t, but this doesn't mean that killing the ruler of barbarity will end the Iraqis' suffering once and for all. The rejoicing will be a momentary relief even to those who have savored this verdict, seeing it as a revenge against the inhumanity brought by the Saddam and his henchmen, because their joy is soon likely to be put out again by the misery of modern Iraq.

The real remedy would be to take back this decision to kill the tyrant, and to keep him alive among those Iraqis who suffered his cruelty, by giving him a life sentence instead, at the same time making him realize what terrible pain he had given to his fellow citizens.

After all, the noble task of rebuilding Iraq and making it peaceful, democratic and a civilized country, has yet to materialize. And, if this task is fulfilled, then it would indeed be the greatest gift to the Iraqis, along with a lesson to those who never ruled for their citizens but for themselves, and also to those who have foll

The death sentence given to the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has created mixed feelings on the world stage, and seems to have divided Iraq and the global community at large.

The Arab world is split in two. Many Arabs have taken it as a form of divine justice, while others have harshly rejected it as a farce. Others still say that this will bring more misfortune to the Iraqis, who may suffer worse than under Saddam's cruel rule.

No one would invalidate the fact however that many Iraqis did see days of hell during the 24 years of Saddam's reign. It's a fact that a significant number of Iraqis wanted the end of Saddam's barbaric despotism, which came to an end by the U.S. military intervention. While the Iraqis rejoiced the end of Saddam's barbaric rule, the same population also poured their equal dissatisfaction towards the military invasion and occupation of their country by the U.S. and its allies.

Though the Iraqis suffered pain under Saddam's rule, their pain doesn't look to have been alleviated, but worsened, at least in the present, rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq. At a time when most Iraqis are living in despair, it's difficult to ascertain whether they should even really celebrate the death sentence against their former tyrant. Many Iraqis would have already expected more bloodshed in Iraq, as the verdict has already begun to show the sign of a dangerous rift between the Sunnis, logical supporters of Saddam, and the Shi'ites and the Kurds, who would favor the verdict because they were viciously mistreated by the dictator.

The critics have argued that the verdict would further divide the already fractured Iraqi society, as it has failed to reconcile Sunnis and the majority Shi'ites. The former consisting of the previous ruling elites, and the latter fiercely resentful of Saddam, now controlling the significant governmental positions. Others speculate that the recent verdict would only worsen the chaos in Iraq, as the country is on a knife-edge, and any imbalance would further risk vulnerable Iraqi lives.

Certainly the Iraqis deserved to do away with the despotic rule of Saddam, and it looks fair enough to severely punish a criminal against humanity from a common viewpoint. Nevertheless, though Saddam deserved harsh retaliation against his inhuman tactics, critics have pointed out that the process of the trial, which delivered this latest verdict, has violated the norms of the international principle of law, regarding the way the court was constituted, and the way the evidence was presented and the charges brought against Saddam.

It is also expected that ardent supporters of Saddam will consider him a martyr, or a "hero," executed by the occupying foreign forces, giving them more justification to spread further violence in Iraq.

The fairness of the trial is also been questioned by Amnesty International, which calls it a "shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

Yet according to Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa director, Malcom Smart, this trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam's rule.

Iraq, since the time of the invasion, has been burnings with the fires of violence imposed by sectarianism and insurgency. Thus the execution could not allow the Iraqis to celebrate in a real sense. A resident of Iraq, Imad Mohammed, a computer technician, said: "Whether Saddam lives or dies is not important to me. I'm not even sure whether my family and I will live or die."

The former injustices posed by the Saddam regime should be brought to light, but this doesn't mean that killing the ruler of barbarity will end the Iraqis' suffering once and for all. The rejoicing will be a momentary relief even to those who have savored this verdict, seeing it as a revenge against the inhumanity brought by the Saddam and his henchmen, because their joy is soon likely to be put out again by the misery of modern Iraq.

The real remedy would be to take back this decision to kill the tyrant, and to keep him alive among those Iraqis who suffered his cruelty, by giving him a life sentence instead, at the same time making him realize what terrible pain he had given to his fellow citizens.

After all, the noble task of rebuilding Iraq and making it peaceful, democratic and a civilized country, has yet to materialize. And, if this task is fulfilled, then it would indeed be the greatest gift to the Iraqis, along with a lesson to those who never ruled for their citizens but for themselves, and also to those who have follo

am's rule, their pain doesn't look to have been alleviated, but worsened, at least in the present, rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq. At a time when most Iraqis are living in despair, it's difficult to ascertain whether they should even really celebrate the death sentence against their former tyrant. Many Iraqis would have already expected more bloodshed in Iraq, as the verdict has already begun to show the sign of a dangerous rift between the Sunnis, logical supporters of Saddam, and the Shi'ites and the Kurds, who would favor the verdict because they were viciously mistreated by the dictator.

The critics have argued that the verdict would further divide the already fractured Iraqi society, as it has failed to reconcile Sunnis and the majority Shi'ites. The former consisting of the previous ruling elites, and the latter fiercely resentful of Saddam, now controlling the significant governmental positions. Others speculate that the recent verdict would only worsen the chaos in Iraq, as the country is on a knife-edge, and any imbalance would further risk vulnerable Iraqi lives.

Certainly the Iraqis deserved to do away with the despotic rule of Saddam, and it looks fair enough to severely punish a criminal against humanity from a common viewpoint. Nevertheless, though Saddam deserved harsh retaliation against his inhuman tactics, critics have pointed out that the process of the trial, which delivered this latest verdict, has violated the norms of the international principle of law, regarding the way the court was constituted, and the way the evidence was presented and the charges brought against Saddam.

It is also expected that ardent supporters of Saddam will consider him a martyr, or a "hero," executed by the occupying foreign forces, giving them more justification to spread further violence in Iraq.

The fairness of the trial is also been questioned by Amnesty International, which calls it a "shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

Yet according to Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa director, Malcom Smart, this trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam's rule.

Iraq, since the time of the invasion, has been burnings with the fires of violence imposed by sectarianism and insurgency. Thus the execution could not allow the Iraqis to celebrate in a real sense. A resident of Iraq, Imad Mohammed, a computer technician, said: "Whether Saddam lives or dies is not important to me. I'm not even sure whether my family and I will live or die."

The former injustices posed by the Saddam regime should be brought to light, but this doesn't mean that killing the ruler of barbarity will end the Iraqis' suffering once and for all. The rejoicing will be a momentary relief even to those who have savored this verdict, seeing it as a revenge against the inhumanity brought by the Saddam and his henchmen, because their joy is soon likely to be put out again by the misery of modern Iraq.

The real remedy would be to take back this decision to kill the tyrant, and to keep him alive among those Iraqis who suffered his cruelty, by giving him a life sentence instead, at the same time making him realize what terrible pain he had given to his fellow citizens.

After all, the noble task of rebuilding Iraq and making it peaceful, democratic and a civilized country, has yet to materialize. And, if this task is fulfilled, then it would indeed be the greatest gift to the Iraqis, along with a lesson to those who never ruled for their citizens but for themselves, and also to those who have foll

would only worsen the chaos in Iraq, as the country is on a knife-edge, and any imbalance would further risk vulnerable Iraqi lives.

Certainly the Iraqis deserved to do away with the despotic rule of Saddam, and it looks fair enough to severely punish a criminal against humanity from a common viewpoint. Nevertheless, though Saddam deserved harsh retaliation against his inhuman tactics, critics have pointed out that the process of the trial, which delivered this latest verdict, has violated the norms of the international principle of law, regarding the way the court was constituted, and the way the evidence was presented and the charges brought against Saddam.

It is also expected that ardent supporters of Saddam will consider him a martyr, or a "hero," executed by the occupying foreign forces, giving them more justification to spread further violence in Iraq.

The fairness of the trial is also been questioned by Amnesty International, which calls it a "shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

Yet according to Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa director, Malcom Smart, this trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam's rule.

Iraq, since the time of the invasion, has been burnings with the fires of violence imposed by sectarianism and insurgency. Thus the execution could not allow the Iraqis to celebrate in a real sense. A resident of Iraq, Imad Mohammed, a computer technician, said: "Whether Saddam lives or dies is not important to me. I'm not even sure whether my family and I will live or die."

The former injustices posed by the Saddam regime should be brought to light, but this doesn't mean that killing the ruler of barbarity will end the Iraqis' suffering once and for all. The rejoicing will be a momentary relief even to those who have savored this verdict, seeing it as a revenge against the inhumanity brought by the Saddam and his henchmen, because their joy is soon likely to be put out again by the misery of modern Iraq.

The real remedy would be to take back this decision to kill the tyrant, and to keep him alive among those Iraqis who suffered his cruelty, by giving him a life sentence instead, at the same time making him realize what terrible pain he had given to his fellow citizens.

After all, the noble task of rebuilding Iraq and making it peaceful, democratic and a civilized country, has yet to materialize. And, if this task is fulfilled, then it would indeed be the greatest gift to the Iraqis, along with a lesson to those who never ruled for their citizens but for themselves, and also to those who have foll

a "shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

Yet according to Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa director, Malcom Smart, this trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam's rule.

Iraq, since the time of the invasion, has been burnings with the fires of violence imposed by sectarianism and insurgency. Thus the execution could not allow the Iraqis to celebrate in a real sense. A resident of Iraq, Imad Mohammed, a computer technician, said: "Whether Saddam lives or dies is not important to me. I'm not even sure whether my family and I will live or die."

The former injustices posed by the Saddam regime should be brought to light, but this doesn't mean that killing the ruler of barbarity will end the Iraqis' suffering once and for all. The rejoicing will be a momentary relief even to those who have savored this verdict, seeing it as a revenge against the inhumanity brought by the Saddam and his henchmen, because their joy is soon likely to be put out again by the misery of modern Iraq.

The real remedy would be to take back this decision to kill the tyrant, and to keep him alive among those Iraqis who suffered his cruelty, by giving him a life sentence instead, at the same time making him realize what terrible pain he had given to his fellow citizens.

After all, the noble task of rebuilding Iraq and making it peaceful, democratic and a civilized country, has yet to materialize. And, if this task is fulfilled, then it would indeed be the greatest gift to the Iraqis, along with a lesson to those who never ruled for their citizens but for themselves, and also to those who have foll

t, but this doesn't mean that killing the ruler of barbarity will end the Iraqis' suffering once and for all. The rejoicing will be a momentary relief even to those who have savored this verdict, seeing it as a revenge against the inhumanity brought by the Saddam and his henchmen, because their joy is soon likely to be put out again by the misery of modern Iraq.

The real remedy would be to take back this decision to kill the tyrant, and to keep him alive among those Iraqis who suffered his cruelty, by giving him a life sentence instead, at the same time making him realize what terrible pain he had given to his fellow citizens.

After all, the noble task of rebuilding Iraq and making it peaceful, democratic and a civilized country, has yet to materialize. And, if this task is fulfilled, then it would indeed be the greatest gift to the Iraqis, along with a lesson to those who never ruled for their citizens but for themselves, and also to those who have followed the path of insane violence and methods of destabilization that have painfully sabotaged the very essence of humanity and justice of the modern day Iraq.