The Riddle of Saddam Hussein
Friday December 29, 2006
Full Coverage: Saddam Hussein's Crimes Against Humanity
After a long and contentious trial marked by numerous due process concerns, Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death by hanging. According to an Iraqi judge, the sentence will be carried out no later than tomorrow.
The timing of this is ironic, given the current debate over the legitimacy of the death penalty. It is difficult to make the argument that Saddam Hussein, who was probably directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, is not a good candidate for execution. If the death penalty does not apply to genocidal dictators, then there's no point in having a death penalty in the first place. But what will this penalty accomplish? He will be executed, sectarian violence will increase, and he will be regarded as a martyr rather than as the pathetic creature, the defanged monster, that he is. In a recently-issued statement, Hussein has set himself up for a far, far more dignified exit than he deserves:
In the world of religious Islam, and in the world of religious Christianity for that matter, martyrdom is regarded as a noble death. Saddam Hussein does not deserve a noble death. He deserves to rot in a jail cell for the rest of his days, his power and dignity fading with each passing year until nobody can remember how such a pitiable creature ever became President of Iraq. Prior to his sentence, Hussein had already lost much of his dignity. In death, he will reclaim it. He doesn't deserve that opportunity.
Zoom to:
|
The timing of this is ironic, given the current debate over the legitimacy of the death penalty. It is difficult to make the argument that Saddam Hussein, who was probably directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, is not a good candidate for execution. If the death penalty does not apply to genocidal dictators, then there's no point in having a death penalty in the first place. But what will this penalty accomplish? He will be executed, sectarian violence will increase, and he will be regarded as a martyr rather than as the pathetic creature, the defanged monster, that he is. In a recently-issued statement, Hussein has set himself up for a far, far more dignified exit than he deserves:
Saddam Hussein, who is facing execution within 30 days, yesterday vowed to go to the gallows a "true martyr" and offered himself as a "sacrifice" to the Iraqi people.One wonders if Hussein believes that the 182,000 men, women, and children slaughtered during his genocidal al-Anfal Campaign "[faced] God in serenity."
But he called on them not to hate the people of invading nations "because hate makes you blind" ...
"Here I offer myself in sacrifice. If God almighty wishes, it [my soul] will take me where he orders to be with the true martyrs," Saddam said in the hand-written letter, which was also posted on a website. "If my soul goes down this path [martyrdom] it will face God in serenity."
In the world of religious Islam, and in the world of religious Christianity for that matter, martyrdom is regarded as a noble death. Saddam Hussein does not deserve a noble death. He deserves to rot in a jail cell for the rest of his days, his power and dignity fading with each passing year until nobody can remember how such a pitiable creature ever became President of Iraq. Prior to his sentence, Hussein had already lost much of his dignity. In death, he will reclaim it. He doesn't deserve that opportunity.
Zoom to:
Comments
I think killing Saddam will ultimately prove to be a terrible strategic blunder.
And that’s entirely aside from the idea that I find wrong and illogical a state’s cold-blooded, pre-meditated taking of a human life to punish
for taking human life. It’s sinking to the level of barbarism to punish… barbarism.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. (or was it Gandhi?) said… an eye for an eye makes two people blind.
Well said, Tom.
Jesse Jackson had a good point regarding an “eye for an eye” -
“It will not increase our moral authority in the world. … Saddam’s heinous crimes against humanity can never be diminished, but he was our ally while he was doing it. … Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth will make us blind and disfigured. … Saddam as a war trophy only deepens the catastrophe to which we are indelibly linked.” — the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
I’m against the death penalty for moral reasons, but I’m generally a cost-minimizing, benefit-maximing utilitarian. And by that measure I’m also convinced that Saddam’s death, while perhaps fair, can bring no good to Iraq. But perhaps I’ve given up expecting sound judgment from the men who rule the world.
Amazing comments, folks. Thank you!
Yes, the execution of Saddam is definitely not something that I’d put under the heading of “moral progress.” One poster accused me of taking pleasure in Hussein’s death (I’ll be blogging a response to that later because I think he made some legitimate points), and there’s a certain amount of truth to that on some level because, although I oppose the death penalty in all cases, there are some prisoners I definitely feel differently about than others on an emotional level.
The truth of the matter is that our government essentially created the Iranian theocracy (by deposing the secular, duly elected Mossadegh in ‘53 and replacing him with the unpopular Shah to protect British oil interests in the region), our government built up Saddam Hussein and helped him cover up his genocide (because he happened to be fighting the Iranians), and our government even created the Taliban and al-Qaeda (by funding the insanely right-wing mujahadeen in hopes of making Afghanistan into a Soviet Vietnam War). Most of the problems we face today were created by previous administrations.
So Jen, I gotta say I agree with you. I don’t expect good stuff from our elected officials. They’re all short-term thinkers, concerned primarily about their own political success. One of the disadvantages of having politicians who don’t serve for life–and there are an infinite number of advantages, so I’m not suggesting that we change the system–is that, whether it comes to the deficit or the Constitution or the environment or foreign policy, they have absolutely no qualms about passing horrific things on to their grandchildren in the name of short-term popularity.
I don’t know what the solution is.
Cheers,
TH
I was just reading a blog post over at the Guardian’s Comment is Free, which reminded me that not only is the question of whether Saddam should have been given the death penalty at issue, but the whole validity of the trial:
It was symbolic that 2006 ended with a colonial hanging - most of it (bar the last moments) shown on state television in occupied Iraq. It has been that sort of year in the Arab world. After a trial so blatantly rigged that even Human Rights Watch - the largest single unit of the US human rights industry - had to condemn it as a total travesty. Judges were changed on Washington’s orders; defence lawyers were killed and the whole procedure resembled a well-orchestrated lynch mob.
I don’t think there is any doubt Saddam was a mass murderer, even if he never pulled the trigger himself. But the whole process seems laughable and as left a bad taste in my mouth.
Tom, do you know anything about the decision to try Saddam in Iraq? Was the Bush administration really so against the idea of an international court that they thought it preferable to try Saddam in a country so violent and unstable that key participants in the trial process could be easily assassinated, rather than go the Charles Taylor/Slobadan Milosevic route?
The US government has always shown itself to be opposed to moral values, international law, democracy and human rights.
You may care to examine the occasions when the USA has used the veto in the UN against the entire world community.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm
It is the job of US journalists and the US media to lie about the status of the US as an international pariah statet to the US public