Since his trial began it was controversial because judges were chosen by the Bush Administration.

I was surprised to see that Saddam's trial didn't appear as the most important headline which usually appears on the left corner of any newspaper. Again there was no editorial on this farcical trial on the following day. As a major English language daily the readers expect that 'The Daily Star' will give importance to major international events.

The sentiments of the readers should be given due priority.

Dr. Bakul Sultan, Indira Road, Dhaka

Saddam has been sentenced to death by hanging for the deaths of nearly 150 Shiite Muslims following a 1982 assassination attempt against him in the town of Dujail .

When I saw this news on BBC, I just kept on telling myself that if Saddam is convicted for the killings of 150 people then what should be the punishment for US President George W. Bush? Bush's ruthless US soldiers have massacred hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Minhaj Ahmed, Uttara, Dhaka

Saddam Hussein, the former despot of Iraq, was handed down a death sentence on Sunday (05 Nov-006) by the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) in Iraq which supposedly found him guilty of ordering the killing of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail, way back in 1982.

The charge for which he got a death sentence itself looks ordinary when today one can see and hear that almost 100 equally innocent Iraqis are being killed every day. God knows on whose orders and by whom. And, God knows if they too would also be put to trial and brought to justice.

Sunday's verdict on Saddam has so far received mixed reactions. Obviously President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are the happiest men, besides the Shiites and the Kurds of Iraq who wanted to live to this day. George Bush is happy as the timing of the sentence did provide him some ammunition to wield against the Democrats and in a way helped surge the falling support of the American voters for Tuesday's mid-term election. Here is what the two, and others who matter, had to say on it.

President Bush said Saddam's trial was a milestone in the Iraqi people's effort to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law. Obviously this comment is misplaced as "rule of law" is nowhere to be seen in Iraq as of this day. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada set the record straight by contradicting Bush. He said that the Iraqis had traded a dictator for chaos and that according to him neither option was acceptable, especially when the American troops were caught in the middle. The Republicans, however, termed the verdict as evidence of progress in Iraq. White House spokesman Tony Snow called it a "good day for the Iraqi people."

Tony Blair commented, "Justice well-served". Yes, indeed for it is viewed as nothing but a "victor's justice". Tony Blair's Home Secretary John Reid commented that Saddam's hanging was a sovereign decision by a sovereign nation. He couldn't be funnier as Iraq, under American-British occupation, is everything but a sovereign nation. The Europeans as usual have been political; they hailed the verdict but not the sentence; they wanted a life sentence instead. Nouri Al-Maliki the Iraqi Prime Minister, who was once absconding from Iraq after himself handed down a death sentence by Saddam, was seen rejoiced and beaming at the judgment. He immediately addressed the nation hailing the decision and compared Saddam with Hitler and Mussolini of the past. The Muslim world leaders remained conspicuously silent which was judged as being cautious. They feared annoying their masters by condemning the verdict and losing credibility in the home-front by supporting the same. In the midst of this push-and-pull, they preferred to remain silent. Even the most vocal of them all - General Musharraf chose to keep his lips zipped.

However, the most ardent critics as usual were the Human Rights groups like Amnesty International (AI), which opined that the Bush administration should have insisted that an International Court hear the case. According to Malcolm Smart of AI, 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 Hussein rule. According to him, in practice the whole trial had been a shabby affair which calls into question the capacity of SICT to administer justice fairly in accordance with international standards.

Moreover, according Robert Frisk in his latest op-ed, Saddam's Lebanese lawyer Bouchra Khalil said that Saddam would not come out of prison to count his days and years in exile in Qatar or another place. He would rather come out of prison to go to Presidency or to his grave. This was a very sensitive comment indeed implying Saddam won't beg for anything; neither clemency nor exile.

I am no fan of Saddam Hussein but I find myself on the side of millions out there, both in the west and in the Muslim world, who may or may not be happy at this news but are surely not sure about the credibility of the entire trial itself. In their minds, like in mine, there are several questions which may or may not find the answers. Some of them are:

Saddam has been sentenced to death for ordering to kill 148 Shiite opponents. Why was he not tried for gassing the Kurds in Halabja where thousands perished? Will Saddam's death penalty bring justice for his victims? Will it benefit Iraq in any way? How can this be explained that his defense lawyers and witnesses were murdered and judges were dismissed?

Syed Faiz Ahmad, Senior Structural Engineer, Saudi Oger Ltd, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia