Thursday, December 18, 2003

A trial for Saddam

In the comments below, Nigel expresses a view, which essentially I've heard a lot on the radio since Saddam's capture.
There is always need for a trial - a lynch mob is no more morally acceptable than the tyrant they lynch.
The Iraqi people could execute Saddam after holding a tribunal that is in no way a trial. I don't see the need for Saddam to be allowed to confront his accusers. I KNOW he's guilty and so do the Iraqi people. Any forum (trial or whatever) that allows Saddam to cross-examine witnesses would be unnecessarily stressful for victims or their families. Why should they suffer for what is nothing more than a sop to our western sensitivies?

Saddam is a lawyer (studied in Cairo, law Degree from University of Baghdad), so he could represent himself at any trial. Testifying at a trial against the perpetrator of the crimes against you or your family is hard enough when it's necessary, in this case it's not necessary so why put victims through it? Who should we worry about in this instance?