Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Reagan is dead, so what would be the point in bringing in and cross examining members of the current administration other than to score cheap political points?
|
There are many from his administration who are very much alive and who were involved directly in the supply of the weapons which were used against the Kurds (who are entitled to justice) contrary to trade embargo restrictions unilaterally in place at the time of the Iraq Iran war. Are we suggesting that they should not be called because Regan's dead? I don't think "cheap political points" holds much muster when compared to "truth", one of the tenets of true justice.
I would assume that Saddam's proposed defence, not necessarily calling on anyone from the current Bush administration bar Rumsfeld, now conveniently not part of that administration, would have intended proving the hypocracy of several of the coalition partners in their attempts at Pontious Pilate type moral grandstanding.
What Saddam was hung for was probably the least of the atrocities he was responsible for and the most convenient for the purposes of a quick sentencing and execution. He should have faced trial for the gassings, torture and mass murders to afford the victims of his brutality the peace of mind of his being convicted and true justice having been served whereas now his sentence has been cheapened and undermined by the flawed rush, for whatever reason, to hang him and afford a small minority of his victims "closure".
As BBKing has said, it's all rather convenient, not to mention predictable.