Saddam Trial - Is it fair?? - Page 3

It is very hard to say, " What is a fair trial for person like SADDAM?" Real judges are the innocent people of Iraq, who lost their loved ones in Saddam's Dictatorship. I would let them decide how they should treat hi. Speaking about compromising with our justice system; its always been compromised. Today with OJ tommorrow there will be other terrorists born in many countries and justice system will fail to punish them. It is KALYUG and I don't know how many injustices we will be forced to see.

Originally posted by: Minnie

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 !!!!

u r right and once again like a broken record, I have to say that I agree. All I am saying, if you read my previous paragraphs, is make sure that the trial is fair. My entire debate is based on the fact that the topic says that the trial was unfair. Minnie, at the end of the day, there is this saying... "Law is above all".... If we agree to that then be it Sadaam or a petty criminal, they must be tried under same rule or else....... you and I together will stop believing in justice system. One may quote a few instances where the convict got scot free but I also believe that for every wrong ruling, the court makes 99 correct rulings. There is a very percentage chance of Saddam being proven guilty if tried fairly as well. I will be more than happy to see him dead but won't be happy to see the court using unfair means to do that. Then there is no difference between what he (Saddam) used to do and the present system in Iraq.

Originally posted by: ChameliKaYaar

u r right and once again like a broken record, I have to say that I agree. All I am saying, if you read my previous paragraphs, is make sure that the trial is fair. My entire debate is based on the fact that the topic says that the trial was unfair. Minnie, at the end of the day, there is this saying... "Law is above all".... If we agree to that then be it Sadaam or a petty criminal, they must be tried under same rule or else....... you and I together will stop believing in justice system. One may quote a few instances where the convict got scot free but I also believe that for every wrong ruling, the court makes 99 correct rulings. There is a very percentage chance of Saddam being proven guilty if tried fairly as well. I will be more than happy to see him dead but won't be happy to see the court using unfair means to do that. Then there is no difference between what he (Saddam) used to do and the present system in Iraq.

I agree what you say about everyone having a fair trial. The question is, how do we judge whether it was fair or not? We all know that OJ Simpson case, the case could not be proved, he went scott free.....so was the trial fair? Or was it unfair? What do we mean by fair trial...Besides, for the all the crimes that he commited, I think presenting of the evidence is enough proof.....my question is, what is it so unfair about his trial.....I would like to know that.....because for me, be it one murder or thousands of them, he should be hanged if there is evidence of even one of his crimes.....

Originally posted by: Minnie

I agree what you say about everyone having a fair trial. I don't know Minnie. I am not a legal expert. I am just going by the heading of the topic which says that somewhere an article was published that the trial was unfair. I am under assumption (which may be totally wrong) that the publisher of that article knew what was unfair and my entire debate is based on that assumption. The question is, how do we judge whether it was fair or not? Not being a legal expert I won't even go there. I just presume that some legal expert found that the trial was unfair. We all know that OJ Simpson case, the case could not be proved, he went scott free.....so was the trial fair? Or was it unfair? I go back to what I said earlier and I would stick with that.... For every 1 unfair trial, there are 99 fair trials. One unfair trial does not/should not bias us against the justice system. What I am saying is that I am not there yet where I start believing that our justice system is "totally" flawed. There may be kinks. What do we mean by fair trial...Besides, for the all the crimes that he commited, I think presenting of the evidence is enough proof.....my question is, what is it so unfair about his trial.....Don't know. Again I am under the assumoption that somebody who termed it unfair trial has evidence to prove that and I am debating under that asusmption. I would like to know that.....because for me, be it one murder or thousands of them, he should be hanged if there is evidence of even one of his crimes.....I said that myself before.....Totally in agreement.😉