In this specific case, there are additional concerns of retaliation and martyrization. I don’t think the first is a sufficient reason not to execute Saddam Hussein, but the second is, or very nearly — it means the “penalty” is neither punishment nor deterrent.

[/snark]

Muqtada Sadr was the ne’er do well son of a moderate man I’ve always suspected he despised. Saddam killed the senior al-Sadr for his very moderation and intelligence, and left the seething mediocrity that is Muqtada alive. Muqtada has adopted the methods of Saddam to acquire power. At least under Saddam, he was contained. Now thanks to our kingmaking ambitions, he is free to kill and get revenge on, perhaps, many more moderate people who might counter him.

What really gets me are the way the mass graves of the country are pointed to again and again, much the way the dead of September 11th are exhumed again and again whenever the Republicans want to wave a bloody shirt. Why do dead Muslims not inspire this country to reach out to living ones? Why do dead Americans evidently require dead bodies, civilian and soldier both, in retribution? Isn’t the real retribution for murder to live life, live it well, and assist one’s enemies so generously that they cease their enmity and become allies instead?

I don’t see how we can sentence Saddam Hussein to death without considering the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, which were caused by George Bush’s arrogance, mendacity, and religious fervor.

Yup. I had similar thoughts when I saw the headlines, too.

I also think about previous US administrations who were responsible for the country’s support of Saddam Hussein during the years preceding the first Gulf War. What about all the nastiness and death that Saddam was responsible for while he was under US support? Will the responsible parties stand trial? Will any of them be put to death? Not likely. What does that say about the US’s standards of fairness and justice? (For the record: I oppose the death penalty, unconditionally.)

Also, Ginmar, your last post was an eye-opener. Thank you for relating your first-hand experiences in Iraq. If this war was ever about helping the people of Iraq (which I seriously doubt), the actual outcome shows that many things have gotten worse, rather than better—particularly for women.

One of the worst things about Iraq was seeing the reality on the ground and then seeing how it was reported in the media. The Ukrainians withdraw under impossible odds, with dead and wounded, under direct orders from their president? Fox news says, “The Ukrainians abandoned the city without firing a shot.” Tell that to the families of the six men who died that day. A mass grave in the town where I was stationed? Exaggerated by a factor of ten, wihch made me think that it’s not bad enough that men, women, and children are murdered. No, it’s got to be…moremore, somehow. Four hundred people murdered in their own country, by their own country—that’s not bad enough? And then when you get into real complexities—the hubris that led us to invade a country without studying its society beforehand, putting in motion that savagery we see now, akin to what would happen if our own religious rightwing fundies got set loose—-then you’re just struck dumb.

For me, it comes down to seeing the women of Iraq when I first got there. It brought to mind the depressing reality of, say, Moscow, in the late nineties. When we first got there, (in Iraq) we noted women in veils, without veils, in jeans, skirts, burkas, going to school and to work. Now they’re all in veils. Someday soon they’ll all be in burkas. We did that, not Saddam. Living miserably is supposed to be better than dying abruptly for freedom. In Russia, they had freedom—but no electricity, food, or jobs. How do you call yourself decent when that’s the choice you offer? Or worse yet, how do you call yourself decent when that’s what you accomplish because you just didn’t give enough of a shit to study beforehand? Why is a choice between freedom and shit and dictatorship and safety considered a good thing? Do guys like Dick Cheney ever hav e to make that choice?

(P.S. I love how bad guys get on first name bases with people when we know they’re really kinda bad.)

I just find Saddam easier to spell. =)