saddam and jury?

Question

all we have heard for the past few years was saddam was so bad he killed so many was such a bad person how did they find enough people to find a completely impartial jury thats gonna be fair

Answer 1

I understand what you are trying to get at…you think that the jury was leaning towards killing him no matter what. That they were impartial, and that Saddam didn’t have a fair trial.

Saddam killed thousands of his own people, and rather than the U.S. or the U.N. taking over Saddam’s trials, we gave him up to his country, and allowed them….the people…the ones who suffered the most, to decide his fate. Is it not fair this man that killed thousands just by a simple command, not to face his fate because the jury was impartial? Should we turn a blind eye towards this man that tortured hundreds because he felt like hearing their screams of agony?

The people he killed and tortured wanted justice, and now that Saddam is sentenced to death, they have it.

Look also at the Nazi generals that faced hangings for their horrendous acts during World War II. Everyone in the world that fought against them and their allies were impartial towards them.

All these horrible men had fair trials…they told their side of the story, and defended what they did. They were heard, and questioned, yet in the end, the got what they deserved…they faced a terror they themselves dished out onto innocent millions. They were hung or shot by a firing squad.

Answer 2

He was not tried before a jury, any more than the Nazi war criminals were. He was tried before a panel of five judges. Now that they have rendered a verdict of guilty, the case will be reviewed by another panel of nine judges.

Answer 3

What was the point in a trial anyways? We all knew he'd eventually be put to death or murdered.