Spare Saddam the Rope
Even the crimes of brutal dictators are not enough to allow state-sanctioned murder
So, on the even of the mid-terms (was this Karl Rove's 'October surprise?'), Saddam Hussein is sentenced to death by hanging. The man is responsible for thousands of deaths of both his own citizens, and those of Iran and Kuwait. He was a tyrant, who would use whatever means necessary to keep himself in power. There have been many bogeymen who's names still resonate throughout history- Stalin, Hitler, Polt Pot, Mussolini, Mao, these names we see so often grouped together in history textbooks as those we must oppose, those we must challenge.
China recently tightened its laws on the death penalty, to the welcome of many in the international community. However, I also saw a report some time ago on the organ trade in the country, and one of the images stuck in my mind. It was of a young man, being led by guards in a public execution. There was a rope already around his neck, which would tighten should he attempt to escape. Many in the West would feel sympathy for this man, but fewer for Saddam. Their crimes are undoubtedly massively different. But that is not why the death penalty is wrong.
The mere thought of what is in effect state-sanctioned murder scares me. The thought that the Leviathan (lets see it in this respect while making this point if no other) can pick an individual which has disobeyed its rules and decide that they subsequently have to die, is absolutely terrifying. Whatever the crime of an individual, do they really deserve to be killed as a punishment? Their are two points, for one (in the case of Saddam), does it not bring the new Iraqi government to the level of the previous one, and secondly, is it a terribly good precedent to set, at the birth of an apparent democracy we see being killed a previous leader.
In addition, there is a practical aspect. Some news reports have stated how Saddam has been brought to justice for his crimes. He has not, for he has only been tried for one incident early on in his regime, not for any other occasions. Surely if justice is to be had, he should be tried for all he has done?
David Cox was wrong to give the ex-leader a tribute in the Guardian, as is evident by the points of those on CiF. Saddam is not someone who deserves sympathy. But he is still an individual, a human being. He disrespected the lives of others with such impunity and brutality that the hatred of many in Iraq against him must be immense. But the death penalty simply carries on his legacy, and makes a regional martyr out of a defeated tyrant.
So, on the even of the mid-terms (was this Karl Rove's 'October surprise?'), Saddam Hussein is sentenced to death by hanging. The man is responsible for thousands of deaths of both his own citizens, and those of Iran and Kuwait. He was a tyrant, who would use whatever means necessary to keep himself in power. There have been many bogeymen who's names still resonate throughout history- Stalin, Hitler, Polt Pot, Mussolini, Mao, these names we see so often grouped together in history textbooks as those we must oppose, those we must challenge.
China recently tightened its laws on the death penalty, to the welcome of many in the international community. However, I also saw a report some time ago on the organ trade in the country, and one of the images stuck in my mind. It was of a young man, being led by guards in a public execution. There was a rope already around his neck, which would tighten should he attempt to escape. Many in the West would feel sympathy for this man, but fewer for Saddam. Their crimes are undoubtedly massively different. But that is not why the death penalty is wrong.
The mere thought of what is in effect state-sanctioned murder scares me. The thought that the Leviathan (lets see it in this respect while making this point if no other) can pick an individual which has disobeyed its rules and decide that they subsequently have to die, is absolutely terrifying. Whatever the crime of an individual, do they really deserve to be killed as a punishment? Their are two points, for one (in the case of Saddam), does it not bring the new Iraqi government to the level of the previous one, and secondly, is it a terribly good precedent to set, at the birth of an apparent democracy we see being killed a previous leader.
In addition, there is a practical aspect. Some news reports have stated how Saddam has been brought to justice for his crimes. He has not, for he has only been tried for one incident early on in his regime, not for any other occasions. Surely if justice is to be had, he should be tried for all he has done?
David Cox was wrong to give the ex-leader a tribute in the Guardian, as is evident by the points of those on CiF. Saddam is not someone who deserves sympathy. But he is still an individual, a human being. He disrespected the lives of others with such impunity and brutality that the hatred of many in Iraq against him must be immense. But the death penalty simply carries on his legacy, and makes a regional martyr out of a defeated tyrant.
posted by Metatron at 8:32 PM
3 Comments:
Unfortunately, he will be killed, as he won't be given life in the Hague. The truths he could reveal about America's arms deals to him in the 80s would not go down well.
It strikes me that perhaps a spot of mercy would look good and turn things around in the middle east. Perhaps, its a tough call. It seems equally likely that, 'this is what we want to do to people who do such things,' is a sentiment held, and which would guide votes accordingly in an Iraqi referendum, by the majority of Iraqis. And that this democratic satisfaction is the only thing which will bring Iraq to life.
It has to be said that many arguments against the death penalty do not hold in this case. He did certainly commit at least 1 crime which would get him sentenced to death in an Iraqi court, no evidence will ever be found that he was innocent of all charges. And the issue of legitamising killing by killing isn't quite so strong as he didn't just kill someone etc. There is also the issue that things might be simpler if he died rather than was locked up, for a start where would we lock him up. If in Iraq t'is so corrupt and there is so much non-govermental force available, that he might well be out again before long.
that said the idea is deplorable and disgusting to me, yes, but I'm not so sure thats a non-selfish reason.
Two points - firstly, there is no way that Saddam could be spared the death penalty, bearing in mind that he would have received such a punishment if tried in the US, and secondly, what about all the times the Americans (and British, for that matter) tried to kill Saddam with their ludicrously inaccurate weapons during the war? I think that, while I do not condone the death penalty under any circumstances, it is better that Saddam be tried, found guilty and sentenced to death than just killed without this procedure. Anyway, you want Iraq to be a sovereign country - let them decide how to punish their criminals. I state again - I abhor, detest, despise and loathe the death penalty, but if a (supposedly) independent nation decides that this is the way forward, so be it. Yes, Saddam may die a martyr for the insurgents, but it would be supreme hypocrisy for Britain, let alone America, to intervene in sparing Saddam the fate decided for him by an Iraqi court.
Post a Comment
<< Home