A Lady's Ruminations

"Jane was firm where she felt herself to be right." -Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice


Sunday, June 12, 2005

"Saddam Hussein lawyer wants trial in neutral state"

One of Saddam Hussein's lawyers, Giovanni Di Stefano, wants his trial to be held in a neutral state, such as Sweden, as opposed to the country where he murdered thousands upon thousands of his fellow countrymen and women.

Di Stefano also complained about the slow process to bring Saddam to trial. "To date we have not even one piece of paper, one document, one charge, one indictment, one allegation. We have speculation," he said.

So, mass graves, rape rooms, torture chambers, and the like are speculation? Does something have to be written down for it to be proof that Saddam deserves to stand trial?

And apparently Sweden is the perfect place for the trial because Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson has said Saddam, 68, could be allowed to serve a prison sentence in militarily non-aligned Sweden, which opposed the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam. (emphasis added)

Ah, yes, I can see why Di Stefano would want to hold the trial in Sweden. Perhaps Sweden did not have its military aligned in the whole affair, but its political alignment is obviously with cowardly countries like Germany and France. Right, let's hold the trial there and at the same time why not let the anti-war whackos try President Bush. We'll see who is found guilty and who is set free. If it were up to France and Germany and the other "Old Europe" countries, Saddam would be back in power and President Bush would be the one in irons. Frankly, I don't give a care what they say.

Saddam Hussein's trial should be held in the country of his crimes, Iraq. The Iraqi people have a right and duty to try him for his crimes against them. They have a right to seek the punishment they believe is justified. Why should countries that didn't do a thing to rid the world of this horrid dictator have any say in what goes on after the heavy lifting is done?