That Hanging
Sunday, December 31st, 2006So Saddam is dead.
I don’t agree with the death penalty, regardless of how horrible his crimes have been. It’s never acceptable to take life in cold blood, and as far as I’m concerned that’s a moral absolute for which there can be no exceptions. There is nothing that his death will solve that wouldn’t have been solved by life imprisonment. Not that he deserves any tears. Norm Geras thinks much the same thing.
Saddam should not have been hanged. He should not have been, because judicial execution is not a morally defensible practice. Apart from other reasons, it brutalizes the community that inflicts it.
And Saddam should not have been hanged now, before having to come before a court to answer for his greatest crimes.
As for those greater crimes, Jim Henley doesn’t mince his words.
[T]he US and its Iraqi allies chose to try Saddam on one of his relatively minor crimes because if they did so they could get him safely hung before they had to try him for the major ones, the gas attacks and massacres that happened during The Years of Playing Footsie with the United States. The Dujail reprisals were a war crime, no doubt about it, a bigger sham of justice than Saddam’s own trial, by two orders of magnitude. They were also the sort of war crime that people like Ralph Peters and a hundred other pundits and parapundits think the United States should be committing. Every time you read a complaint about “politically correct rules of engagement” you are reading someone who would applaud a Dujail-level slaughter if only we were to perpetrate it. Those are the people who are happiest of all about tonight’s execution. Smells like — victory! It’s the pomander they don against the stench.
But there’s no point in accusing the Freepi of hypocrisy; that only works for liberals or traditional conservatives, people who possess actual moral principles, and have some sense of shame. This doesn’t apply to the wingnut right. All they recognise is power. Just like Saddam himself.