The news just broke: Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq for over thirty years with a blood-drenched iron fist, who massacred his own people and caused the deaths of millions of Iranians and Iraqis in a war brought about by his own ego, who invaded Kuwait and tried to assassinate a US president, is dead. Hanged by the Iraqis he'd brutalized for so many years.
Good. And good for Iraq.
In one sense, this is a culmination of the Anglo-American invasion and liberation of Iraq: we set about to free those people from that bastard, and that freedom really couldn't come into fruition until he was dead and no longer a threat. Like someone tormented by a captor for a long period of time, the Iraqi people must have had it in the back of their minds that maybe, just maybe, Saddam could return to power and take revenge on all those who dared defy him. He'd forever be a lurking shadow over their newfound freedom, even if he'd been sentenced to life in the most secure prison in the world. Now that threat is gone forever. There are other Baathists around, lots of "little Eichmanns" (no apologies to Ward Churchill), but the Iraqi Hitler is dead. Whatever else happens, those long-suffering people can be sure he's not coming back.
In another sense, time has passed Saddam and his crimes. Iraq is caught in a low-level civil war between sectarian partisans: Sunnis who fear Shi'ite control, Shi'ites who fear a Sunni resurgence (Saddam was a Sunni), and Iranian and Syrian proxies all stirring the pot. The present is bad, and Saddam belonged to a past that was already ancient: his execution is thus irrelevant.
I don't agree. I think it was vitally important that Iraqis could psychologically put this monster in his grave, to gain that assurance that he could never rise again. I also believe it equally important that Iraqis conducted a trial for Saddam, a hearing under their own code of law (which Saddam gutted during his rule) with their own judges, and with a verdict ratified by their own government under their own constitution. It was important to see the process of justice work swiftly and fairly to help instill a habit of accepting the rule of law in Iraq. It may take a long time to take hold, but I think the trial of Saddam may set a level of expectation among the Iraqi people that will eventually break the power of personal tyranny and establish due process as the standard.
Some in the oh-so-smug "international community" took umbrage at the Iraqi proceedings, calling it "victor's justice" and claiming that it didn't meet "international standards for fair trials." (Such as an NPR piece I heard today featuring UN Human Rights chief Louise Arbour.)
Horsefeathers.
Saddam was lucky to even get a trial from the Iraqis. A trial meant to establish guilt was meaningless here, except for the purposes of giving ordinary Iraqis a forum in which to make their voices heard and for establishing the norms of justice. Everyone who isn't a blind idiot knows the state of Iraq under Saddam: his culpability in his crimes isn't in question. The Iraqis had every right to skip a trial and go straight to a penalty hearing, with the sentence carried out five minutes later. They could even have done to him what the Italians did to Mussolini. Conducted under "international standards," Saddam might have, as he came close to doing, turned the trial into a farce just like Milosevic perverted the Hague hearings. That would have been an injustice.
In the end, Saddam got justice, but far less than what he deserved. One hopes that his death will give Iraqis an opportunity to lay aside their hatreds to build a prosperous nation, but I fear they have a long row to hoe.
Still, executing him was necessary, and it was Justice.
LINKS: More at The Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, The Jawa Report, Tigerhawk, and Austin Bay. For an Iraqi view, have a look at Iraq the Model: Celebrating Justice.
UPDATE: Not surprisingly, the Kook Left is having a hissy-fit.
Recent Comments