If Saddam is being hanged, Why is the President of Rwanda not in court for genocide?
819288
Are you kidding...you think Americans care what's happening in Rwanda?...Most couldn't even find it on a map!\n\nI see you had to get that from the BBC.....it's a shame, but you don't really hear about that on the news here....do you?\n\nsad,sad,sad
512264
Rusebagina was attempting to get someone, anyone, with any international authority to intervene and attempt to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I think he wanted to play on the conscience of these people, and that is what he was urguing the refugees to do.\n\nHe contacted everyone from the UN to the White House, but found little help. One thing Rusesbagina condemns the US for is its failure to send a plane that would have blocked the radio signals of the Hutu station - which is how the death squads coordinated their activities.\n\nHe was written a good book called "An Ordinary Man". It helps explain much of the context of Hotel Rwanda.
33497
Bush going to war violates international law but it does not constutute war crimes such as genocide. According to the Un resolution 1441:\n\n"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."\n\nTherefore the US can not declare war alone, it must do so in conjunction with the UN, this is why there was a coalition of the willing not the UN as one body. And this statement cites sanctions as appropriate actions not an invasion. Also this statement in effect recalls previous resolutions that list it's expectations of Iraq and calls for continued weapons inspections to which the inspectors found no weapons and concluded the resolution had been abided by.\n\nWith that said the US has commited war crimes, I think obvious example might be (I apologize for the spelling) Abu Grahib or kidnapping suspected terrorists from other countries and not labeling them as prisoners of war and therefore not abiding by the Geneva conventions in providing those prisoners with what the conventions declare them access to. Bush himself declared this a war on terror. As to whether Bush ordered these events to happen despite some evidence is still somewat inconclusive. However when he uses the words dead or alive and attempts to have bills blocked that reiterate the US stand against torture then something is amiss, and as commander in cheif it is his responsibility to ensure this does not occur which has not been done. However, he will never be convicted or tried.
916961
Yes absolutely, he ordered hundreds of thousands of Kurds to be gassed to death. He was sadisitic and had two awful sons who would rape and torture at will. My only concern is that hanging Saddam will just inflame the situation in Iraq as it will make him a martyr and will annoy his followers
298546
It's called justice. No sentence without trial first.\n\nTo incarcerate someone without a trial is the kind of thing I would expect of Saddam H. I would like to think the United States is a long way from that kind of human rights abuse.
161237
Because people just either do not care/or don't hear about it.\nEverybody hears about Iraq whilst lots is also happening in the world.\nWho cared much about Rwanda's genocides ??? There was no oil in there...it was not affecting the economy of the West....I know I am cynical - not me : speaking for what I perceive.
1125374
I have a dream, I see George Bush and the rest of his administration being led down the white house steps in hand cuffs and leg Irons, under arrest for his crimes against humanity. As far as I am concerned the domestic charges can wait. He has killed, and maimed many innocent people in Iraq with his war of choice. He had no real compelling reason to attack a sovereign country with the sole purpose of over thrown their government. His holding hostages in Cuba, torturing prisoners the list of these crimes are many. I would like to see him on trial so that justice could be done.
14238
Bush is the same as Saddam?  When was the last time that Bush tried to commit genocide?\nThis country will come out of "turmoil" when liberals realize that Bush is not the worst person in the world and get over the fact the he won two presidential elections and they didn't.  We will come out of turmoil when liberals finally decide to be on America's side.
945606
There was no compelling reason why Saddam had to be deposed. There was no nuclear program to speak of and IAEA inspectors were at work in Iraq verifying this on the eve of the US invasion. Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US or one of its close allies. Even if Saddam was a threat, what can justify dismantling Iraq's entire, sovereign government and occupying the country for 4 years? The US could have had Saddam assassinated, covertly, installed an new regime, and left. The infrastructure for the government and everything else! would have remained, and a few military strongmen could have fought for power between themselves.\n\nInstead, the US has brought mass chaos on the country. There are new atrocities every day 100 + scientists were just kidnapped in Baghdad. The best the US is now hoping for is a "stable" government in Iraq. It was a peaceful country with a low crime rate and Saddam had been restrained for more than 10 years and was willing to deal to remove economic sanctions.
822641
The appeals process is quite limited in Iraq and will be gone through rather quickly.  Then the verdict and sentence must be approved by the Iraqi president (and two others, I think).  The approval probably will not take long either.  While there is another Saddam trial going on, he could be executed before its completion.  My feeling is that all trials on all charges should be completed before he is executed so that there will be documentation of all his acts before he dies.
451644
For whatever reason, many incidences of genocide and war in Africa are minimalized and do not receive the same amount of publicity that other world conflicts do (Rwanda, Uganda, DRC). They often involve third world countries that have little or no history of stable democracy and no valuable natural resources to speak of.\n\nI also believe that this incident demonstrates the ineptitude of the U.N. in dealing with international incidents. The media determines what is news and they do not wish for this to become a widely held opinion by making a big story out of it.\n\nThirdly, this is not a big political issue. Very few people have vested interests in Sudan (especially as compared to the current immigration controversy), meaning that very few votes can be gained/lost by action/inaction on the subject. As sad as it is to say, the primary responsibility of a politician (a politician, not a statesman mind you) is to get reelected, and so many politicians will not waste their time on an issue that will not earn them any votes.
924698
They have not released nearly enough of the information about what goes on there to make a reasonable assessment of either side's case.\n\nThe court system is not similar to the US's system.  The lawyers and judges are primarily French-schooled and Iraqi law is modeled after France's system.  They do not have the same burden of proof to meet hat the US has.\n\nAnd capital punishment is revenge.  That is the only purpose behind it, capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent, and the victim is not likely to learn anything from it.  Capital punishment is pure revenge, plain and simple.  So by executing Saddam revenge would be the only reason and only result.
439967
No -- he was responsible for genocide. The most conservative estimates place the death count at his hands somewhere near a million lives. Though many of those deaths were people of other nationalities, a very large percentage were in fact Iraqis who either opposed him, or were conceived of as a threat. No one was safe -- not even his most trusted advisors.
895780
I has killed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons, this ammounts to genocide.  In interogations of the alleged assassination attempt, 50 people died, mostly children.  Under his regime, a pregnant woman was hanged.  Fingernails being pulled out and drill bits through the shins were used as forms of torture and interogation.  He would make the families of the executed pay for the bullets used to kill them.  No one should stand up for this man.  He is along the lines of Hitler.
883979
There are lots of bad dictators in the world. Why USA is picking on Saddam? USA built him up and made him bad. USA saved Saddam's butt in the past from many assassinations. They gave him all the weapons and chemicals to defend himself from the  Shiites rebel. Now because we need his oil, so Saddam is no good? What about Sudan's President Al-Bashir, who is killing innocent people left and right in Darfur? What about Libya's president, Qaddafi the horrible dictator? What about Egypt's president,  Mr. Mubarak, the bad dictator? What about Syria's President, Mr. Al-Assad, who killing and jailing his opponents every day? What about Saudi Arabia King and Sheiks, who hate Christians and oppressing everyone out of the country? Can I keep on and on? Therefore, Saddam's death will only make Sunnies and some shiites angry and creates more turmoil. Do not listen to Bush...he is full of crap.
751383
this war and Saddam was not worth one penny or one life.if you think about it,Saddam got rid of all his weapons and was complying with all the U.N. sanctions therefore he should have never been attacked.Bush stated he didn't care what the inspectors said he knew there were weapons and would attack any way.2 years later he admitted he was wrong because he was given bad intelligence.so he should be tried for war crimes.too many people have died because of his bad intelligence.
707651
i firmly believe that both of them and olmert should be hung up in a court for crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes.  legally they have broken the geneva convention many times over... but because it won't happen, i fear the arabs will take the matter into their own hands and deliver a judgement day like one we have never seen.\ni've just read some of the other answers and i am appaulled at the ignorance!!!!  they still think that bush and blair have delivered a better solution to saddam for the people of iraq!  clearly they are not reading the news!