Finally

Something that Victor Davis Hanson and I agree on.

"Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other global humanitarian groups recently expressed criticism over the slated trial of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein. Such self-appointed auditors of moral excellence were worried that his legal representation was inadequate. Or perhaps they felt the court of the new Iraqi democracy was not quite up to the standards of wigged European judges in The Hague."

Sometimes Amnesty and HRW are too concerned with legalities and protocol, rather than focusing on the big picture. Saddam will be put on trial, and that is a good thing.

Of course that's the only point that Hanson and I agree on as he then proceeds to state:

"Now these global watchdogs are barking about legalities — once Saddam is in shackles thanks solely to the American military (which, too, is often criticized by the same utopian-minded groups). The new Iraqi government is sanctioned by vote and attuned to global public opinion. Saddam Hussein was neither. So Amnesty International can safely chastise the former for supposed misdemeanors after it did little concrete about the real felonies of the latter."

Last time I checked Amnesty and HRW have made numerous reports detailing the atrocities of Saddam. They were not silently standing by and watching Saddam slaughter Iraqi civilians.

The main point is that Saddam will be tried and that is good. Do I think that we should have gone to war just to rid the world of Saddam? No. But that is a subject for another time.