Hanging Saddam
According to the Associated Press, “Iraq's highest appeals court on Tuesday upheld Saddam Hussein's death sentence and said he must be hanged within 30 days for the killing of 148 Shiites in the central city of Dujail.”
While I have no love for the deposed tyrant and firmly believe that if anyone deserves to be executed he’s top of the list, I still think that the Iraqi courts are making a big mistake to put Saddam to death. I come to this conclusion not only because I am opposed to capital punishment, but also because—from a practical standpoint in both the so-called “war on terror” and in quelling the sectarian violence in Iraq—that what the former dictator knows or might reveal under questioning could be useful and informative.
Presumably, executing Saddam will help, in some way, to balance the scales of justice, but his one death hardly seems to weigh much against the 148 deaths he has been convicted of, not to mention the hundreds of thousands he is allegedly responsible for.
Plus, if we are really serious about the retributive principle of “an eye for an eye,” then shouldn’t Saddam be killed 148 times for justice to be served?
I can’t imagine that his execution won’t inflame Iraq’s political and ethnic divides; I’ll bet that in the wake of his death, suicide bombings and attacks on civilians and US military personnel will increase. Should we hold Saddam responsible for these as well, or can we blame them, at least in part, on those who sentenced him to die?
All this makes me wonder, in my usual Polyanna-ish way, whether killing people has ever really solved any of the world’s social or political problems. Those who maintain it does will typically cite a “good war” like WWII. But can’t a case be made that many of the world’s current controversies are, in part, connected to mass killings that took place in the 1930s and 40s?
While I have no love for the deposed tyrant and firmly believe that if anyone deserves to be executed he’s top of the list, I still think that the Iraqi courts are making a big mistake to put Saddam to death. I come to this conclusion not only because I am opposed to capital punishment, but also because—from a practical standpoint in both the so-called “war on terror” and in quelling the sectarian violence in Iraq—that what the former dictator knows or might reveal under questioning could be useful and informative.
Presumably, executing Saddam will help, in some way, to balance the scales of justice, but his one death hardly seems to weigh much against the 148 deaths he has been convicted of, not to mention the hundreds of thousands he is allegedly responsible for.
Plus, if we are really serious about the retributive principle of “an eye for an eye,” then shouldn’t Saddam be killed 148 times for justice to be served?
I can’t imagine that his execution won’t inflame Iraq’s political and ethnic divides; I’ll bet that in the wake of his death, suicide bombings and attacks on civilians and US military personnel will increase. Should we hold Saddam responsible for these as well, or can we blame them, at least in part, on those who sentenced him to die?
All this makes me wonder, in my usual Polyanna-ish way, whether killing people has ever really solved any of the world’s social or political problems. Those who maintain it does will typically cite a “good war” like WWII. But can’t a case be made that many of the world’s current controversies are, in part, connected to mass killings that took place in the 1930s and 40s?
posted by Professor Dave at 1:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home