My colleague, the Rev. John Krenson (RCC), has posted an essay at my own site on making the moral case for executing Saddam Hussein.
The Church has traditionally left the question of capital punishment as a moral decision - that is, there is not an absolutist position as there is with, for example, abortion. Even as the contemporary Church has been "tightening the noose" on the moral justification of the death penalty (pardon the analogy) it has still not declared an authoritative absolutist position (I realize this matters not to many non-Catholics, but it is important to Catholics and it does carry a certain amount of weight politically in the world). Cardinal Renato Martino, a former Vatican envoy to the UN and top prelate for justice issues, has condemned the execution of Saddam; that's his opinion and perhaps he accurately reflects the opinion of others in the Vatican, perhaps the Pope himself. Martino has also been known to make past ridiculous and irresponsible positions particularly with regard to Iraq. But a case for the morality of Saddam's execution can be made.Read the rest!
Very good, but to what extent are we called upon to justify anything in this case? While Iraq was under Coalition rule the death penalty was suspended. It was the Iraqi government that reinstated it, and it was the Iraqi government that tried and executed Saddam.
The problem with over-thinking this thing is that it reinforces the view of Iraq's enemies; namely, that Iraq is our puppet. Among Iraq's enemies I do not hesitate to include our own domestic malcontents, who have treated Iraqis and the provisional government with open contempt, waxed nostalgic about Saddam's regime, and who are daily howling to throw the whole mess to the wolves.
Even if we object somehow to Saddam's treatment, friendship and alliance does not extend to an endorsement of everything an ally does. The French were our allies in World War II (really, look it up!) but that doesn't mean we approved of them stripping and beating women who supposedly slept with German soldiers.
well at least he helped me make a fortune on trendio as his stock skyrocketed these last days http://www.trendio.com/word.php?wordid=120&language=en
The finality of the death penalty is often used to justify its implementation. The problem I have with such arguments is the idea that the murder can be a just and right action. Personally, I don't see how the termination of a human life is ever an action of justice. It may be an unavoidable consequence of human actions, but to call it "justice" is unfounded in my opinion.
From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, Saddam's execution puts paid to the dream of restoration of Saddam voiced by Al Qaeda, Sunnis, and of course Dems/Media/Left (who mourn him considerably).
With Saddam and his sons both dead, the idea of his regime killing it's way back into power is dead. There will be no Hundred Days. No landing from Elba.
Hanging Saddam was not about the man. Above all it was a political act by the Shia saying they not the Sunnis now run Iraq.
I find this to be a terribly bad argument. Essentially, it is that the execution of Saddam was moral for what he might have done in the future. If what a man might do is good reason to kill him, then, to begin, we can dispense with trials since their purpose is to determine guilt or innocence rather than potential. But further, if what a man might do is reason to kill him, why not execute him for what he has already done?
The idea of justice does not enter into this argument at all. I believe that the execution of Saddam Hussein was indeed justice. I believe that it was a good thing, but not because he might do something bad in the future, but because of what he has already done.
If Saddam was to be done away with because of what he could still do, then he should have been shot in his spider hole or garroted in his cell in the middle of the night with no pretense of upright conduct. An expensive, troublesome trial for the purpose of a prophylactic execution is an abomination and an abuse of the tools of justice.
Brian:
The finality of death has often been used by opponents of the death penalty.
Saddam execution had to show what happens to someone that massacres his own population in order to achieve or stay in power.
That is the way it will protect Iraqis, creating a precedent for anyone that dares to think of using the same methods.
I think it was morally justified.
Tom:
I think the argument presupposes conviction for a terrible crime. What it's looking at is whether the death penalty is necessary to ensure that the person convicted of the terrible crime does no future harm. In the Catholic context, the death penalty has to be a defensive act, which necessitates the possibility of future harm.
I'm no Catholic, and indeed favor the death penalty in a far wider variety of cases than it's used in today. That said, the argument here is within the Catholic context, and seems well constructed to deal with those particular constraints.
Speaking as a man interested in philosophy, I'd have to say -- well done.
I have no problem with Saddam being put to death. What I question, (and I don't really understand the Iraqi system, and can't answer these questions) is if the system was run throughly and accurately in the defined process of law.
There were so many unique aspects to this case: lawyers and judges being replaced, executions of those in the process, Saddam being unable to reach his lawyers, an appeal process which spent what... 1 day exploring the defense and then hanging him with almost no foresight.
Again, there is no question that Saddam is guilty, and would be executed eventually. However, since this is the first major test of the Iraqi system, I have to wonder if the need for justice pushed the system to find guilt quicker than it needed too. Maybe Saddam's death is needed for 'healing', but has this trial cut corners and damaged the judicial system in the process? Only time will tell.
Execution should be about justice, not about revenge. And the other thing that worries me about this execution are the reports that the guards were taunting Saddam just before the execution. IF this is true, it reeks of mob justice, and not of justice. If this is how law is practiced in Iraq, I fear that it may lead to a Shia rule with the same brutality practiced by Saddam.
alchemist -
One of the guards responded to Saddam's taunts, telling him something to the effect that he had robbed them of their country and left them destitute. He cursed them and they cursed him back. Overall, it was more civilized than any cable news talk show I've seen lately.
I don't know how thoroughly and accurately you want the Iraqi system to work. Your average murderer in the United States gets a 2-3 day trial, and is not allowed to berate the judge. (We've had Saddam-like trials in this country, though. During Charles Manson's trial, several attorneys were replaced and one was savagely murdered.)
As for the speed of his execution - the Nuremberg defendents were hanged within hours of being sentenced. Furthermore, the hangings were botched; the trapdoors were too small, and several prisoners hit their heads on the edge of them when they dropped. There was no "controversy" over what would be done with their bodies, either. They were immediately cremated and their ashes were scattered in a secret location under massive security.
Because this is an imperfect world, justice has to be relative to circumstances, and by that standard Saddam got exemplary treatment. I elaborate more at Canis Iratus [http://canisiratus.bl*gspot.com/2006/12/sic-semper-tyrannus-baby.html]
Either he was hung for what he did, or it was not justice. The police will shoot a man holding a hostage if they fear he is likely to kill or harm that hostage, but that is neither justice, nor punishment.
If the point of killing Saddam was to protect those he had not yet victimized, the justice system should not have been dragged into it. It is just a sacrifice, which I thought we had gotten rid of. If Saddam was killed, not for what he did, but for what he might do, then we have very bloody hands.
No one is responsible for what he has not done. No one can justly be punished for what he has not done.
I am totally unable to understand how it could be that it was justice to hang Saddam, but not to execute Tookie. Saddam, himself, could use the same argument that Rev Krenson has used, that he killed people because in future they might try to kill him as attempts against his life had been made. Tookie did not have this argument available. If anything, Tookie deserved execution more than Saddam.
Killing Saddam because he might get away and start killing again is like destroying a village to prevent retaliation, the ancient method of war before we became more civilized and began merely enslaving the entire population. It is pretty much what Saddam did himself without the pretense of justice.
This tyrant's time was well overdue and he's been lucky enough to have lived this long.
The world is a far better and safer and place with him no longer in it.
A somewhat related question which merits discussion:
Do Europeans still regard themselves as ubermenschen, a morally superior race?
A few indications that they do:
While the USA frequently dominates other countries, it might be argued that the western Euros insist far more often on interference in USA than the reverse.
I am certainly left with the impression that the Euros do regard themselves as ubermenschen.