Saddam's Execution

Some interesting posts out there related to the execution of Saddam Hussein.

I found Krauthammer's piece convincing.  He argues that the execution was botched.  A missed opportunity ... like the trial was.  I too wondered why Hussein was executed for the murder of 132 Shiites. What about nerve gassing the Kurds?  Further, the goons in the death chamber who were chanting 'Moqtada' did little to inspire my confidence in the new Iraqi system of justice.

The execution raises the moral argument about the means and the ends.  Saddam deserved to be executed.  The end was just ... but was the means?  Like many Americans, I am at peace with the end result of this execution ... but not the manner in which this execution was executed.

Even more disturbing to me was my fascination with it.  Especially the ability to click on it and watch it.  No, I did not watch the grainy image of Saddam falling through the gallows and his head bent backward at a 90 degree angle to his body as he dangled.  But, I was tempted to ... it was one click away.

Kathleen Parker highlights the disturbing implication of the fascination with watching people die in her essay Clicking On Death.  Technorati had Saddam's death video as the number one search.  What does that say about us?  I would say we are still like those Romans who attended the gladiator fights and cheered wildly at the spectacle.

Parker probably goes a wee bit overboard in claiming we are all executioners ... but her point about people wanting to watch it is a cogent one.

She also makes an interesting comment.

"The case against capital punishment might be better reserved for a more sympathetic character than Saddam Hussein."

I disagree.  Here is the deal.  The case against capital punishment has to work on Saddam Hussein or it does not work at all.   Sympathy should have nothing to do with the argument.  The argument must stand or fall on its merits ... even if the object of the execution is Saddam Hussein or Timothy McVey.

Government is given the mantle of ensuring and protecting justice and preserving order.  I would like to see a strong moral argument that shows how capital punishment weakens those purposes.

A botched execution argues that the process needs to be fixed ... but that does convince me that the government ordered death of a sadistic mass murderer weakens justice or promotes disorder.

Thoughts?

Comments

[tgirsch]

I too wondered why Hussein was executed for the murder of 132 Shiites. What about nerve gassing the Kurds?

The answer probably has a lot to do with what would have come out in the investigation and trial for the gassing of the Kurds. There's a lot of history there involving, as one blogger put it, the US "playing footsie" with Hussein, often directly involving people who are members of or have recently departed from the current US administration. They'd rather not have that history brought back out into the open, especially not on such a prominent international stage.

But I, too, am disturbed by the fascination with Hussein's execution, albeit for somewhat different reasons than yours. Don't get me wrong, I have no love for Hussein, but what did his execution accomplish, really? What wrongs were righted? What other dictator is realistically going to think twice and change his ways based on this? I think the chances of any deterrent effect are vanishingly small. Taken together, as the "goons" in the crowd indicate, this execuation was not about justice at all; it was about revenge.

And conceding that the crimes of Hussein were many orders of magnatude worse than those involved in the story, what of the lessons of John 8?

[Rachael]

I have a question. What do you mean by a "botched execution"? Please clear this up for me.

I, too, was disturbed by the fascination with the execution. I can't understand why someone would want to watch that. I know how easy it is to see it, but that isn't much of a reason to me to see it.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"The answer probably has a lot to do with what would have come out in the investigation and trial for the gassing of the Kurds. There's a lot of history there involving, as one blogger put it, the US "playing footsie" with Hussein"

Except everyone knows we played footsie with Hussein back in the era when Tehran was holding Americans captive. That is not news. Now, if you are suggesting that Americans were complicit or helpful in gassing the Kurds, that is news. If that is indeed what you might be suggesting ... I ain't buying it.

"what did his execution accomplish, really?"

It declares that it is wrong to be a sadistic mass murderer. It declares that evildoers can be punished in the strictest of ways ... and that even sadistic mass murders deserve a fair trial and justice. It says that the rule of law ought to be respected and followed ... even if you are a murdering maniacal dictator.

"What wrongs were righted?"

The injustice against humanity which would have been committed by allowing such a murderous sadistic man to live out his days and die of old age.

"What other dictator is realistically going to think twice and change his ways based on this?"

Don't know and don't care. A murderous sadistic person is going to do what murderous sadistic people do. The question is what is the just thing to do to such a person when it is in our power to administer justice. Should we allow such a person to grow old and live out his days on earth ... or not.

"Taken together, as the "goons" in the crowd indicate, this execution was not about justice at all; it was about revenge."

I am afraid I will have to agree with you there. And it should not have been that way. It should have been about justice. Like Krauthammer said, "botched."

[Mr. Dawntreader]

"I have a question. What do you mean by a "botched execution"? Please clear this up for me."

The actual execution of the execution was botched. Meaning it should have been done quietly and without fanfare. It had the appearance of a ghoulish linching ... a circus. No one deserves that indignity ... not even Saddam Hussein. He should have been executed privately and then pictures of his deceased body shown to the Iraqi public.

Justice would have been served. Revenge is not the point ... justice is. Tgirsch is correct to say that this execution degenerated into an opportunity for revenge for the thugs who attended.

"I, too, was disturbed by the fascination with the execution. I can't understand why someone would want to watch that. I know how easy it is to see it, but that isn't much of a reason to me to see it."

People are basically sick in the soul. Have been since the Fall. It actually does not surprise me that people take a weird interest in watching others die.

Now that we live in the age of YouTube, look for more ghoulish death videos to become the rage.

[Rachael]

You know, maybe another reason that people have such a fascination with dying is because they want to know what it's like. No one has died and come back to tell us what it feels like; we have to find out on our own. We don't want to wait, as usual - we want to know now! So maybe watching death occur scares people a little, but they are trying to glean information about what death is and what it's like.
In this case, hopefully curiosity won't kill the cat...

[Paul]

I don't remember where I saw this argument, but the point was made that the US is currently holding people found on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan 3 years after the event because they might have actionable intelligence. How much more, then, could we have learned from someone in Hussein's position? To use the kind of certainty that the current administration likes to deploy, killing Hussein now has made us objectively less safe.

And as to the idea that he was entitled to a fair trial, while I agree, it appears that he didn't get one (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/world/middleeast/07ticktock.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=976add78349ba68c&hp=&ex=1168146000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

It's hard to imagine that he could, to be honest, but that doesn't remove the need.

[Danny Kaye]

Regarding the way the trial and execution were carried out, I think it is important to remember that Iraqi's are not Americans. They do not have the "benefit" of having been taught what we have been taught. We are taught that we are not to administer cruel and unusual punishment to criminals. They have had no such teachings. They have only experienced a hateful, hurtful, stone-aged society for the past several hundred years. The things they believe and have experienced are archaic to those in the first world.

I have to hand it to the Iraqis who oversaw the trial and execution. They did it as best as they could, for where they are in our world's society. They quite easily could have just let Saddam go into the streets and let the public "have at him."

And yes, I understand that the US troops were most likely there to make sure that didn't happen. But from what little I saw of the trials and the news reports of the execution, they did a fantastic job of controlling their emotions. That society (and dare I say, human nature, in general) is prone to letting their emotions get away from them. We have seen it time and again with those from the Middle East.

[tgirsch]

Jeff:

Setting aside for the moment that the "footsie" mainly took place eight years after the hostage-taking in question, the US was indeed guilty of, at a minimum, looking the other way when Saddam gassed the Kurds. See this George Mason Universtity article on the subject. That certainly meets my definition of "complicit," although I'm not sure about yours. I've seen even better sources, but this was the best I could find on short notice.

Frankly, I'm more than a little bit surprised how willing you seem to be to ignore or minimize US actions during that period. This seems to be quite counter to your character. I've never known you to excuse two wrongs as being a right before.

It declares that it is wrong to be a sadistic mass murderer.

The only way to declare this is to kill him? His ongoing emasculation and humiliation wasn't message enough? That doesn't seem terribly Christian to me, although my understanding of Christianity has been flawed before. I know from my experience with the Catholic Church that from their perspective, the only time executions are sanctionable is when such executions are the only way to protect innocent humans from further harm (which the Church concedes is essentially "never" in the modern world).

The injustice against humanity which would have been committed by allowing such a murderous sadistic man to live out his days and die of old age.

Poppycock. He wasn't going to a country club, you know. And in any case, I'm not sure allowing him to live in a none-too-pleasant imprisonment would constitute an "injustice against humanity."

The question is what is the just thing to do to such a person when it is in our power to administer justice.

No. The question, as Christians commonly like to ask, is "What would Jesus do?" Search your heart, and tell me with a straight face that you can imagine Jesus calling for and sanctioning someone's execution -- even someone like Saddam Hussein. I certainly cannot, and I can think of no quote attributed to Jesus, nor any scriptural passage involving him, that can be construed as sanctioning such an execution. (Sorry, but for these purposes, Paul doesn't count. I want it straight from the Savior's mouth.)

It should have been about justice.

That's precisely my point. And one of the points I take away from John 8. Executions are never about justice. They are always, to some measure or another, about revenge.

I guess that, in the end, I'm stunned by your attitude toward this. It tells me that even to you, normally one of the kindest, most forgiving people I've ever encountered, there are some who are undeserving of mercy. I didn't think that was our judgment to make.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Danny:

Picture what typically happens to dictators when the mob gets their hands on them. Images of Mussolini on a meat hook comes to mind. Your point about the equanamity of the trial is a good one -- especially when seen in light of history.

My father-in-law made a cogent point. He told me I have no idea what it must feel like to what your family members tortured and butchered in front of you. When put that way, the emotion that was vented against Saddam in the death chamber is understandable. We, in America, are detached. Not only do we function from a different grid (worldview), we don't know what it is like to have the government come and pull our loved ones out of their home, tortured, and then shot in the head.

Perhaps I need to cut these 'goons' some slack.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

T,

Your definition of complicit opens up just about every US Administration since the Washington administration to the charge of complicity in genocide ... given that genocides around the world are nothing new. Getting into the geopolitics of dealing with genocide represents a huge hijack of this thread. Let's stick to capital punishment.

"I know from my experience with the Catholic Church that from their perspective, the only time executions are sanctionable is when such executions are the only way to protect innocent humans from further harm (which the Church concedes is essentially "never" in the modern world)."

And do you agree with this position?

This position would seem to justify assasination in the name of saving lives -- because dictators are the most dangerous when they are still in power.

"What would Jesus do?"

Jesus would do God's will. The question is, what is will of the Father in regards to the role of human government in this world? A strong argument, as far as I am concerned, needs to faithfully apply God's revealed word using Biblical principles and sound hermeneutics. Jesus had a high view of scripture and is appalled, I imagine, to watch people who claim his name cherry pick certain things from scripture that they like -- and ignore other parts of God's word, all based on personal preference and ideology.

If you are going to make a Biblical argument, you can't pick a verse or a chapter in isolation and expect that to be a compelling argument. "Christians" who do that ought to be ashamed ... and atheists shouldn't do it either ;-)

"It tells me that even to you, normally one of the kindest, most forgiving people I've ever encountered, there are some who are undeserving of mercy.

I didn't think that was our judgment to make."

That is a heck of a nice thing to say about someone. Thank you.

No one deserves mercy. Not even me.

Justice is getting what you deserve. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. Grace is getting what you don't deserve.

By definition, I don't deserve mercy and neither do you.

Now, ought we forgive others? Yes. We are called to do that. Are we called to love mercy? Yes.

We are also called to walk justly and to love justice. And, to submit to authority.

We need to take the entire corpus of Biblical revelation and act on it.

The topic at hand is government sanctioned executions. Do they violate the government's God ordained mission to preserve order and extend justice?

You have made some emotional arguments based on your personal feelings ... but none that I can see that addresses the core issue of the role of government and whether capital punishment diminishes that role or enhances that role.

[kevin]

Jeff

This was too long for a comment, but her eis an answer to your question:

http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2007/01/09/5893/

And, briefly:
"And, to submit to authority."

But never blindly, and never to an unjust authority.

[tgirsch]

Jeff:
we don't know what it is like to have the government come and pull our loved ones out of their home, tortured, and then shot in the head.

We Caucasian Americans may suffer from this, but there are plenty of African-Americans (and probably even some Asian-Americans) still alive today who would beg to differ with your assessment of our first-hand knowledge.

Your definition of complicit opens up just about every US Administration since the Washington administration to the charge of complicity in genocide

Even if true, does that make it okay? Seriously, for someone who hates arguments from moral relativism, you sure do seem to be engaging in exactly that here. But honestly, I'm not so sure my definition of "complicit" is as you think it is. It's not just that we failed to stop it or punish it or condemn it in anything other than vague proclamations (many of which the executive administrations at the time opposed); it's that we continued to actively support the regime, both financially and materially, despite our knowledge that it was happening. That isn't some namby-pamby low bar of complicity. Are you really saying that every president since Washington has been guilty of that level of complicity? Actively supporting and helping the cause of dictators who engage in genocide? Methinks you're biting off more than you can chew here.

In addition to that, there's evidence to suggest that the US and other Western nations provided some of the materials used in those attacks. It's not a slam-dunk case, of course, but it's not a spurious allegation, either.

Getting into the geopolitics of dealing with genocide represents a huge hijack of this thread.

I disagree. You asked why Hussein was executed for the relatively minor offense, and not tried for the gasing of the Kurds. The "geopolitics of dealing with genocide" are, in my estimation, precisely why it played out the way it did (and I'm not alone in that assessment). That discussion was directly relevant to a question you asked in this very post, and therefore not a threadjack. :)

And do you agree with this position?

By and large, yes, I do.

This position would seem to justify assasination in the name of saving lives -- because dictators are the most dangerous when they are still in power.

Not really. Again, such assassination has to be the only way to prevent further harm, and you have to be able to absolutely guarantee that no one other than the dictator is harmed. No such assassination technique exists.

From that perspective, getting a brutal dictator to step down and accept exile (an option some in Europe wanted to make available, but the US and UK objected) would still be preferable to executing or assassinating him.

Jesus had a high view of scripture and is appalled, I imagine, to watch people who claim his name cherry pick certain things from scripture that they like -- and ignore other parts of God's word, all based on personal preference and ideology.

There's a pot-kettle argument in there somewhere, I just know it! :) But I wasn't trying to make a holistic Biblical argument. I was arguing from Jesus' ministry, which is only a very small subset of the Bible. (And isn't anything Jesus does "God's will," by definition? Seems like kind of a cop-out to say he'd "do God's will...")

We are also called to walk justly and to love justice.

Which brings us back around to whether execution actually equates to "justice." I submit that it does not. I further submit that the Biblical case (yes, the whole Bible) to equate execution with justice is quite weak (although this is going to depend on whether you interpret Peter's dream in Acts as a parable or literally).

I'd also add that setting aside whether or not mercy is "deserved," we're called upon to live our lives (and treat others) following the examples set by Jesus through his actions. That's why I framed the question as "What would Jesus do?" Jesus never resorted to violence (unless knocking over a table counts), and scolded those who did. Are we to ignore this aspect of his ministry?

And, to submit to authority.

Suppose a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. Suppose further that said Democrat, in conjunction with a Democratic congress, manages to get a constitutional amendment passed that outlaws Christianity. Would you submit to this authority? And before you start splitting hairs about earthly versus heavenly authority, allow me to remind you that some here (may even have been you) have cited the Romans 13 in equating earthly and heavenly authority; basically, saying that the people in charge are there because it's God's will for them to be there.

Do they violate the government's God ordained mission to preserve order and extend justice?

The more basic question is, do they have the effect of preserving order and extending justice? I submit that they do not. And if they do not, then although they may not violated the government's "God ordained mission," they don't advance it, either.

but none that I can see that addresses the core issue of the role of government and whether capital punishment diminishes that role or enhances that role.

See Kevin's post on the subject at Lean Left. But in addition to that, I'd like to add that I disagree with your assessment of my arguments. I'm not making emotional appeals at all; I'm making reasoned arguments based on the presumption that executions do not advance the cause of justice. You don't share that presumption.

[tgirsch]

An addendum: Suppose there's even a small amount of doubt about whether executions advance justice. On which side do you suppose we should err? On the side of kililng someone, or on the side of not killing someone?

[Danny Kaye]

AAAUUURRGGHHHH!!!! I left a comment here yesterday and forgot to scroll down to the bottom after the preview. It's to long to write again, nor would I remember all of it.

Mr. Treader, I love your site. I find myself having most of my favorite blogging conversations here. And I will continue to do so. But might I ask, for the sake of forgetful morons like myself (no offense if you have done the same thing) that the spamblocker text box be moved to the top of the comment posting page so that we don't forget to type the letters?

I understand if you don't. It's your site.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

ARRRGG! I feel your pain. However, I feel the pain of spam even worse. So be careful and make sure your comment gets posted before navigating away from the page. Sorry we lost your comment. I am sure it would have enriched the discussion.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Tom and Kevin,

I hope I can reply to your arguments and lengthy post over at Lean Left.

I appreciate your interest in the subject. You are getting me to think through my position.

My main problem is time. I have a lot going on ... and all of it ranks higher than my blogging hobby ... c'est la vie.

If I get around to posting, I'll trackback you so you know.