The judges at the Iraqi High (formerly “Special”) Tribunal today sentenced Saddam Hussein to death by hanging for his role in the 1982 killing/execution of 148 people in the town of Dujail. Two other former Iraqi officials also received the death sentence in this case.
AP’s account linked to there, from Hamza Hendawi in Baghdad, notes that back in March Saddam argued that he alone had been responsible for the Dujail killings, which he described as executions undertaken by his government in the wake of an assassination attempt launched against him in the town. The assassination plot had apparently been organized by the Islamic Daawa Party– that is, the party of the current Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
Hendawi added that, “About 50 of those sentenced [to death] by the ‘Revolutionary Court’ [in 1982] died during interrogation before they could go to the gallows. Some of those hanged were children.”
At this point, I don’t think it’s very helpful to get into a discussion of whether Saddam “deserves” to be executed because of his past actions– though I readily grant that many of those were extremely heinous.
Actually, can any human power at this point deliver “just desserts” to someone who has committed actions like those undertaken by Saddam, Joseph Kony, or other perpetrators of extremely harmful deeds? How would we even start to think about what “just desserts” might be in such cases? As we say in the anti-death penalty movement here in the US: “Do we rape rapists? So why do we think it’s okay to kill killers?”
Also, do we want to be the sort of people who support the extinction of human life under any guise at all, or with any justification?
… Just some questions. But as I said, I don’t want to dwell on issues of what Saddam “deserves”. I want to focus instead on the broad social effects of this death penalty against him and his comrades.
I note, first, that the death penalty most likely won’t be carried out for a while. His lawyers have the right to appeal. An appeals bench will then give a final ruling, and within 30 days of that ruling being given the sentence must be carried out.
What shape will Iraq be in that many weeks into the future, anyway? And during those weeks, what effects can this pending execution be expected to have on the country’s national community?
So anyway, here are the three big questions about this whole affair that I think we need to focus on right now:
- (1) What effects will this death sentence have on the possibilities of national reconciliation, conflict prevention, and national liberation in Iraq?
(2) What effects will this death sentence and the work of the court more broadly have on the establishment and strengthening of the concept of “rule of law” in Iraq?
(3) Will the implementation of these sentences help to prevent the reconstitution of the network of oppression and violence that Saddam and his allies once operated in Iraq?
My first answers to these questions are as follows:
Regarding Question 1, it seems very clear that the whole trial (and the second trial, regarding the anti-Kurdish Anfal campaign, which is still underway), and now the handing down of these death sentences, have stoked internal tensions inside Iraq significantly, contributing to the high toll of deaths from sectarian polarization and considerably complicating the prospects of an easy national liberation from US occupation rule.
Regarding Question 2, it is already clear that the “new Iraq” ushered in under the US occupation is one with a very worrying track record in the rule-of-law sphere; and the workings of this tribunal– deeply flawed as they have been by numerous procedural irregularities, as well as by deep structural problems– have been part and parcel of this disregard for the rule of law.
(You can see some of my earlier writings on the (il-)legality of the court’s whole set-up here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.)
Regarding Question 3, in all my work on punishment theory, the incapacitation of the ability of evil-doers to re-offend is one of the few possibly valid justifications (or perhaps, the only possibly valid one) that I can see for punishment, at all. Has the work of the Iraqi High Tribunal helped to incapacitate Saddam’s ability to re-offend? I think not. From inside the courtroom he has continued to rally his former supporters in the “Red Zone” of Iraq, far beyond the courtroom (and such “due process” protections as he has received during the trial have helped him to do that… H’mmm.)
The “incapacitation” of Saddam and the Baathist networks that support him could theoretically have been achieved in one of two ways: through reform and reintegration into a new, more tolerant political order; or through outright suppression. Reform and reintegration of perpetrators of earlier heinous acts worked in the case of Renamo in Mozambique and the apartheid-era enforcers in South Africa. It is the approach now being seriously tried against Joseph Kony, in northern Uganda. As Abraham Lincoln notably said after the US Civil War: “The best way to stop my enemy being my enemy is to make him my friend.”
Reform and reintegration of Baathists (possibly including Saddam) into a “new” Iraq has never been seriously attempted by any of the post-invasion Iraqi regimes, including the present one. Instead, goaded on by Chalabi and many others with a strong grievance against Saddam, the post-invasion regimes have attempted suppression, often with extreme harshness. And that hasn’t worked either…
So Iraq is in the parlous state it currently finds itself in today… The trial and sentencing of Saddam Hussein has not, to be frank, probably made much difference in the course of events there. But the difference it has made has, in my mind, been nearly wholly negative. So much for the (completely a-political and a-historical) dreams of those abstract, jurisprudential idealists who hoped this trial could be a new “Nuremberg” or could usher in a moment of “Grotian”-level reform into the international system.
At the end of the day, no-one looking at conflict-wracked societies can avoid the need to deal with the urgent practical realities of history and politics.
I don’t agree that positive precedents were set by the ‘victors’ justice’ of Nuremberg.
It’s interesting that the book Profiles in Courage (attributed to John Kennedy but probably for the most part ghost-written) included Robert Taft’s criticisms of Nuremberg as an example of political courage.
I am not agree and sorry to say false its looks like you coverup who’s doing the killing by stating this but definitely US have hands with Iraqi blood from “deaths from sectarian polarization”….
Helena, you seek justices in place man made lawlessness because of US occupation.
If Iraqis left a loan they will finish this case in right way a long time ago, he is just one “Bad Apple”
But you need to take care at home of your justices did you read this:
The U.S. military told TIME on Thursday that Sgt. Santos Cardona, one of the soldiers convicted for his role in Abu Ghraib, having served his sentence, had just been sent back to serve in Iraq. for training Iraq police! What a good a job
Yes he will train them what?
http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.time.com%2Ftime%2Fworld%2Farticle%2F0%2C8599%2C1554326-1%2C00.html
You got more bad apples at home, Kissinger and Negroponte, Steel and others who are working advisers now.
Looks your criminals got good jobs, justice’s flashering in US and around the world
have stoked internal tensions inside Iraq significantly, contributing to the high toll of deaths from sectarian polarization
The ball is now in Jim Baker’s court…Bush will be rebuked on Tuesday imo…The Baker Commission has no good options…they will probably recommend making the stability of Baghdad the top priority…too little, too late.
Before the U.S. invasion the concern was raised that a trial for Hussein would provide a venue for him to reveal many embarrasing details about U.S.-Iraq cooperation during the 1980’s. I guess they avoided this by allowing (managing?) the destruction of Iraqi records and limiting the trial to a single incident that did not involve the U.S..
***********
“Do we rape rapists?”
Actually, if accounts of prison rape are accurate then the answer is “yes”; if prison authorities allow this conduct then in a sense it is sanctioned by the state.
Saddam did what he thought necessary to maintain his control over a much divided nation. He was a thug because he felt he had to be a thug.American and British administrations accepted and in many ways encouraged his thuggery.
Children were put to death along with others after a botched assassination attempt on his life. But then more children died as a result of sanctions imposed on Iraq mostly by the British and American administrations who had before supported him.Many more children and others have died as result of criminal activity by Mr Bush and Mr Blair .
There just isn’t enough rope to go around.
Saddam did what he thought necessary to maintain his control over a much divided nation. He was a thug because he felt he had to be a thug.American and British administrations accepted and in many ways encouraged his thuggery.
Children were put to death along with others after a botched assassination attempt on his life. But then more children died as a result of sanctions imposed on Iraq mostly by the British and American administrations who had before supported him.Many more children and others have died as result of criminal activity by Mr Bush and Mr Blair .
There just isn’t enough rope to go around.
I agree that the trial and sentence have “stoked internal tensions inside Iraq significantly” – but I don’t see how that can be avoided.
One way or another, something had to happen to Saddam. The only options other than sentencing him to death, as far as I can see, were:
Now, I agree with you that the trial has been a farce, and I agree that the death penalty is morally wrong (I’d personally rather let him live and suffer the consequences, but as a non-Iraqi that isn’t my decision to make). But in practical terms I don’t see any of other options being an improvement over the death sentence.
No doubt it’d be easier to prove or disprove the existence of God than to disentangle such a mess as Hussein’s culpability. The right of America to involve itself in this affair is not as difficult an issue. The first measure of judicial validity hinges on the basis of whether America had the political and ethical legitimacy to conduct, or aty least make possible, such a trial. Regardless of what you think about Nuremberg, the trials were supported by international forces, truly producing a world court. This is certainly not true in Iraq.
America didn’t have the legitimacy to invade on a preemptive basis, and it never had international support beyond a “coalition of the willing” who were essentially coerced into a virtual alliance.
Thus, one must ask, In that circumstance, does America have the right to overthrow a sovereign nation, disband its ruling party, covene elections, intending to install Chalabi, yield to the Shiite majority, stir up ancient sectarian divisions making democracy impossible, pretend as if an actual republic as oppsoed to a theocracy has been established and then try a dictator who was actively supported by the U.S., including chemical weapons?
If you answer yes, you’re either delusional or rely on jimson weed for your logic.
The demonisation of Saddam Hussein has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and provided the US and UK goverments with a pretext for otherwise indefensible policies. The humanity of Saddam Hussein is the final taboo. I am grateful to Helena for breaking it and daring to raise the possibility of including not only the Ba’ath, but Saddam himself in a reconcilation process. After all, Saddam has made repeated courtroom appeals for mutual forgiveness among Iraqis, most of which have gone unreported.
I would also like to draw attention to his deeply moving and highly significant OPEN LETTER TO THE IRAQI NATION, which he dictated to his Iraqi lawyer on 14th October 2006. Here is a translation:
In the name of God, the merciful, who gives us patience and takes our souls as Muslims.
To our great nation, to honourable Iraqi ladies, to the heroes of our armed forces, to our glorious nation: peace be upon you, God’s mercy and blessings.
To our friends around the world; to everyone who embraces the principles of fraternity and equality in human relations and rejects superiority, exploitation and discrimination: peace be upon you, God’s mercy and blessings.
On the occasion of the month of Ramadan, which this year finds our people facing the most difficult situation in their history: having been exposed to injustice, aggression and embargo since 1991, they are now enduring the even greater hardships of occupation, bloodshed and the looting and destruction of everything that is necessary for life. And yet they still hold on to their faith and their pride, which make them reject humiliation, conspiracies and aggression both from neighbouring and faraway countries. Some of the invaders came across the Atlantic motivated by cowardly and perverse Zionist ambitions, illegitimate interests and aggression. Others came from the East with their usual bad intentions.
Brothers, you know that I am free in my thoughts and opinions, but because I am detained by the invading forces I have only very limited opportunities to express my sentiments and my will, and in particular to communicate with you Iraqis through the media. I only managed to address you on a few occasions during the farcical trial before the microphones were switched off, depriving me of a legitimate opportunity to address the people even as the invaders seek to devour you through the media which they control.
So here I am addressing you today in this holy month of Ramadan, saying:
Resisting the invaders is a right and a duty, and the same goes for those who collaborated with the western or eastern enemy. But I ask you, brothers and comrades in the various factions of the courageous Iraqi Resistance, and you, the proud people of Iraq, to be guided by wisdom and justice in your Jihad and not to succumb to recklessness. Don’t engage in tit-for-tat violence and don’t attack for the sake of attacking when the opportunity arises while you are carrying a gun. I ask you not only to exercise tolerance, but to keep the door of forgiveness open for those who have lost their way, especially if they show some hope of being guided. Remember that it is your duty to save those who have gone astray from themselves and to show them the right path. Keep the door of forgiveness open for everyone until the day of liberation, which is coming soon, God willing.
Victory is close at hand, but remember that your immediate goal is to liberate your country from the invaders and their collaborators. Don’t get diverted into settling accounts – it will only make reconciliation more difficult when the invaders retreat. Remember that after every war there is peace, after every division there is unity, after every separation there is reunion and after all hatred God will return us to familiarity. We share a common humanity and you are one great nation. Our land was the cradle in which the greatest human principles and pure, monotheistic religion were first imbibed before they were transmitted to other civilisations, rescuing them from ignorance and savagery. You are sacrificing your lives for these values today as you did in the past, and above all for the unity of Great Iraq, which transcends ideological differences and group allegiances: that is the guiding light in the heart of each one of us which dispels the forces of darkness.
Brothers, when I speak to you, my heart and my tongue recoil from the terms and categories used by the foreigners to sow dissension among you. Such differences never divided Iraqis in the past. We all remember an Iraq that was resplendent in all its beautiful colours. Great Iraq encompassed Arabs and Kurds, different religious denominations and minority communities – we were proud to be one nation.
Dear brothers, you have been oppressed by the invaders, their followers and associates, so don’t oppress anybody, otherwise your cause will cease to be just in the eyes of God and you will be easy prey for opportunists who seek to distort your struggle. It would be a terrible loss if that were to happen. When you achieve victory, remember that it is God’s victory and that you are his soldiers. Therefore you must be truly magnanimous and set aside any thought of revenge over the spilled blood of your sons and brothers, including the sons of Saddam Hussein. Remember what the merciful prophets taught us, especially the two honourable ones, Mohammad and Jesus, son of Mary. Both forgave and turned to God, beseeching him to forgive those whom they had forgiven, including those who had hurt them. Don’t forget that Mohammad forgave the pagans in Mecca after he had accomplished victory. I know the heart of the freedom fighter and his love for his country and his people which is second only to his love of God. I expect you to heal wounds and not to inflict new ones.
Brothers, after you have forgiven those who wronged you, act to apply the law fairly and firmly so that your nation can enjoy the blessings of stability and security, so that culture, science and law can flourish and you can lead peaceful, happy lives.
In this glorious month of Ramadan I say to you that I recognise no authority above me except for God and the truth. You know very well that Saddam Hussein never surrendered to any threats. He is as you knew him and he remains as you knew him.
God is great…Glory to God, to our nation, our people and the Mujahideen…
Long live Iraq…Long live Palestine…Long live our glorious nation and our peace loving people. God is greater.
Saddam Hussein
President of Iraq and Commander in Chief of Iraq’s Mujahideen Armed Forces