New York Times calls for deferring Saddam's execution

[maddezmom]

NEW YORK (AFP) - The New York Times called for the deferment of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's execution, saying Iraq had not received "full justice."

The newspaper, which is opposed to the death penalty, said Iraq not only needed to hold Saddam fully accountable for his atrocities but also to heal and educate the nation he "ruthlessly divided."

The toppled Iraqi leader was sentenced Sunday to die by hanging for ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite residents of Dujail, north of Baghdad, after a 1982 assassination attempt.

"But Iraq got neither the full justice nor the full fairness it deserved," it said in an editorial.

"President Bush overreached in calling the trial 'a milestone in the Iraqi peoples efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.'"

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061106/pl_afp/iraqtrialsaddamus_061106131346


The Saddam Hussein Verdict

Published: November 6, 2006
Saddam Hussein’s horrendous crimes deserve exemplary punishment. During his own dictatorship, that would have meant a gruesome death, after a staged trial or no trial.

In an Iraq fully liberated from his evil thrall, it might have been something very different — an exemplary exercise in the rule of law, aimed at holding Mr. Hussein fully accountable, but also at healing and educating a nation he so ruthlessly divided.

Regrettably, yesterday’s sentence to death by hanging in a case involving the execution of 148 Shiites in the 1980s fell somewhere short of that goal. Mr. Hussein got a fairer trial than he ever would have allowed in his courts. But Iraq got neither the full justice nor the full fairness it deserved. President Bush overreached in calling the trial “a milestone in the Iraqi people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.”

From the beginning, the now dominant Shiite and Kurdish politicians have been determined to use Mr. Hussein’s trial and punishment to further their own political ends, as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has continued to do in recent days.

Mr. Hussein, as expected, repeatedly tried to mock the proceedings. More seriously, powerful politicians regularly tried to influence the outcome, judges were not allowed to rule impartially, and defense lawyers were denied security measures and documents they needed.

more:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/opinion/06mon1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[madrchsod]

1. "rule of law" in iraq?

only the delusional think it saddam`s trial was legitimate.