Saddam Hussein's Trial

[gamavor]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/14/204912/501

 

 

On a more serious note: The representatives of the prosecution in Saddam Hussein trial said that they would develop their case with utmost caution, because the trial would be in the eyes of the world public.

 

That said I wonder how they would have handled the case if the trial was not meant to be under public scrutiny.

 

Now the fun part! Saddam is charged with murder (quite understandably) because he was a bloodthirsty dictator. Even many Moslem extremists agree on that. BUT: Saddam is charged with murder of Sheia Moslems in a shia village who revolted against him while he was in power.

 

My question is why the prosecution didn't charge him for a murder of more than 3 000 Kurds during the Gulf war when he ordered use of banned by numerous international accords chemical weapons for mass destruction against peaceful, unarmed civilians when crossing the border with Turkey? Why?

 

Is it because Ankara should also be held responsible for the plight of the Kurds, or there are other reasons?

 

PS: Btw, Saddam's persecution against the Kurds has long history. Same goes for almost all minority groups and religious denominations in Iraq who were not affiliated with BAAS party. To me, it looks like poorly directed Hollywood style spectacle.