The trial of Saddam Hussein, currently underway in Baghdad, hit a bit of a bump this morning. It seems one of Saddam's lawyers, former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark got upset over not being able to address the court. Clark wanted to make a speech addressing the legitimacy of the court. Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin told him no, saying the tribunal had been established under the law by an elected Iraqi government, and so Saddam's legal team stormed out.
But now we have the, we don’t want to help or support the invasion in Iraq but I think we should have a say in what is going on there now, United Nations weighing in on the Saddam trial. The UN recently claimed that Hussein's trial does not meet international standards of justice because of flaws in Iraq's legal system, whatever that means.
Could their be an ulterior motive to why the UN is saying this? Is it possible that the big flaw is that all those oil-for-food checks from Saddam to the members of the Security Council have stopped coming, and they're none too happy about their cash cow being on trial?
It seems to me that the UN is more concerned with their oil-for-food money than the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) that were murdered by Saddam and is complaining about the dictator's trial. Of course, then again that may be why they were complaining about the whole invasion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment