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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 31, 2006
Its right and lawful to kill in self defense, or when you are called to represent your nation in a war.


I'll give you the first example, I won't the second.

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?


yes, they would. But I don't need to share those values personally.

I want to be very clear, not so much for you as for others who are reading this. I am not saying that the execution of Saddam was not the alternative that should have been chosen. He was convicted and executed according to the legal procedures of his country, an advantage he did NOT give many of his victims. It is very much the right of Iraq citizens to determine the course for Iraq, and I respect and uphold their right to do that, even when their decisions are not the same as those I would have made. Whether Saddam's trial was fair, or the verdict reasonable, is not something I have a right to decide. But I so often hear the word "justice" bandied about, when it's not the word I would use here.

Was it right? Probably as right as anything can be in this horribly messed up world.

Was it within the government's authority to do? Yes. Quite clearly, yer.

But I think when we use the word "justice" in connection with the killing of another, whether or not that killing is legally defensible, that we pollute the word "justice". In justice, there is some recompense for the offended. The victims of Hussein's regime were certainly vindicated in some small way, but not even an apology escaped this villain's lips. He was, to all accounts, defiant to the end.
on Dec 31, 2006
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.


I have a father who was gunned down with AK47s and then stabbed in the heart for good measure - no one was ever brought to justice. If someone was brought to book, I would accept whatever the court of that land dictated was justice.
on Dec 31, 2006
If someone was brought to book, I would accept whatever the court of that land dictated was justice.


But you will admit, will you not, that it's a subjective judgement? I'd wager there are many Iraqis who don't feel the same way right now.
on Dec 31, 2006
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.


Please Baker! Dont equate anyone here with the French! We are not talking about the worst of hypocrisy after all. And comparing Gideon to the french is not only false, but slanderous.
on Dec 31, 2006
And comparing Gideon to the french is not only false, but slanderous.


LOL...I didn't see Baker as comparing me to the French. He was basically warning against arguing the relativist point too far.

And I agree on a certain level. This is an academic argument, not a legal one. I certainly don't want to see these crappy "restorative justice" meetings that are so popular now between evil dictators and the families of their victims. I just want us to be careful in our definitions.
on Jan 01, 2007
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.


Sorry for your brother, but your not alone when it comes to this. My wifes cousin, which she loved very much, was killed by a drunk driver. While not like murder it still hurts as much. BTW, I was not speaking as in knowing how they feel thru similar circumstances but knowing exactly how they feel as if being them, so chill out.


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?


Again, I consider ignorant (trust me, I don't consider you ignorant at all, at leats not till now) to ever believe that punishing criminals somehow fixes everything, brings back anyone, makes everything right. Punishment is not only to punish the criminal, but to show to others that this is what awaits those who commit crimes as well. Justice is in the eye of the beholder, he who wants to believe this was justice has the right to see it that way regardless what your feelings are towards it. So again, your feelings are nothing but that, yours. That does not make this injust. The death of Saddam does not have a set definition, to some it was justice, to others it wasn't. Who cares, one less to worry about. If anyone here feels Bush should be executed next because he may be just another criminal, I suggest you get your asses (I don't necessarily mean you Gid) up and get it done. Otherwise stop complaining. If we are to follow moral reasons than the entire human race should be eliminated. None of us deserve to live.
on Jan 01, 2007
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.


Ok, inhumane was that wrong word, more immoral. However the "why kill him for doing something thats part of human nature". is from cacto. not you. Still, to me, moral or immoral, Saddam had to go. He was not responsible for minor crimes, he was a monster, he killed for pleasure, he abused for fun, he murdered for power. Justice? I don't care. Moral? Not my concern. The right thing? It never is. Needed to be done? Yes.

Sorry for the wrong word.
on Jan 01, 2007
I'd wager there are many Iraqis who don't feel the same way right now.


I agree.
on Jan 01, 2007

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".


Well there's Alexander the Great, Gaius Marius, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, Herod, Ramses, Genghis Khan, most Chinese dynastic starters and Qin I in particular, Yoshi Tokugawa, Tomitomo (I could be wrong with the name here; the predecessor to Tokugawa is the one I mean), Stalin, and whoever that king is that Kautilya guided.

There's almost certainly others but unfortunately my knowledge of history is somewhat limited.

Most of these are merely considered heroes, but several did manage to accumulate the cults necessary to be revered as gods - Alexander, Augustus, Ramses and to a much lesser extent the shoguns and Chinese emperors.

Then there's the ones who were knocked off but are still popular, most well-known of these Hitler.

Until then, Dont tar the Human race with the stink of the scum of it.


It's not about tarring humanity. It's about accepting the reality that power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. Dictators have always been more violent than democrats. Practically everyone who becomes father of the motherland becomes a brutal despot. It's part of the job description, and is no smear on human nature as a whole.
3 Pages1 2 3