The non-trial of Saddam Hussein posted by Richard Seymour

Let me spare you the suspense, then. What you're going to see are some edited clips sticking to the following narrative: Worldly prosecutors read charges - Saddam is defiant; court hears plea - Saddam is defiant; tearful witnesses recount unspeakable brutality - Saddam is defiant; judge tells Saddam to behave himself - Saddam is, once more, defiant. The trial will nudge along painfully as every charge is shrouded in ersatz controversy and doubt by defense lawyers, while at the same time the very largest of crimes will go untouched because, well, er, some of the guys responsible for the prosecution were also complicit in the original crimes, and, er...

The contours of this ridiculous charade were already mapped out well in advance by the Milosevic trial, which is now into its third year. That greasy old shithawk has resourcefully deployed every means of obfuscation, while the US has censored evidence in the trial. All one ever gets to see is some footage in which Milosevic berates his prosecutors and vice versa. It seem to me that ex-communicated dictators always 'defiant', ie in some sense childlike, irrational, obstructive, in need of adult counselling, which is readily supplied by some appointed wigs. This is soap opera stuff.

The closest to justice that any of the former Khmer Rouge genocidaires ever came to was when, having been sworn into government by a Western conspiracy, Khiem Samphan returned to Cambodia and was beseiged at the top floor of his villa by a mob of angry Cambodians, some of whom had lost relatives to his regime's genocidal policies. They inflicted a head wound upon him, which sent him scampering to the bottom of a cupboard where he crouched, pouring blood on the floor, as they tore up his house chanting "Kill him! Kill him!". He eventually emerged clutching a pair of underpants to his bleeding skull.

Similarly, the only trial of Saddam worth watching would be one in which he was stood before a Kangaroo Court in Firdos Square, being tried by a post-revolutionary government. Instead of this mockery of 'authentic justice', shrouded in austere ceremony in which officious appointees proceed through a trial-by-performance, and in which the set-up is 'disrupted' (yet corroborated) by four-hour, rambling speeches, we might then see Saddam being obliged to appear before the populace in an orange jump suit. Every time he tried to plead 'innocent' to anything, the judge could scream "shut your face, you fucking liar!" and the guards could kick his face in. They'd then, having arrested his old international cronies - Rumsfeld etc - invite them to confess on pain of death to their complicity in mass murder, and execute them. Then, having hurried through the evidence and wasted no time on defense, they could throw him into the crowd and allow a carnival of Jacobin-style justice to erupt, a Bacchanalian orgy of drinking and mutilation. That way, no innocent people would be killed.

Never mind, eh? Turns out the reason there's a twenty-minute tape delay is "in case there's a outburst or something... or a security incident." Now, what sort of "outburst" could they be talking about? Naughty language in front of the children?