>Exactly. Why _not_ those other guys? I'm all for throwing them into the
>courts, too. (Can't see why you're asking _me_, though...)
>
>--as i said, it doesn't matter that you wish that to happen... not one bit.
>and the answer to why not the other guys is perfectly obvious I would think,
>thus the pointlessness of wishful thinking about any form of justice outside
>of victors' justice (i.e. farce) in the case of Saddam...
>
>
This argument is a mug's game. Obviously, no one could possibly exact
perfect justice for Saddam. His crimes are just too great. (Even if one
subscribed to the "eye for an eye" theory of justice, how could you
murder someone thousands of times over?) Matter of fact, even if the
trial of Saddam Hussein were conducted as well as it possibly could--
extensive testimonies, documentary evidence, Johnny Cochran on the
defense team-- it'd be impossible to satisfy everybody. (Heck, if the
Iraqis try him, _they_ might decide to stick to prosecuting Saddam, and
leaving the U.S. out of it. I'd prefer they didn't, but it'd be their
decision, and what _I'd_ want has nothing to do with it.) In other
words, you're imposing an impossible standard, i.e., it ain't justice
unlss you, personaly, ran it.