The journey from there to here
Published on December 30, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Saddam Hussein is dead. Or, at least that's the official story. And, frankly, it's the story I buy because I see no compelling interest for our government to keep the man alive.

As he heads to whatever Valhalla awaits mass murdering evil dictators, bloggers like me who possess more free time and bandwidth than we do wisdom will write on the subject. And in the processing of their thoughts, many of these writers will parade words like "justice" across their blogs, in a sense demanding that the death of Saddam Hussein is a kind of balance to the scales, a kind of yin to the yang for the man who put so many of his countrymen in their grave prematurely.

I contend, however, that it is in no way justice. It is, however, a darn good way to prevent recidivism.

You see, no hangman's rope can exorcise the demons that will haunt the thoughts and dreams of the victims of this man for the remainder of their lives. No court order can ever cause these people to forget lives torn apart, family members taken away to never be seen again, or acts of violence perpetuated against their family. There is no judge on earth that can heal these peoples' pain.

For that reason, I believe that nobody's death, not even Saddam Hussein's, is to be celebrated.

What Saddam's execution did do, while not providing true justice, was just as important. It did ensure that no mother will ever lose her son to this butcher. That no child's father will never fall to the goons of this dictator. While evil men will always rise and fall and other dictators will certainly come around, as they always have, this one dictator, this one evil man will not live to see another day or torture another soul. And while it is poor compensation for the losses these millions have suffered, it is assurance for the millions more who will not.

Was Saddam's execution justice? No, it was not. But it was a badly needed ending for a country too long torn apart by war.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 30, 2006
Justice? The only ones who can answer that are the victims but you know that's not happening.
on Dec 30, 2006
drmiller,

Actually, I believe "justice" in the context of line #5 would be far, far more cruel. Like leaving him alone in a room with families of his victims. I still believe "retribution" is a better definition.


You're kidding right? He'd "still" end up dead!
on Dec 30, 2006
You're kidding right? He'd "still" end up dead!


on Dec 30, 2006
But the only real thing I get from both of you is that somehow it was OK for Saddam to have killed so many, without a single regret, including women and children, but he did not deserve death because it was either "inhumane" or "why kill him for doing something thats part of human nature".

Don't worry, we all know you struggle from reading comprehension. I don't have any real problem with executing him - we all know he's guilty, so there's no doubt to stain his execution - I just don't think it's just or even comes close to retribution. We're a creative species. We could inflict unimaginable horrors on him and then, with our medical technologies, resurrect him from near-dead and do it all over again.

Killing him by hanging is simply convenient.
on Dec 30, 2006
We're a creative species. We could inflict unimaginable horrors on him and then, with our medical technologies, resurrect him from near-dead and do it all over again.


Reminds me of the rhyme from childhood:

"I read it in the Bible, so I know it's the truth: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."


Sounds good. Now to the problem of a world full of blind people who can't eat.

In the real world, justice isn't so simple.


However, I do agree he deserved to hang, and hanged he is.
on Dec 30, 2006
Cactoblasta:
To be honest I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I would argue that Hussein's actions were extremely human, and quite typical of our kind. He merely went about the pursuit of his desires in a more aggressive fashion than is currently popular. A century ago he would have been a hero. Two centuries ago he would have been a humanist.


If his kind of scum is the "typical" human being, why is his kind of criminal so rare? Yes, humans are capable of horrendous acts, so why do you stereotype us all, based on the actions of so few?
on Dec 30, 2006
so why do you stereotype us all, based on the actions of so few?


*cough* hypocrit *cough*

Now, my bit on this...

I dont find it to be justice, at all. It was vengance, retribution. There is no justice in killing a human being, no matter who they are or what they did. No matter what.

on Dec 30, 2006

If his kind of scum is the "typical" human being, why is his kind of criminal so rare? Yes, humans are capable of horrendous acts, so why do you stereotype us all, based on the actions of so few?


Hussein wasn't tried for being a bad man. He was convicted for being a terrible and vicious ruler responsible for the shadow deaths of his citizens and the gassing of the Kurds (I think we can all agree the specific charges were merely placesetters for the main game). If you look at the rulers whose names have survived history they are almost without exception as ruthless and evil as Hussein. Even the ones we laud knew where the thumbscrews were kept.

It might be nice to think that somehow despots are only rarely vicious and brutal, but I don't think that's a viewpoint supported by the records we have available to us.
on Dec 30, 2006
Don't worry, we all know you struggle from reading comprehension.


Heh, your a funny guy cacto. I see you have taken Col gene's stance of speaking for everyone as well. What is it with people like you that seem to think that you speak for everyone?

I don't have any real problem with executing him - we all know he's guilty, so there's no doubt to stain his execution - I just don't think it's just or even comes close to retribution. We're a creative species. We could inflict unimaginable horrors on him and then, with our medical technologies, resurrect him from near-dead and do it all over again.


I never said you had a problem with his execution, but more for the reasons. Sure you know he did what he did, yet you somehow seem to think that was no reason to kill him. And maybe you can explain to me how come is it that people like you seem to be bashing Bush for doing, behind closed doors you can say, basically what you would have wanted done to Saddam.

It doesn't matter though, a person who starts an argument with an insult is usually a person not worth debating with. So don't even bother answering the question I just asked, not that you really could.
on Dec 30, 2006
Hussein wasn't tried for being a bad man.


Really?

He was convicted for being a terrible and vicious ruler responsible for the shadow deaths of his citizens and the gassing of the Kurds (I think we can all agree the specific charges were merely placesetters for the main game).


So being a terrible and vicious ruler does not make him a bad man? I guess you must be right about my reading comprehension.
on Dec 30, 2006
Even the ones we laud knew where the thumbscrews were kept.


I am curious. How many of these are revered? Can you list the ones that attempted genocide and lived to brag about it (to a natural death). Then of those that did, how many are "heros".

That might keep you busy for a bit should you accept the challenge Mr. Phelps. Until then, Dont tar the Human race with the stink of the scum of it.
on Dec 31, 2006
Gid, you don't believe in self defense? The necessity of war? If so, isn't it just a sliding scale from that point on?


I didn't say it wasn't preferable to the alternatives, Baker. I think you missed my larger point, which is rare for you, I must admit. I wasn't postulating on whether he should or should not have been executed. I was stating that, in my opinion, it's not justice.

I am speaking more from a philosophical point of view than a legal one here. I feel Saddam's execution was the lesser of several evils, but just because it was the better alternative doesn't make it "right" or "moral". The fact is, sometimes we must do things that are less than moral in the imperfect world in which we live. And I believe this was one of those times.
on Dec 31, 2006
You talk as though you actually know this does not make the family of victims feel better. You talk as if everyone agrees with you and you can prove it.


I've got a buried brother that was a victim of a murder, so yes, I can and will speak on what constitutes "justice" Charles.

Which of these dead family members did Hussein's execution bring back? Which families were compensated through Hussein's execution in any way, no matter how small the loss? Don't EVER presume that I don't know what I'm talking about here, Charles; I would not be so presumptuous as to assume that of you, so don't do it of me, k?
on Dec 31, 2006
But the only real thing I get from both of you is that somehow it was OK for Saddam to have killed so many, without a single regret, including women and children, but he did not deserve death because it was either "inhumane" or "why kill him for doing something thats part of human nature".


Bullshit, Charles. There is NO WAY you could have read what I wrote and got that out of it. That is not even REMOTELY what I said.
on Dec 31, 2006
"I didn't say it wasn't preferable to the alternatives, Baker. I think you missed my larger point, which is rare for you, I must admit. I wasn't postulating on whether he should or should not have been executed. I was stating that, in my opinion, it's not justice."


No, I got that, but then you said:

"How is the killing of another EVER rightful or lawful? ...

... But I hope I do not live to see the day when I consider the killing of another to be just."


Which to me goes a step further. Its right and lawful to kill in self defense, or when you are called to represent your nation in a war.

Given that, then killing IS considered right and lawful, and the circumstances wherein we find it to be just would be based upon our social values, right? Painfully subjective social values. That makes one side being more ethical than the other kind of dodgy since there aren't really any objective standards of ethics out there.

Look at France. Anti-war, anti-aggressor, anti-death penalty... then the news casually puts on page 5 that they are bombing "rebel held" towns in the Central African Republic. That's the kind of sliding scale you are talking about, imho.
3 Pages1 2 3