web analytics

A thought about ‘crimes against humanity’

Saddam Hussein was executed a few days ago for crimes against humanity. His crimes were apparently for being responsible for the deaths of 148 people who tried to rise up and overthrow him after the first Gulf War.

First, any country which has a bunch of their people try to rise up and overthrow the leading power apparently has the right to try and prevent it. In America, it’s what the FBI tries to ensure doesn’t happen. And I’m sure there have been plenty of groups in the US who have wanted to rise up and overthrow the government… If a country’s leadership tries to prevent internal unrest, is it reasonable that they be charged with crimes against humanity?

If you feel that it’s reasonable, then ask yourself this. Why was the Clinton administration never charged with crimes against humanity for killing all those men, women and children in Waco, Texas in 1993? The methods used against them included flamethrowers, C2 nerve gas, and FBI snipers shooting any man, woman and child who tried to escape the flames. I guess they’re not crimes against humanity if they’re only crimes against ‘alleged criminals’ or religious nut cases.

Secondly, if Saddam was executed for crimes against humanity due to the deaths of 148 people who tried to overthrow his government, then the really interesting question I have to ask is, shouldn’t George Bush and Tony Blair be charged with the same thing, when their actions have led to the deaths of over 600,000 innocent Iraqis, and over 3,000 of their own people (military personnel)?

Who is going to charge the leading Western powers of crimes against humanity?

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for reading! Please add your own thoughts below.

Don't forget to subscribe for new posts sent to you by email!

%d bloggers like this: