A triumph of democracy?

I find myself distinctly troubled by the verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial. See, while I'm in no doubt that he was a murderous tyrant, and while I further have no problem in the use of the death penalty in extreme cases (I'll get back to that), I don't believe that he received a fair trial. What's more, I'm not sure it was possible for him to receive a fair trial.

Regarding the death penalty: I'm of the opinion that it is acceptable, but only in extreme cases. Where I define 'extreme cases' as those cases where the alternative is for the condemned to be incarcerated for the remained of the life, with no chance of ever being released. In those cases, and only those cases, I'm inclined to just execute them quickly and cleanly. If nothing else, it removes any risk of escape on their part, and since we're dealing specifically with extreme cases, one can only assume an escape would lead to grave danger to the public. However, if the possibility exists, no matter how slight, for rehabilitation and release, I don't accept that the death sentence is warranted. (I will, of course, accept that opinions vary widely on this matter.)

Regardless of that, though, I'm very clear on the point that anyone who is accused, no matter how plain their guilt, must be afforded a fair trial. And this is doubly important when the death penalty is likely to be imposed.

And, I'm sorry, but I just don't accept that that was the case here. Did anyone seriously think there might be an acquittal? Furthermore, if there had been an acquittal, would anyone have really accepted it as the right verdict, or would they simply have assumed it was due to a corrupt court?

And, here's a very interesting question: if there had been an acquittal, would the Americans have accepted a restoration of Saddam to power, and promptly removed their troops from Iraq?

If the answer to any of these questions is 'no', the trial wasn't fair. Instead, it existed solely to provide the world with the sight of 'justice' being done. Which, frankly, is offensive. He should have just been 'killed while resisting capture', and had done with it.

(One more very interesting question: since I'm almost entirely certain that the verdict was the correct one, and am satisfied that the punishment is right given the extreme circumstances, does it really matter if the trial was a sham? My answer is yes.)

President Bush has hailed this verdict as a triumph for Iraqi democracy. But here's another interesting question: can a democracy properly function while a country is under occupation by a foreign power, no matter how well-meaning? Or, to put it another way, if the terrorists put down their arms tomorrow, and instead campaigned in the election on an "America Out" platform, and won, would the US really leave? What if the platform were less US-friendly even than that?

As I said, I've very troubled by it all.