07 January 2007



I have waited a reasonable length of time to allow all those that were excited about the death of Saddam to have their say. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not going to analyze the execution, that is for more intelligent minds to handle. I will talk about the trial and the sentence.

Saddam was put on trial for the murder of citizens of a small town in Iraq. He was tried and convicted by a system that was built by American lawyers. But what about the other deaths that cannot have closure? Would it not have been better to try him on all the incidences where he killed Iraqis? You kind of like in the US when a person kills in different cities or states they are tried for each one and then sentenced to whatever punishment the state sees fit.

IMO, Iraq tried Saddam on the one that had the best chnace of success, so that he could be put to death before other trials could take place. For the further the trials went I believe the more of an accomplice the US would have been in thiose deaths. Bush could not let that effect anyone. So, the Jubail trial was almost cut and dry and had the best percwentage of conviction, the Iraqi government went with that one. Once Saddam had been executed, then any involvement of the US in the deaths of other Iraqis would be silenced and the "good" name would be preserved.

Since the execution, no mention of other autrocities of Saddam has been mentioned. All say thay chapter is closed and I would say that a large sigh of relief has come from Washington. God only knows what would have come to light if the trials had continued.


1 comment:

tumbleweed said...

At the rate that court officials and their families were being killed, they may have run out of judges and lawyers before he faced the death sentence. Why drag all the witnesses through the process, as this could have been dragged out forever.
Swift justice is something we could use a shot of when sentencing someone to the death penalty.

About Me

My photo
The truth is never as obvious as it seems