The big news today is that Saddam Hussein has been found guilty and sentenced to death. Was there ever any doubt? Why wasn't Saddam tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC)? Could it have anything to do with the fact that a conviction by the ICC could not result in the death penalty? True, Saddam was head of a regime that carried out atrocities. When the Kurds resisted his rule, others under his command carried out cruel and heinous acts. The killing of innocent people is unforgivable.
But one must wonder that if Saddam was tried in a court outside of the ICC to ensure the possibility of a death sentence, just how fair was the trial? It seems that the verdict was already reached back in 2003. Why bother with a trial at all? And is it any coincidence that the verdict has been made the weekend just prior to the American elections? It appears as though the trial has not been about justice at all, but for "show" and political benefit.
I believe that all leaders should be held accountable for the death of innocents that occurs under their command. One can only hope and pray that President Bush never has to go to trial for his part in the death of innocent Iraqis.
