Saddam's to hang, so why aren't Blair and Bush on trial?

Sami Rahman

After months of anticipation the trial of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's came to an end when he was sentenced to death by hanging for his crimes against humanity.

The ex- dictator may no longer be able to continue his reign of terror, but is life in Iraq really any better following his removal by American invaders? The White House described the controversial verdict as another "great day for Iraq".

Excuse me but when has there ever been a  'great day for Iraq'? With British and American troops still occupying their land, even after Saddam's capture, and the death toll of innocent civilians continuing to rise beyond 100,000, there seems to be more conflict then ever. So should we be giving Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush a pat on the back for their splendid  'war on terror' or questioning their twisted idea of justice? Afterall, Saddam was heavily armed by America and Britain when he was their ally.

The Saddam trial verdict - predictable as it was - has caused mixed feelings among the public. Shia Muslims, who suffered the most under Saddam's regime, celebrated in high spirits at the news. In contrast, many Sunni Muslims remained displeased at the news. American President George Bush said: "The world is better off for it." He went on to say that the verdict meant that the Iraqi people could finally "replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law".

One person who's feelings towards Saddam's sentence remains ambiguous is Prime Minster Tony Blair.
Although he has said he is against the death penalty, in keeping with Britain's membership of the European Union which forbids capital punishment, he does not explicitly object to Saddam's fate. The Prime Minster's reaction to such a monumental event in history is silence because he knows that Iraq is still in a state of emergency, verging on civil war - with or without Saddam. Many members of the public now think that it was not right that America and Britain should invade Iraq, on the pretext of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and seize Saddam, its head of state.

Whatever your opinion is on the death sentence, it cannot be argued that Saddam is guilty of mass murder and his two decades of rule over Iraq have caused greater oppression to his people than invasion of the country. The man was a ruthless dictator. But Blair and Bush's great vision of a peaceful Iraq remain a fantasy.

There seems to be no evidence that it is moving towards a more peaceful nation. Former US Assistant Defence Secretary Kenneth Adelman recently criticised Blair for his Iraq war mistakes. He said: "The British certainly did not confront the Americans enough to say: 'This is all falling apart ... we are really doing stupid things here'."

Saddam Hussein will most likely be hanged for his atrocious crimes and this act, as barbaric as any he ever committed, will be seen by some people as justice because of the suffering his regime inflicted on his own people.

However, the fact that he is not the only leader to have caused many deaths in Iraq. George Bush and Tony Blair went into a war knowing fully well that what they were doing was illegal. They are personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and British and American troops. If Saddam is being held accountable for his crimes then surely they should too as war criminals.