>Brian Siano:
>
>
>>But the point is this. Yes, bad people here in the States will use the
>>capture of Saddam for base political purposes. They may even succeed at
>>doing so. But the fact is that a _murderous dictator_ has been toppled
>>from power, his equally murderous sons have been eliminated, and the
>>dictator will in all likelihood face a trial in an internationalist
>>court for his crimes.
>>Not if the Iraqis I heard this morning on BBC Radio have anything to say
>>about it.
>>
>>
>I made the same point about the reality that the US knocked off a thuggish
>regime the other day, and I stand by it, despite the vulgar gloating that's
>going on stateside (a pro-Bush relative of mine was practically cackling
>about this yesterday, and I had to stop myself from saying, "Since when did
>you give a fuck about the Iraqis?"). But this --
>
>
I know, I know I go through that, too. Suddenly, all the know-nothing
conservatives who'd championed the U.S.'s dealings with dictators act as
though they're the real human rights advocates. It's sickening. (It's
frustrating to see people who'd prevously castigated the U.S. for
coddling dictators finding reasons to disapprove of overthrowing one.
But that's just frustrating: the fatuous gloating of conservatives is
truly sickening.)
>>It's a bit like bitching about the moon landing. Yes, there is poverty
>>and war and starvation here on Earth, but it was a magnificent
>>accomplishment, a major event in world history, and _pretty fuckin' neat_.
>>
>>
>"Neat"? As in "way cool" and "rad"? And a "major event in world history"?
>
>
I'd meant that to refer to the moon landing specifically: a species
managing to leave its planet for another, even for a brief moment,
certainly qualifies as a major event. Sloppy writing on my part.
>Certainly a major event in US elite political circles and the depthless
>media that serves them. Historical context gets to change as conditions
>warrant, and the capture of Saddam, while a good thing for the Iraqis (who
>should try him themselves under their own supervision), is merely Noreiga on
>a larger stage. The former client and geopolitical asset who went off the
>rails is finally punished for his disobedience.
>
>
Personally, I'd prefer to see Saddam tried in an international court; if
only to avoid the possibility of the trial becoming a quick means to a
swift execution. But maybe that's an unfounded concern: South Africa and
Vietnam managed to avoid turning their post-horror trials into platforms
for revenge, so there's no reason to expect Iraq to fail in that regard,
either.
Either way, the important point is that the U.S. should _not_ try him.