After Saddam -- the unanswered questions
The people of Iraq woke up this morning to the news that Saddam Hussein was at dawn local time, about 3 am GMT. His hanging was filmed and we can expect those images to soon be available across the world courtesy of the internet.
Legal historians will no doubt debate the fairness of the trial Saddam received. Perhaps they will ask why his execution was scheduled on this of all days -- just an hour before the commencement of the festival of Eid al-Adha, one of the holiest days of the Islamic calendar. Why not a week from now, after that festival?
Some political commentators are already arguing that this action by the Iraqi government is a demonstration of their independence and their wilingness to move forward -- to end Iraq's long national nightmare (if I may misquote the late Gerald Ford). They say we should remember the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were sent to their graves during Saddam's 24 year reign. Others will ask if this judicial killing will not lead to yet more killing in Iraq and elsewhere. To date, the US has lost about 3,000 troops in Iraq, and suffered some 25,000 casualities. Will Saddam's execution quicken up the stabilization of Iraq or trigger retaliations and increased insurgency? Wasn't this execution, in any case, a calculated vote-winner for Iraqi's majority Shiite government -- and wasn't that, rather than "justice", the point of the exercise?
And yet, who would argue that Iraq would be a safer place if Saddam had been sentenced to imprisonment for life rather than death? Wouldn't he have been a constant focus for extremists? Could an Iraqi force even have secured his imprisonment against attempts by his followers to set him free?
Those questions await answers. And these too -- the key questions: Has justice been done? And is the world a safer place today than yesterday?
Comments
Don't have time for this. I'm off with my knitting to
/blogs/ni/2006/12/andy_mcintosh.html
Andy has responded in post 101!
This running around blogs is hard on my feet!
Peace,
Maureen
I know Saddam was an evil, vicious warlord but I really can't help but think that his murder has done no good.
I must admit on the eve of 2007, with this and everything else that is going in international politics, that the future looks as bleak as it has since the end of WWII.
VS- Your description of his death as 'murder' portrays that your feelings on this are much more dogmatic than the language you used in your post suggests. What is your definition of murder?
In most legal systems murder is generally regarded as illegal killing with malice aforethought.
Capital punishment does not qualify under that definition.
SG
What happened was terrible. My opinions are in my blogs. Please excuse the attempts at sabotage by Bush Supporters. I just simply hope that Republicans and Democrats [as well as Communists] be tried before a court of justice for crimes against humanity.
The execution was disgusting and a travesty. It sould encourage any reasonable person to disagree with the death penalty. This man was lynched in the most barbaric way. It was obscene.
I'm wondering what happened to all the 'Sadam look-a-likes'?
Helen Hays- You describe Saddam's execution as "obscene". What exactly do you believe was "obscene" about it?
A. That justice would have been better served by issuance of a life sentence?
B. That Iraqis finally issued their own justice to their longterm captor?
C. That a man who was responsible for the torture and horrific killings of many thousands of people died?
Answers on a postcard... PLEASE.
John W:
It was obscene that someone would be executed in a dark, cold, wet and disgusting cellar, with people yelling insults at him as he approaches his last breath. Even those who agree with capital punishment agree that it should be carried out responsibly.
You're right Helen. "Obscene" is the word. Saddam refused a hood; his executioners word balaclavas like paramilitaries. He was quiet, holding a copy of the Koran. They jeered at him, and filled his last minutes with verbal abuse. It wasn't enough that he should be killed, but he had to be humiliated into the bargain.
The US forces have been criticed for holding Saddam in custody until the last minutes before he was hanged. Thank God they did. We see now the reason why they did hold onto him.
The Iraqi state needs to join the civilised world.
I think Saddam should have been sentenced to life in prison. He was 69 years old and should have spent his last years in a prison outside Iraq. It would be impossible for the Iraqi govt to protect him, so an international agreement should have been struck, placing Saddam in an overseas prison in a neutral country (perhaps Switzerland). The cost for keeping him in secure surroundings should have been paid by Iraq. Saddam's family should have been given visitation rights, with travel expences paid by Iraq, given the need to isolate their family member. The world should have been able to look at this man living out his ast years in prison and realise that the new Iraq is not a place that tolerates killing, even the killing of a dictator and tyrant like Saddam. Instead, the scenes we've now all witnessed, disgrace the Iraqi government and those who participated in this judicial sham. A legal and moral scandal.
Christine- "Iraq needs to join the civilised world." I assume you supported the Iraq invasion then, since it would certainly have been incapable of joining the civilised world under Saddam.
Helen- Your objections to the execution were that it wasn't carried out in aesthetically pleasing surroundings? Maybe feng shui would have been more accommodating to your sophisticated western palate, Helen, but for Iraqis things are quite different. They were determined that Saddam would not have a 'nicer' execution than any of those whom he sent to the gallows during the horror of his dictatorship. He was sent to the place they executed garden-variety murderers, despite the fact that Saddam requested that he be executed by firing squad. In short, your desire for a 'nice' execution is not echoed by the Iraqis who had to live under him for so many years.
Helen- PS. I didn't see any evidence that it was cold or wet, or a cellar. Are you completely guided by your emotions?
John, as a matter of fact I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein by force. I was misled about all of that by the British government and Tony Blair.
That's a separate issue.
The key issue I was making is about how the government of Iraq needs to mature politically. These execution scenes are further dividing the Sunni and Shia peoples of Iraq. A government agent was one of those filming with a mobile phone in the room (the Iraqi chief prosecutor has just confirmed that on ´óÏó´«Ã½ News). If you are going to permit execution (which I oppose on principle), that system needs to be operated within the bounds of some humanity and compassion. The US law requires that there should be no "cruel and unusual punishment". No execution in the US would be permitted in circumstances where the convict's last moments are to endure jeering, taunting and abuse. It's outrageous.
I think you've been very unfair to Helen, John. A little patronising. She makes a point I'm hearing in lots of news coverage. Saddam wore an overcoat because he did not wish to shiver (the room had no heating). Witnesses say the room was dirty and smelly. I don't know about whether it was wet. This is no environment for judicial execution and would not be permitted in the US.
Just watching the Iraqi Prime Minister's official spokesman reponding on the news to the fottage of the execution.
He says that only ONE guard was responsible for the shouting at the execution. I've watched the footage on youtube, sounds like a lot more than one person shouting to me.
Christine- Ok, I understand your criticism. I'll let others contribute now. Thanks for the exchange.
APology accepted John ... if you get round to offering it! :-)
Helen- What would I be apologising for? I understand, but don't agree with, Christine's criticism. For my money I think you're both wrong. ;-) But a better place to continue this conversation, if you'd like to, is the new post from William on the topic. See ya there!
JW,
My definition of murder is the premeditated killing of another human being not in self-defence.
There was no legittimate need to kill Saddam. He could have been imprisoned for life. It is a sign that puppet govt. in Iraq is still unstable and afraid that Saddam might have provided a rallying point for anti-Western feeling. Saddam's execution was a political expedient - whether he deserved it or not. If it had proved useful to keep him alive - he would not have executed. Surely you can appreciate the realpolitik at work here.
Cool. I liked your web site.