Unless you are a suppporter of Saddam Hussein, we all know what a brutal dictator he was and that he murdered and tortured thousands of his own people. We have seen TV footage, newspaper and magzine photos, online stories, and we have had the personnal accounts of tenths of thousands of Iraqis who fled Iraq over the last 20-30 years.
If all of the above is true then why have a trial if we all knew he would be executed anyway? We all know he NEVER had a chance to win. What is your opinion?
2006-12-30 00:44:12 · 10 answers · asked by nowhere 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Brief attempt to build morality over the case of Saddam based on hate has nothing to do with ethic..Yes he is a bastard, but he was not alone...It was people around him who followed him...A lot of people whom was willing to kill , to oppress ...He was supported big time by his own people..Same as other dictators, Stalin, Hitler and many others... Look Fidel Castro running Country for so long...Alone? Nope...There is not just hate but also Love...Dissidents? Statistically there is very microscopic percent look like a huge crowd, exodus out of general population in Cuba..other still there ..Russia the same...Political propaganda makes everything lie, not as it is ,indeed.. Dictators, and presidents cannot do much without support of masses...Rush and secrecy behind scene with which execution has been carried would question even morality...but , again makes people a lot of people feel dump, or even scared...They can do it with Saddam then can do it with everyone...we are all humans. There is no secret that President Bush want it from the beginning and started with a hoax of mass distractions weapon...there is no reliable evidence that it is Iraqi ppl made a justice...America is over its creation Iraqi Government and its structures...Was it really justice...You judge, People...
2006-12-30 01:52:03 · answer #1 · answered by Oleg B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe it's a case of just seeing that the formalities are met.
I'd never go so far as to say that it was merely a show trial. It was needful in order to ensure that justice was seen to be done, and to give some sort of closure to the survivors, even if the evidence against the accused was well-nigh overwhelming.
I once had occasion to ask a criminal lawyer the question, "What do you do when your client is patently guilty, with evidence so firm that there's no question of his innocence?" The attorney told me, "In that case, the only thing I can really do is see to it that his rights are protected at every step in the process."
I think this was the case with Saddam Hussein.
2006-12-30 08:54:59 · answer #2 · answered by Chrispy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason you give Saddam a trial is that in a civilized society you give EVERYONE a trial.
Simple reason for this, once you start to make exceptions to this rule, then you find yourself on a "slippery slope" and you make more and more exceptions and fewer and fewer people get trials, till finally nobody gets a trial and the cops can just pick you up and haul you off to prison for no reason, and you aren't living in a free society anymore.
It is better to waste the time and the money on giving obviously guilty people a fair trial than to set the precident of only giving trials in some cases.
2006-12-30 12:12:13 · answer #3 · answered by Larry R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Trial was just a publicity stunt. To show the masses what happens when you defi the will of the US gov. Its funny how no one ever looks at all the good saddam did in his life. To say that the man was pure evil and never did any good is a shame for all of humanity. But instead we focus only on the bad like the media wants. Im not saying saddam was my best friend by any means but I think we could have been friends and learned from each other in some way. Guess I'll never have that chance now...
2006-12-30 10:14:19 · answer #4 · answered by magpiesmn 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The evidence was too heavily weighted against him preventing him from "winning". But, due process was needed. This is the case in many mass murder cases. Everyone knows the person is guilty, yet they are entitled to their day in court. The same needed to be true for Hussein. It is ethical and moral...his rights to a trial were fulfilled.
2006-12-30 08:48:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think of it as matter of form.
He never had a chance because his guilt utterly apparent (gobs of witnesses and evidence).
Think of the Nazis and Nuremberg.
Did they have a chance, no, their guilt was self-evident (again gobs of witnesses and evidence) but we still went through the process for posterity.
So that generations from now they can look back and see that these heinous creatures were tried according to the laws that applied to them i.e. their country (Iraqi law for jagoff) or international law (when you are dealing perpetrators in a with a global conflict).
2006-12-30 17:13:55 · answer #6 · answered by octopussy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He had a fair trial, with fair representation, which is guaranteed to us.... We are a civilized culture. We had a trial because we are not barbarians. Saddam WAS a barbarian which is why he gassed entire villages without giving them trials... Get educated, why ask questions like this....
2006-12-30 09:29:00 · answer #7 · answered by She Said 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The justice system of the world requires that a man be permitted to face his accusers and be allowed to defend his actions.
Any other way would be vigilante justice which is just as wrong.
But now that he is dead, what has changed?
2006-12-30 10:11:16 · answer #8 · answered by drg5609 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
hopefully, all brutal dictators, and their associates, no matter where located, who are resposible for numerous deaths, justified by them on the basis of lies, will meet the same end ;-) as soon as possible, after due process has been observed, of course. ;-)
2006-12-30 18:38:47 · answer #9 · answered by drakke1 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The judges had to get paid for some work, rather than nothing
2006-12-30 13:41:44 · answer #10 · answered by MT5678 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋