No offense sir, but some people won't understand/believe unless you offer them "proof". This is what usually works for me:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hanging



I'll just step aside, now.

 

Pssh, I don't need links. See that little red text below my username? That means everyone believes everything I say, all the time.

The usage notes here back me up
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hang#Usage_notes

 

Never mind me, I tend to be a little pedantic and over-analytical. Old habits die hard.

 

the thing is that it's pretty well known that the government that's in power in Iraq now was largely chosen by the US because they support the US, and its involvement in suppressing the current insurgency. it's true that there was an election of the people that legitimized the outcome, and in theory things could have gone either way. the thing is though, that the election in Iraq was of very questionable nature (voting for blocks of candidates, rather than just for individual candidates), and there's a pretty good reason why a lot of people around the world don't like the way that it was handled.

my point is that yes, the US government wasn't directly tied to that trial (other than the defense lawyer, and he wasn't even representing the US government), but it's not hard to paint a picture where the Iraqi legal system, tied to a government that was basically hand picked by the US government, chose to find a man guilty and sentance him to execution simply because he's one of the greatest enemies of the US. the man may be guilty anyway, he may be a monster, but he probably didn't have even the slightest chance right from the start of being found not guilty simply because the threat of public outcry wouldn't allow it. not to mention that the trial itself was a damn circus (and yes, Hussein contributed to that as well), and the constant media coverage just made it look like a joke.

but in the end, if you're going to bring a man to trial, give him a fair chance at defending himself. whether or not you think he's a monster is irrelevant. if you're not going to do that, then just skip the trial altogether and execute him. one more violation of international humanitarian rights won't make that much of a difference in the end.

 

true, the precedent set by the nuremburg trials is what the international legal system is always going to look at in cases like this. however, given that the **** commanders that were tried at Nuremburg were subordinates, the correlation between them and Hussein's trials isn't relevant. what if Adolf Hitler himself had been brought to trial? that would have been a more logical comparison. i truly think that Hitler would not have been given a fair trial either, and though i would have supported a guilty sentance for him as well, i still would have been disappointed by him not recieving a fair trial simply because half the world hated him.

the same goes with Milosevic, and i was saying the same things when he was on trial. hell, i was even saying the same thing when Kenneth Lay was on trial. everyone hated them, there was no chance for them to get anything other than a "guilty" verdict. the only thing that would have mattered would have been how they were found guilty.

 

QFT

 

Sorry, I totally F'd that one up. I should have included "...if Hitler had been caught and put to trial."

My fault, not yours.

 

well actually you did bring up a good point though, because the precedent set by the Nuremburg trials are probably what was used in convicting Sadam's half brother, and the other guy (dammit, i'm already forgetting their names!) that was convicted. "i was just following orders" is no excuse for committed horrendous acts.

 

I'm glad you at least understood the precedent part... that was the other half of my fractured thought.

 

eh, i'm used to your thoughts being fractured.

 

The trial was a formality, we could've shot him on the spot but chose to allow the Iraqi people handle him in order to get revenge on him and show that the people are now in power, not him.

 

The one bad thing I see that will come from this is that Saddam and the other two getting put to death will become martyrs and the extreme muslims will use that fire to start up more violence. I guarentee that the month after he is put to death will be one of the bloodiest in Iraq.

 

there's already protests in Iraq over the verdict. and truthfully, there would have been violence either way.

 

Well, you can't please everyone. :shrugs shoulders:

 

Absolutely.

Regardless or what stance you take/took on the war the bottom line is that it's Saddam. Last time I checked he was always an enemy of the USA even if some people didn't think he posed any immediate threat to our country.

If all had went well since "mission accomplished" there'd be no room for Mr. attorney to make a political statement by representing Saddam. At least if he did there would be a different tune here... But because this war has become more controversial people are too scared to touch this. Thing is, Saddam has remained a constant the whole time. This country makes my brain hurt sometimes.