Saddam's Trial: Incredible Stuff

You may have heard that the judge in Saddam's trial has quit, but you not have heard why he is quitting:

Amin's complaints of government interference have rocked the US-sponsored court, whose ability to stage a fair trial amid sectarian and ethnic conflict had already been thrown into doubt by the killings of two defence lawyers and talk of intimidation.

To further quote the SMH article, "the departure of the much-televised face of the court amid complaints of government interference may do lasting damage to the court's credibility".

Now listen. Saddam's trial should be the show-piece of the new "Democratic" Iraq, and it should be the icing on the cake of the Bush neo-con's enlightened vision for the Middle East. Shouldn't it?

So what are we to make of the fact that these buffoons cannot even properly organize the trial of a man who is no doubt guilty of countless crimes? Why can they not allow such a trial to be run within established legal norms? Is it because they are scared what Saddam might have to say about their own dark pasts? What else are we to presume?