A letter to the Human Rights Watch
BBC -- The trial of Saddam Hussein was so flawed that its verdict is unsound, the advocacy group Human Rights Watch says.
HRW said "serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects" meant the 5 November trial for crimes against humanity was not fair.
Dear Human Rights Watch,
Let it go.
Signed,
Everyone on Earth except Saddam Hussein
HRW said "serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects" meant the 5 November trial for crimes against humanity was not fair.
Dear Human Rights Watch,
Let it go.
Signed,
Everyone on Earth except Saddam Hussein
posted by Luke McIntyre at 11/20/2006 05:40:00 AM
2 Comments:
Take my name off that list.
Having an honest legal system do it right is important, especially when it's a guy like Saddam.
2 reasons:
1. Anyone looking for a martyr sees a show trial in a kangaroo-court as proof of the defendants moral superiority. Instant martyr.
2. A show trial is rule by the mob. Essentially, "everyone" would be annoyed by a not-guilty verdict, therefore he's guilty. Public opinion is fickle, and the mob makes more mistakes than any other decision-making body. OJ Simpson was found not guilty because people were more worried about race-riots than justice. There is a clear problem with letting the mob choose the verdict, because it makes popularity more important that the evidence.
1. He's not a martyr. He's Saddam Hussein.
2. He's guilty. He's Saddam Hussein.
You could also bring up the point that almost all legal cases set precendents for following legal cases, but I guarantee that any lawyer attempting to reference this case would get the answer "Yeah...but that was Saddam Hussein."
Post a Comment
<< Home