ZOMG! Saddam Trial Shocker!
It’s death!
I’m not opposed to trying tyrants for their atrocities. I oppose the death penalty, but for everybody – I have no special soft spot for sparing the lives of murderous rulers. But the Dujail case is bullshit in a couple of ways: First, it’s Saddam Hussein reacting to an attack in time of war in exactly the way that many of our brightest conservative lights have argued that we should react, backed up by innumerable guys in bars – the difference being that Saddam gave the residents of Dujail the formality of a trial first, while the boards of the American Spectator and the New York Post would just let the bombs fly. His actions also dovetail nicely with the theory of the unitary executive. Second, Dujail was obviously chosen for its convenience: trials on Saddam’s later atrocities would give Saddam’s defense team an opportunity to drag into evidence too many inconvenient truths about the footsie his regime played with the Reagan Administration during the time of, oh, the far greater enormities of Halabja and Anfal.
Chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Moussawi told reporters that the Anfal trial now in progress for Saddam and others alleged role in gassing and killing Kurds would continue while the appeals process is underway. But if the appellate judges uphold the death sentence, the Anfal proceedings and other cases would be halted and Saddam hanged.
How convenient!
When I say the Dujail case is “bullshit” I’m not saying that the crime itself was no crime. It was a mass reprisal based on evidence collected under torture with little in the way of a fair chance for the accused to exonerate themselves, a punishment designed as much to terrify onlookers as bring justice to the guilty. All bad stuff. No matter who does it. We are already doing some of the kind of thing ourselves. Too many people in this country want us to do more of it.
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
November 5, 2006 @ 9:56 am
The principle of conservative jurisprudence is that it’s OK if you’re a Republican. Er, American. Well, there’s no difference.
Someone’s going to have read some of the prophetic books of the Old Testament to GOP supporters sometime. Guess what, they aren’t really about “prophecy” as in “and now I’m going to predict the future”. They’re about “prophecy” as in “supporters of victor’s justice, and rich man’s justice, God has a surprise for you.”
Comment by Alex —
November 5, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
Look, we liberated the Iraqis from a guy who believed in collective punishment. If the fighting doesn’t end soon, we may have no choice but to get tough and indiscriminate in fighting them.
The collective punishment will continue until morale improves.
Comment by Jerry —
November 5, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
It was a phony show-trial, orchestrated by Bush and his fellow krauts. They went through haf a dozen judges before they found one willing to make the hit on Saddam. The whole thing stinks.
Comment by whig —
November 5, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
Hypocrisy is the principle of “It’s Okay If I Do It.” A less cumbersome semi-acronym is IDIOT.
Comment by Jon H —
November 5, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
“It was a mass reprisal based on evidence collected under torture with little in the way of a fair chance for the accused to exonerate themselves, a punishment designed as much to terrify onlookers as bring justice to the guilty. ”
I’m sure John Yoo would think it permissible.
Comment by Francis —
November 5, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
Apparently the US and British do not seem to understand that these guys will fight them to the end.No dealing with colonial Africa here eh!…The death of this man is not going to change anything.An excellent farce.Maybe when we realize that the Baath Party is a pan arabic political organization and not an Iraqi one then we will understand the mess that we wallow in.If only we would take a page out of Hadrian’s book instead of Trajan’s.
Comment by Nell —
November 6, 2006 @ 12:17 am
Jim, what’s your response to Hilzoy’s post at Obsidian Wings?
Comment by Jim Henley —
November 6, 2006 @ 7:41 am
Nell, I kind of don’t get what response you think is needed.
Comment by BruceR —
November 6, 2006 @ 10:39 am
Nell, no offense, but Hilzoy’s relating of this trial and this crime to Hussein’s other, more grievous sins, is something like explaining why nailing Capone only for his tax evasion was justified. (Not that it wasn’t, mind.) I appreciate prosecutors pursue the case they think they can win, not the case they hope to win, but I didn’t think that rule applied to show trials.
Comment by Barry —
November 6, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
BruceR, I’d put Hilzoy’s effort at explaining Capone being nailed for tax evasion, without pointing out that (in this analogical world) it was because the Feds were too closely tied to Capone to bring him to trial for his racketeering.