John He Is As Are Americans At War
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It has long been said, "war is the last [best] option." Human beings, in an attempt to appear rational, reason that of course, diplomacy is preferred. Man-kind [sic] says he will do all in his power to pursue peace. Once domestic tranquility is achieved, two-legged mammals will do what they must to preserve harmony. Then this logical creature claims he must defend himself against all enemies. He will fight for what is right. Man forgets; what is ethically essential to gain and retain peace is the principle, "War must never be an option."
John He Is As Are Americans At WarAs long as man muses, "if need be we will go to battle," then combat is not a possibility; it is a probability. Centuries of conflict have proven this theory true. Yet, humans continue to deny the validity of argument.
Mankind massacres; yet, endures. People engage in what they actually believe is inevitable, war. Feuds flourish. The desire to exert power supersedes the serenity people proclaim is their deepest desire.
When Presidential hopeful John McCain states the obvious, self-identified, peaceful Progressives raise their arms in disbelief. Humans willing to endorse a candidate, indeed, two, or three who choose to engage in combat are outraged by the notion that warfare is forever.
Those who lean left forget they follow leaders intent on the kill. Combative campaigners call a vicious act or attack triumphant.
Hillary Clinton told us of her desire. For the former First Lady, who belatedly quarrels with a war in Iraq, more troops must be moved to Afghanistan.
Barack Obama, like Clinton offers a conditional and tepid plan to withdraw soldiers from the land Saddam Hussein once governed. Obama also plans to shift the battle to Afghanistan if he becomes Commander-In-Chief. For each of the potential Presidents, war is absolutely an option. Physical combat is profound and preferred.
American Progressives see and hear John McCain state his belief, war is inevitable. These peaceful persons wince. Another person who promises to lead citizens of the United States as Commander-In-Chief, is perhaps a realist. He reminds "civil" rights advocates of a reality that hurts. Humans are not logical; nor is man-kind [sic] benevolent to all equally. Warm blooded beings languish in the wind of emotional battles, and shall do so through eternity, or so it would seem based on what was, and continues to be the traditional battle cry.
I've got to give you straight talk, my friends. This is a tough war we're in. It's not going to be over right away. There's going to be other wars, I'm sorry to tell you. There's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.
John McCain presumes what the Democrats propose. The locations may differ. The pronouncement is posed in a less ominous manner; nonetheless, a war is a war, is a war.
"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" . . . "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
Bomb, bomb, bomb, Afghanistan or Iran. Civilian casualties will not be collateral, incidental, or accidental damage. In a skirmish, slaughter is intentional. A Liberal offender is no less liable.
"I am still convinced withdrawal means chaos," he said, "and if you think things are bad now, if we withdraw you ain't seen nothing yet."
Ah, that which humans have never seen is what they dare to imagine, peace. Perhaps, if Americans were to withdraw, harmony will be possible.
The point is it’s American casualties. We’ve go to get American’s off the frontlines, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities, and then I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there for one hundred years or a thousand years or ten thousand years. What they care about is the sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that's American blood. So what I'm saying is, look, if Americans are there in a support role but they're not taking casualties, that's fine.
"Fine," as defined, is the future for humans who engage in battles. The Arizona Senator, and Republican aspirant, does not actually differ from the Democratic hopefuls. McCain claims what has been true throughout history, and will be accurate forever, if the current crop of candidates, Republican or Democrat, does as declared.
America can endlessly occupy other nations without the loss of a countryman's life and citizens will not complain. For people who reside in the "land of the free and home of the brave" [sic], as long as all within the clan are comfortable, life is good.
McCain says nothing of the fallen foreign born. Nor do the Democrats decree all murders must stop. The Presidential hopefuls need not mention the millions of lives lost among the "adversaries." Self-interest is significant. Empathy is not essential. Indeed, compassion can hinder a being, a leader, and a nation intent on destruction.
It seems obvious, if citizens of the States are not sacrificed, as far as Americans are concerned, war can continue, and it will, perhaps be good for the country, for profiteers who manufacture weaponry, or at least, for John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and all others who allow for this option.
Perchance, it is time for two-legged creatures; particularly those who profess a preference for peace, to assess them selves rather than rant against another perceived enemy. John McCain is but a mirror. He reflects what humans accept. The representation is real. If man-kind [sic] is ever to achieve harmony, if shared serenity is to become standard, every individual must declare, "War will never be an option!"
Promote a Peaceful Progressive Platform . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 12, 2008 at 03:00 PM in Afghanistan, Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Change the World [Within], Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Exit Iraq Now, Hillary Clinton, Humans, Self-Destructive, Iran, Iraq War, Killing Machines, Military Missions, Philosophy, Violence, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Why War? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Giuliani Attacks Ron Paul; Disputes Theological Theories
Ron Paul on CNN talking about the debate 5-16-07.mpg
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
I marvel at the ignorance, the ability to "ignore" information or the lack of knowledge expressed by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. While the Mayor may wish to accentuate his actions during the September 11, 2001 clean-up operations, how can he negate a lesson that we all learn over time. "What we do unto others, will be done unto us." Rarely, if ever does any being attack another without what they believe to be reason.
Even if the broadly "accepted" theory were true, "they hate us for what we have," I doubt the rage would be quite so deep. Often, people strive to obtain what they covet. America has "played" in the Middle East for decades. We want their oil. However, when humans feel victimized, they react. As theologians might remind us, it is "an eye for an eye" often motivates brutal aggression.
To state that he, Giuliani has never heard the contention Congressman Ron Paul made during the May 15, 2007 Republican debate is ludicrous. Where might the Mayor have been in the last six years? For that matter where was he as a child. Did Mayor Giuliani merely walk onto the scene of a crime against humanity and declare this is unwarranted, unprovoked, and unnecessary?
What some think of as "just," may seem unreasonable to another. The person inflicting pain thinks his or her behavior is apt. The individual or group attacked has a different perspective. The roles are often reversed simultaneously. Ultimately, we must acknowledge that every [wo]man has a reason for each reaction. If only we might walk a mile in the moccasins of others before we engage militarily.
Cable News Network contributor Roland Martin phrases a similar thought in this manner. "We need to understand history and how it impacts what is happening today." He offers a brilliant assessment of the recent rhetoric. Martin writes . . .
What has been overlooked is that Paul based his position on the effects of the 1953 ouster by the CIA of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.Ahhh, Mister Martin, I love your musings. For me, your words sing of truth. This text might be considered biblical in its proportions. The conclusion you offer is as Congressman Paul claims, the essence of his message. Were it not for time, Ron Paul would have liked to utter the Testament phraseAn excellent account of this story is revealed in Stephen Kinzer's alarming and revealing book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq," where he writes that Iran was establishing a government close to a democracy. But Mossadegh wasn't happy that the profit from the country's primary resource -- oil -- was not staying in the country.
Instead, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known British Petroleum, or BP) was getting 93 percent of the profits. Mossadegh didn't like that, and wanted a 50-50 split. Kinzer writes that that didn't sit too well with the British government, but it didn't want to use force to protect its interests. But their biggest friend, the United States, didn't mind, and sought to undermine Mossadegh's tenure as president. After all kinds of measures that disrupted the nation, a coup was financed and led by President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA, and the Shah of Iran was installed as the leader. We trained his goon squads, thus angering generations of Iranians for meddling in that nation's affairs.
As [Ron] Paul noted, what happened in 1953 had a direct relationship to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979. We viewed that as terrorists who dared attack America. They saw it as ending years of oppression at the hands of the ruthless U.S.-backed Shah regime.
As Americans, we believe in forgiving and forgetting, and are terrible at understanding how history affects us today. We are arrogant in not recognizing that when we benefit, someone else may suffer. That will lead to resentment and anger, and if suppressed, will boil over one day.
Does that provide a moral justification for what the terrorists did on September 11?
Of course not. But we should at least attempt to understand why.
Think about it. Do we have the moral justification to explain the killings of more than 100,000 Iraqis as a result of this war? Can we defend the efforts to overthrow other governments whose actions we perceived would jeopardize American business interests?
"[T]he children will pay for the sins of their fathers."The United States is certainly paying for the sins of our fathers. It is said that salvation comes through work. Salvation is motivated by love. Americans profess to believe, 'Love they neighbor as you love thyself.' Yet, often we do not. Thus, our country might reap as we sow.
Former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark often reflects as Ron Paul did. In a recent interview with Cable News Network Correspondent Wolf Blitzer, the two address the sanctions imposed on Iraq. Again, Americans accept, allow, and advance policies that are contrary to religious teachings.
On the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Lawyer, legal scholar, and Civil Rights Activist Ramsey Clark recounted American history. In a reflective speech, Clark recalled . . . . .
The most fundamental, dangerous and harmful violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on its fifteenth birthday is economic sanctions imposed on entire populations. The United States alone blockades eleven million Cubans in the face of the most recent General Assembly resolution approved by 157 nations condemning the blockade, with only the United States and Israel in opposition. The entire population of Cuba and every Cuban has had the "right to a standard of living adequate for health and well being... including food, clothing, housing and medical care" deliberately violated by the United States blockade.Are we to believe that causing hunger, illness, and distress equates to loving our brethren as we would ourselves. Such hypocrisy, I believe breeds the brutality that befalls us and did on that day of infamy. Congressman Paul and the Iraq Study Commission Report concur. There is little excuse for obfuscating the facts and for occupying another nation. What Americans do and have done is not democratic; nor will our behavior advance egalitarian principles.Security Council sanctions against Iraq, which are forced by the United States, have devastated the entire nation, taking the lives of more than 1,500,000 people, mostly infants, children, chronically ill and elderly, and harming millions more by hunger, sickness and sorrow. The sanctions destroy the "dignity and rights" of the people of Iraq and are the most extreme form of "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," which are prohibited by the Declaration.
Despite the cruelest destruction of the most basic human rights and liberties of all the people in Iraq, including rights to medicine, safe drinking water and sufficient food, the United States government, with the major mass media in near perfect harmony, proclaims itself the world's champion of liberty and human rights. The problem as Lincoln surely knew is not merely one of definitions. It is a problem of power, will, and accountability. The United States intends to have its way and serve its own interests, with Iraq, Cuba, Libya, Iran, the Sudan and many other countries whatever the consequences to the liberties and rights of those who live there.
The United States control over and its concerted action with the mass media enables it to demonize such countries, its victims, for "terrorism," threats to world peace and human rights violations at the very time it rains Tomahawk cruise missiles on them and motivates and finances armed insurrections and violence against them. At the same time, the United States increases its own staggeringly large prison industry, more than a million persons confined, including 40% of all African American males between 17 and 27 years old in the State of California.
Simultaneously the U.S. spends more on its military than the ten largest military budgets of other nations combined, sells most of the arms and sophisticated weapons still increasing worldwide while rejecting an international convention to prohibit land mines and an international court of criminal justice. And the U.S. maintains and deploys the great majority of all weapons of mass destruction existent on earth, nuclear, chemical, biological and the most deadly of all -- economic sanctions.
Man's inhumanity to man explains much of what we are witnessing today. This construct defines much of what we are part of and propagate.
I ask us all to imagine what the world might be like if Americans used the ingenuity we often speak of to originate peace and prosperity for all, equally.
If citizens of this gluttonous country did not build a nation dependent on petroleum, would wars be as they are. At least, the magnitude of these might be less. Man devises the fuel consuming machines that now drive him.
Granted, humankind might find another cause for hatred. Nonetheless, if we, the people create a world whose mission is balance, if we work to live in harmony with nature, and did not choose to fight our fellow man for fossil fuels perchance the perils would be fewer.
Those on the "Right," frequently considered religious, G-d fearing followers of Ten Commandments, might do well to honor the laws of the Lord Almighty.
'Thou shalt not kill.'
'Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Then the sanctimonious "religious right" might know as atheists and agnostics experience. Violate the Golden Rule; you, and your progeny shall be damned. If the Lord does not admonish you for your brutal behaviors or reprimand you for your voracity, your fellow man or woman will.
References, Resources, Religious, and Human Rights . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 19, 2007 at 09:11 PM in Aggression, Brutality, Self-Defense, Elections, Ethics, God Bless, Iraq War, Oil, Politics, Presidential Politics, Price of Petroleum, Religious Right, Spread Democracy, Terrorism, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit] | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Boasts of Military Service, Gerald R. Ford's ©
This morning I stood in the kitchen and watched the ceremony. Former President Gerald R. Ford was laid to rest. Dignitaries spoke in memorial. Of course, the current President of the United Sates was asked to address a mournful audience. His words surprised me and did not.
Days earlier, at the first official commemoration of President Ford, there were no signs of George W. Bush. Our nation's leader was busy planning his war. Finally, he decided to fix a strategy in stone. Sadly, the plan is surge. This decision flies in the face of a Ford proposal released last week. However, that matters not. George W. Bush trusts that history will receive him well. Bush will be considered steadfast as he "stays the course" regardless of success.
Thus, the junior George could not be bothered with ritual rites of passage when Ford's body first arrived for viewing in the Capital. For George W. Bush the thought of travel to Washington District of Colombia seemed far away. Young Bush always preferred Crawford, Texas. He longs for more time on the ranch. The death of a President is no reason to shorten a "working vacation."
When Bush junior was asked to consider the prospect of returning to the beltway and honoring the former President fully, he likely reflected on the recently reported interviews. For two years prominent journalist, Bob Woodward met with Gerald Ford. They discussed the situation in Iraq, the Bush plan or lack there of, and Ford's own former staff members, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The elder statesman, now citizen Gerald R. Ford had little good to say. He disagreed with the initial strategy and from his words; we could surmise the now proposed "surge" was not a welcome coming.
It might be assumed; Gerald R. Ford was reprimanding George W. Bush; he disapproved of the attacks on Iraq. Although President Ford insisted the interviews and his opinions not be made public until after his passing, oh, the timing of his departure left much to be desired in the Wonderful World of Bush. Perchance Bush contemplated and concluded, the gall of Jerry Ford. How dare this former statesman ridicule me publicly? How could President Ford question the judgment of a man that followed his lead? George W. chose a Cabinet reminiscent of former President Ford's. For forty-three, that demonstrated the ultimate respect for the man, Ford, and his choices.
Then there was the press, the punitive gesture from the former President.
In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.George may have been miffed. He may not have felt revered himself; thus, he would reciprocate. He would show no reverence. For a Bush boy like George W. one rebuke deserves another. By staying in Crawford, revenge would be his."Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
The Ford interview -- and a subsequent lengthy conversation in 2005 -- took place for a future book project, though he said his comments could be published at any time after his death. In the sessions, Ford fondly recalled his close working relationship with key Bush advisers Cheney and Rumsfeld while expressing concern about the policies they pursued in more recent years.
"He was an excellent chief of staff. First class," Ford said. "But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious" as vice president. He said he agreed with former secretary of state Colin L. Powell's assertion that Cheney developed a "fever" about the threat of terrorism and Iraq. "I think that's probably true."
Hummmph! Criticize my calculations, my management style, my strategy, and my men. The great George W. Bush would have none of that. The President, after much pondering might have resolved he would not attend the funeral until ultimately, by all rights and reason he had to.
There were six days of mourning; George W. Bush participated only for moments.
When George W. Bush did finally eulogize the man of character in the formal church observance, he spoke well of the Mister Ford. However, his words haunt me. The current President of the United States has never seen battle, though he sends thousands to fight and die for his cause. Our strong and strident leader, in his youth, and even now, while in office, has done all that he could to avoid the front lines. Then in memorial he says while standing in front of church audience, America, and the Ford family . . .
Mrs. Ford, the Ford family; distinguished guests, including our Presidents and First Ladies; and our fellow citizens: . . .Yikes! As I listened, I was struck. I stood still, my mouth wide open and eyes crinkled. I thought aloud, "Did George W. Bush just say that?" Could he speak so highly of a deed he never contemplated and still think himself an honorable man.Gerald Ford showed his character in the uniform of our country. When Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941, Gerald Ford was an attorney fresh out of Yale Law School, but when his nation called, he did not hesitate. In early 1942 he volunteered for the Navy and, after receiving his commission, worked hard to get assigned to a ship headed into combat. Eventually his wish was granted, and Lieutenant Ford was assigned to the aircraft carrier, USS Monterey, which saw action in some of the biggest battles of the Pacific.
I wondered. Was President Bush promoting an action in response to a need for more troops? Recruitment numbers are down. Families are no longer asking their sons and daughters to volunteer for service. They are not proud of what our military might has accomplished. What is, is not what the Administration promised. Many active duty troops disapprove of the President and his plans. Soldiers have suffered at the hands of poor planning, flawed facts, and formalized folly. Young men and women do not revel in the idea of going to battle. The reality of not coming home is too great. What was George W. Bush intending. What will he do next.
Surge is the suggested strategy; however, many use, there are not enough troops to carry out the proposed plan. George W. Bush, always thinking ahead. Apparently, even in remembrance he is shrewd. If he deems enlistment attractive and honorable, perhaps more young men and women will do as he never did, sacrifice their lives in battle.
Ford Wears the Uniform. Bush Sends Those in Uniform to Die . . .
Technorati Tags
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 2, 2007 at 04:00 PM in Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Compassionate Conservatives, Gerald R. Ford, Iraq War, Loss of Life, Military Missions, Policy, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Wins His War Against Saddam Hussein. Hang Him High ©
As a child, when one of our playmates was known to be typically stubborn, a bully, or infantile we would accept that he or she needed to have his or her way. When confronted with unnecessary conflict, those wiser and more evolved would look longingly at each other and say, "Let the baby have his bottled!" We would give in to immature desires and walk away shrugging our shoulders as we passed the selfish monster.
As adults, we forget. Frequently, we give in. When President Bush ranted and raved, "You are either with us [the United States led by this silly imposter of a man] or against us," we, as a nation, accepted that he was correct in taking that stance. We played along and "followed our leader." Grown men and women in Congress relented.
They decided against further diplomacy with Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein. Lawmakers signed on to policies not worthy of an elder statesman. Perhaps, our representatives were reluctant. They did not wish to do battle with a bully, particularly one known as "President of the United States of America." Thus, our legislators approved the Bush war and the hunt for Saddam Hussein was on. On December 30, 2006, it ended in a hanging. [See video above.]
In December 2003, Mister Bush mapped out his mission. He began by saying of Saddam Hussein,
"This is a disgusting tyrant who deserves... the ultimate justice."As Bush spoke, America looked on. Some smiled, others sighed; however, few did anything to stop the crude tirade.
To a majority of citizens in this country it mattered not that the punitive President's comments placed the United States in a precarious situation. Many American's seemed ambivalent. This superpower was choosing to stand alone, in direct opposition to policies, practices, and humanitarian philosophies promoted by the United Nations and our European allies, an organization and nation states that remarked openly, they could not and would not endorse the death penalty.
Nevertheless, we did or at least, our hedonistic, browbeating President Bush did. The junior Bush chimed on endlessly. He wanted his way. He would make his position known. George W. would not be happy until he got his way. To that end, the President declared,
"Let's just see what penalty he gets, but I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty ... for what he has done to his people," Mr. Bush told ABC News.So be it; the boldface, belligerent, Bush Boy was intent. He would have his way. George W. Bush was determined. He would "stay his course." Nothing would stop him."I mean, he is a torturer, a murderer, they had rape rooms. This is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice."
Mister Bush knows and speaks his mind plainly. Often he could be heard to say as he did on December 14, 2001
President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken "dead or alive," no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand's prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden's capture but said he doesn't care how the suspect is brought to justice. "I don't care, dead or alive — either way," Bush said. "It doesn't matter to me."Nothing much matters to a bully or a baby, nothing beyond their wants. President Bush wanted an execution or two. Now, having completed one task, he smirks and moves "forward."
Osama Bin Laden is still in his sight. President Bush intends to bully us [the American people] about until he gets his way. Our countrymen voted to oust Congressional representatives that sided with the ingenuous Bush. In their elation, US citizens forget that the Boy still has power. George W. Bush is still Commander-In-Chief. He is the "decider," and whatever he wants, for the most part, thus far, he gets.
Saddam Hussein is gone from G-d's green Earth. The kangaroo court that Bush said he rejected lived large in Iraq.
The president said that he did not want a "kangaroo court", and that only the Iraqi people should decide what punishment their former leader deserved.However, that did not happen.
Critics question the swift sentencing, execution of SaddamOnce the hearings concluded, the rush to judgment was finalized, all else was accelerated.
By Aamer Madhani and Tom Hundley
Chicago Tribune
December 31, 2006Saddam Hussein's trials and his march to the gallows were intended to be turning points in Iraq's history in which justice was delivered on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people killed by the dictator's brutal regime.
But for many human rights advocates and legal experts who followed the trials, Hussein's rapid conviction, and execution instead left them with doubts about the emerging Iraqi government and the fairness of its judicial process.
Hussein died on the gallows in Baghdad on Saturday, less than two months after an Iraqi court sentenced him to death for the killings of 148 Shiite Muslims in Dujail and just four days after the Iraqi appeals court upheld the verdict. Even some American advisers who helped set up the new judiciary after Hussein's fall reportedly were surprised by the speed of the process.
Few denied that Hussein was guilty of war crimes and atrocities against his own people, and many said the execution reflected the heartfelt desire of the Iraqi people. President Bush said in a statement that Hussein "was executed after receiving a fair trial - the kind of justice he denied victims of his brutal regime."
Yet, in the end, critics said, the flawed trials and the swift appeals process suggested that the system did little more than provide victors' justice, delivered by a Shiite-dominated government against a Sunni Arab who repressed Shiites for more than two decades.
The execution in the Dujail case also will minimize the impact of the second trial of Hussein on even more grievous charges of killing tens of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq. The truth-seeking commission is to continue its case against Hussein's six co-defendants and come to a conclusion on whether the former dictator committed genocide and other crimes. But it is unlikely the proceedings will be as closely followed now that Hussein is dead.
"It was absolutely right that Saddam Hussein should be held to account for the massive violations of human rights committed by his regime, but justice requires a fair process and this, sadly, was far from that," said Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North African monitoring program. "The trial should have been a landmark in establishment of the rule of law in Iraq after decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. It was an opportunity missed."
What might have been most jarring about the proceedings that led to Hussein's hanging was how quickly the appellate court came to its conclusion, said Scott Horton, a Columbia University law professor who has served as a defense attorney for Iraqi journalists accused of crimes in Iraq.
Horton said that in his dealings with the Iraqi criminal justice system, judges spent little time reviewing cases that were on appeal, even capital cases. On a trip to Iraq to represent an Iraqi journalist, he said he was stunned to see judges dispensing of serious cases in as little as 10 minutes and defense counsel playing the role of a "potted plant" during proceedings.
"It's still in the process of finding its way," Horton said of the Iraqi judicial system. "I think the big question that Americans should be asking is, `Are we are moving it to be more transparent and just or we moving it toward being fast?'"
The short time for the appellate proceedings in Hussein's case was in marked contrast to death penalty cases in the U.S., where condemned individuals often wait on Death Row for years while myriad appeals are considered.
Doug Cassel, an international law expert who worked with the United Nations in its investigation of atrocities in El Salvador, pointed out that while the Iraqi court took about nine months to hear a case that included hundreds of witnesses, thousands of pages of testimony and documentary evidence, the appellate court needed just weeks to review and uphold the sentence.
"The lesson that is sent to the world is that the United States talks a big game about due process, but in reality it doesn't really believe in it," said Cassel, now a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.
Hussein's execution also could deepen the rift between the U.S. and its key European allies. Capital punishment is banned throughout the European Union, where political leaders and human-rights organizations spoke out strongly against hanging the Iraqi leader.
Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush's staunchest ally in Iraq, opposed executing Hussein.
"We are against the death penalty," Blair said. "However, what I think is important about this is to recognize that this trial of Saddam has been handled by the Iraqis themselves. . . . It does give us a very clear reminder of the total and barbaric brutality of (Hussein's) regime."
In Italy, which has one of the strongest anti-capital punishment movements in Europe, former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi warned that executing Hussein would be counterproductive. Berlusconi, who supported the invasion of Iraq and sent Italian soldiers there, said the hanging was "a step backward in Iraq's difficult road toward full democracy."
The Iraqi leader so delicately placed in power by the US government postured for the Bush cause. Using a red-ink pen, Maliki sealed the fate of Saddam Hussein. "Justice" would be served swiftly. Plans were made for an immediate execution regardless of expert opinions.
Since Tuesday, when Iraq's highest court had upheld Hussein's death sentence, it was clear that his execution would arrive soon. The Maliki government had wanted to execute Hussein early Friday, U.S. and Iraqi officials said in interviews. But legal issues, security concerns and Iraq's political divide postponed the plan.Legal and security concerns delayed the delivery of the Bush dictum; however, only for days. Will we, as Americans continue to let a puerile, persecuting Bush have his bottle? When Congress concedes, and ultimately caves in under the weight of Bush's will, will we let that pass, again? Can we not come together in support of our soldiers? Might Americans practice the peace they preach.
This infant convinced America post September 11, 2001 that he would protect us [the United States of America.] He has not. Bush has made our borders more vulnerable. Citizens act as though they are defenseless. Thus far, we have accepted the haphazard behaviors of this powerfully placed man. Oh, yes, some may say they voted for Democrats against the war in this recent mid-term election. However, I must ask, can or will Congress do what needs to be done? We, the people must take the power back. Please, let us work together to impeach a man that takes pleasure in seeing another person in pain.
I think it is not an accident, I know it is not. Video of the Saddam Hussein hanging is all over the Internet. Mister Bush proclaims,
"Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself," Mr. Bush said in a statement from his Texas ranch.Thus, we want to see that it truly happened; we want to know that we are safe from this tyrant. Yet, what about the other one, the one that resides in the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue?
The slaying of Saddam Hussein . . .