Have "The Crows Join[ed] the Lynching"?

Tweet I have to say I think she raises some good points in this article--how COULD Hussein's trial have been anything but a travesty as it was held during an illegal occupation following an illegal invasion:

"Now let’s go back to the assassination of the legitimate President of the Republic of Iraq.

"Instead of pointing out the barbarity of this umpteenth crime and calling for the restoration of international law and the punishment of its perpetrators, the crows add their caw to the hyenas and vultures of the lynching mob and discuss the alleged crimes of the victim. ZNet, the fleet admiral of the Imperial antiwar movement information network, published several pieces on the death of Saddam Hussein. All these pieces had the same point of view. In "TALKING POINTS ON THE EXECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN", Phyllis Bennis, one of the most prominent voices of the American anti-war movement, writes:

With U.S. officials still running the legal show in Baghdad, the U.S. military occupation still in control of the country, and the escalating war engulfing Iraq, no trial held under these conditions can be considered legitimate.

2) Some ask "if the trial had been fair, would the results have been different?" The conviction of Saddam Hussein for huge crimes against the Iraqi people would almost certainly be the same.

"Bennis’ words ["The conviction of Saddam Hussein for huge crimes against the Iraqi people would almost certainly be the same"] simply repudiate several hundred years of civilization. The use of the word "execution" to describe what really happened, the lynching of the legitimate president of Iraq, together with focusing her essay on the alleged crimes of the victim instead of the 'supreme international crime’ of the aggressors, deliberately blind the readers and move their attention to more comfortable and safe sites.