The 'world police' went in looking for wmd they didnt find any, if we use our own standards he wouldnt even stand trail.....
i think that must be a wide interpretation even of UK law - which im not familiar with - but i cannot
imagine that the police raid a house for weapons - and instead find drugs -and then go "oh well....we didnt
raid for that so to bad..". It make sence that they cannot put u to trial for the original charge
but would have to make a new charge concerning the drugs.
the same goes for iraque. they didnt find any wmd but he surely can be charged
for crimes against the Iraque ppl having evidence like massgraves etc.
hm, about the court descissions. getting a fair trial will be almost impossible. No court would have neutral standing grounds judging him.
thats what judges do. a judge can only convict ppl within the borders of the law. And therefor a judge can be very neutral. for a judge Saddam will be no different than any other person on trial. His job is still the same and for them he will be unguilty until otherwise has been proven.
Last edited: