Saddam verdict: Was the trial fair?

In March 2003 the world community meekly watched United States and United Kingdom invade Iraq under all false pretexts. A spineless body called United Nations was bullied into obeying the US diktats. Reams of paper were shamelessly fabricated and placed as evidence in ‘proof’ of Saddam Hussein's covert efforts at producing weapons of mass destruction. Liberating Iraq from tyranny of a dictator and establishing democracy in that country were the goals purportedly pursued by the coalition forces. They succeeded in toppling Saddam but miserably failed in all other endeavours including unearthing the WMD and establishing a democratic order, the two most cherished goals of Bush-Blair duo. Today more than three and half years into the Iraq war and things have deteriorated to the worst possible extent. Iraq's integrity as one country is at stake not to mention of the hundreds getting killed each day one way or the other. The so called champions of democracy are responsible for the relentless massacre of the same people who they came in to save from a dictator. Saddam Hussein without doubt was a dictator but he managed his country well. No matter what the US says, he was a secular leader who despised terrorism and never encouraged subversive elements. When he fought it was like a solider, not a guerrilla or a bandit.

And today on the eve of mid-term Congressional elections in United States, which the Republicans are widely reported to be losing, we heard that Saddam has been sentenced to death for massacring some 148 of his countrymen; the funniest charge a former head of state is asked to answer and the flimsiest to send him to gallows.

The other day an Iraqi government official ridiculed the idea that the verdict and its timing were decided at the behest of the US. He told reporters that the Iraqi justice system was independent of the parliament and the government. In fact, it ought to be so but before saner minds get convinced of such a system's independence it has to prove its existence and verifiably sustain itself. Since there is no political system in place in Iraq how can one believe that the same parliament and the judiciary would still be there when the Americans have gone back home. Doesn't the whole set up need the American presence to keep itself up? What if after executing Saddam the justice system itself perishes under some circumstances? Where is the credibility of the whole system then?

I am in no way advocating that Saddam should not be made to face the law. If someone commits a crime he has to answer the charges. But the world community should ensure this time that the justice system which pronounces judgment should first prove itself before such judgments are carried out. Else the saner world will have one more one more count of failure against its name.