Much as I think he should be strung up with a length of rusty knotted barbed wire, can have King George and Ar Tone for company I see that the, Immunity for Heads of State, card will be played.
In a fair court he would be in with a chance but somehow I think Justice will be done.
Christopher Hitchins correctly pointed out that but for US/UK intervention:
Saddam Hussein, with his crime family, would still be privately holding ownership over a terrorized people in a state that's been most aptly described as a concentration camp above ground and a mass grave underneath it.
What do you think the Iraqis are most worried about? What stops the efforts to rebuild most of all ?
The nightmare possibility that the creature will be allowed to return to power......I don't think he would be seen as a ...ahem...'marter' by anyone...anymore than Caesescu or Idi Amin or Papa Doc Duvalier or Sese Mobutu can be seen as martyrs....just nasty dictators who were (eventually) removed from power and in Caesescu's case got what they (richly) deserved.
I second Goatman's comment there. While there are some people who are obviously lacking in the brain department, I think most Iraqis have seen and suffered enough to think twice before considering him a martyr. I think one mistake we make is to put all the nutters under one umbrella. Yes, they may be against the coalition forces occupying Iraq, but that does not necessarily mean that they are supporters of Saddam Hussein.
As for barristers, where money and notoriety goes, they go.
All this talk of a trial - SH does not deserve that! Just remembering of how he tortured people (including his own). They didnt get any trial. He should be made to suffer. With him going on trial he will have the benefit of something called "hope" which again he does not deserve. This man has no remorse for what he has inflicted.
I think thats part of what the trials about, just because he was the big cheddar, it doesnt mean he ordered the torture or killings. Tony Blair is our (ahem) leader but did he order or indeed know about the prisoner abuses allegedly commited by British troops?
Theres no doubt that he ruled the country as a dictator, but how many of the crimes that he is being tried for did he actually order? Was he clever enough never to actually sign anything that could incriminate him? I think and i may be wrong but thats why there is a trial, to determine if he is guilty or not!!
If he is found not guilty of this first round of accusations then the prosecution will have to seriously rethink their case against!!
Saddam Hussein has pleaded not guilty to charges including premeditated murder and torture - and has scuffled with guards as he went on trial in Baghdad.
The former dictator challenged the legitimacy of the court as he argued with the judges - and had a shoving match with guards as he tried to take a break from the courtroom.
Saddam, 68, and seven former members of his regime could face the death penalty if convicted over the 1982 massacre of nearly 150 Shiites in the town of Dujail.
They are charged with premeditated murder, torture, imprisonment and the deprivation of physical movement and forced deportation. The trial is being held in the former headquarters of his Baath Party.
After presiding Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin, a Kurd, read the defendants their rights and the charges against them - which also include forced expulsions and illegal imprisonment - he asked each for their plea.
He started with the ousted dictator, saying: "Mr Saddam, go ahead. Are you guilty or innocent?"
The ousted Iraqi leader replied quietly: "I said what I said. I am not guilty."
He was referring to his arguments earlier in the session. Amin read out the plea, "innocent".
The three-hour session was stormy, with Saddam arguing with judges.
When a break was called, Saddam stood, smiling, asked to step of the room, but when two guards tried to grab his arms to escort him out, he angrily shook them off.
They tried to grab him again, and Saddam struggled to get free, being shaken during a shoving match that lasted about a minute as they yelled at each other.
It ended with Saddam getting his way, and he was allowed to walk independently, with the two guards behind him, out of the room for the break. He did not appear harmed.
When the break ended, the judge announced that the trial was adjourned until November 28.
The Americans have exercised close control over every tiny detail of this trial and the events leading up to it. Curiously, they have not selected the infamous events at Halabja, perpetrated by Saddam's Air Force, as the first atrocity to be laid at the former tyrant's door, insisting that it will be easier to secure a guilty verdict with another less well-known event.
But why the peculiar omission?
Is it anything at all to do with the original procurement of the WMD used to such ghastly and devastating effect? Where could Saddam have laid his hands on such evil weapons?
...Step forward, Donald Rumsfeld - current US 'Defense' Secretary, the man who brokered the deal.