plz tell ur country name in the answer
2006-12-30 06:38:59 · 26 answers · asked by abc x 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
As fair as any other.
2006-12-30 06:40:07 · answer #1 · answered by Dane 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it was more than fair. He should've been shot on sight and he wasn't. He lived in a secret jail where no one could find him and kill him. He ate Doritos (I'm not lying at all) and spoke with his jailers and joked and gave them advice on life. He had a trial (which he wasn't even owed) and he was convicted by a jury of his own countrymen. He killed hundreds of people and in his country, you are executed for killing people.
He was an awful man, and if you think for one second that the world is NOT better off with Saddam as worm food, then see a doctor because you are most likely retarded.
2006-12-30 06:43:13 · answer #2 · answered by tcsmoooth 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm afraid it wasn't up to us (The United States of America) whether Saddam's execution and trial were fair or not. Those decisions were left up to the Iraqi people, the ones who against which, Saddam committed his crimes. Remember if it were left up to us, Saddam even if convicted, would not have faced the executioner for at least 10 years!
2006-12-30 06:46:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
From US
Yes it was fair...at least he got a trial with a jury and judge, his victims didn't get that. I personally think the Iraqi people showed remarkable restraint and fairness...imagine if Saddam had done those atrocities to you and your country!
2006-12-30 06:42:40 · answer #4 · answered by aligal8 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, United States
2006-12-30 06:41:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
His execution was more than fair, quite better than he deserved. I think the trial was probably just for show and he was convicted long before he entered the court room.
USA
2006-12-30 20:09:15 · answer #6 · answered by higg1966 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The trial was handled poorly. He was tried for killing hundreds of Kurds who were in active rebellion to his government at the time. Governors of American states kill as many every year for less serious crimes. The trial needed to focus on clear cut atrocities, not on how he dealt with rebel forces. It was so poorly handled that a former American Attorney General felt compelled to join the defense team. Given that this was the one outcome of the war that seems clear-cut, it would be nice if the verdict were more clearly obvious.
2006-12-30 06:45:35 · answer #7 · answered by snarkysmug 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know if a "fair" trial was possible for someone like him. However, I don't know the details of how the trial was conducted--I'm just guessing that regardless of whether or not it was clear he was guilty, I doubt a "fair and impartial jury" could ever be provided. (I don't even think they used a jury, however.)
I'm from America.
2006-12-30 06:44:19 · answer #8 · answered by justme 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer think of you're loopy. i think a rustic whose authorities has to function interior a citadel the place the generic public can no longer bypass, who has to hold courtroom in an un-disclosed area, isn't able to rendering any sturdy/trustworthy judgments in such concerns. They mandatory to do away with him with the aid of fact he had a great form of enjoying cards he develop into protecting, and that they went to the grave with him.. That leaves me to have self assurance the two the guy had greater honor than he has been given credit for, or it wasn't him who develop into hanged.
2016-12-15 04:41:29 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
AS a citizen of the U.S. I think that the fact that they gave him a trial of any kind was more than fair.
2006-12-30 06:45:13 · answer #10 · answered by BRENDA K 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No less fair than his treatment of people when he was in power; including the money he took for doing the bidding of others..
USA
2006-12-30 09:30:37 · answer #11 · answered by Tommy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋