Even if he was, does it really matter? We'll never see him again.

The point of a trial is to find out if someone is guilty or innocent (the whole innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here). If we all know he's guilty than does it really matter if the trial was done perfectly? There are sometimes exceptions in justice, and I think that's fine.

And in our society today in some places killing the guilty is justice.

That's not a minor crime. 148 people? I'm willing to bet there were some innocent friends and family members of the people who really tried to kill him mixed in there.

If they tried to get him for everything he has done, there would be legal holes and lots of money spent that doesn't have to be. The thing would have gone on for years. There is just no point in dragging it out when it doesn't have to be.

While USA has been bombarded with 'evil Saddam' brainwashing, there are lots of other dictatorships around the globe that USA has little interest in fixing:

North Korea (Kim Yong II)
Saudi Arabia (Fahd)
Myanmar (Than Shwe)
Equatorial Guinea (Teodoro Obiang Nguema)
Pakistan (Musaraf)
Turkmenistan (Niyazof, recently passed away)

There are others that I can not remember right now. There were also many other dictatorships that USA had little interest in fixing the past:

Chile (Pinochet)
Spain (Franco)
Argentina (Peron)
Greece (Papadopoulos)

There are a lot more probably in both lists. The lists above clearly show that USA 'liberated' Iraq for business reasons above all.

Of course it is not only USA that supports dictatorships all over the world; all major powers have done that in the past.

Just a little reminder about the world we live in...I hope this Saddam hysteria goes away quickly, because it is only a distraction from the real problems.

Hey Axilmar how are things these days? First thing I saw on TV this morning was a triple car bombing in Iraq, I'm thinking that's only the tip of the resulting violence. Ok can someone explain this... back in the Gulf War Ronald Reagan funded Saddams retaliation against Iran and today we are hanging him... how did we just let it slide that he committed all those crimes or was that after the gulf war? Even so we had the power to act earlier.

Slightly erroneous. Before the first Gulf War Iran and Iraq were in a bitter conflict and since the US govt didn't care much for Iran they decided to funnel some equipment into Iraq to make things interesting. You know, that whole 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing that happens all the time.

Eventually the hostilities ceased, and you can figure things out from there.

Why doesn't it apply here? Because you don't like Saddam's face? The Innocence until Proven Guilty principle applies equally to all, including Saddam, Hitler and Stalin.

Also, how do you know he's guilty before the trial? Isn't the point of the trial to determine guilt?

"We all know it" isn't considered evidence for criminal offenses. Plus, I'd think that hanging someone to death requires some more solid proof that "we all know he did it; his eyes twitch like a guilty person!" After all, you only get to die once, so there is no room for mistakes.

If he was so obviously guilty, then shouldn't the trial be speedy and accurate? After all, there must be evidence all over the place, no? Or maybe the situation is more complicated than it seems.

That's where there's room for debate! There are many cases where the guilt is clear, in which case the purpose of the trial is to properly present the charges and determine the appropriate punishment. Admittedly, that seems a bit pointless considering it was clear they were going to kill him and you can only do so once.

Oh, yes. Most definately yes. That is to say, if you want to somehow distance yourself from, be better than, the man you're putting on trial (which actually was the point). Otherwise you might as well have had him stabbed in the night before you even reached the verdict.

After a proper trial, I would hope. Just killing people is never justice.

Learn to bloody read. I said relatively minor. Surely if he's tried for any single thing, it should have been the most serious offence he commited?
If you murder three people and steal a candy bar, should you be tried for stealing the candy bar?

I agree, which is another reason I think it was a bad idea.

The enemy of my enemy and all that. Really doesn't add stability to the world.

Take for example the guy that shot Reagan, he's still in jail. Somebody tried to assasinate Saddam and he gassed an entire village. Yeah, I see your point that's exactly the same type situation [/sarcasm].

People who make such claims sound delusional imo.

Which is why it cost the US hundreds of billions so far and billions more will be required. And if it was all about oil, then why have we seen record high oil and gas prices? That claim just doesn't add up.

What I respect are people who discuss the issue at hand without resorting to restating the same old tired dogmatic lines that just don't hold up to scrutiny.

Not that I buy the whole "The war was just about oil" argument, but were it all about control of oil resources, I imagine that having control over them now isn't so much of an issue as having control over them in the future, when oil is scarce and more valuable. In which case, billions spent now could be recooped in the future.

I apologize for my post you're referring to, there was no call for a personal attack and I edited it. I know I come off as being combative and derogatory in discussions like this.

I don't know the specifics of Hussein's evil doings, but (given relatively equal expected sentences) usually people are tried on the most obvious—not most heinous—of the crimes. For example, the Chicago gangster Al Capone was ultimately convicted of tax invasion. Everyone knew he did much worse things, but it would have been harder to convict him. Who's going to give witness against him? Anyone who doesn't want to live very long. So just because no one is going to testify against Capone out of fear of his own life, does that mean Capone's innocent by the "fair trial"? Capone ended up being sent to Alcatraz, which is pretty steep for "tax evasion"...

Of course Hussein's trial wasn't fair. Of course he was guilty before innocent in the trial. There's no way for a fair trial. Many of Hussein's wrong doings are documented facts. For him not to be guilty would just be a mockery of the system.

I understand the desire for a token "fair" trial. One wants to have faith in the judicial system. But just getting it over with is the more pragmatic approach. Everyone here is just arguing about the means, when you ultimately agree with the end. (Maybe not necessarily the death sentence, but surely the guilty verdict.)

I understand your points and think they are well made. But one of the foundations of a fair trial is to have a judge and/or jury who have no prejudice. You just cannot get that with a case like Hussein. That's my main reason for saying that a fair trial is simply impossible.

You can find 12 Americans who don't know who OJ Simpson is. But try to find 1 Iraqi who doesn't know who Hussein is.