CNN: Do you think Saddam Hussein received a fair trial?

[liberal N proud]

Do you think Saddam Hussein received a fair trial?

Yes 68% 41617 votes

No 32% 19964 votes
Total: 61581 votes
http://www.cnn.com/

[unblock]

1. what a ridiculous question!

[EstimatedProphet]

2. !

:rofl:

[Disturbed]

4. The better question would be:

Did you watch the entire trial?

I watched quite a lot of it and it seemed like a farce to me. Am I surprised at the Verdict? Not at all.

[EstimatedProphet]

24. Absolutely agree

I didn't watch the trial at all. Didn't have to. I knew from the beginning he would be convicted, because the Bush junta would never let their scapegoat go.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Seriously, how would anyone answering this poll, know?

Did the 41,000+ saying "yes" actually watch it and understand the issues? Or are they voting the way they'd like to believe? The fact that it wasn't tried at the Hague, in front of an impartial jury and in a place where the prejudices would have been mitigated, forces me to say "no"....but I freely admit I have no way of knowing whether he did or not.

[Oceansaway]

5. .

Do you think Saddam Hussein received a fair trial?

Yes 68% 43053 votes

No 32% 20639 votes

Total: 63692 votes

[AlCzervik]

6. how the hell would we know? it's not like court tv covered it.

[kentuck]

14. Excellent analysis!

68% thought it was fair on what basis?? :)

[Hubert Flottz]

7. Not as fair as Kenny Boy's was!

[Union Thug]

8. Of course not. It was a pageant, a dog and pony show.

Regardless of guilt, there is no way this guy got a fair trial

[jimshoes]

9. That's about like asking

Americans if the Theory of Relativity is correct. None of us have a clue and it would be impossible to answer with any certainty.

[majorjohn]

10. Fair or Unfair...

It didn't seem to matter to him. In all of Saddam's hearings, all he did was try to preach political speeches.

Why didn't he defend himself instead?

[EFerrari]

11. How do you know? They cut him off, they turned off his mic,

they dragged him out, they murdered his lawyers.

:shrug:

Since the verdict is nicely timed for OUR election, I'll take a wild guess and say, No.

:rofl:

[majorjohn]

12. Not exactly

I think it was only one lawyer that was murdered, and most of them were worthless, all they did was protest about crap. As for dragging him out, well that's because he was acting like a monkey, yelling at the judge, cursing him, and what not, and surely they would cut him off if all he was trying to say was out of context.

[EFerrari]

13. We must have been watching two different trials.

A monkey? Oh my.

[majorjohn]

15. Well think about it..

Besides Saddam, have you ever seen someone yell and curse at any judge before?

[LynnTheDem]

16. rotflmao!!!

You are either:

1)

or

2)

[majorjohn]

19. ok

[Blu Dahlia]

17. This is a trick that I hope no elected Democrats fall for!

Please let's not end up on the defense again by allowing the media to say we think Saddam was cheated out of a fair trial.

[LynnTheDem]

20. Fact is, he did not get a fair trial. Fact is, most the entire world agrees

with that fact.

Fact is, most the world believes Hussein should have stood a fair & open trial at the Hague.

Fact is, our entire foundation for the "American Way" is -was- based on EVERY person, especially the worst of society, having an open & fair trial.

So let's not end up ignoring the FACTS by pretending Hussein did get a fair trial.

He didn't. And the world knows it.

[Blu Dahlia]

21. Something we can address Wednesday,

after we win!!

[majorjohn]

22. "Fact is" ...

you're making up all these facts. You're personal opinions are not facts, and the "world" does not agree with you. There are many that actually believe Saddam received a fair trial, including a large population of the Iraqi people.

[LynnTheDem]

25. No, dear.

Fact is, I'm not "making up all these facts".

Hussein Trial May Set a New Low
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0701-01.htm

Saddam's trial farce stumbles to climax
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1934233,00.html

Show Trials are Not the Solution to Saddam's Heinous Reign
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/07/18/iraq12965.htm

Saddam's trial wouldn't pass for justice in a dictatorship
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/28/do2801.xml

ternational Human Rights Lawyer Points Out Absurdities in Hussein's Legal Defense
Dr. Curtis Doebbler, well-respected human rights lawyer and law professor, can't get American media to tell the truth about the legal farce going on in Bagdhad. He claims proceedings against the former Iraqi dictator have no merit since initial invasion violated international law.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/2-oct-2005.html

HRW said the tribunal's procedures fell short of international standards.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/tribunals/iraq/2005/1019fairness.htm

Show trial; Impartiality of the Saddam Hussein trial is increasingly questioned because of the active behind-the-scenes role of the United States.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2313/stories/20060714001505400.htm

"In short, it bears a striking resemblance to the show trials they saw when Saddam Hussein was in power"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5383616

Experts say this trial has not been conducted according to international standards...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0620/p01s02-woiq.html

Iraqis in Dubai say court case is a political farce
http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/saddamtrial/Opinions/10001015.html

Human rights group blasts Saddam trial as "unfair"
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1211662006

Canadian Council on International Law:

The Iraqi Special Tribunal, however, was born in dubious circumstances. It was established, and its judges selected, by Paul Bremer and his US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council prior to Iraq's regaining of sovereignty in June 2004. Washington still funds the tribunal, the Federal Bureau of Intelligence helps gather evidence and US lawyers work with the prosecution.

The tribunal's statute and rules do not require that guilt be established "beyond a reasonable doubt", the standard set by international human rights law and applied in all developed countries. Instead, the judges need only be "satisfied" of guilt. Human rights organisations are also concerned about the admissibility of statements extracted through torture and the lack of access to defence lawyers during an investigation's early stages.

Mr Hussein has already suffered legal prejudice. Iraqi ministers have repeatedly stated that he is guilty and must be promptly put to death.
http://www.ccil-ccdi.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=80&Itemid=76

Amnesty International:

The trial itself was marred by key breaches of international standards...
The trial of Saddam Hussain and seven others before the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal was a deeply flawed process...

The al-Dujail trial should have been a major contribution to establishing the truth and ensuring accountability for the massive human rights violations that occurred under Saddam Hussain’s rule but in practice it was marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly and in conformity with international standards.
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2457.shtml

...European condemnation of capital punishment and new questions about the fairness of the tribunal that ordered him to hang.

Many European nations voiced their opposition to the death penalty, including France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, and a leading Italian opposition figure called on the continent to press for Saddam's sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment.

In Pakistan, the opposition religious coalition claimed that American forces have caused more deaths in Iraq in the past 3 1/2 years than Saddam did during his 23-year reign, and insisted Bush should stand trial for war crimes.

Reaction was mixed across the Arab world. Some Muslims saw the sentence as divine justice, but others denounced it as a farce, maintaining that Iraq is more violent now than it was under Saddam.

Amnesty International questioned the fairness of the trial...

Sonya Sceats, an international law expert at the Chatham House foreign affairs think tank in London.

"The problem really is that this tribunal has not shown itself to be fair and impartial -- not only by international standards, but by Iraqi standards," she said.

Chandra Muzaffar, president of the Malaysian-based International Movement for a Just World, also voiced concerns that Saddam's trial "violated many established norms of international jurisprudence."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/05/hussein.world.reax/index.html

Of course tony the bLiar and the Aussie govt danced gleefully with bushCo. As they should. A daed Hussein can't tell all about his anglo-American partners in crime.





Have a nice day! :)

[Swamp Rat]

28. Welcome to DU!

[Swamp Rat]

27. Welcome to DU!

[upi402]

18. lawyer, head of int'l bar -says "no"

flatly called one aspect ILLEGAL
I was surprised it slipped out on CNN, but it was CNN International.

[LynnTheDem]

26. Most bar assoc's and international lawyers have said "no".

How can it possibly be a fair trial in a nation OCCUPIED by foreign invaders, with a WAR on-going, with the OCCUPIERS financing, "advising", and directing said trial??!

When Dems take back America, let's have Nancy Pelosi and the members of DU to judge freepers! And no "beyond reasonable doubt"; nope, same as Hussein had, we just have to be "SATISIFED" personally that freepers are ignorant treasonous POS. Of course freepers will call that a "fair" trial. Right, rightwingnuts?

:)

[Jim Warren]

23. Sure

As Karl Malden replied when Brando asked in One Eyed Jacks, "Sure Kid you'll get a fair trial....then I'm gonna gonna hang you..."

Hummm, another Karl.

[0rganism]

29. The poll respondents are answering a different question, methinks

They're answering with their opinions of whether Saddam received the penalty they think he deserved -- i.e., was the RESULT of the trial fair.

This says nothing about the fairness of the process. I suspect very few people who answered the CNN poll watched the trial closely enough to make any determination of its actual procedural fairness.

[upi402]

31. CNN viewers don't let facts interfere with their unreality n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

30. How stupid. None of us had access to the trial. n/t