2006-12-30 16:33:05 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I personally feel that Saddam Hussein deserved his punishment, however I feel that his trial should never have happened when it did. Iraq is in chaos, the Government is only in power because of occupying forces, and there is a high chance that the Government might not even be around in 6 months or a year. The trial itself was full of conflict, many judges and a lot of lawyers resigned out of protest in the way it was being handled. Most of the judges showed prejudice against Saddam Hussein, and the one who didn't was removed.
So I think that Saddam, although he deserved a severe punishment for his crimes, was unjustly tried. In a huge case like this one, against the former leader of the Country, you can't just rush and have a trial for him before the Country is even on it's feet yet. It felt to me like the current Government knows they may not be in power for long so they wanted to get this done as fast as possible.
2006-12-30 16:46:24 · answer #1 · answered by Alex 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most of the highest Nazi officials were executed or died in prison for crimes against humanity.
Was that murder? Isn't genocide murder?
Are we barbarians living with the "eye for an eye" code?
There's definately something about killing someone that hurts all of humanity, that degrades us all.
A public execution reminds me of executions in Europe's town squares 600 years ago.
What wrong with this picture? Have we unevolved? Will we see executions a few decades from now on Cnn, as some kind of a reality show?
What happened to the "freedom" our parents fought and died for?
2006-12-31 00:42:51 · answer #2 · answered by Carl C 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, when a gang in the hood, ties you up puts you on your knees and puts two in the back of your head that is murder, but when a group of government guys tie you up, put a noose around your neck and drop the floor on you, that is execution. See the difference, me neither.
2006-12-31 00:51:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
He was given a fair trial and testimonies and evidence was obtained concerning his guilt. The Iraqi people and the judge decided he was guilty and promptly executed. So how does this pertain to murder after all I have said?
2006-12-31 01:12:12 · answer #4 · answered by toughguy2 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
After a trial with counsel and a judgment and an appeal, the resulting death is called 'execution', not murder.
2006-12-31 00:58:29 · answer #5 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It was justice carried out. If that is the way that the Iraqi citizens wanted to deal with him, then so be it. I personally believe that he didn't have any mercy on the million or so Kurds of Shiite citizens of Iraq, so why have mercy on him? He got what he deserved.
2006-12-31 00:41:42 · answer #6 · answered by Ramona C 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You mean the Iraqi courts that tried, convicted, and hung his worthless hide? No. Ironic thing is.. had he been tried in the American court system, he would have died of old age before all of his appeals ran out.
2006-12-31 00:36:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I wouldn't call it murder. I would call it justice being served. The world is a better and safer place without him.
2006-12-31 00:40:13 · answer #8 · answered by lita ozzy bear 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
no. He went through a trial, and was found guilty of mass murder. He deserved what he got.
2006-12-31 00:38:16 · answer #9 · answered by barbara m 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
no just like he did not murder all those people with his signed orders
2006-12-31 00:38:01 · answer #10 · answered by gunnyhoney1 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋