I never really followed Saddam’s trial.  Frankly, it was too much to watch.  I didn’t know what I was watching either.  Was it “Iraqi Justice”, or some other extension of the US Justice system? Or even some other newly formed mechanism?  Well, Darryl sorts it out over at Horsesass.org and I think even if you are among the last remaining Bush supporters, the trial and its results are alarming.

The IST is at the root of the court’s kangarooness. The laws under which Hussein was tried were, largely, a U.S. concoction that fails standards of international law, Iraqi law, and even U.S. law.

You may recall an awkward period following the capture of Hussein when the Coalition had no idea what to do with their prized prisoner. Would there be an international tribunal in The Hague (a la Bosnia)? Would there be an Iraqi tribunal with assistance of the International Criminal Court (a la Rwanda)?

In fact, neither of these happened. The Coalition (i.e. the U.S.) could not accept oversight by an international court for a number of political reasons, like the fact that the Bush administration had been openly hostile to and attempted to undermine the ICC, and eventually withdrew from the treaty. Perhaps the most important political consideration, though, was that any oversight by the ICC would exclude the death penalty for Saddam Hussein. That was “unacceptable to the Iraqi people,” as the Bush administration told us. But more importantly it was unacceptable to the Bush administration.

If you feel like I do, you probably feel a bit uncertain and annoyed that you weren’t paying more attention.  And your probably not feeling sorry for Saddam, but rather sorry for the process that flew in the face of the rule of law that is so vocally cherished by the Bush administration, yet rarely practiced.