egafd.com

Sad but true which is why the trial is more about his co-conspirators turning states witness to save their own sorry hides IMO

The legal system isn't always seen to be just

cheers
B....OZ

With regard the Ceacescus(sp), there could be no doubt the buggers deserved it. Their nice son was allowed to rape Nadia Comeneci without fear of retribution---and at a time when she was known the world ever. An evil family if ever there were one.

Hussein's appearance in court and his defiance of same are reminiscent of the arrogance shown by Milosevic in The Hague, and with the same justification---doing what he did for his people. The same argument Hitler and Stalin would have used if they'd ever been brought to justice.

As for Saddam's fate, there's no way a new regime can hope to survive in Iraq with him still alive. They'll have him executed---perhaps publicly. I don't think he should invest in Kylie Minogue's 2005 calendar.

Don't worry---I wasn't having a go at you. Few tears were shed over those Romanian butchers, and much the same will be said about the Tikrit tyrant when he goes to meet his maker.

magoo wrote:
> I disagree. The Iraqi Government will want him secured more
> than the Americans do.
True, but their ability to deal with Fundamentalist and separatist opposition is debatable. Actually, no: their ability to prevent a determined rescue-effort, is negligible.
.....and besides, they have little if any popular mandate: even fairly moderate Iraqis, polarised by the US 'mismanagement', may come to see Saddam as a felllow-victim of Western imperialism rather than the nasty little psychopath he really is, aided by immediate memories of the current chatelaines of Al-Ghraib rather than the previous administration.

Ceaucescu is irrelevant- the situation there was a total mess in which legality had collapsed. The idea is (apparently) to try Sadaam in a court that at least has pretensions to impartiality, in which case (and for the Hague/UN etc etc) he can tie the prosecution in knots trying to find concrete proof that he either ordered or otherwise had a hand in the chemical attacks on northern Iraqi Kurds, for example.......which is why, I assume, they've included 'lesser' charges in the indictment, of crimes against individuals, in a catch-all attempt to get him one way or another.
If anyone's brave enough to testify, that is, irrespective of any notional 'protection' for such witnesses offered by the US in another country after they've given their evidence- look at the trouble the UN Inspectorate had with the scientists......

All I'm really saying is it's not often bad hats like him get found hiding in a hole in the ground. Ceacescu was a bit different, events happened in Romania much more quickly.
Think of all those evil bastards who legged it and sat out the rest of their lives in some "friendly" country. Why didn't Saddam and co. do that?

Mart

Which friendly country would take them. The nearest countries to Iraq were all ones he'd pissed off. He wasn't in step with most of the fundemental Muslim states, and there were a lot of regimes who'd have sold him to the Yanks.

The main reason, though, is he probably believed he could take over once more, after the coalition troops had gone. He'd been in charge over 30 years, had seen off one attempt to oust him. To someone with that kind of ego, he'd believe he was untouchable.

The good thing about a trial is we might find out just how dirty our hands are through dealings with him and his regime in the early 1980s.