saddam’s show trial constitutes an opportunity
for HRW, AI and the rest of Western NGOs to camouflage the war crimes committed
by the occupying forces. In this regard, they constitute tools of Western imperialism. It should be borne in mind that all the allegations against Saddam are unsubstantiated
and there is no evidence that Saddam is personally responsible for the alleged
crimes. The charge “is totally empty… In France, any judge would
dismiss the case. It would not even go to trial”, said Andre Chami, a
French lawyer in Saddam’s defence team. Indeed, some of the allegations
against Saddam regimes have been refuted by the UN and credible Western officials.
The allegations against Saddam and Iraq were made by Western journalists, expatriate
conmen, and Western-based human rights organisations and NGOs. Moreover, even
if Saddam committed crimes, the crimes were committed with the full complicity
and support of Western leaders, and Western media. It is not Saddam who is guilty of crimes against humanity; Bush and Blair are.
The invasion and destruction of Iraq constitute an illegal act of aggression
“contravened the UN charter” and international laws. “Only
the most incorrigible legalists can pretend to be shocked by the conclusion
that the perpetrator of an aggressive war acts at peril of being punished for
his perpetration, even if no tribunal has ever previously decided that perpetration
of an aggressive war is a crime”, wrote, Telford Taylor, assistant of
the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, at the Nuremberg Trial. “To
initiate a war of aggression”, said the Nuremberg Tribunal's judgment,
“is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime
differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated
evil of the whole”. Sadly, the wrong people are in the dock in Baghdad. No one has articulated the case of war crimes and crimes against humanity against
George Bush better than Francis A. Boyle, a professor of Law and an expert on
International Law at the University of Illinois. In countless documents, Professor
Boyle shows how the Nuremberg principle can be used to indict the Bush administration.
Boyle writes: “In international legal terms, the Bush Jr. administration
itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under
international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg
Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, due to its formulation and undertaking
of aggressive war policies that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the
Nazi regime”. In addition, article 6(b) of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter defined the term “War
crimes” to include: “... wanton destruction of cities, towns or
villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity...” Thus
the destruction of Iraqi cities, including Fallujah, Ramadi, Hillah, Tel Afar,
Baghdad etc. constitutes the wanton destruction of cities, and “it is
certainly not justified by ‘military necessity’, which is always
defined by and includes the laws of war”, writes Francis Boyle. Professor Richard Overy of King’s College London, a leading authority
on the Nuremburg Trial and International Law, accurately describes the way the
international legal system works. He writes: “International law works
only against weaker states. Big powers have an unmerited, but unassailable,
[self-induced] immunity”. “What had happened in Iraq was a major
crime against humanity, and Bush and Blair could be in the dock” and the
principles of international legal system should apply in trying them. Justice
is not achieved by a show trial; it is achieved by a fair trial. |