This really is nuts, ain't it?
I mean, how did a guy who runs (ran) a little country half way around the world loom so large in North American politics and news?
Anyways, I find it mildly interesting that the US would be so happy with this "trial" (quotes included since the outcome of a trial is supposed to be somewhat in doubt, normally).
See, as far as I can tell, no one has accused Hussein of actually pulling any triggers, of actually killing anyone. But then again, I don't know the details of this trial (does anyone?).
My point is this: having a leader hanged because he ordered the death of civilians is an interesting precedent. I mean, it ain't like civilians haven't died due to the orders of Mr. Bush et al. Have they?
Argue all you want that it isn't on the scale of "crimes against humanity", but surely there are degrees of guilt in the "let's make leaders accountable" judicial system, no?
How about...I don't know...manslaughter. Is that ok? Surely the boys of Law & Order could make those charges stick. 'Cause we're accountable here in the West, right? I mean, we hold our leaders to account, yes? We judge them as we would hope other leaders would be judged, right? What's good for the goose and all that?
Heck, even Michael Ignatieff, a political neophyte, was able to deduce that Bush had authorized a modern-day war crime (oops - don't use that term in the West. We save that one for Nazis and Iraqi leaders and some Eastern European folk).
I'm not saying Hussein is innocent - like I said, I don't know the facts - but I do know that leaders are normally hanged thanks to a mob, not a court. If we're claiming this trial was on the up-and-up and that leaders should be accountable in this fashion, let's take a real long look at the thickness of the glass walls before we start chucking stones.
Know what I mean, GB?