The hunger strike is a simple, classic, often-moving form of protest. Often a political protest, it’s a method of non-violent resistance used by Mahatma Gandhi and suffragettes, among others. Now another illustrious personage seeks to join the ranks of peaceful protest: Saddam Hussein.

Hussein announced in February that he, as well as several of his co-defendants, had been on a hunger strike for days “in protest against the treatment from you and your masters.” This is a reaction concerning his treatment as a prisoner and the United States involvement in Iraq. His claims of refusing food have yet to be substantiated and may or may not be ongoing.

People should have the right to engage in any form of non-violent protest that conveys a message without harming others. However, I cannot believe that Hussein has chosen this particular method because of his finer qualities. He simply has no other recourse outside of appearing in court in his pajamas, shouting things during the trial to show his displeasure and just being a general pain for the judicial system.

He cannot hope to elicit American sympathies with such a protest. Although we now know that President Bush’s contention that there was an Iraq-Afghanistan connection was faulty, Hussein was responsible for the death of a number of his own people. I will not say I wish for his own death, but I wonder how many peoplewould truly mourn his passing if it happened to occur.

I’m waiting for the “Free Saddam Hussein” bumper sticker to catch on with the international public.

Hussein has entered into his fast protesting what he sees as an unfair trial and called for a new judge. Well, let him hane one.

If you are a follower of any of the three major religions, namely Catholicism, Judaism or Islam, it is God who is your ultimate judge. Although his use of the hunger strike isn’t quite the plea for peace it usually is, I say we should support Hussein in his endeavor. This way everyone wins.