That's what you'd think hearing not a few people talk lately. Did we honestly expect an Iraqi court, with an Iraqi judge to come out with any other type of punishment that didn't involve sending the dictator to the great beyond?
I've grown particularly frustrated by the indignant behaviour of some towards this trial. It's almost as if people are saying "How could you possibly even think about hanging Saddam for what he did?" Well I can think of many in Iraqis living under the fear of Saddam's regime that would say "How could we not?"
The question of the morality of sending Saddam to the guilotine is one thing. I don't believe in the death penalty personaly because I think giving the state the right to kill someone is like giving a criminal the keys to your bedroom and telling him where the valuables are. A healthy distrust for the state is well more than in order in the case of the death penalty.
That being said I've always believed that a valid moral case can be made for the death penalty in principle. If you believe that the only way to stop someone from comitting a crime or an injustice is to end their lives then I see a case where the death penalty becomes justifiable in a moral sense.
For those interested, the Cathecism of the Catholic Church mirrors that point. Which is interesting because a Vatican official does not agree with the recent decision. Keep in mind that this Cardinal is apparently not particularly overly agreable to some in the Vatican.
Particularly in cases where we are dealing with a dictator that was once powerful and could potentially rise to power once again, the death penalty becomes a morally justifiable means of preventing the aggresor from coming back to power.
Now that justification depends on the belief that the only way to stop Saddam from coming back to power is to end his life. At this point that is very dubious. His power is pretty limited. His chances on returning to power are pretty slim.
Then again to millions of Iraqi's who lived under his regime that possibility may not seem as far off to us "enlightened" westerners that know better than those base "uncivilized" Iraqi's as it does to them... I seem to remember another dictator by the name of Napoleon that attempted to come back to power after he was "imprisoned for life securely" on an island.
If you feel the compulsion to judge the Iraqi's ask yourself this question: if you were in the same situation would you feel so secure with the prospect of keeping Saddam alive? With the Americans and possibly the UN keeping watch over him?... It's not like they haven't screwed up before right?...
The west was in a similar yet diffferent situation many years ago as the Iraqi people.
Are the Nazi trials of Hitler's henchmen that ended in their execution so forgotten that we don't even remember them?
Regardless whether Saddam's execution is moral the question in the end is not ours to answer. And that's why I find the self righteous indignancy to be tirying.
This is a question that Iraqis and only Iraqis should and can answer. We're just outside observers with opinions and not victims or potential future victims that have faced or could face the risks we'd like to impose by keeping a violent brutal dictator alive.
Did we honestly expect anything different from Iraqis? Discretion would say otherwise.
your comment about giving the state the right to kill is irrational. By that logic, the state has no right to wage war either because war inevitably causes the deaths of the enemy and civilians as collateral damage.
ReplyDeleteThe State has the inherent right to take life because it is the highest sovereign with the exception of Alighty God. The State is the arbiter and provider of justice, sometimes justice involves the death of the perpetrator.
Honestly... these same bleeding hearts were screaming for him to get a fair and honest trial by the Iraqi government. So thats pretty much what he gets and now these same whiners are complaining about the punishment...
ReplyDeleteGo figure? Left wing logic is tough to figure out.
"your comment about giving the state the right to kill is irrational. By that logic, the state has no right to wage war either because war inevitably causes the deaths of the enemy and civilians as collateral damage."
ReplyDeleteIrrational?
I'm arguing that giving the power of the death penalty to the state is a recipe for abuse. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It does not negate the legitimate use of force by the state.
The use of force in the defense of another is certainly moral - and that's the point I've tried to make here. The question is it the death penalty really necessary to defend the public? I would argue no - that we can lock these people up for life with reasonable certainty that they will never break out. You may disagree with that, but that's the way I see it.
That's not irrational. That's a well established doctrine of self defense. Name calling is not usually the recourse of those that are behaving rationaly let me add.
"The State has the inherent right to take life because it is the highest sovereign with the exception of Alighty God."
But the government is NOT GOD! And it has no right to behave as such. It has no such right like you described. The individual's "Right to Life" is one of the most fundamental rights of western thought in my opinion.
I would seriously caution you on that type of thinking. Christians for thousands of years believed in the "Divine Right of Kings."
It meant that since the state was the highest sovereign authority before God, it was there because of God. In that line of reasoning, the will of the state was the will of God. Following that meant that you had no right to question the state, no right to disagree or rebel.
Thousands of years later, and countless autrocities done in the "name" of God later, we know better. Sometimes the voice of the people is the Voice of God, and when the people are oppressed and their rights violated the people not only can but have a duty to rise up and right the injustice using force if necessary.
I would seriously caution you on that line of thinking. Read something from Lord Acton please!