Saddam Trial - Is it fair?? - Page 2

Originally posted by: ChameliKaYaar

Kiran,

  I have to disagree with you (part of debate 😉). Everybody deserves a fair trail. We live in a society which guarantees "Innocent until proven guilty" and not otherwise. If OJ Simpson can be declared innocent then somebody else can be as well.... The penalty for one murder is death and so if for multiple murders.. Right. So in that respect, the crime of Sadaam is no different from crime of those (including OJ) who are roaming scot free thanks to fair trial.

  If we do not give a fair trial then we are killing something more important... the justice system itself...

   Is that not contradictory...you imply Simpson s guilty, and yet went scott free..so if Simpson why not Saddam...but then a trial which lets a murderer walk away with - murder - can it be called a 'fair' trial ?

   What I ask is, can any trial ever be called 'fair' against such despots who think naught of peoples' lives? What is fair for such inhuman people ?  And what of those thousands and thousands who got killed because he did not like something they did.......his crimes have been littered everywhere even when he was ruling Iraq, and he never ever denied them. There has been enough evidence to prove what he did to perfectly innocent men, even women and children. He was the Stalin of this era who killed his own people for convinience ( remember him killing his own brother in laws, his sisters' husband because they defected? They escaped and he called them back, extending truce, and when they landed, he had them shot while the international community watched in horror and silence).......so what is fair for such a man?  I wnder what they could have done to prove he was innocent......the court was set in Iraq and presided by Iraqis. Who are we to sit judgement? If today I feel  Scott Peterson was wrongly convicted and that his trial was not fair and more persuaded by circumstancial evidence and hatered than any substancial proof that it was him who did it does not mean his sentence would be changed or that his trial was not fair... ( just for records, this is just an eg, not my personal thoughts)

       No one could have done or say a thing had the troops shot him on capture citing attack......he would have had Bush shot had the roles been reversed. He at least sat trial.

  

Originally posted by: Minnie

   Is that not contradictory...you imply Simpson s guilty, and yet went scott free..so if Simpson why not Saddam...but then a trial which lets a murderer walk away with - murder - can it be called a 'fair' trial ?

   What I ask is, can any trial ever be called 'fair' against such despots who think naught of peoples' lives? What is fair for such inhuman people ?  And what of those thousands and thousands who got killed because he did not like something they did.......his crimes have been littered everywhere even when he was ruling Iraq, and he never ever denied them. There has been enough evidence to prove what he did to perfectly innocent men, even women and children. He was the Stalin of this era who killed his own people for convinience ( remember him killing his own brother in laws, his sisters' husband because they defected? They escaped and he called them back, extending truce, and when they landed, he had them shot while the international community watched in horror and silence).......so what is fair for such a man?  I wnder what they could have done to prove he was innocent......the court was set in Iraq and presided by Iraqis. Who are we to sit judgement? If today I feel  Scott Peterson was wrongly convicted and that his trial was not fair and more persuaded by circumstancial evidence and hatered than any substancial proof that it was him who did it does not mean his sentence would be changed or that his trial was not fair... ( just for records, this is just an eg, not my personal thoughts)

       No one could have done or say a thing had the troops shot him on capture citing attack......he would have had Bush shot had the roles been reversed. He at least sat trial.

  

Minnie,

  I do not disagree with any part of what you said. In fact, if I did not imply that in my first post, this is exactly what I mean. Mudrerer should be /must be punished. But how do you convert a suspect into a murderer?.. only after a fair trial. The whole topic of this debate is "Saddam was not given a fair trial". If not, then in my mind enough was not done to convict him as a true murderer.

  Think about it, what would it take to convict Sadaam a murderer... I imagine not too much, given the range of his crimes that he purportedly has committed... If it is that easy then why make mockery of legal system by giving him unfair trail?...Give him a fair trial... we know that he will turn out to be guilty and at the same time the validity of the justice system will be upheld...and if in the process "bhawan na kare" he does come out innocent so be it.. at least you have not murdered something more important (the justice system itself)...

   What has instead been done, if the article is true?.... a person has been sentenced rightly but through inappropriate means and by doing that the justice system has been compromised.. and there was no need for that...

I agree that Saddam should be punished for his deeds, but his death will bring more bad than good

Originally posted by: Minnie

Even at the risk of being labelled unfair, I think that is the most fair thing to do for a human rights organisation. Perhaps they can do more service if they looked after the needs of thouands orphaned everyday around the world than keeping a hawk eyed sight on a highly publicised trial of a murderer to gain some easy publicity 🤢.

exactly . it does sound like a gimmick, nothing more.  should we believe these people really care about saddam?  as kabhi mentioned, i would understand saddam supporters / followers being sad, but these activists?? 🤢

Originally posted by: Minnie

       No one could have done or say a thing had the troops shot him on capture citing attack......he would have had Bush shot had the roles been reversed. He at least sat trial.

  Atleast he sat trial ! 👏  exactly..

I like the quick trial, encounter style for people like Saddam, In that sense it was really an unfair trial

Originally posted by: Minnie

   Is that not contradictory...you imply Simpson s guilty, and yet went scott free..so if Simpson why not Saddam...but then a trial which lets a murderer walk away with - murder - can it be called a 'fair' trial ?

   What I ask is, can any trial ever be called 'fair' against such despots who think naught of peoples' lives? What is fair for such inhuman people ?  And what of those thousands and thousands who got killed because he did not like something they did.......his crimes have been littered everywhere even when he was ruling Iraq, and he never ever denied them. There has been enough evidence to prove what he did to perfectly innocent men, even women and children. He was the Stalin of this era who killed his own people for convinience ( remember him killing his own brother in laws, his sisters' husband because they defected? They escaped and he called them back, extending truce, and when they landed, he had them shot while the international community watched in horror and silence).......so what is fair for such a man?  I wnder what they could have done to prove he was innocent......the court was set in Iraq and presided by Iraqis. Who are we to sit judgement? If today I feel  Scott Peterson was wrongly convicted and that his trial was not fair and more persuaded by circumstancial evidence and hatered than any substancial proof that it was him who did it does not mean his sentence would be changed or that his trial was not fair... ( just for records, this is just an eg, not my personal thoughts)

       No one could have done or say a thing had the troops shot him on capture citing attack......he would have had Bush shot had the roles been reversed. He at least sat trial.

  

Everydog has its day and today is the day of BUSH.So Justice in Iraq will be according to the views of BUSH.May be tommorrow someother person may come and have an Un FAIR trial on BUSH.

Cheers,

Mythili

Originally posted by: mythili_Kiran

Everydog has its day and today is the day of BUSH.So Justice in Iraq will be according to the views of BUSH.May be tommorrow someother person may come and have an Un FAIR trial on BUSH.

Cheers,

Mythili

wow.. u r giving me hopes 😃. 
even when human right activists (attention seekers ;) bring up an issue to support him, i would say "nothing is unfair in war and war" 😆😆😆

Originally posted by: mythili_Kiran

Everydog has its day and today is the day of BUSH.So Justice in Iraq will be according to the views of BUSH.May be tommorrow someother person may come and have an Un FAIR trial on BUSH.

Cheers,

Mythili

So if the tomorrow is the day of Saddam would you be happy to see him walk out free....😕 

And here I would rather say this is justice according to me ....not Bush...😉.

Originally posted by: ChameliKaYaar

Minnie,

  I do not disagree with any part of what you said. In fact, if I did not imply that in my first post, this is exactly what I mean. Mudrerer should be /must be punished. But how do you convert a suspect into a murderer?.. only after a fair trial. The whole topic of this debate is "Saddam was not given a fair trial". If not, then in my mind enough was not done to convict him as a true murderer.

  Think about it, what would it take to convict Sadaam a murderer... I imagine not too much, given the range of his crimes that he purportedly has committed... If it is that easy then why make mockery of legal system by giving him unfair trail?...Give him a fair trial... we know that he will turn out to be guilty and at the same time the validity of the justice system will be upheld...and if in the process "bhawan na kare" he does come out innocent so be it.. at least you have not murdered something more important (the justice system itself)...

   What has instead been done, if the article is true?.... a person has been sentenced rightly but through inappropriate means and by doing that the justice system has been compromised.. and there was no need for that...

And how do we know for sure that the evidence presented were not enough to prove him guilty? Thousands died and thousands more suffered. He even had his council members shot if he suspected them of going against him. Saddam grew up in an environment of suspicion and made a career out of over throwing rulers and muscling his way into power with the help of his very cunning Uncle ( his wife's father). He started murdering openly a long long time back - and he did not do it like OJ Simpson behind closed doors. He did it openly, leaving piles and piles of evidence behind as a proof of his cruelty so that people would fear him. So now these human rights activists even have a problem with presenting of these evidence?

And though I am not sure of how it works in Iraq, in US, though the prosecution is supposed to give the details of evidence gathered, in many cases it does not and directly presents it to the court and the defence is left to counter......if that is what happened, then I don't see what is so unfair about it.

As Abhiji said, I wonder if any trial ever, which convicts the likes of Saddam will ever be considered fair......I wish these human right activists had taken up arms when Saddam was burying those men, women and children alive !!!!