(no subject)
Nov. 20th, 2006 12:41 amHuman Rights Watch - Saddam trial 'flawed and unsound'
Important documents were not given to defence lawyers in advance, no written transcript was kept and paperwork was lostNot good. I'm not going to suggest that he's actually innocent, or that he should be released - but it still needed to be a fair trial.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-20 10:03 pm (UTC)Go on - tell us why the details are important. Convince us.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 11:33 pm (UTC)History is slippery. Facts tend to shift if you don't nail them down. When people look back on this in a decade or two, do you want them to see this as a fair trial or a grudge match? Some of them will support Saddam, claim he was unjustly accused... this was a chance to drag some facts out into the light and publically record them, to make it easier to reject those claims.
And also a chance to set a precedent. To send a message here and now, to set a high standard - "look, in the new Iraq, even this bastard gets a fair trial".
Sure, it's just details. But then what's the big picture if it's not a collection of details?
"Deckchairs on the Titanic" suggests that something's both comparatively unimportant and utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. I might agree on the first point, I'm not so sure about the second.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-23 03:07 am (UTC)Thanks for the talk. I shall not misuse deckchairs again.