Saddam had finally acknowledged the other defendants for the first time, smiling and making jokes about the changes in their appearance since the last time he had seen them, when they were still serving his regime.
Then the two guards took him by the arms again to lead him out.
He let them do it for a few steps, but then he saw the journalists behind the bullet-proof glass at the back of the court.
Immediately he tried to pull away from his guards, telling them not to touch him and to leave him alone.
After a while they did, and he shambled slowly out of the courtroom.
The Economist (After the Saddam verdict, November 6, 2006) used the word "shambles" to describe the lack of procedural justice in a trial sponsored by a United States that had nabbed Saddam in a war launched on flimsy pretexts:
GUILTY of mass murder: that Saddam Hussein certainly is. But what of the legal process that proclaimed him such, and sentenced him to death, on Sunday November 5th? There are reasons to see the trial as a leap forward for Iraq. There are also reasons to proclaim it a shambles even by the rough standards of what is known as "transitional justice".
【Why shambles?】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-08-28
2020-08-21
2020-08-19
2020-08-14
2020-08-12