The New Republic

Utopian zeal will only bring us closer to oblivion. The world will never be a perfect place. Saddam Hussein's trial minimally gets a C+ grade and that is satisfactory. This man must be put to death as soon as possible. Iraq's stability hangs in the balance. There are rumors that Saddam should be dead by Sunday. I sure hope so.

- thomsondavid

December 29, 2006 at 3:57am

Didn't President Clinton order cruise missile strikes against an alleged Osama bin Laden hideout? Was that to effect a capture? You don't need to exaggerate in the extreme to make your point. The truth is weird enough.

- poldpf

December 29, 2006 at 9:45am

Simply put he should be tried for ALL his crimes and face ALL his accuser. Why would Bush oppose that? Maybe because it would implicate the US. Hmmm.

- Yminale

December 29, 2006 at 12:17pm

Trials can be flawed or imperfect. One can agree or disagree with the concept of capital punishment in the abstract. Nevertheless, justice is justice. Justice renders to every one his due. Justitia suum cuique distribuit. TULLIUS

- TULLIUS

December 29, 2006 at 12:56pm

The objections to the execution from Saddam stem not from some sort of 'misplaced mercy' as was stated in another thread, but from the process, which was fairly clearly a sham trial. People here seem quite content to say "well, we know the trial was flawed, but that's okay because we know he deserves it." That is not okay. The rule of law means due process applies to everyone, no matter how evil and dispicable. It truly saddens me how quickly people are ready to flush our prinicples down the toilet in service of this grand illusion called the war on terror. The more we sacrifice our principles, the more the terrorists win. We are supposed to be fighting for democracy in Iraq, and that means more than elections, that means the rule of law.

- dperlman99

December 29, 2006 at 2:21pm

Again Martin, you seem to be putting yourself up on your moral high horse judging who is and is not on the right side of "truth, justice and the American way". There are a variety of reasons why someone might object to the death penalty. But here comes uppity Martin, up on his white horse cutting off anyone at the knees who might be about to raise an objection. If there is a reasonable case to be made against the death penalty, one would never know it from your comments. I've read that when the autopsy was done on Martin Peretz's brain, it is reported that doctors are to have exclaimed: "Good God! There is no gray-matter here... everything is all black or white!" Martin, some days you are a twit. Stephen from Minneapolis

- src

December 29, 2006 at 2:52pm

...you can do better than that! Some, myself included, oppose the death penalty as a matter of principle. I am by no means in denial about Saddam's bloody reign, nor will I shed any tears over his death. I simply do not believe that the state has the right to resort to capital punishment. The same is true regardless of the crime. I know almost everyone executed in this country is guilty-as-charged. In some cases, the crimes are particularly nasty. Nevertheless, I do not believe the state has the right hand down death sentences, and neither does Canada (the legal system in which Ms. Arbour was trained) nor most of the civilized world. I need hardly remind anyone here that the U.S. is one of the few liberal democracies to both retain and use the death penalty on a regular basis. Furthermore, Saddam should have been tried at The Hague, so that questions about the fairness of the trial would not have arisen in the first place--a motion that I'm sure Louise Arbour would second. (I wonder what TNR thought of her when she was Chief Prosecutor for the ICTY.) By holding a trial in Baghdad, where the defense team could--no, my mistake, did--end up murdered only gives the Ramsey Clarks of our world more fodder. I agree with you that the Human Rights Council has been a disappointment, and that Israel is hardly worthy of the rage so many hurl at it. Nevertheless, lay off the UN just this once. Okay?

- Tjss

December 30, 2006 at 12:07am

"Furthermore, Saddam should have been tried at The Hague..." Nonsense. A trial at the Hague would have lasted indefinitely. Maybe even as long as ten years. Iraq cannot wait for any utopian premised legal system to dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's." Their minimally C+ effort was good enough to get the job done. Demanding more would have only added to the misery. Now that this evil man is dead---Iraq has a better chance to prosper.

- thomsondavid

December 30, 2006 at 1:45am

Do you honestly think Saddam's death will make things easier in Iraq? Do you honestly think that the Baathists are ones responsible for the bloodbath there? The fighting is a civil war entirely removed from the question of whether or not Saddam is dead or in a maximum security prison in whatever country would take him following his conviction.

- Tjss

December 30, 2006 at 2:11am

"Do you honestly think Saddam's death will make things easier in Iraq?" Yup, I most certainly do. It is sad that this process took so long. Many Iraqis needlessly died since Saddam's arrest almost three years ago. Much of the violence that has occurred in Iraq is due to George W. Bush's wimpy decision making. The man is simply too politically correct. We screwed up the very first day when our soldiers failed to shoot the looters. Everything continued to fall apart after that stupid mistake.

- thomsondavid

December 30, 2006 at 2:38am

One can believe that there are reasonable objections to the procedures methods and choice for how Saddam was tried, One can object to capital punishment and prefer that no human ever had to suffer this, And at the same time recognize that, imperfect though it is, Saddam has received justice. Justice is not some perfect thing that cannot ever appear in the world, but rather a set of actions carried out by flawed humans with all their imperfections. Nothing is more wearying than the concept that only a few, the cognoscenti, the elite, are those who "get it" (often because of some elite knowledge that none of the rest of us are worthy enough to share or possess). True, justice is not simple, it is a complex thing--but it is true and it comes about. It is often not quite believable when you see it--and there will always be some who object. But justice is justice nonetheless. TULLIUS

- TULLIUS

December 30, 2006 at 8:49am

Summum jus, summa injuria.

- acgraves

December 30, 2006 at 10:57am

The United Nations continues to make itself irrelevent with stupid comments like these on Saddam's trial and execution. One of the principle functions of any governement is the investigation of illegal behavious, preperation of legal trials and the distribution of justice. No trial is perfect, if only perfect trials allow the death penalty, then there is none. Which is really what these peaceful souls want. In truth, most trials are good enough, and Saddams was no different. He preferred to mount a poor defense and disrupt the trial. It didn't work, and that was part of his calculation. Let the Vatican and UN carry his flame. The UN should have taken the time to remind the world of his invasion of Kuwait and his war with Iran. Saddam made a mockery of the UN and national sovereignty. In the UN past sins are forgotten, and today's news is an excuse to bring up pet projects, and attack those who disagree with you. The US and it's allies went to war because Saddam would not allow UN Inspectors into his country to verify there were no weapons of mass destruction. Again he knew what he was doing and knew of the conseuences of failure. Hans Blix and the UN failed to persuade this Dictator that he would be better off with modest inspections. Perhaps Saddam's death is a failure of the UN. Of course UN Failures are never discussed by the UN. The Muslims in Srebenica, the Tutsis in Rwanda or the Cambodians under Pol Pot all were given implicit death sentences by UN failure and incompetence. Of course, I am sure the UN put a note in the file on Saddam and his brutal campaign against the Kurds, or perhpas one of his Shia massacres. But even now the UN would not bring up any of their past greviences against Saddam now. Paper wasted, ink ignored, and more pleas for mercy and justice. Why does anyone listen to the UN anymore?

- CRS9TNR

December 30, 2006 at 11:41am

For whom and for what? For some, hanging Saddam makes them feel good and maybe even justified. I sense that Bush and many of the Spine acolytes may share this feeling. However, will hanging Saddam justify this war? This is too stupid to even respond. The answer is no. Will hanging Saddam improve the war? Well, past experience gives us the answer? Did capturing Saddam improve things? No. Did convicting Saddam improve things? No. Did killing Saddam's vile offspring improve things? No. Did killing that guy with the Reeboks improve things? No. Has the ballyhooed capture or killing of any "top" terrorist in this stupid war improved things? No. Has hanging Saddam improved things for Iraquis? For some, yes and for many others, probably. The problem here is that the terror that Saddam imposed upon his country and just been replaced by another and equally serious terror now being experiencing by all Iraquis. If all we can claim is the undeniable ghoulish joy in seeing Saddam swing then it was too high a price for this disasterous war. If all we can claim is the death of Saddam, then US policy should have focused upon a cloak and dagger assassination project, not requiring the destruction of an entire country, hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqui, tens of thousands of wounded US soldiers and 3,000 dead US combat deaths.

- MrCookie1

December 30, 2006 at 11:43am

Certain it is, O grave one, the laws can be administered in an extreme and unjust way. This is not to excuse mistaken or imperfect actions of the Iraqi court nor of the Iraqi nation. However, true peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice. There is wisdom in recognizing that Justice shines by its own light. Justice is always violent to the party offending, for every man is innocent in his own eyes. That men will pursue justice, no matter how rudimentary, no matter how beset with other cares and tribulations is the glory of humanity. This we know from our study of history and the past doings of men. Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge. Though it will not follow immediately, there must be justice before there can be peace. This is wisdom and should be acknowledged. TULLIUS

- TULLIUS

December 30, 2006 at 2:03pm

Where is an essay on James Brown? Where is an essay on The Wire?

- basman

December 30, 2006 at 3:36pm

...up to the moment of the trap door on my Comcast home page. You see Saddam being led by masked executioners to the gallows, and watch the rope put around his neck as Saddam stands with what looks like nonchalance. The whole thing is sickening. I watched it, all the time thinking, we are no different than him. We put our killers in masks and remove life from people. Utterly sickening. And if death is so much better and more just than prison, tullius (you commented somewhere! the spine?), how 'bout we allow the imprisoned (as well as the old, infirm, terminal, ...) a way out on their own so we don't have to sanction it and in so doing debase our humanity? Cookie for president.

- rishy

December 30, 2006 at 5:18pm

You say his death is over due and will make things better, and yet you ignore the fact that most of the insurgents are religious extremists, not (secular) Baathists. Why will Saddam Hussein's death make things easier in Iraq?

- Tjss

December 30, 2006 at 8:02pm

"One can believe that there are reasonable objections to the procedures methods and choice for how Saddam was tried, one can object to capital punishment and prefer that no human ever had to suffer this, and at the same time recognize that, imperfect though it is, Saddam has received justice." And indeed I do believe the first two things. As I said in my first response, I will not lose any sleep over Saddam's execution. But, as you say, it is reasonable to believe that capital punishment is wrong and that his trial was flawed. However, if the trial is flawed and the punishment is inherently wrong, how his execution be just? There are few people in the world who, if I believed in capital punishment, I would like to see put to death more than Saddam Hussein. The man was a brutal thug to the end. Nevertheless, as I believe life is a natural right, I cannot believe that capital punishment is just. (On a side note: I am not a peacenik. I supported humanitarian interventions in the Balkans, and desperately want one in Darfur. In that case, the killing done by NATO forces stopped far more killing. If Saddam's death would help bring a stable, peaceful Iraq, I would support it. But as I have written above, I do not believe it will.)

- Tjss

December 30, 2006 at 8:10pm

I favour capital punishment on moral grounds, but have reservations about it on pragmatic grounds. The issues are not whether hanging Hussein justifies the war, improves the war, improve things, improve things for Iraquis, and so on. The issue is: with having captured him, what was to have been done with him. Hanging him vindicates the moral imperative of capital punishment, respecting human life sufficiently that in instances of its most unimaginably evil violation, nothing less than the taking of life is sufficient. Retribution is integral to the notions of "punishing" crime: that's why more serious crimes attract more serious sentences. As with Eichmann, keeping Hussein alive was unthinkable,particularly to the Iraquis.

- basman

December 30, 2006 at 11:12pm

In other words, an eye for an eye. Is it ironic that the principle was applied to the former leader of modern-day Babylon? I do see your point, although I disagree per above. I have one question, and I do not mean this in an argumentative way: what "pragmatic grounds" are you speaking of?

- Tjss

December 31, 2006 at 12:02am

TULLIUS is assuredly right-- justice is the ultimate pillar of the state, and history the magistra vitae without which we would remain forever children. The De officiis speaks first and foremost to these duties and so much more. However, to my eye and as humble observer of history, this ressembles not so much justice as the appetite for vengeance, which devours its object and its subject in the same movement. It could be, as Montaigne describes, "une action plus de crainte que de braverie, de precaution que de courage, de defense que d'entreprise". It smells more of Machiavelli than of Tacitus or Xenophon-- although I'll admit that this is just my current impression and I am more than willing to digest your words as the week wears on. But my thoughts did not immmediately go to Cicero, your namesake, but to Montaigne and to Sallust. Implicit in Sallust's text is the warning that, in the course of war, we risk assimilating, despite our best efforts, the barbaric qualities of the enemy we combat. Surely in the abstract historical and poetic sense, justice was done to Saddam Hussein for his crimes. However, is this the founding pillar of the Iraqi state? I am less certain, for I'm not sure justice is theirs.

- acgraves

December 31, 2006 at 12:50am

The problem of mistake in capital cases: convicting the innocent.

- basman

December 31, 2006 at 2:39am

True it is, O grave one, as you imply, the death of a brutal and genocidal tyrant cannot be said to be unjust. And even as you have further pointed out, whether justice in this instance can be said to be a pillar is surely a matter that one should doubt. It is also true that we run risks in war--and so surely all wise men love peace. Nor would any wise person hold that Mesapotamia was at peace during the brutal tyrant's reign. For Peace is freedom in tranquillity; servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death. Nay, even though justice be justice, one act of flawed justice standing alone does not have the power to create a just state. Justice must first exist in the hearts of men. Ad maiorem Rem Publicam . . . TULLIUS

- TULLIUS

December 31, 2006 at 1:09pm

Don't know if there's a Montaigne or a Cicero quote to this effect but here goes: sparing Saddam would not have increased the effectiveness of the Iraqi state or the public's perception of its ability to act with justice. But it could well have increased the confidence and effectiveness of the ba'athist and sunni thugs whose aim is to cripple any post-Saddam Iraqi state.

- teplukhin

January 2, 2007 at 3:12pm

I agree with you that sparing Saddam is/was not the answer. But the more I understand about the circumstances of the excecution (and those now taking credit for it as a notch on their own belts), the more I think the timing and the administration of justice in this instance actually showed the opposite--that this government is incapable of performing its functions with any dignity whatsoever. I mean, they have the guy for less than 48 hours and it's a fiasco. I would have gotten rid of the problem of Saddam by turning him over to the Hague (not perfect either, but at least you avoid the recent major image problems for the US and maybe even improve them). As it stands, it looks and smells (to me at least) more like vengeance than like justice. And that cannot be good for either the ideal of justice in a nascent state or the more pedestrian concerns of public image in governance.

- acgraves

January 5, 2007 at 10:36am