International legal experts and human rights observers have questioned the impartiality of the trial court, which was created to try top leaders of the ousted government during the 15-month period of formal American occupation following the invasion in the spring of 2003.

"We saw this trial, along with the others, as an opportunity to bring justice to those Iraqis who had suffered horribly under Baath Party rule," Richard Dicker, director of the international justice program at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement on Sunday. "Unfortunately, we believe the serious shortcomings in the fairness of the proceedings undermined the legitimacy and credibility of the trial."

Ut oh

In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle - "Surprise, surprise!"

@debbyski - you were right on the timing, although I was positively right on the verdict. Since we didn't bet on anything specific, but stated that I'd bet... - if you're ever in the Seattle area - look me up - I'll buy you dinner.

Wow, the verdict comes just 48 hours before the mid-term elections in the US. I always find such coincidences amazing.

I do too, Invictus!

Yeah, gotta love those "coincidences."


Hey, RecordSage - sounds like we're almost neighbors! I'm not too far from Seattle myself. (and I'm not trying to score a dinner invite here, just saying hi to a fellow Washingtonian, lol)

Hmmmmmmmm, no doubt he is/was a bastard, but I remember back when he used to be "our" bastard. Back then there was nary a whimper of protest, no matter what he was up to.

Remember: Saddam Was Our Man

I was going to clip this but I figured I was already beaten to it and guess what...I was, POP

I just might do that Record, lol.

invictus, no question that it's very conspiratory on the surface, but just think logically - would anyone with half a brain not know what the verdict would've been in this trial AND with the same half - actually change their mind on the election day because of the verdict? That's why I think coincidence might be in play here, because someone has to be beyond standard definition of sanity to actually change their mind based on this verdict on how the'll vote.

@debbyski - you're on! any time!!!

@Kore7,

We remember... so what?

Stalin was our man too at one point in time... again, so what?

The answer to the "so what" question, RS, at least in my view, is that the US has to share some of the historical responsibility for what Saddam did to Iraq, since we helped him do it. We shouldn't pretend that once he's dead, the big nasty bogeyman who messed up the country is gone and everything is going to be peachy. And maybe more to the point, we shouldn't expect the Iraqis, who are obviously still suffering in the aftermath of all this, to forget our previous role either.

Well said enbar. Some of the comments on this subject remind me of the expression, "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it"

And the other one, " Repeating the same old mistakes over and over again, and each time expecting different results is one definition of insanity."

The answer to the "so what" question, RS, at least in my view, is that
the US has to share some of the historical responsibility for what
Saddam did to Iraq, since we helped him do it. We shouldn't pretend
that once he's dead, the big nasty bogeyman who messed up the country
is gone and everything is going to be peachy. And maybe more to the
point, we shouldn't expect the Iraqis, who are obviously still
suffering in the aftermath of all this, to forget our previous role
either.

You do realize you just made a compelling argument for invading Iraq and also staying there until there is a stable democracy (of some form) in Iraq don’t you?

Yeah, I actually think you're mostly right. The argument would be badly weakened if our mere presence were found to be making things worse. The argument also doesn't work so well with respect to the invasion part, given that the civilian death toll from the war and its aftermath is so high. With regard to democracy: I don't know if you've noticed, but the word "Democracy" has disappeared from the Bush administration's public statements about Iraq's future.

In principle, though, you're right. If I really believed that our government could replace Saddam with a better government without causing additional massive suffering among the population, I'd be all for the war. It just doesn't seem to be working out quite so well.

Hey, RecordSage - sounds like we're almost neighbors! I'm not too far from Seattle myself.

Great, I'm not the only one lucky in the audience then... perhaps when debbyski hits town - we can all get together for a little West Coast Clipmarks Convention?

And the other one, " Repeating the same old mistakes over and over again, and each time expecting different results is one definition of insanity."

I totally agree with this one. Our self-perpetrated guilt on the subject is one of the reasons things aren't going as well as they should in this war. The fact that we're divided and dwelling on the wrong opposition within repeats the history that led up to WW2. There was a lot of debate about Hitler as well.. everyone hopefully is well aware to how wrong that debate was and how many millions had to die since proactive action wasn't taken to stop things before they got out of hand (which the world could've easily done in the early 30's).

So, let's NOT repeat history.

And the other one, " Repeating the same old mistakes over and over again, and each time expecting different results is one definition of insanity."

I totally agree with this one. Our self-perpetrated guilt on the subject is one of the reasons things aren't going as well as they should in this war. The fact that we're divided and dwelling on the wrong opposition within repeats the history that led up to WW2. There was a lot of debate about Hitler as well.. everyone hopefully is well aware to how wrong that debate was and how many millions had to die since proactive action wasn't taken to stop things before they got out of hand (which the world could've easily done in the early 30's).

So, let's NOT repeat history.