I think I missed an important, basic piece of reasoning for even putting Saddam
Are they thinking there's the chance that they'll just let him go free, because
he isn't found guilty of murdering thousands?
I assumed from the beginning that this has been an open & closed case. The dude
has tortured & killed more people than I'll know in my lifetime. I don't need a
jury to come to that conclusion.
Does his lawyer present evidence of innocence in the trial? If so, do they think
they'll convince a jury that he should get anything less than death?
I understand that due process is a good thing, but this almost seems like a big
joke... parading him around like a trophy, letting him make a fool of himself
in front of the world before they then decide to just kill him.
Fill me in if my ignorance has become evident... I'm sure I'm not the only one
asking this, though.