Most Read

War criminal- Saddam or Bush?

20 January 2004, 18:00 PM
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
By MAS Molla, BAAS, Dhaka.
20 January 2004, 18:00 PM
The US-UK-Australia alliance unilaterally attacked Iraq in March 2003 without any threat from the Iraqis. The allied force killed many civilians and destroyed many natural resources and social organisations of Iraq including some invaluable relics of the Persian Civilisation. Thus, the US led war was against humanity, not only against Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

The war on Iraq did not have UN approval, nor did the world organisation support this attack. So the attack was both illegal and immoral.

The US soldiers arrested Iraqi President Mr. Saddam Hussein on December 14, 2003. The US says that Saddam is a war criminal and he will be tried. Yes, Saddam is a criminal just because he was defeated in the war and could be caught! This is a usual norm in war that the defeated party can be tried for criminality!

Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.

But all other norms and logic say that the US is the culprit. It has killed not only civilians but also military personnel (because they did not attack first, rather they defended only!), and destroyed some relics of an ancient civilisation.

However, the world community other than the US and its allies are weaker and do not have the power to try the US administration and forces.

Therefore, it is hoped that Saddam would be treated according to the Geneva Convention and the trial (if any) should take place in the International Court of Justice. This cannot be done in Iraq or the US. Why not in Iraq even? Because Iraq does not have a valid government--the present one is just a US lackey.

A better option is to arrange for a 'yes' or 'no' vote on Saddam as the President of Iraq. The majority of Iraqis are the ultimate authority of Iraq. They must decide on the matterwhether Saddam will be tried or given a chance to govern the country again.