Saddam, Day 2

[Adrian II]

Though after a point you do have to stop worrying about these things and say, well, the trials took place, people were found guilty and punished (not that many but that is another story) so we can say "law" happened, and ipso facto there was jurisdiction.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that in your view the Saddam trial is nothing more than a (needlessly debilitating) extension of the firing squad.

So tell us: should there be a trial at all? Why go through the motions of justice instead of merely establishing his identity and executing him? What is the difference between your approach and a lynchmob?

Maybe an .org member from Romania could tell us how he liked the 1989 summary execution of Nicolae Ceauşescu. No formalities, no charges, no questions asked. Well to be quite fair they did, for the record, ask him 'Are you Ceaucescu?' before they shot him and his wife in the corner of some nondescript army barracks. The identity of the executioners remained unknown for quite a while and the 'live' televised lynching was fake because the actual execution had taken place earlier.

I suppose people think it's real tough to pretend they don't care about the formalities in Saddam-like cases. I think it's real dumb and callous as well, because it implies that they don't care about the demand for justice, truth, and long-suppressed information.