We invade other countries, prop up a legal charade, and execute their leaders.
I hate Saddam Hussein as much as the next person. He was a dictator and a major human rights abuser, and he deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity. But what better way to promote international human rights than to execute someone, which is entirely contrary to the very basis of universal human rights?
Cases like this test our commitment to human rights ideals. In my gut, I want Saddam Hussein to suffer, like he made so many others suffer. But this is bigger than Saddam Hussein. It’s a question of what kind of ideals we’re exporting, and which policies and norms we want to support. Do we want to support killing people as “justice”? Is depriving someone of their right to life the kind of standard we want to set, the way we want to see justice done? Saddam was most certainly guilty of all the crimes he was accused of, but trying him in a kangaroo court and then killing him achieved what, exactly? As long as we justify execution as an acceptable consequence for committing crimes, no matter how horrible, we can’t feign surprise when others, who lack the institutional backing accorded to the United States military, decide that they too are justified in executing those who do harm to them, or who do harm to their allies, or simply to other people. It sets a pattern in which there are no winners.
Human rights are human rights. State-sanctioned execution is uncivilized, backwards, and contrary to the most basic notions of what we deserve simply by virtue of being human beings. Human rights aren’t doled out according to how virtuous you are. They’re a baseline. And as much as it can frustrate us (and it does frustrate me), a deep commitment to them requires that they be applied to everyone – even to the most vile among us.
No good will come of this. But lots of bloodshed is most certain to follow. And we picked a hell of a day for it.
Similar Posts:
- Women in “Free” Iraq by Jill February 11, 2008
- Saddam Hussein Is Sentenced to Death by evil fizz November 5, 2006
- An Eye for an Eye by Jill December 14, 2008
- In the Name of Honour: An Interview with Rana Husseini by Jill June 8, 2009
- Woman Stoned For Adultery in Somalia by Cara October 30, 2008
To view a cynical and satirical visual of George Bush playing a round of “Hangman”…link here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
Ugh. As soon as I heard that on NPR, there was a bit of dark laughter for the incredible inappropriateness of it all.
It’s incredibly stupid how often we don’t pay attention to Muslim holy days as we tromp around Muslim countries. Embarassingly stupid.
As far as the interim government are concerned, I’m sure the main message thet’re intent on sending out is ‘don’t fuck with us’. After all, show trials are traditional in the third world as a show of strength statement. As for the timing, you’re right, reading the ethos behind the holiday any other time would have probably been better. It would seem the US were desperate to do the deed before New Years, although offhand, I can’t think of any particular reason why.
Ugh. That’s all I can manage to say at this point. Ugh.
(That, and how many anti-abortion trolls have tried to post here about what you said about right to life, not managing to get the difference?)
Not only that — apparently they picked the Sunni start of Eid to give an extra one in the eye to the Sunnis. Shia’as start Eid one day later.
So now we have, quite visibly, picked sides between the Shia’a and the Sunni. Good job.
As I have said many times since Guantanamo was first set up:
“We gave the f*ck*ng Nazis trials.”
If Nuremburg, which tried some of the most heinous people to ever walk the face of the earth, could be a fair trial, why in G-d’s green earth couldn’t the same thing happen for all of the war criminals in this farcial “war”?
“Human rights are human rights. State-sanctioned execution is uncivilized, backwards, and contrary to the most basic notions of what we deserve simply by virtue of being human beings.”
While I agree — completely — with this sentiment, I wonder from whence these rights derive. From law? From god (or God)? From government (whose)? From consensus (how do we account for those who celebrate the death penalty as just)?
What, exactly, *are* human rights?
It does sort of seem that the one basic right we should all be able to agree to is the right to life. But, no. We’re villains. All of us who allow a government – our government – to inflict the death penalty.
Saddam was a Sunni. I wouldn’t be surprised if that had not a little bit to do with it. And if that idea came from the Shias in the interim government themselves — with the US being largely ignorant of the implications, of course, since nobody can be bothered to learn any of this stuff and the translators were all fags who had to be gotten rid of.
BTW, Jill, #3 is spam. They’re getting clever, sending comment spam that looks like comments.
“If Nuremburg, which tried some of the most heinous people to ever walk the face of the earth, could be a fair trial, why in G-d’s green earth couldn’t the same thing happen for all of the war criminals in this farcial “war”? ”
Because they’re poor brown people, duh.
Maybe I’m wrong, but this is yet another indication of a warped policy whose damage – both material and nonmaterial – will take at least a generation to repair. At this point, the only cause for any sort of optimism is knowing that if the Germans were able to repair their society and their reputation (to some degree, at least) after the Nazi regime, then maybe if the United States gets wise, it will do the same (and no, I’m not equating the two).
It might take a big smackdown (or, more likely, meltdown) for this to come about. Then we’ll get to look forward to the next world hegemon. Joy.
All I can think is that they went and made him a martyr. While I agree that he did some really heinous, atrocious things, and probably deserved to be punished severely and permanently for it (my preferred method would be a large dark hole, impossible to escape, preferably with rats for cell mates), I think killing him was exactly the wrong thing to do. Killing him during Eid was even worse, although I heard the reasoning was that they wanted to do it before the end of said festival. *sigh*
Remind me not to be too surprised when this comes around and bites us on the ass, OK?
Having watched the video, I can say that he did NOT, in fact, suffer anywhere near this level of suffering. Not that I’m bemoaning that fact; I’m just saying, considering the level of violence with which he lived his life, what they did to him is much less bad than, say, Laurie’s large dark hole.
If you’re anti-death penalty, in all circumstances, then that should be where the discussion begins and ends; because then even in the best of trials you still wouldn’t want Saddam executed.
I can understand that position, even if I don’t agree (I think that in certain cases of first degree murder that the death penalty is the correct sentence – legally, ethically and most certainly morally).
Saddam was tried by the countrymen he brutally preyed upon and got a far gentler ending then he and his late and unlamented spawn visited on others.
Just desserts.
Because I have the magical ability to address several different issues in a single post.
Yes, I am anti death penalty in all circumstances. I also think that it further draws this verdict into question when the trial was a joke. That matters for how this is perceived world-wide, and for what the inevitable backlash will be.
Saddam was tried by the countrymen he brutally preyed upon and got a far gentler ending then he and his late and unlamented spawn visited on others.
Cool. Who tries the stains who funded his wanton killing? Who smites them with the mighty vengeance of the Great I Am?
You claim just desserts. What do we give to your old pal Bush, who’s also responsible for unbelievable savagery against the Iraqi people? Oh, but then again, you don’t believe that he’s responsible. Whatever.
The death penalty is unbelievably barbaric. As I said at my own site, is this what we are as a species? Let’s show how much we disapprove of killing people by killing people?
Darleen makes a good point in stating that Hussein was tried by his fellow countrymen. I’d just like to point out that while I agree with most of the above stated, US forces didn’t actually conduct the execution. It was the same countrymen who tried Hussein that killed him. And interestingly, Fox News (which I actually do take with a grain of salt. It’s my mom who has a nasty habit of playing the tripe on every available TV in the house) was reporting the day before the execution that al-Maliki has stated his intent to step up the execution.
Though this does bring up the question of accountability. While US forces didn’t directly kill Hussein, if the collective we knew enough that commercial news networks were airing it, than how is it that no effort was made for our part to intervene? Certainly the US still holds considerable influence over the ostensible powers-that-be in Iraq, it seems hugely irresponsible to have not used that influence to stop a dangerous precedent from being set in the country.
Why was the trial a “joke”, Jill?
Because the Iraqi’s are too stupid to do it themselves?
Why should the “perception” of The World(tm) mean a thing?
Saddam was a brutal dictator who was guilty of mass murder. Following that with any “but…” dilutes his responsibility.
BTW, Jack?
President Bush is as “guilty” of “savagery against the Iraqi people” as FDR was guilty of “savagery against the German, Italian, Japanese people.”
The death penalty is unbelievably barbaric
And in IMO, not imposing the death penalty is a mark of cruelty … it cheapens all lives when it says that a person who has committed premeditate murder deserves to keep what s/he has so wantonly taken from another; that the victim’s life is less valuable than the murderers.
If the death penalty is “state-imposed murder”, than imprisonment is “state-imposed kidnapping.”
He who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful.
~~Midrash
“”Pull my finger”–Beavis and Butthead
Seriously? You’re gonna go to halakha? Cause there’s some unbelievably cruel things there that I don’t think you’d agree with.
Belledame, you are a genius. I think I just fell in love.
And there it is. Yeah, FDR was guilty. He’s not a goddamn saint. Firebombing civilians and okaying it equals murder. Truman was a murderer. THAT’S THE GODDAMN PROBLEM WITH WAR. Got it? Thought not.
Messed up my tags on my moderated comment. If someone could help, I’d appreciate it. And Happy New Year, all!
I see your authoritative quote of the an Ambramic Text
Oqbah Ibn ‘Amer reported that the Messenger of Allah said:
you shall keep relationship with one who cut it off from you, you shall give one who disappointed you, and you shall pardon on who oppressed you
and your pop culture idiots
The Highlander was a documentary, and its events happened in real time. ~Master Shake
and raise you a frenchman!
A witty saying proves nothing. ~ Voltaire
Yeah, FDR was sitting in his office one day before he became President, and the idea came to him that starting stupid, unnecessary wars for absolutely no reason is a great way to spike approval ratings. He mused to himself, “Tojo tried to kill my dad,” and voila! A random target was chosen, and the rest is history.
Well. Um. Yes. That’s a point, right there. And a good one. Unanswerable, even. Erm. All righty, then.
karpad, i heart you.
Um, no. Because the court is a puppet of the United States. The Iraqis aren’t really the ones trying him. We created the tribunal he’s being tried in. We created their current government.
Oh, and as long as we’re talking about Saddam’s crimes against humanity, may I point out the thousands of Iranians and Iraqis who he killed using chemical weapons that the United States government gave him? You’ll note that the crimes Hussein was tried for were carefully selected, and quite a few were omitted — notably, those which were underwritten by the United States and Great Britain. Just a sidenote, and one of many reasons that our government wanted to maintain control over his trial. So much for using his trial to allow his victims to hold him accountable.
When did Saddam Hussein attack us? Start preemptive wars and take over several surrounding nations? Even directly threaten our safety in any way? I must have missed that.
Oh please. I don’t even know where to start with this one, but here goes: When we agree to live in civil society, we make a compact with those around us to respect things like life, liberty and property. When that compact is violated, we have a system in place to deal with it. One of the big questions is whether this system should be based on retribution or restoration — that is, should we try and restore the victim to the state they were in before the crime, or should we simply punish the offender? We negotiate this issue by having a criminal system and a civil system. A second question is, within the retributive system, what kind of retribution we should be allowed to exact on those people who commit crimes. Part of the social agreement is that if you violate the law, you may be deprived of your liberty through the criminal system, or your property through the social system. I’m arguing that civilized people place limits on what we do and do not find acceptable; depriving someone of life is such a finality that I find it unacceptable under most circumstances, including when that deprivation comes at the order of a government. So the question isn’t whether or not the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder. Murder is the intentional taking of a human life; the death penalty obviously fits that description. The question is whether or not that is a justifiable punishment for any crime, including the taking of another life.
And if we’re going to get technical with the terms, kidnapping requires a lack of authority to be holding someone against their will. The government does not lack that authority. Murder isn’t about authority, but intention and, arguably, legality. However, genocide is usually legal by that country’s standards, and you’d have a hard time convincing me that it doesn’t count as murder. If that’s the case, why exactly was Saddam on trial in the first place?
Another ridiculous statement. Does it cheapen the body of a person who was bludgeoned to not bludgeon the person who attacked them? Does it cheapen the experience of a burn victim to not light an arsonist on fire? Does it cheapen a survivor of a drunk driving accident to not run over the drunkard who hit her?
An eye for an eye is not how civil societies operate. It cheapens human life to allow a panel of 12 people, or a judge, to decide who gets to keep theirs and who doesn’t. It cheapens human life for the government to use murder as a punishment for murder.
It cheapens human life for the government to use murder as a punishment for murder.
And it makes us all complicit in murder. Claim righteousness all you want, but I believe the term is “Pharisee”.
My comment was at Darleen, of course.
but, Jesus was all about “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” And firebombing. And “some lives are worth more than others.”
oh yeah, Miz Midrash is a Christian, as far as I know.
Darleen, don’t you work in the DA’s office? You might have picked up some stuff here and there about due process.
One more Iraqi killed on Bush’s say-so. No more just or unjust than all the others, and also just as pointless.
Well, if human rights isn’t a compelling enough reason to be against the death penalty, how about this justification: it’s racist, and it doesn’t work. In the entire history of the organization, the American Society of Criminology (ASC) has taken one official policy position, and it is in favor of a full moratorium on the death penalty in the U.S.. There are two main reasons for this.
First, extensive research (see Paternoster) has shown that the death penalty is not fairly implemented across jurisdictions, and there is a clear bias against black men, especially if a white victim is involved.
Second, the purpose of the “correctional” portion of the criminal justice system is to prevent future crime and criminals. There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that executions deter future criminals. If anything, there is a potential aggravating effect of executions, cheapening the value of human life. Look at the states that conduct the most executions, it’s no surprise that they also have the highest murder rates.
For civilized societies, the criminal justice system was never designed to be a vehicle for exacting violent revenge upon undesirables. Offenders were meant to be rehabilititated through work and penitence (see “penitentiary”) and reintegrated back into society. I’m not saying Saddam deserved a lot of mercy, but did his execution really do anything to make Iraq safer? Or is it just stroke material for hard-liners who think that a swinging body counts as “progress?”
but, Jesus was all about “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” And firebombing. And “some lives are worth more than others.”
No, that is incorrect. “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was in the Old Testament, aka the Torah. Jesus did not exist to say these things until the New Testament, which started at his birth. He said “turn the other cheek.”
Sorry, but one of my biggest pet peeves is when people bash the Bible and don’t actually know what they’re talking about.
PS I’m against the death penalty and do not identify myself as a Christian. I just wanted to clarify this very common misunderstanding.
Sarcasm, apelynn.