Saddam Hussein was not allowed to see the first light of 2007. Rightly so, albeit for the wrong reasons. Massacring 148 villagers may very well be a crime punishable by death, but it was certainly not Saddam's worst crime. He was never convicted, and thus never punished, for the crimes of aggression against Iran and Kuwait, which caused the deaths of more than a million people.
During his trail and up to his execution he remained in U.S. custody, in the hands of the occupying power which invaded Iraq based on lies and false premises. If Saddam deserves to face the hangman's noose, so do the Commanders-in-Chief of the invading forces, Bush and Blair.
Many ministers of European countries condemned the execution because they are against the death penalty. The death penalty should not be carried out for ordinary murder like in the U.S., but crimes against peace, crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity deserve the highest penalty.
The gold medal for hypocrisy should perhaps go the Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht, who declared that Saddam deserved the death penalty, but that it shouldn't be carried out. Twisted logic – in that case, why impose the death penalty at all?
The year 2007 will be free of Saddam the war criminal, but other war criminals remain heads of state or government. In a world where justice reigns, the hangman would not be without a job.
No comments:
Post a Comment