Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovOr maybe it has something to do with avoiding Double Jeopardy?

Or do we prosecute serial killers for one or two murders at a time (out of the dozens they've often committed) because of direct or indirect Western involvement?

It seems you're mocking me.... :confused:....

So the US didn't sell the materials to construct chemical weapons to him? just like the UK government didn't sell him missile building kits? The UK missile bit happened a few years back, but is known, the US end may be conjecture, I'm unsure - either way I'm thinking they'd prefer not to go there. Our complicity in some of this is uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it untrue. Dujail was the easiest charge to prove I hear, but surely all that means is that they were looking for the easiest way to see him put to death - justice in my mind is having him held to account for all his crimes, not just the ones that secure conviction.

For the record, I'm not US bashing, and I assume you've had a crack at me thinking I was - all I'm saying is, the families of those killed in Dujail may have seen justice done - what of the millions of others who lost loved ones? They're not going to get their day in court. Likewise, all the 'alledged' crimes of Saddam will have to remain 'alledged'.... although obviously we'll accept them as fact.

I maintain my previous position, killing him illustrates perfectly how the faces change, but the story remains the same. There is no place for the death penalty in 'civilised' society. Killing someone for killing someone? It seems the irony is wasted on some people.... When will Bush and Blair see their day in the Hague? A war is being fought by my country that some 80% of my countrymen have been against since before it began.