Where were the human rights for the people like Ken Bigley and other innocent people who were killed for no reason. I've not seen Human Rights do anything about that but Saddam killed innocent people cold blooded and they protect him.
2006-11-20 00:14:42 · 13 answers · asked by Confused 2 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
well what about the thousands of Palestinians dieing every year?....200 children dead since june...2000 killed in 2004...11 dead just last week...and then what about lebanon
2006-11-20 00:18:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
SteveNaiv's right - is this a serious question or just a troll? Smells like a troll to me.
I've sat in on court proceedings here in the UK, and there's a world of difference between the complexity of the evidence put forward in a trial compared to the extremely shallow version of events most people get of the legal system through some of the media and some politicians.
If you go round vigilante-style, rounding up anyone you happen to think's dodgy, a lot of innocent people are going to end up getting killed (remember the case here in the UK of the innocent man murdered because a bunch of idiots mistook him for a paedophile?) This is the sort of abuse that characterised Saddam's time. If we don't have a solid legal system based on evidence, then we end up as no better than the sort of kangaroo courts which operate in dictatorships around the world.
By the way, there seems to be this amazing ignorance about what the Human Rights Bill actually says, especially the part where it says that states are duty bound to protect their citizens from threats such as terrorism...
2006-11-20 14:00:07 · answer #2 · answered by lineartechnics 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because in the world of human rights there is not one person in the world who can possibly be bad, only misguided, a place where the sun always shines and the clouds are always fluffy.
It is a flawed and dangerous state of mind and these people really do not have a clue when it comes to the real world.
The bottom line is that whether you agree with it or not, if Saddam does receive the death penalty then there is no way he can ever harm another innocent person again, and it is the 'human rights' of the innocent that must come first and above anything else.
2006-11-20 00:29:10 · answer #3 · answered by Chris G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you asking this question to get a proper answer or to encourage a lot of half-informed, knee-jerk ranting? Perhaps we'll see when you choose a best answer.
Basic human rights apply to all human beings regardless of race, creed, religion or even guilt. Some people believe that some (a few) rights are inviolable - even if the person is a murderous, torturing monster like Saddam. One of those rights, is the right to a fair trial - it is one of those principles that we uphold so proudly in the west and which Saddam consistently ignored. It is one of the reasons we invaded - he was killing and torturing his fellow countrymen without any thought to their human rights. You might not think that Saddam deserves any mercy (neither do I) but it is essential that he is seen to have a fair trial. Human rights activists are not fighting in sympathy for Saddam or think he should go free - they are fighting to uphold the kinds of principles and process that we fight so hard to preserve here. If we ignore human rights ourselves, we totally lose the moral high ground - as we did following the Abu Graibh revelations.
2006-11-20 00:51:54 · answer #4 · answered by SteveNaive 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because saddam was actually on trial in a court, which means they can piss and moan about the way the system works. ken bigley died at the hands of extremists, wherein there is no "system" so if they moan about that then the muslims would go mad. And we all know that you cant piss the muslims off, that would be bad for relations!
2006-11-20 00:27:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He can only be tried from the things that he is directly responsible for, like the gassing of the village in the north, theres proof that he gave the order for that to happen.
Where as they can't pin him for the execution of innocent hostages, because he didn't give the order.
It's the same reason that bush wasn't up before the human rights commission for the mistreatment of the prisoners in Iraq. Because he didn't give the order it was people acting on their own.
2006-11-20 00:29:09 · answer #6 · answered by dark.crusade 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure, it extremely is taken into consideration necessary that they difficulty AND that folk act upon the observations. to no longer gain this will bring about extra community outrage, violence, killing and tyranny. it extremely is the proper occasion the place it is so important for justice to no longer only be executed, yet additionally seen to be executed so as that peace can smash out by utilising exhibiting Iraqis and the international community that regulation and order in Iraq might nicely be depended directly to get issues precise by utilising giving defendants a truthful trial/listening to in spite of who they are or with what they are charged. The Iraqi infrastructure is only too fragile to go through a self-inflicted blow. trouble-free human beings ought to be certain that they are able to have self belief in 'the gadget'. The checklist by utilising Human Rights Watch, if acted upon by utilising the government, will help Iraq gain their targets for inner peace that little bit swifter.
2016-11-25 21:01:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the suggestion is that no matter how bad your own Human Rights violations - you are still human and therefore deserve to be treat as such.
I don't agree - if you violate someone else's human right, then yours should be recinded, but that would be opening a whole can of worms, so we're going to have to live with it I'm afraid.
2006-11-20 00:18:49 · answer #8 · answered by mark 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Little one,
When you have master our creator's universal communication system then you will know what is wrong is wrong in planet of apes.
What happened is that everyone is at loss and blurr on what went wrong out there in planet of apes.
The blunders and slip-ups with human errors created back in the past being expose in time with living human kind in kicking their own butts in making a monkey out of themselves in planet of apes.
While the poor old Saddam was at loss and blurr on what wnet wrong out there when he was bull shitting his neighbours with ghost stories in planet of apes.
At loss how little children fall for it with him getting himself kick on the butts in planet of apes.
2006-11-20 22:59:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Human-Rightists ought to bother about everything human, and humanely possible.
2006-11-20 00:42:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋