I think that most of the people on this forum have missed the point of the article completely. It was not about the guilt or innocence of Saddam Hussein but the shambles that was his trial and execution. It's funny how people presume themselves to be judge, jury and executioner in a case that, in practical terms, is so far removed from their own lives. I don't care if his guilt is obvious to the average Joe, I still value a fair trial and it doesn't appear as though Saddam has received one. It's also funny how a crude and uncivil execution and even capital punishment itself is suddenly ok. Cheap justice is not justice.

Don't worry Tak. There's been a similar discussion running on Andrew Bartlett and many there missed it, too. After 120-odd posts its degenerated into a brawl over abortion and alleged innocence of embryos ( we cogniscinti know different concerning these crafty sausages though, dont we? ).
Congrat Plantagenet, a single post involving depth; standing out like a gem against the surrounding bog of bs.

At least we can agree on two things

1 The manner of his trial , whilst maybe lacking in the refinements of a western court system, was still more orderly than the trials of his opponents when he was in power.

2 The nature of his end, on the drop of a rope, was humane compared to the departure of some of his victims, feet first into a shredding machine.

Working on the basis of "We reap what we sow", all in all, Sadaam got it pretty good, certainly better than his victims.

The world is not a perfect place where rules of procedure are followed without flaws or variation.

I would encourage those who are holding their breath, waiting for perfection, to please do it outdoors, it stinks up the house if no one checks and finds you suffocated a few days later, especially in this heat.

Aquarivs... I just noted you referred to the 'spider-hole' saddam was found in.

I'm a little curious about one thing... had you ever heard the term 'spider-hole' before they found saddam in one?
Have any Americans ever hidden in a spider-hole? Or do they only use the more familiar 'foxholes.'

I would have thought that saddam was nasty enough, without us having to create new terms specifically for him... it just reeks of managing peoples views, when really, he was bad enough for us to come to that conclusion ourselves, without being so blatantly led.

I suppose the propaganda machine always rolls on... I guess I just get a little annoyed when people don't object to it.

TurnRightTurnLeft

Fox-hole refers to a shallow hole dug for protection and used as a firing position. The fox-hole (American military slang)is akin to the British slip-trench, also used for individual cover and as a firing position. A spider hole is U.S. military slang for a small one-person foxhole, often camouflaged so that it can be used for ambushes. A spider hole is typically a shoulder-deep, protective, round hole, often covered by a camouflaged lid, in which a soldier can stand and fire a weapon. A spider hole differs from a foxhole in that a foxhole is usually deeper and its design emphasizes cover rather than concealment.

Spider-hole vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein refers to the hole they pulled him from where below he had lived for some time in a bigger hole. I think the term has been misused in this instance.

I don't know any American soldiers who hide in spider-holes.
I once watched several Americans run like hell for what could have been a fox-hole. I could barely see though because I was just peeking over the edge of what was a fairly new shell hole.

I don't understand, is what you mean that you object to their propaganda because it inhibits your propaganda and your propaganda is what? Based on what? That you think spider-hole was invented to demean Saddam Hussein?

"I would have thought that saddam was nasty enough, without us having to create new terms specifically for him... it just reeks of managing peoples views, when really, he was bad enough for us to come to that conclusion ourselves, without being so blatantly led."

bushbred

"Unfortunately, it could give the impression of the very ancient - means to the end doctrine - of the Old Testament."

Please stop trying to look for literal interpretations of the Old Testament. That is mainly the province of fundamentalist Christians, usually with a doubtful translation, rarely if ever in the original Hebrew. It was also used to effect by the medieval Church to justify persecution of non Christians by claiming , falsely that the Jews had a primitive law. In fact many scholars have noted that the Sermon on the Mount was largely a reinforcement of traditional Jewish views and not a change in direction. Read a book on Jewish and Muslim law.

But getting back to the article, why do we spend so much time on the trial and sentence of Saddam and ignore general issues of justice in the Middle East and a mention of the trial and possible death sentence in Bangla Desh of peace seeking journalist Salah Choudhury?

The left seem to be totally unwilling to question problems in some Islamic nations preferring to criticise the US, Britain, Spain etc. for their alleged attrocities and shortcomings. Why?