2006-08-12 01:34:12 · 10 answers · asked by Navigator 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Saddam has committed political and non-political crimes. Political crimes are those that could not be judged by the courts but only by the public opinion polls while non-political crimes could be judged by the courts. His overruling the power and leadership beyond his capacity is something unconstitutional and is non-political. His refusal to let the UN check on nuclear bombs before is political and the courts have jurisdiction over it. His defending the integrity of his country is political but the manner which he massacred many of his own citizens trying to escape the country is non-political.
Whether or not he has committed grace abuse of discretion of his power is yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt
2006-08-12 02:16:31 · answer #1 · answered by Flordeluna A 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I believe they have bent over backwards give the appearance of a fair trial. Saddam is lucky to be alive now. But the standard needs to be set for the countries future.
2006-08-12 01:37:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
"70% of yankee human beings have self assurance 9/11 had no longer something to with sadden hussien, Asama bin weighted down grow to be Saddam hussien enemy, and Iraq had no nuclear weapons." your question is ridiculous and untrue the quote right it incredibly is astonishing pondering hussein did have no longer something to do with 9/11 , the place has that been reported that he did ?
2016-12-11 07:25:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
SInce our government placed him in power and kept him there for decades I think we need to balance the trial. But as history has always taught us...the people of power never have to answer for their crimes. So, tough luck Saddam! History is written by those that can afford to write it....and the same goes for justice.
2006-08-12 01:44:08 · answer #4 · answered by Charlooch 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'd call it Marsupial Justice at work... in other words... a Kangaroo Court. He was guilty until proven innocent... and he is going to stay guilty... the only question from the very beginning is if he is to be shot or hung... the outcome was never in doubt.
2006-08-12 01:40:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They shouldn't have wasted their time with a trial and just took him out back and took care of the problem! How's that for the legal side of it!
2006-08-12 01:42:37 · answer #6 · answered by tracy211968 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
He's getting a fair trial - something he declined to give to thousands of the nation's citizens.
2006-08-12 01:37:58 · answer #7 · answered by Bullwinkle Moose 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Not sure about the legal side of the issue. He seems to be losing his mind though. I can see it in his eyes.
2006-08-12 01:38:34 · answer #8 · answered by Baby Bloo 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Since it's based on Iraqi law, I don't think many people will be able to answer your question. How many lawyers have studied Iraqi law?
2006-08-12 01:40:38 · answer #9 · answered by miketorse 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NOT MUCH..............
2006-08-12 01:41:28 · answer #10 · answered by Sarang 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋