By William Markiewicz
Yesterday I watched John Simpson's interview on BBC with the Iraqi lawyer leading the trial against Saddam Hussein. I didn't retain his name because I didn't plan to write about him. He was a good actor, sounded honest and convincing, a true adept of the school of demagogy. How could an experienced interviewer like John Simpson not catch him when he pushed the argument that Saddam Hussein will be tried only for his crimes, which will deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself under the shield of politics. It's really to throw cold lies into the face of his interlocutor and all the program's watchers. All wars are political, otherwise humanity would have no History, only stains from a bunch of crimes.
I'm not sure what he can achieve by removing Saddam Hussein from the category of politician. You can't separate the crimes of Genghis Khan from Mongolian conquest, it's part of history. You can't separate the crimes of Adolph Hitler from Nazism nor the crimes of Joseph Stalin from Communism. Important historical trends left a trail of blood. Does this attorney hope to easily win Saddam Hussein's trial by placing him in the category of a corner street criminal? Whatever his motive, he sows confusion. We must protect ourselves from those motormouths who use their authority to brainwash public opinion.
John Simpson blundered when he asked whether Hussein, like Milosevic would be able to hijack his trial. How did Milosevic do that? By surviving the harassment of the kangaroo court up to now?Back to the index of the Vagabond