Can they really convict Saddam of anything?

[Jhhnn]

It's a show trial with a purposefully narrow focus, to prevent the introduction of testimony detrimental to the US and US interests.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, the result is a foregone conclusion. Saddam gets the end of a rope. Rummy, Reagan, and the neocons get whitewashed for their actions of 20 years ago...

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past... any questions?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's a show trial with a purposefully narrow focus, to prevent the introduction of testimony detrimental to the US and US interests.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, the result is a foregone conclusion. Saddam gets the end of a rope. Rummy, Reagan, and the neocons get whitewashed for their actions of 20 years ago...

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past... any questions?

Is the focus of the trial to convict Saddam of crimes against his people or crimes against the world.

They want to have a clearcut charge and evidence related to those charges to alleviate any way out.

All prosecuters try to do this. Make sure that you only charge what you can proved with a perponderence of evidence.

To bring other charges that could be challenged and/or muddy the trial from the clearcut guilt on one charge is not a reasonable thing to do.

It is Saddam on trial, not the US or other political vendettas.