Saddam's "crime against humanity," is it rightly justified?

Those of you that are following the current events, you'll be most likely being repeatedly bombarded by the news of Saddam Hussein's impending execution (well, they've just executed him a few hours ago). However, what you probably didn't notice, and the western media's failure in disclosure, is the way Saddam was convicted based on his "crime against humanity." Today's BBC read:

Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by an Iraqi court on 5 November after a year-long trial over the killings of 148 Shias from the village of Dujail in the 1980s.

A trial in a second case, alleging genocide against Kurds, continues against him.

So, how come Saddam was not convicted and sentenced to death for his alleged genocide against the Kurds? What about the hundreds of Shias he murdered in the aftermath of post-Gulf War uprisings in the early 90's? What about the 1.5 millions of Iranians who died in the atrocity of Iran-Iraq war? Why did the prosecutors hang him in a hurry? Why didn't they give him impartial just in arguably the most important trial of this year?

Saddam was not convicted for the aforementioned genocides and atrocities because the US, Britain, and their allies, often termed "one of us," had all committed similar atrocities against either domestically or in a foreign soil. For the US, it was the murder of Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War. Remember the "Highway of Death," where both American and British bombers targeted fleeing civilians and soldiers, whom had no protection whatsoever against attacks from the air, with precision bombs, strafing after strafing? How then, does the US-backed Iraqi court judge whether Saddam has committed a war crime or a crime against humanity? How do you think they did that?

The US-sponsored criminal court prosecutes any "crime against humanity" case, since the post-World War 2 era, base on what the perpetrator had committed. If the dictator had committed crime which neither US nor Britain has committed in similarity then it is to be judged as "crime against humanity," however, if the dictator committed crime which both countries and their allies has committed in similarity and intensity, such as the brutal massacre of civilians and defenseless soldiers along the "Highway of Death," and US-sponsored Kurdish massacre by the Turkish government, the crime is not to be tried as "crime against humanity." Sometimes, it is not even used as evidence in the "trial."

This is very true as we have witnessed in Iraq recently, notably the trial of Saddam Hussein.

One cannot find what I mentioned above amongst any of the western media, it is only mentioned in literatures written by intellectuals whom are critical of US foreign policy, such as Noam Chomsky. This bias in prosecuting a criminal for the war crimes he/her committed has been stated explicitly in several of Chomsky's books, interviews, and documentaries. This agenda of the elite states behind the prosecution of Saddam would clearly answer Robert Fisk's questions in his most recent article from Independent:

But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers - what about the other guilty men?

No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don't gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn't invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead - and thousands of Western troops are dead - because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality.

Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.

And the mass killings we perpetrated in 2003 with our depleted uranium shells and our "bunker buster" bombs and our phosphorous, the murderous post-invasion sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, the hell-disaster of anarchy we unleashed on the Iraqi population in the aftermath of our "victory" - our "mission accomplished" - who will be found guilty of this? Such expiation as we might expect will come, no doubt, in the self-serving memoirs of Blair and Bush, written in comfortable and wealthy retirement.

Of course, the atrocities conducted by the "real" sponsors of the criminal states would always be disguised under the pretext of humanitarian aid and liberation against the dictatorial regimes. The crimes we committed are simply not to be questioned. They're aid and assistance to the "impoverished," although most of them are measured in similar intensity as "crime against humanity." This is not what the US policy makers want you to know!