Shannon Larratt is Zentastic

So… Now that Saddam is captured, there's his pending trial (which the US has said will be “fair” but not to expect it any time soon). It's an interesting case when you think about it, especially when you keep in mind that this is all built on a house of lies:

1. Who has jurisdiction over Saddam?
   • America most certainly does not, no matter how you look at it.
   • The Iraqis probably do, but the US could not hand him over to an Islamic trial. More importantly, there is not currently any ruling body in Iraq which represents all Iraqis, nor is it likely that there will be within ten to twenty years.
   • The International Human Rights Court probably is the most suitable, but the US, who of course holds Saddam, does not recognize its legitimacy.
2. The trial will reveal whether or not Saddam violated UN directives (the ones that “caused” the invasion), with the answer most likely being no.
   • Such a trial would reveal US involvement and conspiracy in many of Saddam's former “crimes”, as well as some disturbing details of how the US involves itself with the Middle East in general.
   • Such a trial would reveal corporate manipulation of both Iraq and other governments by powerful groups from America, Canada, Europe, Russia, and Asia.
3. If the answer is “no” (as it probably will be), then what becomes of Saddam?
   • Saddam, before the war, was the legally regonized leader of Iraq.
   • Saddam was not overthrown by the people of Iraq, nor have they demanded that the international community remove Saddam. Large demographics inside Iraq want him back in power as well.
   • Does this mean he goes back in power? Legally I don't see that there's an alternative.

See, I guess what I don't understand is what is Saddam potentially on trial FOR? Since it's pretty clearly turning out that this was not a legal invasion, that basically means that America illegally overthrew a foreign government in broad daylight (normally they're a little more subversive about it)…

As I see it, at best he could be tried under the International Human Rights Court, but like I said, America doesn't recognize that, and if a country can be illegally invaded and its ruler be made to stand trial on this after the fact, then there's a lot of other countries that should be on the chopping block as well.

It's quite a pickle.

"It's becoming increasingy difficult to doubt that God wants President Bush re-elected."

- Presidential speechwriter David Frum, Dec 14 2003

Of course, US troops are being told they've still got “a couple more years” in Iraq and that the fighting should be expected to keep getting worse. Terrorist bombings keep on killing, and as many Iraqis protest the capture of Saddam, the American troops, well, they kill those use the voice of democracy. Is it any wonder that the hate keeps growing?

US corporations in Iraq keep getting richer, but what's interesting is that the US might have to stop playing favorites — a few years back the US pushed hard to get the WTO to ban countries from giving out contracts locally (because they wanted US companies to be able to bid on level ground), so their unilateral actions may be in violation.

Oh, and Bush is saying that because of Massachusetts pushing through gay unions, he'll be working hard to push through a Constitutional Ammendment banning gays from marrying… Yeah, because too much love is what's wrong with America?

But don't protest Bush too much, or you'll go to prison, or at best be “quarantined” in special temporary prisons that the Bush regime calls “free speech zones” (seriously).