Meta Blog Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 Originally from The Charlotte Capitalist , A few days ago, Saddam Hussein got upset with the judge and marched out of the court. If you or I were on trial and upset with the proceedings, would we be able to just stop the trial by marching out? I don't think so. Doesn't seem right. Elan Journo doesn't think so either: Once we defeat and capture a militant dictator like Hussein, he deserves to be definitively condemned as evil and then executed--immediately, or after any valuable information is extracted from him. Prior to his execution, there can be a legitimate reason to hold a public hearing--not to establish his guilt, but to fully expose his secretive dictatorship by publicly cataloguing its myriad vile deeds. Such a hearing would recognize that, unlike a private citizen, a dictator is responsible not merely for his own individual acts of violence but for all crimes committed by his regime, whether or not in any given case he himself pulled the trigger or gave a direct order to murder the victims. I agree. They should have shot the rat while he was in the rat hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarBuck Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 It would be good to try him based on the slam dunk WMD evidence. Any political leader willing to lie to his people keeping them in a fear-based war frenzy needs to be dealt with, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 But is it really necessary to have this kind of ridiculous trial? I would have preferred to see him get a bullet to the back of the head and be done with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I think that it is probably necessary to actually try him, although the way the trial is being conducted is nothing short of a travesty of justice. I think he needs an actual trial just as a formality to show that the rule of law exists. Not that I have any faith that Iraq will turn into a nation of Law, but they might as well get the most of it before it degenerates into anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 But is it really necessary to have this kind of ridiculous trial? I would have preferred to see him get a bullet to the back of the head and be done with it.It's not necessary to have this ridiculous trial, but it is necessary to have a real trial. They should resurrect Judge Julius Hoffmann to preside so that he can bind and gag the swine, and shackle him to his chair. The evidence should be presented, he should be given an opportunity to address the testimony -- in a manner that relates to the facts, not this other imperial nonsense that he has been engaged in -- and then the court should pass sentence. Shooting him in the head is what he would do, and while there is no question that he is guilty, he should be given a trial if for no other reason than to show that governments should and can act in a particular objective, fact-driven manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.