Originally Posted by: grizzlymintHe gassed his own people and tossed them in mass graves. I don't care what the courts accused him of specifically.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because what you're accused of doesn't matter, it's whether people half way across the globe with a shaky grasp of the 'facts' think you're guilty or not. So you steal a loaf of bread, and I execute you for murder - is that OK? Is it 'justice'?

[QUOTE=grizzlymint]Ok, so now we just went from "does it make us any better for killing Saddam because he killed" to "what if he had a reason for killing those people." Ha. Quit fighting for this piece of scum. He deserves none of your sympathy. Do a little research on what he actually did.

I was trying to point out that the argument that it's OK to torture people if they 'deserve' it has an obvious flaw - I wasn't trying to say genocide is OK if the people deserve it... man ;) I'm not fighting for him. Like I've said if you read what I've posted, he may well have deserved to be executed, but I think he should have stood trial for all his crimes and been executed for genocide, as opposed to being executed for ordering the killing of 148 people, which is obviously a different scale of crime.

I am not sympathetic to him either... I simply think you should be held to account for your actions, not just charged with the easiest one to prove and executed. All they wanted to do was kill him, and that was seen as justice. I might even agree, I just think they should have tried to hit him with all of it first...