2006-11-04 21:50:44 · 23 answers · asked by http://hogshead.pokerknave.com/ 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I don't know I wasn't there!
2006-11-04 21:52:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
You'd have to define what a fair trial is- I think affairs in Iraq are all a bit of a charade to tell the truth. Is it revenge or justice? Is it a bit of both? Saddam is not a nice guy... but he fought the Iran-Iraq war on the bidding of the West, and used chemical weapons during that- and he's going down for the murder of 148 Shia's? There are larger crimes he could answer for, and a broader perspective that could be taken, and that's not happening. I venture the word 'farce' for your consideration.
2006-11-04 22:19:19 · answer #2 · answered by Buzzard 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sadam Hussein received MORE THAN a fair trail in my opinion. He's caused so much pain, grief, misery and suffering to millions of people. He deserves to be publically executed and I would hope it would be broadcast all over the world so we can all watch it at home on our TV's.
Ooh I always thought I was a pacifist until now ;(
2006-11-04 22:06:47 · answer #3 · answered by Mermaid 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Is a temporary government
In a selected court officers
During a civil conflict with no elected parliment members
Outsider will see the trail as an abuser of human rights
2006-11-04 22:08:12 · answer #4 · answered by kimht 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Firstly, small correction of the Q-typo please: TRIAL not TRAIL. Steve Crawshaw says "Justice, however, must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.”
Unlike the Nuremberg trials, which sentenced former Nazi leaders to death after the Second World War, a court run by Iraqis could not be accused of delivering "victors' justice".
So, the atrocities committed by Saddam entail him the death penalty.
2006-11-04 23:19:42 · answer #5 · answered by Hafiz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
exciting question to confirm. i think of that his crimes have been "in homestead" along with his very own people so as that they could be those to hold him to blame. Had he used a WMD against yet another u . s ., then maximum somewhat he ought to have been. i might wager that President Bush and top Minister Blair had communities of attorneys way smarter than I looking into their judgements previously they grew to become him over to the Iraqi courtroom. g-day!
2016-12-28 13:20:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fairer than those who are now not here to witness it, and the news just reports he has been sentenced to death.
I am in general against the death sentence as too many people have received it and afterward been found not guilty - far too late to save them.
In this case I do not think there is any doubt.
2006-11-04 22:03:10 · answer #7 · answered by steven b 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It was probably one the fairest trials ever conducted in the Middle East, instead of summary execution in a market square with an AK47.
2006-11-04 21:59:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
To be honest dont think yr question is what is important now. The outcome is. Will hanging him make him a martyr?
2006-11-04 22:03:30 · answer #9 · answered by english_rose10 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
he was always going to be executed that had to be the outcome so i guess if the fairness of the trial was not going to bring about the outcome of execution an unfair one would.
2006-11-04 21:57:42 · answer #10 · answered by brioduinn 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The trail was not fair, but he recieved exact justice.."God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow......"
2006-11-04 22:21:15 · answer #11 · answered by mrktk44 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋