:
|
No, that's quite common in any legal system. You bring to trial the charges that are most likely to stick. If they fail then you fall back on other ones. It's not like he was going to be hanged another time just because he got charged with more crimes. This way, it was simple and over toot sweet and the thing didn't have to drag on for 20 years as they listed through all his crimes.
|
That's a very weak excuse nate. Consider this;
:
|
When you prosecute someone for war crimes and crimes against humanity you don't half ass it.
|
The guy reigned a country, tried to conquer the Middle East on more than one occasion, slaughtered Kurds, ordered executions and brought his country down to nothing. The fact that it is "quite common in any legal system" is incorrect.
This was a muslim court of law, I do believe they would - unlike in the ones found in the US - be a little more responsible and give alot of attention to everything that's been done, with Sharia and all - although Iraq was one of the first countries to ditch that, but I still think they had no other means of prosecuting him. And also, if you would care to read what I initially posted, I never said they should hang him in the first place, so no - of course they shouldn't hang him again and again, for all the things he has done.
My point is - and most of you seem unable to follow - he messed things up, if it weren't for him, the US wouldn't have invaded the country and there would be no bloodshed of current magnitude. Killing him will only enhance this effect, which is why I think they should have kept him alive. I
do not for a second believe that what he did was in any way right, or that he shouldn't have faced the consequences for his actions. However, considering the current circumstances in the region, I believe that an execution is the last thing they should have carried out - it can only worsen the situation. Too late now, though.
Have you even considered what it means to the situation in Iraq? That he was prosecuted for killing 148 Shiites, that is. Bearing that in mind, don't you think that'll give even more reason for segregation between the two sides, giving even more reason to fight oneanother - leading to an even greater civil war, making it impossible for US troops to withdraw since it's a lose-or-lose situation no matter what they do. It's very easy to act on instinct and just get it over with, but why doesn't anyone consider what the people over there are left to deal with?