Mixed Feelings About Saddam's Execution

I thought my feelings about this were simple -- he's an evil man, his continued presence is a provocation, good riddance -- but the more I read about it, the more complicated and strongly ambivalent (heh) my feelings become.

Reading about European scruples and vapors about the death penalty, my gut instinct is that there is something barbaric and bloodthirsty about our majority American attitude toward it that is young and healthy, while there is something etiolated and vitiated about the sophisticated shrinking from wanting to see someone like Saddam pay the ultimate price.  If anything, his death by hanging was too quick and merciful.  A tyrant can take hundreds of thousands of lives, and ruin millions more, yet has only one of his own to pay.

But reading about the execution itself, how rushed and politicized it was, I see that it was not an act of justice in any sober sense but an act of sectarian revenge and triumphalism by the Shi'ites.  Many in the execution chamber acted like vigilantes at a lynching:

A new video that appeared on the Internet late Saturday, apparently made by a witness with a camera cellphone, underscored the unruly, mocking atmosphere in the execution chamber.

This continued, on the video, through the actual hanging itself, with a shout of “The tyrant has fallen! May God curse him!” as Mr. Hussein hung lifeless, his neck snapped back and his glassy eyes open.

The cacophony from those gathered before the gallows included a shout of “Go to hell!” as the former ruler stood with the noose around his neck in the final moments, and his riposte, barely audible above the bedlam, which included the words “gallows of shame.” It continued despite appeals from an official-sounding voice, possibly Munir Haddad, the judge who presided at the hanging, saying, “Please no! The man is about to die.”

The Shiites who predominated at the hanging began a refrain at one point of “Moktada! Moktada! Moktada!”— the name of a volatile cleric whose private militia has spawned death squads that have made an indiscriminate industry of killing Sunnis — appending it to a Muslim imprecation for blessings on the Prophet Muhammad. “Moktada,” Mr. Hussein replied, smiling contemptuously. “Is this how real men behave?”

American officials in Iraq have been reluctant to say much publicly about the pell-mell nature of the hanging, apparently fearful of provoking recriminations in Washington, where the Bush administration adopted a hands-off posture, saying the timing of the execution was Iraq’s to decide. [ ... ]

None of the Iraqi officials were able to explain why Mr. Maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait. Nor would any explain why those who conducted it had allowed it to deteriorate into a sectarian free-for-all that had the effect, on the video recordings, of making Mr. Hussein, a mass murderer, appear dignified and restrained, and his executioners, representing Shiites who were his principal victims, seem like bullying street thugs.

Granted that the Shi'a suffered horribly under Saddam, we don't turn murderers over to their victims' families.  We dissolve their grief and rage in the larger dispassion and compassion of the law, so that it seasons judgment but doesn't overwhelm it.  The same bloody and barbaric impulse that, held on a rein, makes justice forceful, is raw and ugly when allowed to run wild.

In Iraq's current circumstances, besides, this can only be seen as the U.S. throwing a bone to the Shi'ites -- in penance for having abandoned them after Gulf War I, in self-interested scheming for alliance with what may be seen as Iraq's inevitable rulers, just by the numbers.  Whatever the motives, truckling to the Shi'ites can only further inflame the tendency toward civil war, as Arab critics of the execution pointed out.

“It is evident that they were not after justice,” said Hilal Khashan, a political science professor at the American University of Beirut. “It was a political decision, because as soon as they got a sentence on him they executed him. What mattered was his death rather than finding justice.” [ ... ]

“It looks like they just wanted to take revenge in a vulgar way; that was their gift to the Shia for the feast,” said Khalid al-Dakhil, assistant professor of political sociology at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, referring to Shiites, who were oppressed under Mr. Hussein and now control Iraq.

“Bush and al-Maliki thought they could benefit from this, but this is going to backfire,” he added [ ... ]. “Saddam’s execution is going to feed sectarianism and contribute to more bloodshed.”

A third factor is weighing the disruptive influence of Saddam's ongoing presence and trial against the disruptive effect of his hasty death.  I can't help remembering the long Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings into the crimes of apartheid in South Africa that at times made even their creator, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, sob.  Even if the goal in Iraq had been harsh judgment and not the Christian forgiveness of Tutu's controversial vision, the cathartic and cleansing effect of such testimony might have been needed to lance the deep abscesses of hatred that canker Iraq.  Yet a society whose crying need is simple security perhaps is not stable enough to support such a process.

Now it emerges that the Americans weren't happy with the rush to execution but were "reluctant to speak out [ ... ] for fear of undermining Mr. Maliki and worsening the situation."

Comments

[Internet Ronin]

Oh, I don't know. Whenever I run into public second-guessing of this nature, I tend to fall into "It's over with and there's no changing that" mode, as in "it is all usually unproductive nonsense designed to further some other agenda."

As for the good professor (why am I not surprised he is at the American University?), his comments remind me of the "Arab street" predicitons.

Saddam alive or dead doesn't matter in the end as sectarian violence would continue apace regardless. It is true, however, that now that he's dead, he can't be freed or restored to power. (Martyrdom? For Saddam? In Western Europe, no doubt.)

More to your point: "we don't turn murderers over to their victims' families." No, we don't, but not be flip about: we aren't them. Their country, their culture, their rules.

Funny you should mention European scruples, I ran across an article that reported a poll of Europeans found widespread public support for his execution. (Didn't care enough to fact-check, though.)

[Internet Ronin]

oops - hit POST instead of PREVIEW.
So much for reconsideration before posting. As one who specializes in not printing lots of comments after all, I'm tempted to say, "On second thought, never mind."

[Sissy Willis]

"Granted that the Shi'a suffered horribly under Saddam" . . . That sounds like Yes, but. I am stopped by the horrible suffering and could never get to but. I'm also not buying the rush-to-hanging narrative. Says who?

[david]

I'm glad you posted this. I first read W's comments about Saddam getting a taste of the justice he denied his victims. Then I watched the cell-phone videos of the hanging and thought, Holy crap, this isn't carefully calibrated justice, this is mob revenge. The whole thing had the air of a mugging gone bad.

Which makes me think that Saddam's neck was a bargaining chip, and the US must have gotten -- or thought it would get -- something meaningful in return.

[reader_iam]

US must have gotten -- or thought it would get -- something meaningful in return

I simply don't accept that the way the execution was conducted about us or our responsibility. Not EVERYTHING is about us or our fault. Sometimes it IS about OTHER'S cultures and standards. Really!

Sometimes I just get really fed up with the bashing.

[david]

Reader:

Once again, you've taken a simple observation and observed narcissism and blame assessment where there was none. You might want to make note of that tendency.

The simple fact is, Saddam's custody was a matter that the US controlled. He was handed over by the US to his executioners. That meant that the US made a choice as to his handover, knowing full well what the consequences would be. What would cause the US to do that?

That is not a rhetorical question.

[karen]

David, the court found Saddam guilty so wouldn't the control automatically pass from the US to thsoe w/the power to carry out the sentence of hanging?

Just thank God it wasn't a public hanging or even a physical mutilation or beheading(which was what a lot of folks wanted, i'll bet). This culture should not be controlled by us(the US) although the whole point was to give this country the power and freedom to be able to do what it just did. Does that make sense?

Anyway, it is behind us- and i'm glad amba noted that the US wasn't thrilled w/the way it was carried out; but, rushed? As Sissy points out- for whom? And, why not? What is to be gained by holding him from his fate?

Happy New Year to you all- & David? Reader is reader, you know? I'm sure she doesn't mean to offend, she's just... herself :0). I like her ways- maybe because i'm the total opposite and remind myself of our dog- crawling around on my belly and trying to foretell reactions to me before they happen. Thankfully, i draw the line at licking shoes.

[Internet Ronin]

Well, David, let's see ...
this isn't carefully calibrated justice

I can basically agree with that. It rarely is, in most countries of the world. Why should Iraq be different? That said, he had his day in court, such as it was. Or are you one of those who believes in imposing American cultural and political values upon other nations?

Saddam's custody was a matter that the US controlled.

To a point, yes. On behalf of the Iraqi government, it should be noted. They had every right to demand his turnover. Their system of justice had run its course. At that point, what legitimate justification do you believe the United States had for refusing their request?

That meant that the US made a choice as to his handover, knowing full well what the consequences would be.

Well, of course they did. That's an unnecessary statement of the obvious, IMO.

What would cause the US to do that?

National self-interest for starters.

Here's a better question: What will the United States get for handing him over?

Answer: Grief from others.

What would the United States get for not handing him over?

Answer: Grief from others.

[david]

Ronin:

Bravo.

It doesn't matter what I believe or what I advocate. There was no statement of belief or advocacy anywhere in my original comment, which was a simple observation, with a question appended about the political calculus involved in the timing of the handover of Saddam to the Iraqis. So I see no reason to answer your question.

And this is what caused the ire in my second comment above: the propensity on the part of others to read belief and advocacy where in fact there is none. As a Swarthmore professor noted in a Chicago Tribune article today, about which I posted -- we're not going to read political posturing into the fact that I'm quoting a Swarthmore professor, are we? -- the profusion of media means we're less and less likely to encounter ideas we disagree with -- or react in a civil manner when we do encounter them.

Your answer to what we'll get for handing Saddam over is as obvious, IMO, as my obvious remarks you alluded to above: Grief. We'll get grief. Well, of course we will.

But what else will we get? Still not a rhetorical or a politically pointed question. All I'm asking is: was there a negotiation with the Iraqis? If so, what was on the table? What was given, and what was gotten?

[amba]

When I said, "We don't hand murderers over to our victims' families," I meant just that: "we" don't. Maybe "they" do. It's one thing I like about our still very flawed system of justice. There's a lot wrong with it. I don't get how some convicted and confessed murderers (serial killers who led police to the bodies, e.g.) can delay their death sentences for years or decades yet innocent, wrongly convicted men can be executed. I think the death penalty should be reserved for really egregious cases that are not just "beyond a reasonable doubt" but beyond any doubt at all. And at bottom line, when I am for it, it's less for "justice" (as noted, one life is poor payment for tens or for millions) or as a deterrent (which it isn't), but to get rid of people (like sexual serial killers and brutal dictators) who are incorrigibly dangerous, more so than the pit bulls and tigers we shoot after they've mauled one human.

Judges and juries are human, prosecutors and defense lawyers make deals . . . and still, our system is better. I'm not saying we should have imposed it on the Iraqis or that it's not their right to do it their way. I'm only saying that my own feelings about it are more mixed than they were now that I've read more about it.

[Internet Ronin]

David - It seems to me that if anyone even asks you a question, or makes an seemingly apporpriate observation, you allege they are inserting words into your mouth. I genuinely tried to avoid that.

As you are apparently uninterested in answering questions and not genuinely interested in any answers to your questions, the question is, why do you bother to even ask the questions in the first place?

A reasonable person could a few obvious answers. I won't suggest any - you've done such a good job of providing the proper hints.

P.S. You're not going to get answers to your final set of questions here because no one here is likely to be sufficiently in the know to provide them, and you know that.

Besides, your questions are purely rhetorical in nature, as evidenced by your repeated refusal to provide elucidation or engage in conversation. Whether they are politically pointed is self-evident, I think.

[Internet Ronin]

CORRECTION: "a reasonable person could suggest a few obvious..."

[Internet Ronin]

I think the death penalty should be reserved for really egregious cases that are not just "beyond a reasonable doubt" but beyond any doubt at all. And at bottom line, when I am for it, it's less for "justice" (as noted, one life is poor payment for tens or for millions) or as a deterrent (which it isn't), but to get rid of people (like sexual serial killers and brutal dictators) who are incorrigibly dangerous, more so than the pit bulls and tigers we shoot after they've mauled one human.

I wholeheartedly concur. My sentiments percisely. To a virtual T (or is it tee? - I don't know - you're the editor, you probably do ;)

yet innocent, wrongly convicted men can be executed.

AFAIK, a single instance of this happening in modern times in this nation has yet to be substantiated.

[Internet Ronin]

I keep hitting the wrong button!!! Post when I mean preview. Sorry about that. Apologies for all the typos.

[m. takhallus]

Ronin:

Given that we have used DNA technology to free quite literally hundreds of wrongly convicted people from death row, and given that DNA technology is a rather recent addition, and given that DNA is available in only a tiny percentage of cases, I think it would take a huge leap of faith to assume that we have NOT executed innocent people. I think it is overwhelmingly likely that we have executed innocent people.

[m. takhallus]

Correction: not hundreds, plural. The number stands at 188.

That's 188 men who were sentenced to death who have been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be innocent.

It is simply not tenable to assume that our system is foolproof. It is demonstrably not. Clearly we have executed innocent men.

[Randy (Internet Ronin)]

M. Takhallus: I'm exceedingly uncomfortable making any assumption based on faith, and did not here. I think we can agree that whether or not it is "overwhelmingly likely" is a matter of interpretation. I do not choose to make any interpetation.

While I have not seen numbers that add up to hundred of people being released from death row through the use of DNA, I am fully aware that some have, and thus my agreement with amba, that the death penalty, if imposed at all, should only be imposed when there is absolutely no doubt, not the the somewhat dubious standard of probable doubt when the answer can lead to death for the accused.

[Randy (Internet Ronin)]

Cross posted I see ;-) For the record here: I don't for a minute assume our system is foolproof. Personally, I have no doubt that an innocent person has probably gone to their death in a miscarriage of justice (and more than one, at that), but I have absolutely no evidence to support my personal belief.

In a nutshell, just because the probability of something happening is quite high does not allow us to magically transform it into proven fact. It just isn't.

As I'm not an advocate of the death penalty, I'm not thrilled by the spectre of being considered one. As I said, I think it should be an exceedingly rare judgment.

[david]

Ronin:

It's interesting that on the one had you're "exceedingly uncomfortable making any assumption based on faith," but so comfortable making other kinds of assumptions.

You say that "no one here is sufficiently in the know to provide" answers to my questions. That's never stopped anyone from taking a stab at it, you included. Hypothesis about the underlying motives and forces behind the timing of Saddam's execution is a large part of what journalists, blogs, and blog-commenters do.

It's not words in my mouth I'm concerned about; it's your own foot in yours that's holding up the conversation.

[Randy (Internet Ronin)]

Amba: Since everything else I've said here this morning does not appear to have been clear:

When I said, "We don't hand murderers over to our victims' families," I meant just that: "we" don't. Maybe "they" do. It's one thing I like about our still very flawed system of justice. There's a lot wrong with it.

I agree with that, as well. It is not perfect (and never will be, alas). Always room for improvement, as DNA has shown. And we should never cease striving for a better system.

At the same time, I regret to report that I remain sufficiently cynical to believe that money, or lack of it, will always exercise undue influence over the vast majority of trials. And political show trials that pander to public prejudice, such as that of Martha Stewart, will continue.

[Randy (Internet Ronin)]

Gee, if you say so, David. I guess that explains your cryptic replies. Happy 007, David.

[david]

Ronin:

Sorry. Guess I'd better up the meds.

Happy 007 to you, too.

[karen]

More eggnog, anyone? LOL

[Randy (Internet Ronin)]

That's one sure way to clear a room, Karen! LOL

BTW, thanks for the reminder, David. Really. I was having such a good time I forgot about my own (only one of which is psych-related and that is unrelated to argumentation, save perhaps a potential for complete lack of interest in it or anything else ;-)

[david]

Well, I guess ya can't say I didn't do anything for you today, eh, Ronin? ;)

Karen: I'll be right over for that nog. Way to keep the party going.

[amba]

That's one way to self-medicate!

[reader_iam]

David: You're right. Thanks for the mirror.

[ainelivia]

Putting aside any issues about who did what, and being a European, this leaves a very bad taste, and an even worse one in the pit of my stomach.

Not only was SH's execution done in haste, our media showed footage to a certain point, (I'd prefer none) and someone phone-videoed it and puts on internet.

There's a certain hot-potato juggling with "responsibility" for the act, and that though in Europe we do not have the "death penalty", and had he been tried at The Hague, there would have been none; and the almost silence of our political leaders.

This dampened my New Year Celebrations, and leaves me wondering, what purpose exactly has been served?

Emerson's words seem appropriate here, "... and that the form of government which prevails, is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population that permits it".