First the execution and then the trial? At least this is the way the press is covering the court appearance of Saddam.

How much is this trial going to be perceived as a proceeding by a kangaroo court? Would a better forum have been the World Court of Justice? All in all this is an interesting proceedure without much precedent.

Imagine, one of the charges is an invasion and occupation of a non-combatant country? The defense of this charge is that the actions of this non-combatant nation poised a possible threat and the overthrow of the regime would be the defense of his nation, and as President this action was authorized even though the reasons for the invasion were, at best, contrivances and at worst outright lies to the people of his country. Further, this country to be invaded was evil and immoral and if not attacked would turn his nation's women into $ 10.00 whores.

No, I am not talking about Bush here, this is one of the charges against Saddam.

A second charge is the pre-emptive strike against a group that represented a threat to the government and was supported by foreign interests.

Again, not Bush--This is Saddam against the Kurds and their Turkish supporters.

Just how fair a trial do you suspect is in store for Saddam? Picking an impartial jury in Iraq is certainly not close to possible. Or, have we given up in believing in our own system of justice? What would the American people do if this jury finds Saddam not quilty?

Or, have they already been instructed to bring in a death penalty?

Publius