Does Saddam's verdict set a legal precedent?

Question

For future court cases involving Politicians who initiate the killing thousands of innocent Iraqi's?

If you're gonna try one corrupt regime... try em all....

Answer 1

Saddam was convicted of using chemical weapons on unarmed civilians.

Many people that testified, spoke of the numerous crimes against humanity he's committed, not to mention the years in which he refused to cooperate with the sanctions that the U.N. imposed after the first gulf war. (Had the U.N. not been incompetent, Bush never would have had grounds for going to Iraq to begin with, the blame should be spread around a bit more)

If your question was hinting at a comparisson between Saddam and our own government, get over it already. People lose a lot of credibility when the make those sorts of comparisons (if you, in fact, are). I'm not a Bush supporter, but I haven't seen him drop mustard gas into anyone's home town yet.

Answer 2

I think it continues similar precedents of the past such as the Nuremberg Trials , however as long as the guilty party is carrying a big stick so to speak they will be immune to these precedents . Once the stick is removed if or when it is , only then will the precedents be repeated in future similar scenario's .

Answer 3

Be nice if it did, imagine how much more peaceful this world would be if one USA President and one Isreal Prime Minister were put on trial..

Answer 4

no it don't. I'm waiting for this Iraq government to follow threw with the sentencing . i want to see if they really hang Saddam . smoke and mirrors

Answer 5

no

Answer 6

No.

Answer 7

NO