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 . . .
Recent Comments