Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
2012
unknownj
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3326311.stm

I do not think it is in the interests of justice that the president of the United States should ever decide in advance of a trial that a man is guilty and say he thinks that man should be executed. I have little doubt that Saddam will be found guilty of everything they throw at him, but then, I'm not a world leader. One of the key parts of western justice is "Innocent until proven guilty" (except in the USA where they imprison suspected 'terrorists' without trial or evidence), and you simply can't go around deciding somebody is guilty and suggesting punishments.

More worryingly - if this was an ordinary trial by jury, it would collapse because they'd find the president had directed a verdict, and it would therefore be an unfair trial. And justice really would be thwarted.

And finally - saying Saddam should receive "ultimate justice" does not equate to the death penalty. In fact, there is very little justice that can truly make him pay for the things he is accused of. So pretending that executing him will be a just act which will make up for everything is just stupid. Ultimate justice would be to lock him up for the rest of his days, and let him see Iraq rebuilt for this new American century we're about to experience.....

  • 1
One of the key parts of western justice is "Innocent until proven guilty" (except in the USA where they imprison suspected 'terrorists' without trial or evidence)

Last I knew, that was the case here in Merrie England too.

I can't help think that Saddam killing himself before capture would have been an altogether more favourable outcome. Putting him on trial and convicting him won't really solve anything.

Makes perfect sense to me. Now if only more of the silly Americans can agree. It's downright horrifying to see what's going on in this country.
Makes one want to move.

Alexa

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account