The Trial Of Saddam

Lost in the annals of American history is the fact that on the eve of the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban made an offer to Washington: We will hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country so that he can stand trial before an international tribunal if you will call off the invasion. It was summarily dismissed with the presidential comment: We do not negotiate with terrorists.

If we could turn back the pages, would we be so quick to dismiss the offer? Osama bin Laden remains at large and al Qaeda is a greater threat than ever. We have allied ourselves with a nation that has spread weapons of mass destruction to the world – including the "axis of evil" – and its ruthless dictator, General Pervez Musharef, while returning Afghanistan to the governance of warlords. As for the assertion that we do not negotiate with terrorists, it should not be forgotten that the Taliban did not attack this nation. However cruel and backward they may be, we were their allies as well and they inherited al Qaeda from the Reagan administration, when they were recruited, supplied and financed to fight the Soviets.

The real reason we did not consider the Taliban offer is the same reason we will not allow Saddam Hussein to be tried by an impartial international court of law: Any court that is not under American control will find America complicit in the crimes of the accused. So let us not hold our breaths for international justice. The trial of Saddam will be neither open nor impartial. It is debatable whether he will survive long enough to reach trial. Instead, let us try Saddam in the court of public opinion based solely on the facts that are a matter of public record.

Let us begin with the coup that brought Saddam to power. These were the days of Beirut, gas shortages, and the Iranian hostage crisis. With his well-documented Machiavellian nature and his intent to invade Iran, it is not only plausible but also probable that he was aided in his rise to power by American intelligence. What bargains were struck in those days of despotic glory we can only guess. What we do know is that America supported Saddam in his war with Iran. We provided him intelligence, knowledge and the precursors to chemical and biological weapons that he employed on the battlefield. We turned our backs and covered his at the United Nations when he wiped out the Kurds with toxic gas.

When Saddam determined to invade Kuwait, he sent his emissaries to the American embassy to ask what the American response would be. On two separate occasions, we replied that we had no interest and no obligation to defend Kuwait. Had we expressed the outrage that the elder President Bush would soon express, it is unlikely that Saddam would have proceeded and, therefore, the first Gulf War would not have followed.

What happened between the official statements of the State Department and the president’s complete turnabout? There is nothing on the record to justify his change of heart. We can only conclude that the invasion was preordained and our president deliberately misled Saddam to justify the war. Why?

The answer is as simple as it is obvious. Control of the Iraqi oil industry, once owned by British Petroleum, was slipping away from American hands. Saddam signed major contracts with Russia, France and Germany. It is not unreasonable to believe that this was the reason for our president’s inexplicable duplicity. Had Saddam betrayed the handshake deal of America’s emissary, Donald Rumsfeld? Let us call Rumsfeld to the stand. Let us ask questions that demand answers beyond the circular repartee to which he is accustomed.

Flash forward to the end of the Gulf War and the terms of Saddam’s surrender. Once again it is a matter of public record that Saddam was specifically empowered to fly armed helicopters to suppress the uprisings of the Kurds and the Shiites, who foolishly believed in America’s call to rebellion. Once again, we became allies in Saddam’s crimes against his own people.

In the years following the Gulf War, while the people of Iraq suffered under crippling sanctions, it has become accepted American mythology that Saddam repeatedly defied the United Nations in pursuing weapons of mass destruction. We call to the stand the former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, whose compelling testimony is on record and fully vindicated by the facts. He told us that the disarmament program was among the most successful in history despite America’s consistent attempts to subvert it. Incredibly, our government and media continued to pretend that Saddam kicked the inspectors out in both 1996 and 2003 when in fact it was America that pulled the plug to make room for American bombs. We pretend that the world was in absolute agreement that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction when in fact even the British and the Americans had to twist their intelligence to make the case for war.

These are the facts before us. What is the verdict? Is Saddam guilty of crimes against humanity? Yes, but he is not alone. Will the accused ever stand to face justice? Only in the conscience of the soul and, god willing, in the heart of the American electorate.

Editor's Note: This Chronicle was written December 30, 2003, two weeks after the capture of Saddam Hussein. A year later, he remains in custody with no trial in sight. Outside a few terse comments at his "arraignment," his words have never been allowed to reach the light of public scrutiny.

Jazz.

JACKRANDOM.COM
Home of Jack Random