| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
04 Jan 2004 11:24:35 AM |
| Object: |
Don't leave Saddam trial to the 'jet set' |
Don't leave Saddam trial to the 'jet set'
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Well, it's January, December's come and gone, so let's
add up the final score:
Coalition of the Willing: Saddam captured, Gadhafi neutered.
The ''International Community'': Milosevic elected to
Parliament in Belgrade.
Yes, indeed. On the last weekend of the year, Slobo won
a seat in Serbia's legislature, as did his fellow
"alleged'' (as Wes Clark would say) war criminal
Vojislav Seselj, and Seselj's extreme nationalist
Serbian Radical Party won more seats than anybody else.
But hang on a minute. Aren't Milosevic and Seselj in
jail at the Hague and facing the stern justice of an
''international tribunal''? Why, yes. Slobo's been on
trial for two years already, and they're only just
wrapping up the prosecution. Among the witnesses was,
of course, Gen. Clark, who couldn't resist boasting
that he's the only Democratic presidential candidate
''who's ever faced a dictator down. I'm the only one
who's ever testified in court against one.'' Au
contraire, right now it looks like Slobo is the only
Serbian parliamentary candidate who's ever faced a U.S.
general down.
Anyone who goes goo-goo at the mention of the words
''international tribunal'' -- i.e., Clark, John Kerry,
Howard Dean and the rest of the multilatte
multilateralist establishment -- should look at what it
boils down to in practice. Even though the court
forbade Milosevic and Seselj from actively campaigning
in the Serbian election, they somehow managed to. In
other words, ''international law'' is unable to enforce
its judgments even in its own jailhouse.
But it's worse than that. One reason why Slobo is
popular again in Serbia is precisely because of the
''international'' trial. In 2000, when the strongman of
the Balkans was swept from power, he was a discredited
figure, a European pariah reviled as a murderous
butcher. After two years of legal hair-splitting at the
Hague, he's all but fully rehabilitated. True, Slobo,
conducting his own defense, has been a shameless
showboater, but not half as shameless as the absurd
prosecutor Carla del Ponte. It's received wisdom among
battered Serb democrats that every clumsy indictment of
Ponte's drove Slobo's poll numbers higher. Had Serbs
prosecuted Milosevic, that would have been one thing.
But once it became Euro-preeners prosecuting Serbs, an
understandable resentment set in.
This is the justice Clark wants for Saddam Hussein. If
he gets his way, Saddam seems a shoo-in for the Iraqi
presidential election circa 2009. But that seems to be
the way of Clark, the great hero of small inconclusive
wars in which the United States has no vital interest
and, even if it did, Clark would be pleased to ignore
it just to demonstrate his multilateral bona fides.
It's not just him, of course. Up to the moment Saddam
popped out of the spider-hole, the international jet
set's line was that deplorable as Saddam's rule might
be -- gassing Kurds, feeding folks feet-first into
industrial shredders, etc. -- it was strictly an
internal matter for the Iraqi people. The minute the
old boy was in U.S. custody, the international jet
set's revised position was that gassing Kurds, feeding
folks into industrial shredders and so forth were
crimes against the whole world and certainly not a
matter for the Iraqi people. Instead, we need a
(drumroll, please) United Nations-mandated
international tribunal.
This is what the Zionist neocons would call chutzpah.
President Bush understands that the transnational
establishment's interest in this case is not to pass
judgment on Saddam but, by reasserting its authority,
to pass judgment on America -- on its illegitimate war,
illegal occupation, barbaric justice system, etc. The
argument of the trannies is that only a Hague tribunal
can confer ''legitimacy'' -- ''legitimacy'' being one
of those great sonorous banalities that are at the
heart of what's wrong with the international order,
which, in the main, confers the mantle of legitimacy on
a lot of ''illegitimate'' thugs. Indeed, two years of a
farcical trial of the Hague seem to have conferred
''legitimacy'' mainly on the rehabilitated Slobo.
But Saddam has been toppled, and Gadhafi has
surrendered up his own WMD program to the Brits and
Yanks. So the fellows in need of ''legitimacy'' right
now are the international institutions presided over by
Kofi Annan and Co., who look, to put it at its mildest,
utterly irrelevant and, at its worst, the pathetic
patsies of Slobo and his ilk.
So the only strategic significance of Saddam's trial is
whether the transnational establishment gets
rehabilitated or sidelined. The argument in favor of an
international tribunal is that a full accounting of
Saddam's crimes will be made before the whole world.
Really? Anyone who doesn't know about the mass graves
and torture in Baathist Iraq is someone who's chosen
not to. A lot of people fall into that camp -- for
example, weapons inspector turned Saddamite shill Scott
Ritter. ''The prison in question was inspected by my
team in January 1998,'' he told Time magazine, a propos
one grisly institution. ''It appeared to be a prison
for children -- toddlers up to pre-adolescents -- whose
only crime was to be the offspring of those who have
spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam
Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually, I'm not
going to describe what I saw there, because what I saw
was so horrible that it can be used by those who would
want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.''
Ritter is rare in the extent of his depravity: He saw
the horror close up and opted to turn his back. But in
the interests of ''peace,'' many others in the
transnational elites did the same from a safe distance.
It's too late for them to claim that the stuff they
covered up now needs a full airing in an international court.
As for the legal niceties, unless a dictator is canny
enough to negotiate a transition to democracy, his
subsequent trial will inevitably be as much about
politics as justice. But then, letting dictators swank
around the courtroom in a 10-year dinner-theater run of
''Perry Mason'' has nothing to do with justice either.
To allow the transnational jet set to reclaim Saddam
would be to reward them for their indifference to Iraqi
suffering. Let's get on with it in Baghdad. A trial
next summer, conviction in the fall, and (to forestall
accusations it's all timed for the U.S. elections)
execution deferred until a day or two after Bush's
inaugural address in January.
Of course, I hasten to add that's only if the mass
murderer is found guilty.
I'm sorry, my mistake. I mean, the alleged mass murderer.
Copyright 2004, Digital Chicago Inc.
Posted by Permission
--
As Orwell pointed out long ago, pacifism in the face of
armed evil is equivalent to a blind worship of force.
It would be disastrous to entrust our children's fate
to the hands of these sad and complicitous pacifists.
.
|
|
| User: "Scotius" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't leave Saddam trial to the 'jet set' |
08 Jan 2004 02:40:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:24:35 -0500, wrote:
Don't leave Saddam trial to the 'jet set'
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Well, it's January, December's come and gone, so let's
add up the final score:
Coalition of the Willing: Saddam captured, Gadhafi neutered.
The ''International Community'': Milosevic elected to
Parliament in Belgrade.
Yes, indeed. On the last weekend of the year, Slobo won
a seat in Serbia's legislature, as did his fellow
"alleged'' (as Wes Clark would say) war criminal
Vojislav Seselj, and Seselj's extreme nationalist
Serbian Radical Party won more seats than anybody else.
But hang on a minute. Aren't Milosevic and Seselj in
jail at the Hague and facing the stern justice of an
''international tribunal''? Why, yes. Slobo's been on
trial for two years already, and they're only just
wrapping up the prosecution. Among the witnesses was,
of course, Gen. Clark, who couldn't resist boasting
that he's the only Democratic presidential candidate
''who's ever faced a dictator down. I'm the only one
who's ever testified in court against one.'' Au
contraire, right now it looks like Slobo is the only
Serbian parliamentary candidate who's ever faced a U.S.
general down.
Anyone who goes goo-goo at the mention of the words
''international tribunal'' -- i.e., Clark, John Kerry,
Howard Dean and the rest of the multilatte
multilateralist establishment -- should look at what it
boils down to in practice.
They don't care what it boils down to in practice. All they care
about is getting votes. Wesley (Weasley) Clark just recently said that
he would give America's European "allies" (quotations mine) the "first
right of refusal". Ain't that grand? All the Europeans want is control
of the oil that they KNOW they can get because they're willing to back
the Arabs against Israel, and they're willing to ***** the US over for
all of it, with the possible exception of the British. This *****
knows that, but he's either betting for the other team, or at least
hedging and making sure that he doesn't get on too bad terms with
anyone. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if he had some Euro-help in terms
of influence peddling with the picking of the candidate.
Even though the court
forbade Milosevic and Seselj from actively campaigning
in the Serbian election, they somehow managed to. In
other words, ''international law'' is unable to enforce
its judgments even in its own jailhouse.
The "International Criminal Court" or whatever the ***** it is
voted itself to only have authority going back to the Friday before
(if this is the same one the US just recently refused to ratify). The
US leadership knows it would only be a weapon against American policy
and anything the Israelis do in defense of themselves.
But it's worse than that. One reason why Slobo is
popular again in Serbia is precisely because of the
''international'' trial. In 2000, when the strongman of
the Balkans was swept from power, he was a discredited
figure, a European pariah reviled as a murderous
butcher. After two years of legal hair-splitting at the
Hague, he's all but fully rehabilitated. True, Slobo,
conducting his own defense, has been a shameless
showboater, but not half as shameless as the absurd
prosecutor Carla del Ponte. It's received wisdom among
battered Serb democrats that every clumsy indictment of
Ponte's drove Slobo's poll numbers higher. Had Serbs
prosecuted Milosevic, that would have been one thing.
But once it became Euro-preeners prosecuting Serbs, an
understandable resentment set in.
This is the justice Clark wants for Saddam Hussein. If
he gets his way, Saddam seems a shoo-in for the Iraqi
presidential election circa 2009. But that seems to be
the way of Clark, the great hero of small inconclusive
wars in which the United States has no vital interest
and, even if it did, Clark would be pleased to ignore
it just to demonstrate his multilateral bona fides.
Another guy who is promoting the idea that the UN can somehow
declare a war "legitimate" or not, eh? As if! This whole thing about
first, in 1991, how it was ok to go to war because the UN said so
makes me sick. It WAS ok, but not because the UN said so. They made a
lot of political/propaganda hay with that, and it ought to be stopped
right now.
It's not just him, of course. Up to the moment Saddam
popped out of the spider-hole, the international jet
set's line was that deplorable as Saddam's rule might
be -- gassing Kurds, feeding folks feet-first into
industrial shredders, etc. -- it was strictly an
internal matter for the Iraqi people. The minute the
old boy was in U.S. custody, the international jet
set's revised position was that gassing Kurds, feeding
folks into industrial shredders and so forth were
crimes against the whole world and certainly not a
matter for the Iraqi people. Instead, we need a
(drumroll, please) United Nations-mandated
international tribunal.
The idea that the United Nations is inherently any more
legitimate an organization for carrying out ANYTHING is inherently
flawed, and in reality the exact opposite is true.
This is what the Zionist neocons would call chutzpah.
It is indeed Chutzpah, and the US needs to whip the UN into shape
right now. I'm not talking about getting out of it. I'm talking about
telling it how things are going to be. 1), that the UN will recognize
a nations right to determine it's own course, etc. That is THE
priority.
President Bush understands that the transnational
establishment's interest in this case is not to pass
judgment on Saddam but, by reasserting its authority,
to pass judgment on America --
That's the thing that bothered me about this whole thing. They
don't give a care about anything Saddam has done, and if allowed to do
as they please, they'll spend a lot more time making statements about
how NOT to try a war criminal (emphasizing America the whole time),
and a very little trying and sentencing him. The ICC is ONLY a weapon
to be used against the US, and that is probably all it was intended to
be from the start.
on its illegitimate war,
illegal occupation, barbaric justice system, etc.
That's another thing; this "illegal war" propaganda has some
adherents who actually believe that the UN has the authority to
declare such actions legal or not. Someone in power in Washington
needs to make crystal clear, RIGHT NOW, that the United States is to
be run by Americans, and not from the UN building in NY or anywhere
else.
The
argument of the trannies is that only a Hague tribunal
can confer ''legitimacy'' -- ''legitimacy'' being one
of those great sonorous banalities that are at the
heart of what's wrong with the international order,
which, in the main, confers the mantle of legitimacy on
a lot of ''illegitimate'' thugs. Indeed, two years of a
farcical trial of the Hague seem to have conferred
''legitimacy'' mainly on the rehabilitated Slobo.
But Saddam has been toppled, and Gadhafi has
surrendered up his own WMD program to the Brits and
Yanks. So the fellows in need of ''legitimacy'' right
now are the international institutions presided over by
Kofi Annan and Co., who look, to put it at its mildest,
utterly irrelevant and, at its worst, the pathetic
patsies of Slobo and his ilk.
I wish they did look utterly irrelevant, but they still have
imaginary credibility in the form of the media people who like
Rockefeller's idea of "an intellectual and media elite with
supranational sovereignty". Never mind that most of the dimwits in the
fourth estate wouldn't qualify.
So the only strategic significance of Saddam's trial is
whether the transnational establishment gets
rehabilitated or sidelined. The argument in favor of an
international tribunal is that a full accounting of
Saddam's crimes will be made before the whole world.
Really? Anyone who doesn't know about the mass graves
and torture in Baathist Iraq is someone who's chosen
not to. A lot of people fall into that camp -- for
example, weapons inspector turned Saddamite shill Scott
Ritter. ''The prison in question was inspected by my
team in January 1998,'' he told Time magazine, a propos
one grisly institution. ''It appeared to be a prison
for children -- toddlers up to pre-adolescents -- whose
only crime was to be the offspring of those who have
spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam
Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually, I'm not
going to describe what I saw there, because what I saw
was so horrible that it can be used by those who would
want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.''
Ritter is rare in the extent of his depravity: He saw
the horror close up and opted to turn his back. But in
the interests of ''peace,'' many others in the
transnational elites did the same from a safe distance.
It's too late for them to claim that the stuff they
covered up now needs a full airing in an international court.
As for the legal niceties, unless a dictator is canny
enough to negotiate a transition to democracy, his
subsequent trial will inevitably be as much about
politics as justice. But then, letting dictators swank
around the courtroom in a 10-year dinner-theater run of
''Perry Mason'' has nothing to do with justice either.
To allow the transnational jet set to reclaim Saddam
would be to reward them for their indifference to Iraqi
suffering. Let's get on with it in Baghdad. A trial
next summer, conviction in the fall, and (to forestall
accusations it's all timed for the U.S. elections)
execution deferred until a day or two after Bush's
inaugural address in January.
Of course, I hasten to add that's only if the mass
murderer is found guilty.
I'm sorry, my mistake. I mean, the alleged mass murderer.
Copyright 2004, Digital Chicago Inc.
Posted by Permission
I like this guy's attitude more than the multilateralist types.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scotius" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't leave Saddam trial to the 'jet set' |
04 Jan 2004 10:28:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:24:35 -0500, wrote:
Don't leave Saddam trial to the 'jet set'
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Well, it's January, December's come and gone, so let's
add up the final score:
Coalition of the Willing: Saddam captured, Gadhafi neutered.
The ''International Community'': Milosevic elected to
Parliament in Belgrade.
Yes, indeed. On the last weekend of the year, Slobo won
a seat in Serbia's legislature, as did his fellow
"alleged'' (as Wes Clark would say) war criminal
Vojislav Seselj, and Seselj's extreme nationalist
Serbian Radical Party won more seats than anybody else.
But hang on a minute. Aren't Milosevic and Seselj in
jail at the Hague and facing the stern justice of an
''international tribunal''? Why, yes. Slobo's been on
trial for two years already, and they're only just
wrapping up the prosecution. Among the witnesses was,
of course, Gen. Clark, who couldn't resist boasting
that he's the only Democratic presidential candidate
''who's ever faced a dictator down. I'm the only one
who's ever testified in court against one.'' Au
contraire, right now it looks like Slobo is the only
Serbian parliamentary candidate who's ever faced a U.S.
general down.
Anyone who goes goo-goo at the mention of the words
''international tribunal'' -- i.e., Clark, John Kerry,
Howard Dean and the rest of the multilatte
multilateralist establishment -- should look at what it
boils down to in practice. Even though the court
forbade Milosevic and Seselj from actively campaigning
in the Serbian election, they somehow managed to. In
other words, ''international law'' is unable to enforce
its judgments even in its own jailhouse.
But it's worse than that. One reason why Slobo is
popular again in Serbia is precisely because of the
''international'' trial. In 2000, when the strongman of
the Balkans was swept from power, he was a discredited
figure, a European pariah reviled as a murderous
butcher. After two years of legal hair-splitting at the
Hague, he's all but fully rehabilitated. True, Slobo,
conducting his own defense, has been a shameless
showboater, but not half as shameless as the absurd
prosecutor Carla del Ponte. It's received wisdom among
battered Serb democrats that every clumsy indictment of
Ponte's drove Slobo's poll numbers higher. Had Serbs
prosecuted Milosevic, that would have been one thing.
But once it became Euro-preeners prosecuting Serbs, an
understandable resentment set in.
This is the justice Clark wants for Saddam Hussein. If
he gets his way, Saddam seems a shoo-in for the Iraqi
presidential election circa 2009. But that seems to be
the way of Clark, the great hero of small inconclusive
wars in which the United States has no vital interest
and, even if it did, Clark would be pleased to ignore
it just to demonstrate his multilateral bona fides.
It's not just him, of course. Up to the moment Saddam
popped out of the spider-hole, the international jet
set's line was that deplorable as Saddam's rule might
be -- gassing Kurds, feeding folks feet-first into
industrial shredders, etc. -- it was strictly an
internal matter for the Iraqi people. The minute the
old boy was in U.S. custody, the international jet
set's revised position was that gassing Kurds, feeding
folks into industrial shredders and so forth were
crimes against the whole world and certainly not a
matter for the Iraqi people. Instead, we need a
(drumroll, please) United Nations-mandated
international tribunal.
This is what the Zionist neocons would call chutzpah.
President Bush understands that the transnational
establishment's interest in this case is not to pass
judgment on Saddam but, by reasserting its authority,
to pass judgment on America -- on its illegitimate war,
illegal occupation, barbaric justice system, etc. The
argument of the trannies is that only a Hague tribunal
can confer ''legitimacy'' -- ''legitimacy'' being one
of those great sonorous banalities that are at the
heart of what's wrong with the international order,
which, in the main, confers the mantle of legitimacy on
a lot of ''illegitimate'' thugs. Indeed, two years of a
farcical trial of the Hague seem to have conferred
''legitimacy'' mainly on the rehabilitated Slobo.
But Saddam has been toppled, and Gadhafi has
surrendered up his own WMD program to the Brits and
Yanks. So the fellows in need of ''legitimacy'' right
now are the international institutions presided over by
Kofi Annan and Co., who look, to put it at its mildest,
utterly irrelevant and, at its worst, the pathetic
patsies of Slobo and his ilk.
So the only strategic significance of Saddam's trial is
whether the transnational establishment gets
rehabilitated or sidelined. The argument in favor of an
international tribunal is that a full accounting of
Saddam's crimes will be made before the whole world.
Really? Anyone who doesn't know about the mass graves
and torture in Baathist Iraq is someone who's chosen
not to. A lot of people fall into that camp -- for
example, weapons inspector turned Saddamite shill Scott
Ritter. ''The prison in question was inspected by my
team in January 1998,'' he told Time magazine, a propos
one grisly institution. ''It appeared to be a prison
for children -- toddlers up to pre-adolescents -- whose
only crime was to be the offspring of those who have
spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam
Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually, I'm not
going to describe what I saw there, because what I saw
was so horrible that it can be used by those who would
want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.''
Ritter is rare in the extent of his depravity: He saw
the horror close up and opted to turn his back. But in
the interests of ''peace,'' many others in the
transnational elites did the same from a safe distance.
It's too late for them to claim that the stuff they
covered up now needs a full airing in an international court.
As for the legal niceties, unless a dictator is canny
enough to negotiate a transition to democracy, his
subsequent trial will inevitably be as much about
politics as justice. But then, letting dictators swank
around the courtroom in a 10-year dinner-theater run of
''Perry Mason'' has nothing to do with justice either.
To allow the transnational jet set to reclaim Saddam
would be to reward them for their indifference to Iraqi
suffering. Let's get on with it in Baghdad. A trial
next summer, conviction in the fall, and (to forestall
accusations it's all timed for the U.S. elections)
execution deferred until a day or two after Bush's
inaugural address in January.
Of course, I hasten to add that's only if the mass
murderer is found guilty.
I'm sorry, my mistake. I mean, the alleged mass murderer.
Copyright 2004, Digital Chicago Inc.
Posted by Permission
You quoted...
"Even though the court
"forbade Milosevic and Seselj from actively campaigning
"in the Serbian election, they somehow managed to. In
"other words, ''international law'' is unable to enforce
"its judgments even in its own jailhouse. "
This is a red flag to me, since it may be that what that UN run
international tribunal is doing is trying to make it look like it
needs more power to get the job done, and of course the job they
really want to do, and have wanted to do for some time now, is to be
able to carry out politically motivated prosecutions. It seems a noble
goal to want to prosecute war criminals, but it isn't worth what it
may cost, in my opinion.
...and then you quoted thusly;
The minute the
old boy was in U.S. custody, the international jet
set's revised position was that gassing Kurds, feeding
folks into industrial shredders and so forth were
crimes against the whole world and certainly not a
matter for the Iraqi people. Instead, we need a
(drumroll, please) United Nations-mandated
international tribunal.
Of course we do! We need UN everything now, don't you see? Some
have taken the initiative and begun calling the US led war against
Iraq "illegal", knowing damned well that there is no such thing as an
"illegal" war unless there is a World government (an automatically
corrupt institution) to call it such, and that as yet there isn't. We
should be glad for that, and we should be open about how beneficial it
would be for the nation to shoot anyone who wants one.
...following which you quoted this part also...
President Bush understands that the transnational
establishment's interest in this case is not to pass
judgment on Saddam but, by reasserting its authority,
to pass judgment on America -- on its illegitimate war,
illegal occupation, barbaric justice system, etc.
I think he does, or at least I hope he does. That really is the
only goal of the rapists of justice who are advocating for the DUNCE
(Dedicated United Nations Court [of] Everything), and I certainly hope
that the US government will stand against that ideology, although it
concerns me that the main reason for doing so may be financial, rather
than moral.
...and this is one of the most important truths point out in the
article you posted...
The argument of the trannies is that only a Hague tribunal
can confer ''legitimacy'' -- ''legitimacy'' being one
of those great sonorous banalities that are at the
heart of what's wrong with the international order,
which, in the main, confers the mantle of legitimacy on
a lot of ''illegitimate'' thugs. Indeed, two years of a
farcical trial of the Hague seem to have conferred
''legitimacy'' mainly on the rehabilitated Slobo.
I cannot stress enough how illegitimate the very idea is that the
UN can be the arbiter of what is right or wrong, moral or immoral,
legal or illegal. It can't. Since 1991 when Bush the Elder allowed the
UN to usurp his momentum to try to establish the idea that only it
could authorize the use of force, it has been trying ever harder to
get that idea across to the World. The World thus far isn't buying it,
although many do seem to have a head up the ***** problem, as I have
witnessed when seeing people deny that that's what the UN is trying to
do. It's better to face the fact that there are megalomaniacal
wannabees in the UN building than to pretend there are not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
