Quote:
Originally Posted by kermey
I know this wont go down well, but there is no way on earth that sadam could have a fair trial. His lawyers are planning the appeal because there is only one plausible verdict and thats guilty. If the test thats applied in the us, europe and elsewhere was applied: "can he have a fair unbiased trial" - then he would never be tried anywhere in the world.
|
Mmmm.. That's where the International Criminal Court would possibly have been more appropriate for this trial and removing all claims of pressures on judges and the prosecution blah (It may also have saved the lives of a few court officers).
Unless it is shown to be transparent, there will always be criticism and this is already coming from international jurists commenting on the proceedings.
The flipside and reasoning for Saddam's trial/s to take place in Iraq was a claim that Iraqi's wanted to try their man and get some closure - tho the current trial has dismissed all Iraqi involvement (other than the victims having their say). There are several Iraqi orgs who have collected millions of docs of witness testimony and so far, they think they have only worked thru 10% of the issues - Iraqi's filing with these orgs have had no say.
Saddam's trial is obviously a managed event, funded and secured by an occupation force and with the players (judges, counsel and witnesses) under pressure at different levels. Who knows what path that will take in the future - it could come back and bite ass and be part of the excuse for more "terrorism".