Do you think Saddam should have been tried in an international court? Would that have been a more interesting?

Question

trial and revealed more about third nation involvement in his atrocities?

Answer 1

Yes, having an independent and international court for his trial would indeed be much better, for even people like him deserved a fair trial which was not granted and in this regards, he won a moral or technical victory against Bush and his warmonger associates.

But hey, now that we're at it, why not let Bush be tried in an international court. I'm sure it will be the event of the century. Hmm. Forget century, it can even be the event of the millenium!

God knows best.

Happy Eid al-Adha and Happy New Year.

Peace and Love.

Answer 2

No. His primary crimes were against the Iraqi people and the law of Iraq applies to the case. Justice is only served when a person is tried fairly within the boundaries of the law allegedly violated and by his peers. Certainly, other countries could claim violations of law, and if his country would release him to be tried elsewhere, and it is their choice, it would only be after they are done with him. They are done now, but thankfully he is no longer qualified to stand trial.
The point of a trial is not for the interest of spectators but for justice. An "international court" is a completely misunderstood concept. There must be clearly defined laws for you such that you know when those laws have been violated. If you are a US citizen or visitor and you have violated a law, there are mechanisms laid out and protections in place to see that justice is done. Now what if some "international tribunal" was convened with completely different and inconsistent law - how fair would that be? Who decided on those laws? What say in that did you have?

Answer 3

There was more than a third. There was Iran, Syria, Saudi, Germany, France, Lebanon, Russia and China. All supporting Saddam. Saddam was directly responsible for the deaths of nearly half a million people.

Answer 4

Hi Happy. I thought It was fitting that he was tried before the people he commited the crimes on. I think the trial was really just a formality, the conclusion was already forgone.
Perhaps it would be better if more of the grafic news got out to the world, then maybe you would'nt have anyone feeling sorry, or praying for the basta d.

Answer 5

He was tried in Iraq by the Iraqi people. He was tried under their laws with some international laws included (they didn't have to be). He was found guilty by Iraqi judges. He appealed to the limit of Iraqi law and was punished within the laws of Iraq. Would you want some country like Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Ethiopia come in and use their laws against you or anyone outside of their country?

Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people, not any outside party or state, was part of Saddam's crimes against the Iraqi people.

Answer 6

No, the international court would have gone on just like Milosevic and you never would have gotten any result. The international courts are a joke. And that is being nice.

Answer 7

That would be an open door for NWO. However, it would have been a little more interesting to see--maybe a longer trial, more truth, wider vision of the things he did. They should have crucified him.

Answer 8

I commpletely agree that he should have been tried in an international court. Even the worst criminals deserve a fair trial, without bias.

Answer 9

Perhaps, but the Iraqis had jurisdiction over the captured dictator.

Answer 10

Hmmm you mean about how Rummy visited him in the 80's and promised him weapons and all?