Vanguarda

Saddam Hussein foi enforcado durante a madrugada de hoje; os seus carrascos negaram-lhe o fuzilamento, a última humilhação, e executaram-no como se de um vulgar criminoso se tratasse.

Nunca simpatizei especialmente com a figura de Saddam Hussein e conheço tão pouco do seu regime que seria incapaz de fazer a sua defesa ou condenação, por isso pensei, inicialmente, não escrever nada sobre o acontecimento e assinalá-lo apenas com uma imagem do presidente iraquiano (como fez o Arqueofuturista). No entanto, enquanto procurava no Google a tal imagem, encontrei um post de um blogue estrangeiro (americano?) datado de 07/12/2005 bem demonstrativo da farsa que são estes “tribunais de vencedores”.

Lê-se o seguinte:

First, let me make myself clear. Saddam Hussein should have been put down like a rabid dog. The problem is we didn’t. So now we have a whole new set of rules. It was decided to provide Hussein with a trial, lawyers and all. This creates a problem. Now justice must be fair and balanced. This is where the problem creeps in. Look past the courtroom antics of Saddam. What has really been going on?

First a parade of witnesses have come through “testifying” about what they had seen. The witnesses are hidden, so much for facing your accusers. The defense has no idea who they are, or for that matter if they were even in the locations that they claim at the time they claim the events occured. Most of the testimony these witnesses are providing seems to be focus on what happened to other people, not specifically them. Some of it isn’t even what they had seen, it’s what they had heard, or heard from a third party. The whole thing stinks of hearsay. I doubt you would get most of this testimony into an American trial. None of the evidence so far links Saddam to the criminal act. Isn’t that the key to the case? The prosecution must prove: 1. The crimes even took place. 2. Saddam knew about it and didn’t act. and 3. Saddam ordered the criminal action in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, I think he is guilty and should be executed. Unfortunately, now that it is in a legal arena, the rule of law and evidence must be considered.

My fear in all of this is that they will keep presenting unknown witnesses, of dubious credibility, not allow the defense to know enough to prepare a rebuttal case, and then execute Saddam anyway. It would have been better to have an angry mob take Saddam out and shoot him than to put on a trial in this manner.

I hope things improve. What would happen if he was acquitted due to insufficient evidence?

Este pelo menos é honesto e reconhece logo que mais valia tê-lo despachado “como a um cão raivoso” em vez de manter a farsa.