How can a government that clearly opposes the death penalty be in favour of a verdict that results in hanging? Mrs Beckett speaks of "appalling crimes" and that "It is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice."
Let's be clear. These crimes were appalling and whoever is responsible for them needs to be brought to justice. Two questions arise though. Firstly, was the trial against Saddam fair? International lawyers and Amnesty International have serious doubts. The human rights organisation claims that is was "deeply flawed and unfair". It appears that the trial was not judged by Western standards as Mrs Beckett implies.
Secondly, if you are under the impression that the trial was held under democratic standards - an opinion that is predictable if you are part of the "coalition against terror" - why do you feel obliged to hail such a verdict? And how credible is it if you then add that you are opposed to the death penalty? Does that mean we are generally against and it, but not this time? Why didn't Mrs Beckett join her European counterparts in their statements today? Most of them said that Saddam should be held accountable for his crimes, but that he should get life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.
BTW is it coincidence that the verdict was announced two days before the US midterm election?
No comments:
Post a Comment