Let us get the obvious facts about this animal out of the way. Politically and morally he is guilty of gross human rights violations; he was the front-man in the Washington inspired Iran-Iraq war attempting to overthrow the Islamic regime, a war in which about a million people died; in governance he was a ruthless dictator who did not flinch at assassinating even family members. There is nothing that can bind a civilised person emotionally, morally or intellectually to Saddam Hussein.

Does this mean that the world should turn a blind eye when he is lynched by a kangaroo court, established by a quisling regime beholden to US imperialism? The answer is an unequivocal "NO". Even the Saddam Husseins of this world are entitled to a fair trial if civilised norms of social conduct are to survive. And then, oh most vile speed to post with such dexterity to the hangman’s knot!

Nuremburg, Tokyo and Baghdad

The Nuremburg and Tokyo Tribunals were indeed examples of ‘victor’s justice’, but they were not kangaroo courts — though a lot of unsavoury information has since emerged about Tokyo (see www.crisscross.com/forum/m_872685/printable.htm for example). The difference is that these tribunals did not or at least did not appear to fall below the standards of customary judicial behaviour; the courts were not established by a quisling regime of a foreign power — the Nuremburg and Tokyo Tribunals were appointed by occupying powers, but with greater transparency and international credibility; and the executions though ‘victor’s justice’ were not acts of politically motivated lynching in the midst of an ongoing sectarian war.

The Saddam trial and execution, fails on all these counts. The conduct of the trial was a travesty of justice; it was one fiasco after another, including the murder of a defence lawyer and the resignation, mid-stream, of the presiding judge. The defence team said that they were not even given a copy of the indictment. The trial procedures were simply not fair by customary and ordinary standards of justice, let alone what one would expect in a high profile case. The appeal which was summarily dismissed was a farce.

This is not the place for a long treatise on the Nuremburg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals but controversy surrounds both, especially the latter. Like his German colleagues, Japanese Prime Minister Tojo claimed to be carrying out the orders of the Emperor, who was granted immunity from war prosecution, in a deal with the American’s during the surrender. In a recent survey, 65% of Japanese rejected the tribunals findings; commemorative tombs for many Class-A "war criminals" are enshrined at the controversial Yasukuni War Shrine — under current Japanese law these persons are not considered war criminals. It is also very significant that the American’s prevented the publication of Tojo’s defense statement and his indictment of America and her allies for "their war crimes".

Politically motivated lynching

Let the Iraqi quisling Prime Minister and his government speak for themselves; al-Maliki’s statement immediately after the execution was: "Let this be a clear message to the Sunni insurgents …"; and a government Shia spokesman announced: "This will show the Sunnis who is boss now". With these quotes I could rest my case but a lot more information has come to light in the immediate aftermath of the execution.

The BBC reports that the execution was an ugly and degrading business "more reminiscent of the public hanging in the 18th Century than a considered act of 21st Century official justice" (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6221751.stm). Someone smuggled a mobile phone into the execution chamber and recorded the entire event (the official Iraqi Government video was silent, to hide the truth). Before the execution the official witness start shouting curses and insults, and then seconds before the trap-door opens, in an unquestionably calculated, blasphemous and sectarian insult, the Shia version of an Islamic prayer is shouted loudly to drown out Saddam’s own Sunni prayer.

A commentator in Yediot Aharnot, Israel’s largest circulation newspaper wrote: "Say what they like about him, he met his death with dignity, with an erect head, without asking for mercy. His hanging, in its timing, was above all a political act: a government that does not control its own land wanted to demonstrate determination and prove to its sect, the Shia community, that despite the heavy price that terror exacts every day, you get value for your TV license". (Emphasis added).

International condemnation of the execution

The outcry around the globe against Saddam’s execution has been unexpectedly strong. The Vatican condemend it and Muslim religious leaders around the world expressed revulsion. Russia, in an extremely strong statement, India, Finland (then EU Chair), Hammas and almost all others in the Islamic world have condemned the killing.

George Bush welcomed the execution as did the government of his Yankee poodle Tony Blair; of course so did Israel. It is regrettable, however, that Iran, in an excess of sectarian zeal did the same. A miscarriage of justice does not amount to recompense for the crimes that the Saddam regime committed against the Iranian people during the 1982-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, if ever he falls into American hands and faces his own kangaroo court, may well rue the day when he cheered George Bush.

Saddam execution will at worst exacerbate, at best make no difference to American initiated violence in Iraq. The invasion has given rise to more civilian deaths in Iraqi than Saddam Hussein ever managed in his 27 years of brutality. Invading under a false pretext of "weapons of mass destruction" and setting up a kangaroo court to execute Saddam will only make it ever clearer that oil and Western hubris were the real motives of aggression.

And to Sri Lanka

With charges and counter charges of gross human rights violations and terrorism filling the air in Sri Lanka there are some lessons for us to learn well in advance of any future development. Mostly perhaps, lessons about how not to do things, but nevertheless lessons. One man’s oppressor is another’s leader and one man’s terrorist is another’s liberator — that makes things all the more difficult. The Nepalese, however, seems to be getting things right; a new constitution, the Maoists in a transitional parliament with 75 seats assigned to them, the merging of two armies into one through a new Armed Forces Act, and soon new elections. And all this without needing to hang either King Gayanendra or the Maoist leader Prachanda; now this is progress without vengeance.