Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other global humanitarian groups recently expressed criticism over the slated trial of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein. Such self-appointed auditors of moral excellence were worried that his legal representation was inadequate. Or perhaps they felt the court of the new Iraqi democracy was not quite up to the standards of wigged European judges in The Hague.
Relay those concerns to the nearly 1 million silent souls butchered by Saddam's dictatorship. Once they waited in vain for any such international human-rights organization to stop the murdering. None could or did.
Now these global watchdogs are barking about legalities — once Saddam is in shackles thanks solely to the American military (which, too, is often criticized by the same utopian-minded groups). The new Iraqi government is sanctioned by vote and attuned to global public opinion. Saddam Hussein was neither. So Amnesty International can safely chastise the former for supposed misdemeanors after it did little concrete about the real felonies of the latter.
All I care about is whether the gavel drops (slightly) before the hammer drops on whatever firing squad disposes of that murderous scumbag.
As for the international human rights bastards, I guess you can be proud of your moral superiority for stepping up to defend a mass murderer like Saddam. I mean, any ordinary mortal can condemn a mass murderer and torturer. But you have to be really pure to defend one.
Purely sickening.
