Dark.

Personally, I don't think it matters too much. They should've killed him after we pull out as a symbol of a new era for the middle east. That's all his death is ever going to serve as, now it's just nothing but a wasted death. It's not going to change anything. Irk a couple old underlings maybe, but what are they going to do? Life will move on, and hopefully the U.S. will pull out soon.

__________________

exderz

actually i am very happy about this....i think that this worlid doesn't need these kind of low people....if i had the book in Death note...i would want to kill people like him...but first is Kim John il or w.e his name is.

Arrianna

One execution at a time. Do you think he's the only one on trial?

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

MistressMorgan

I really just worry about the reaction of his supporters in Iraq. Why couldnt they wait until our soldiers came home. I know that would take time but Im sure a couple years in an iraqi prison is no picnic.

__________________

exderz

anyway....the trail look fishy....i don't think he would die like that....i think there will be more danger stuff upon us...anyway...i think we are too into him

gren

Amen, sister. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that hanging is far too lenient a punishment. If a hanging death is done correctly, the victim's neck is broken and he dies almost instantly. Unless the executioner was a rank amateur, Saddam's death was not nearly as brutal as is fitting for such a murderous bastard.

__________________

Gren's Music

Chubz

The problem being that yes, he was brutal and this was coming to him, BUT in a legal standpoint for what he was tried for, a hanging wasn't necessary. Had this included all of his acts, then I could understand....but this was like trying a murderer for robbery, then executing him. Yes, he killed lots of people, but for the legal precedings they only went with the 128 (for specific reasons). Trying to bring in that he killed lots of other people would be like inadmissable evidence, because he wasn't being tried for the other killings, just the 128.

If this same principle was put towards other countries, the Israeli government would be sweating like there was no tomorrow. They could easily be charged in war crimes against the palestinians (after coming under attack, the Israeli Army pretty much obliterated a Palestinian encampment, killing men, women and children, which I'm sure tallied close to the 128 that Saddam was tried for). We'd be going after a lot of countries if this same type of justice was applied.

But here's the kicker: this wasn't done by a full fledged war crimes tribunal. This was done by the Iraqis. Generally, if you're charged for war crimes, it's handled by an international tribunal (Milosevic was being tried by an international tribunal, but died before sentencing). Instead, this was done by an Iraqi court, so obviously he was going to be hanged (he probably would have recieved the death sentence by an international tribunal as well though), but had this been done by an International Tribunal, Saddam could try to bring in documentation and testimony of U.S complicity. That would have opened a huge can of worms, and made the court case take an increased amount of time (which would reflect badly on the current situation in Iraq, because it would make the entire thing look stagnant). But having this done by the Iraqi's meant that they could simply get him for the 128, and have him executed fairly quickly, making it look like things are starting to turn around in Iraq.


I'm not trying to defend Saddam, but if countries went after others for war crimes of this type, we'd be going after a LOT of countries. Saddam was just the easiest to get to (no one's going to go after Russia, no one's going to go after Iran, or Israel, or pretty much all countries in Africa, or down in South America, or Syria, or North Korea, or China, the list goes on).

This was simply a show trial, nothing more. It wasn't about bringing justice. It was done just because it could be.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

!10~TeSTaMeNtS

i'll sit back and relax...see what happens...but saddam hussein's deathw ill only enrage the remaining terorist that are in saddam's mad ideas...

exderz

i am not sure why are they making a big deal out of this....that man killed so many people...he is like Hitler...so i think that we don't even have to talk...if it was me...i just wanna kill him. but that is not my bussnines so i really won't care. anyway is good that he is dead.

Hassun

No one is going to after the USA either.

I know what you're getting at but that's just not possible. For you see, every country that has been at war at one point in time had/has war criminals. "Going after countries" is not as simple as you suggest.

You need enough proof but most of all, you need a strong country or group of countries who are willing to prosecute.
E.g. Almost none of the European countries are going to go against Russia's president Poetin at this point in time. Russia is holding one of the biggest energy reserves and most European countries are dependent on Russia to supply them.

Money and politics Chubz, money and politics.

Only very few people have ever been tried outside of this little routine. Adolf Eichmann is probably the best example.

__________________

exderz

when u said no one is going for USa....try to remember north Korea that guy is crazy. i think all of this hapend because of George bush...he is the stuipedest presendent in us history