Iraqi Reaction: The death sentences passed yesterday on ousted president Saddam Hussein and two co-defendants instantly deepened the sectarian divide in Iraq. Shias and Kurds poured into the streets of the country's cities, towns and villages to celebrate. Sunnis and secularists either glowered in their homes or defied the curfew to stage protest demonstrations and battle police.
While Shias and Sunnis were generally on opposite sides, dissatisfied Kurds complained that the trial over the 1988 Anfal campaign, during which thousands of Kurds were deported from the north or killed, is still in progress and asked for a stay of execution until a verdict is issued.
The Kurds were angered when the Dujail case - involving the killing of 148 Shias in 1982 following an assassination attempt on Saddam - was given priority.
News of the verdicts was largely spread by text messages on mobile phones because many Iraqis were unable to see live coverage of the proceedings in the court because they have no electricity to run their television sets.
The Bush administration and members of the government of prime minister Nuri al-Maliki have portrayed the trial and sentencing as a victory for the Iraqi people over the former dictator, but few really see it that way because the country is caught in an accelerating downward spiral.
Consequently, the verdicts - and eventually the executions - are likely to be a one-day wonder. Most Iraqis are too preoccupied with survival to worry about the fate of Saddam Hussein.
His fate is not expected to have any impact on the insurgency. Nationalist and Islamist resistance groups never had a close connection with Saddam and his clique. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the faction made up largely of foreign fighters, is contemptuous of the ousted secular regime which cracked down hard on both Sunni and Shia fundamentalist activities. Saddam's arrest in 2003 did not diminish attacks from the armed opposition.
Iraqis and other Arabs believe the date for the proclamation of the verdict was imposed on Mr Maliki to give the Republican party a boost in the US elections.
Arabs argue that Mr Maliki is in no position to challenge Washington on this issue because the Iraqi government has been drained of credibility ever since it was formed seven months ago because it cannot govern, halt violence, or provide essential services. Mr Maliki was also hard-pressed to deliver a death sentence from fellow Shias. Within the United Iraqi Alliance, the bloc with the largest number of seats in parliament, he is under challenge from both Abdel Aziz Hakim of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Muqtada al-Sadr, head of his personal faction. Both of these rivals command militias, which give them power and influence on the ground, while Mr Maliki's Dawa party has no armed wing.
Some Arab commentators ask why the leaders of the former Yugoslavia, who were tried for the same crimes as Saddam Hussein, were brought before an international tribunal where death sentences are not given.
They contend that the special tribunal has been nothing more than a means of providing judicial cover for Shia and Kurdish vengeance and make the point that the prosecution of the leading figures of the Baathist regime could, and should, have been carried out properly because this trial violates the rule of law and sets poor standards for future prosecutions.
But a leading analyst in the United Arab Emirates, Dr Abdulkhaleq Abdulla said: "The trial was as good as it could be by Arab standards during a time of confusion and mess [ in Iraq]. Saddam Hussein had a good chance to defend himself, but he never rose to the occasion. He did not speak convincingly or eloquently. He performed miserably. Humanity is better off without these guys."