TommyB said:
Nice snuff film. It's the new porn.
witty...
It is disgusting, and completely undermines any sense of legitimacy to the proceedings.
Hecklers completely undermine the legitimacy? That's a bit of an overstatement. While I would have liked there to have been a bit less passion while executing justice, that doesn't take away from the fact that he was tried and convicted before a court. It doesn't undermine the fact that a fair verdict was rendered. He was sentenced to torture or prolonged humiliation. There was no cruel or unusual punishment.
While it wasn't the ideal environment, it was still a just course of action. Little in the Middle East is "ideal."
This thing, from the beginning of the trial to his execution, has done absolutely nothing, except satiate the bloodlust of hardcore American right-wingers and Shiite Iraqis.
Untrue.
The sham trial, held in a kangaroo court presided over by Shiites (Saddam's political enemies), has lowered, even further, the credibility of the Iraqi government and ours in the eyes of that part of the world. Which is quite a feat.
Kangaroo court, so are you implying that had the court proceedings been carried out somewhere else, a different verdict would have been achieved? Are you implying that the verdict was unjust and that he was denied a fair trial?
The mere fact he was given a trial, with judge(s), and jurry, is an advancement in this country. And the fact that the sentence was carried out, AFTER APPEAL, and done efficient and humanely, further indicates some degree of progress.
It seems a no-brainer that Saddam would have been found guilty by any legitimate court of law. Why wasn't he tried in a proper venue such as the International Criminal Court?
Because we all don't subscribe to that internationalist bullcrap.
Perhaps had we listened to the internationalists, the Iraqis could have turned Hussein over to an "international court" located somewhere in Northern Europe. There, they could engage in political and mental masturbation of over the course of a few years, and then ultimately just sentence him to life in a Swedish prison. According to these people, the elected Iraqi government and the Iraqi people should have had no hand in the prosecution of the man who terrorized them.
Well, Bush rejected that court because he didn't want Americans charged for crimes based on purely political reasons.
Damn right. Hurray for George W. Bush.
And yet politics played a major role in the way Saddam's trial was conducted. Regardless of what the man did, his death at the hands of his political enemies will never be considered "just" by a great many people.
Death by the hand of his enemies? Using your logic, the vast majority of the country, Shiites, are "his political enemies." He was tried. He was convicted. He appealed. He was executed.
Did you follow all of that? He wasn't feed through a wood chipper. He wasn't beaten and torn apart in the street. He wasn't hung from a pole, had his genitals cut off and stuffed in his mouth, and then dedicated on while left rotting in public. He was hung and buried. Imagine, a group of people who were persecuted for decades heckled, now we need to condemn the process.
And why the rush to execute him? After all, he was in custody and unable to do any further damage.
The rush to execute him? He's been in custody for YEARS. After the conviction, it was appealed. The rush to execute him?
The only "rush" came after the U.S. turned him over to the Iraqi government. And any perceived rush would have been the result of the Iraqi government hoping to avoid any long term security concerns associated with having him in their custody.
Why was he only convicted of the killings in Dujail, in which he retaliated against the Shiites after the assassination attempt?
Because he wasn't tried for all of his crimes at once. In the event that he was found guilty, they had additional cases to be tried against him afterwards. So why was he only convicted of the one atrocity- because they didn't get around to trying him on the rest.
What about the crimes he committed after that?
As stated, those other crimes were to be used in subsequent trials.
Maybe because Dujail happened before Rumsfeld came and shook Saddam's hand, and made him our ally against Iran?
No, I've explained why. It has nothing to do with past regional U.S. involvement. And do you even know why Rumsfeld was photographed with Hussein?
How embarrassing would the testimony have been for the U.S. if the remaining charges had been allowed to have gone to trial? I guess we'll never know now.
Not that it would stop you and your American-hating/blaming conspiracy theories.
The world is a better place with Saddam gone.
Agreed.
I can't believe I even have to say that, but I know I must, what with the PC (Patriotically Correct) crowd hanging out here. But this thing has been a disaster from the get-go. This wasn't justice being served. It was revenge, pure and simple.
No, it wasn't pure and simple revenge. There was justice served.
Revenge and rage look very different. Ask the families of some of Hussein's hundreds of thousands of victims.
