Fragile Dictator: Handle with care
By Miguel Guanipa (10/22/05)
I remember the day when it was reported in the news that a 1500 pound great white female shark had wandered into Cape Cod’s shallow waters. Conservation environmentalists figured they were morally obligated to find a way to gently steer the lovable predator away from the shallow waters so that it would continue to thrive.
I admit I was somewhat bewildered at what the parties involved had decided would be the best strategy for addressing this unusual event. But this is a typical approach by animal rights activists who firmly believe in the supremacy of animals and the parasitic influence of humans upon their natural habitat. I wonder if they made sure to get rid of the burdensome vacationers who were creating an imbalance in the poor creature’s ecosystem before they nudged it to a safer location.
I know animal rights advocates will probably recoil at my insensitivity but if I hear that a great white shark is marooned anywhere near the same waters where I am swimming I will probably get a harpoon and take care of it the old fashioned way. Which incidentally, is the same approach I would recommend to international authorities in dealing with terrorists. (In the old fashioned way I mean, and not the harpoon.)
That is probably why I was equally mystified when I read that a group called Human Rights Watch had listed the names of several senior Al-Qaeda suspects that were held by the CIA in secret locations overseas, where some had reportedly been tortured. This is the same group which recently issued an admonition to the civilized world not to allow Saddam’s trial to be perceived as “vengeful justice“.
I had been unaware that such painstaking attention to decorum in the bristly province of international diplomacy and proper etiquette as far as the rights of barbaric despots are concerned had become so significant. Personally I think that being overly preoccupied with the human rights of people whose favorite pastime is making home videos of decapitations is akin to making sure that a serial murderer is fully satisfied with the assortment of cuisine choices offered in the jail menu. Which brings me back to Saddam Hussein’s trial.
One group which seems to be dealing with tremendous mental anguish in trying to ensure that proper diplomatic intercourse is adhered to during this historical trial is the aforementioned group Human Rights Watch.
They have charitably condescended to note that the Iraqi Governing Council may be permitted to establish a tribunal to try Saddam for crimes against humanity, yet in the same breath they have also expressed grave skepticism at the tribunal law key provisions’ ability to ensure a legitimate and credible trial. This is a sentiment which the jovial ex-ruler of Iraq himself has made clearly evident by his unruly behavior during his recent court proceedings.
I would inquire, what exactly constitutes reasonable doubt under the most general provisions of international law, for such a prolific murderer like Saddam Hussein?
Were the thousands of Kurds which he personally ordered to be gassed simply staging a sleepover on the streets of Halabjah? Are those souls who survived his torture chambers simply people who lacked adequate training on how to slice a frozen bagel? Was the assassination, imprisonment, and execution strategies followed by Saddam's regime in dealing with Iraqi people just the norm in countries with peculiar governments that the United States should not interfere with?
Gone are the good old days when tyrants were condemned for the atrocities they had perpetrated against their fellow human beings. Today’s liberal and hence more “tolerant” international legal entities are more concerned with catering to a genocidal ex-potentate’s basic human rights such as providing a court appointed attorney and an unlimited supply of Cheetos.
This moral discomposure is but one of the legion illegitimate children of liberalism which has finally come of age.
The high priests of today’s liberal fringe will strain the gnat of nebulous and fragmentary transgressions by political opponents, (as we have recently witnessed in the politically motivated indictment of Tom Delay and the Karl Rove legal fiasco) and then swallow the camel of pursuing extraordinary caveats to protect the civil rights of one dubbed the Butcher of Baghdad. They are indeed in the details.
I can understand why this leaves them utterly perplexed as to how it is that one is supposed to properly treat a barbarian. Or a 1500 pound vicious aquatic predator for that matter.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
