The Death of Saddam Hussein…
Though many others have talked about this, especially Sam over at his site and this piece by Grandad at headrambles, I figure I might as well drop in my own two cents with regards to the execution of Saddam Hussein.
I know I’m a bit behind the times but I was working the weekend and I only got around to it now…
Firstly, I think it was a bad idea. The reasons that the ‘pro’ side of this debate just don’t stand up for me… They go roughly as follows:
He had it coming
Probably, the best arguement of the lot. I’l be the first to admit that Saddam was a tremendously unplesent Dictator and one of the few left with real ‘name recognition’. Certainly his loss is one that the world in general is better for. However, his execution is in and of itself a barbaric act. As I’ve already said, this is the best arguement the pro side have because my main arguement against the execution is that the death penalty is wrong regardless. Now when it’s someone like Saddam people want that to go out the window, but even so I disagree.
The sentence was the Iraqis decision
There’s a couple of problems with this, with a government that can hardly claim to be in control of the nation, or even popular in it’s own country I hardly think that the sentence refllected the ‘Iraqi people’. Now, I’m by no means claiming that the people loved Saddam or didn’t want him dead but Saddam was executed by a panel of people with a vested interest in him being dead, not by a legitimate Iraqi government. The people who organised the trial were the groups attempting to claim legitimacy, and the US government - not the people as a whole.
Granted, in the state that Iraq is at the moment ‘the people as a whole’ are not exactly the best arguement, but attempting to put the claim that this was the Iraqi people’s decision is rather disingenuous I think…
The trial was legitimate and fair and the Iraqis jurisdiction.
Again, I’m not sure if the trial was legitimate. The war that deposed Saddam was illegal, regardless of whether that’s acknowledged these days or not.
The trial itself, by being held where it was held was fairly partial instead of fair. Now many will say that’s it’s impossible that Saddam could ever have been found innocent, but at the same time when the trail was so blatanly unfair it reflects badly on the west.
The war was supposed to be about bringing Iraq up to our level and the spread of democracy, when the first major trial in Iraq is held under such conditions it is not the best of starts. Also, the trial only covered one incident. There was much more that Saddam could have been held to account for and this does not give justice to all those other victims.
The execution prevented violence
The reasoning on this is that having Saddam alive as a rallying point ment that we were better off getting rid of him has some legitimacy but in this case having him dead just made him a martyr. I think in this case it’s ‘damned if you do, and damned if you don’t’ - and in this case I’d rather it be damned if we don’t.
Plus, Saddam was at this stage an irrelivancy, there’s not exactly a movement trying to seriously put him back in power, the conflict in Iraq has moved far beyond that factor at this stage. Had they moved Saddam out of Iraq the (potential) escape of him would have been a non-existant problem.
In the end, I think Saddam was executed because it was the most convient course of action. He was not killed because of an idea of ‘justice’ but for vengence. And regardless of what some would like to claim, these are not the same.
The ‘war against militant Islam’ is about proving that our system is better than theirs, Saddams death was a victory for their system because that’s how ‘they’ do things - not us.
I’ve replied to this post on my site — I’d be interested to read your response!