There can be few people on the planet more deserving of death than Saddam Hussein. However, the crime for which he has just been sentenced to die was, by his standards, relatively minor. Following an assassination attempt attributed to terrorists and traitors, his regime responded with indiscriminate arrests. Those seized were held incommunicado in secret prisons, tortured (in some cases to death) and then, in many cases, executed after trials by special tribunals set up to secure convictions where normal courts would not.
If the precedent set by this case is applied consistently, we can expect to see many more death sentences arising from events in Iraq and elsewhere, and not just among the remnants of the Baathist regime.
John Quiggin 
More endearing moral equivalence from the latte left.
I would still have preferred the International Court of Justice to have heard the case. No death penalty there but in the final analysis does that matter?
Glad to see you got the point, proust, and that you’re displaying all the moral clarity we’ve come to expect from your kind. As you say, it’s only bad if the other side does it.
Time for the left to apologise.
C.L, have you ever seen a lefty admit they were wrong, let alone apologize?
Why is it that people like C.L. and Proust cannot see hypocrisy when it stares them in the face.
One person deservedly, gets the severest sentence for killing some people in a village. While others destroy a Country of some 20 million people and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and hold prisoners indefinitely and tortures people, some to death, and we are expected to hail them as heroes.
Neatly timed for the US congressional elections, as predicted. Justice to go – and would you like fries with that?
Seriously, though, it’s an interesting exercise to do a compare and contrast with the Nuremburg trials. At Nuremburg, the charges and trials focused on the major crimes – here for reasons entirely to do with the complicity of the occupiers in the major crimes against humanity committed by Hussein – the charges relate to a minor incident selected for the sole fact the US had nothing to do with it.
The whole charade is made more farcical by the parallel story of Fallujah, and what the US military does when ornery locals attack US mercenaries on prime time. Not for the US military the namby-pamby limp-wristed girly-man Hussein approach of rounding up a couple of hundred people and shooting them – no, the correct method apparently is first to cordon off and then raze the entire city to the ground. How civilised. But then, it’s only when a paid up member of the axis of evil does it that it’s a crime. The coalition of the willing can by definition do no wrong.
OT: Congrats on getting cited at Free Exchange, one of the Economist.com blogs.
Why should any of us on the left – John Howard, Mark Vaile, Alexander Downer, Dick Rumsfeld et al – need to apologise? Without the $300 million payments we paid to Saddam’s Government our wheat farmers would be out of business.
—
More seriously, I oppose the death penalty, but if it were to apply, it should apply only after a more all-encompassing trial, involving Saddam Hussein’s more serious offences, has occurred.
But evidence that would emerge from such a trial would most certainly implicate the US and other western Governments.
If this is the best the axis of evil at the White House can do as a November surprise it may still be in trouble on Tuesday. Expect something nasty, with even greater “moral clarity”, to come from them today or tomorrow (US time). I’d feel dirty trying to forecast it any more specifically.
the process appears to be reasonably fair.
The problem of the judges being replaced reeks of Mathathirism yet the evidence was impressively arrayed.
A pity the political class of Iraq has not risen to the levels of the judicial class.
Neither Proust nor CL has apologised for being so badly wrong on Iraq.
They probably didn’t read Scowcroft, Eagelburger or the Cato institute.
The problem iwth stating it was only the left against the Invasion of Iraq is that you start to believe the myth you are spreading
B-B-EP@LP: How do you know I was wrong on Iraq? As far as I can recall, I only ever discussed my opinion of the invasion of Iraq with my immediate family.
As it happens, my view at the start was the overthrow of Saddam was worthwhile if it could be done quickly and cleanly, and I was naive enough to believe the US administration had a plan to achieve that. But I was on the fence – I certainly didn’t strongly advocate or oppose the war.
Since then, my opinion of the US administration has taken a dramatic nosedive, for obvious reasons. And my view on future such adventures will obviously be far more circumspect.
How is it that the american judicial system can concentrate on smaller crimes against humanity and doesn’t touch the big ones. Convient for not setting big precidents so that their own administration cannot be liable under their own rulings. Side stepping tactics like the case against enron to stop most of wall street from being liable by concentrating on smaller crimes that only lay and skilling did.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the rulings made in this case has provisions, in that it only applies to crimes against humanity commited by countries other than america. Like the way they use the world court and general assembly by using their power of veto.
I hope someone looks at these charges and applies these rullings to their own administration.
ahem…cough** “extrodinary rendition” Cough**… clears throat
-Strike
A fair process that somehow remained so in practice, even after that level of attack on lawyers and witnesses – and the well founded fear thereof. Actually, the only just approach would have been, indefinite detention until a trial could be held without that, taking depositions etc. in current time for later use.
And the only wise approach – stipulating an invasion and occupation as sunk costs – would have been some application of divide and rule to the whole former ruling clique, including custodial exile for some and the direct poacher-turned-gamekeeper use of others. With that, you use the traditional but now forgotten best use of hostages: the threat is not of doing something to them, but of turning them loose, putting them back in play again. That keeps current non-entities more biddable.
This is a nice use of the hypothetical from Pr Q, especially if he wants to score some lethal partisan points. It implies advocacy of the death penalty for Bush and all Coalition of Willing war mongerers. In fact, all the people who originally supported the war are acesssories to mass murder – including democracy-promoters, oppressed Shiites and Kurds and me.
But it is a dangerous principle. If followed consistently it implies criminal prosecution of all those political agents who supported the somwehat atrocious status quo, whilst Hussein was carrying out atrocities after Gulf War I (including the death of children from UN sanctions). That would include Pr Q, of course.
In fact the only people with clean hands in this dreadful affair are the AWB who at least greased the wheels of oil-for-food state commerce. This materially helped to reduce malnutrition amongst Iraqi children in the last few years of the Baathist regime.
So perhaps John Howard deserves a medal instead of a charge, for all his machiavellian double dealings.
Saddam should have been brought before the International Criminal Court. That is also where Bush, Blair and Howard should be tried.
Still no apologies here from the Saddam-supporting left.
Shame.
Still no apologies here from the Saddam-supporting left.
Seriously, C.L., does your own dishonesty even register any more when you trot out crap like that? You used to be someone worth taking semi-seriously.
C.L.
You can be opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and think Bush, Blair and Howard have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, without supporting Saddam. Just exactly what form of an apology are you after?
CL, I’m happy to join you in calling for an apology from the Saddam-supporting left. Assuming any leftwingers who support Saddam are reading this blog, I deplore their silence.
I’m sure, similarly, that you’ll join me in calling for an apology from the Saddam-supporting right, starting with Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Reagan Administration who aided and abetted Saddam’s crimes in the 1980s. Again, I’m not sure if they’re reading, but if so, I deplore their silence.
Such crimes have not been confirmed in the rigour of a court room. Ironic isn’t it that Saddam will be hanged for lesser charges.
If Saddam was found guilty of crimes during the Iran/Iraq war then the US would have egg on its face. And if he was found innocent well then the US would have, egg on its face. They better hang him quickly.
I do think however that some distinction between the respective systems of government is revealed by what they did during the Reagan administration when somebody tried to assassinate Reagan.
A more obvious candidate would be George Galloway, he now denies his support for Saddam saying his words were taken ‘out of context’
Let America bring Democracy to your country !
You too can enjoy the privelege of having the trial of your worst ever criminal turned into a media stunt to help the electoral prospects of a political party in another country !
Galloway is indeed deplorable, and dishonest.
The trial of Saddam Hussein is similar in both seriousness of charges and elapsion of time to putting Adolf on trial at Nuremburg for – the Munich putsch. A farce. Also, and not merely btw, a further descent of Australia (and the UK) into barbarism as we applaud a death sentence.
Saddam to hang? Fantastic news!
I don’t get it…as a civilised society we accept euthanasia by hanging or firing squad as a form of justice, but is it really a fitting penalty ???? I tend to believe Packer, “….there’s nothing over there”… certainly no justice, for the living or the dead.
“Still no apologies here from the Saddam-supporting left.”
incidentally, did donald rumsfeld ever apologise? this isn’t asked as a snarky riposte to CL (well, not entirely). considering saddam has now been sentenced to death for a crime that occurred a year before rumsfeld’s infamous visit (and offer of aid and support), it’s not a flippant question.
I’m worried about how we can be opposed to the death penalty in principle (see numerous statements by Alexander Downer whenever an Australian faces it abroad), but for it when it is imposed on someone we don’t like. That sort of relativism (or perhaps more kindly, situational ethics) seems to be the hallmark of the kind of arbitrary, one-party or one-person regimes that hundreds of years of post-enlightenment democracy should be opposing. this is not a comment in support of saddam hussein – but what would have been so wrong with life imprisonment instead?
I hope someone looks at these charges and applies these rullings to their own administration.
ahem…cough** “extrodinary rendition� Cough**… clears throat
Richard Clarke in Against All Enemies (pp.143-144).
Funny how critics like Striker and rossco don’t call for Gore and Clinton to be charged.
Hey snah, speaking of “infamous visits”: Mission Accomplished!
The left opposed Saddam’s removal under the auspices of “international law” (see also present day Sudan where “international law” is working so well) because they hoped it would create an advantageous political wedge for use in Anglophone politics. Unfortunately, Howard, Blair and Bush were re-elected. The war was mandated, was just, was legal. The left also opposed the war in Afghanistan (before deciding it was the Good War) but that’s another story.
CL, if you post a general statement about “the left” on my blog, I assume you’re referring to me. Your statements are false, as you can easily check, and I request an immediate withdrawal.
More generally, from now on, no more references to “the left” please. Name names or keep quiet.
CL
I have no problems with anyone, including Gore and Clinton, being prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or any other breaches of international law, provided it is done in a properly constructed court of law in a fair and transparent manner. One in, all in.
Are you arguing that because Bush, Blair and Howard were re-elected that makes the war/invasion/occupation of Iraq legal? I would like to see them argue that defence in a court when being prosecuted. I seem to recall Saddam being reelected after his atrocities agianst his own people.
I am still awaiting for a clear response as to what you want “the left” to apologise for – not the general drival you have dished up so far.
The left wanted Saddam Hussein kept in power. That is a fact. They wanted to continue the sanctions regime which – according to Madeleine Albright – killed 500,000 children.
What moral heroes.
John now requests withdrawal, which is both thematically apt and totally not going to happen.
CL is suffering from a conceptual lacuna which appears untreatable.
The truth hurts.
too perfect:
“The left opposed Saddam’s removal under the auspices of “international lawâ€? (see also present day Sudan where “international lawâ€? is working so well) because they hoped it would create an advantageous political wedge for use in Anglophone politics.”
and not, say, because war in iraq was a really bad idea.
also, my name is snuh, not snah. and i didn’t just link to a picture (so i’m not sure what your picture of madeline albright is supposed to prove), i linked to a collection of declassified government records that amply document why, at the very least, rumsfeld ought to apologise to the iraqis.
The essence of the left’s view of Saddam Hussein here.
At least he’s honest.
To be clear, CL, any further general accusations against “the left’ will be deleted. If you have complaints against individuals, name them.
I’ll start by pointing out that you personally have been an active apologist for collaboration with Saddam by AWB with the (at least) tacit encouragement of the Howard government (many more links available via Google). As far as I know, you’re the only person commenting here who has supported Saddam at any time.
fancy that, apparently the authentic face of “the left” is some dude i’ve never heard of who writes a blog for the guardian. who knew?
There is no evidence of government illegality over AWB, which John knows.
(His link is to a quote by anti-war critic Richard Armitage who was dispelling the fantasy story about how the AWB scandal had badly damaged Australia’s bilateral relations with the US).
There is evidence the ALP sought funding from Saddam Hussein.
It was Ms Albright – Clinton Secretary of State and Kim Jong Il drinking buddie – who said half a million children died as a result of the sanctions which anti-war critics wanted to continue.
These are the facts.
I cant see the connection JQ, maybe I need a p[air of those special all seeing X-ray google glasses.
“However, the crime for which he has just been sentenced to die was, by his standards, relatively minor.”
What sheer stupidity this is. He was tried and convicted for mass murder. What more do you want. Since when has a criminal ever needed to be tried and found guilty of ALL his crimes before he is punished?
Sounds to me the left (that includes but isn’t restricted to you JQ!) just wants to continue postponing action against this mass murderer until his ruthless insurgent supporters eventally win in Iraq and rescue him to again head the government.
I think Albright was challenged with the question – ‘So you think the sanctions were worth the lives of 500,000 children?’ – and she responded with something like, ‘If that’s what it takes, yes’.
She has since said she regretted the remark as being made under pressure and in haste, and as far as I know the 500,000 dead children figure has never been independently verified.
CL, as I said right at the start of the AWN inquiry, no proof of government illegality was ever going to come out of this – they’ve got the process sewn up. But obviously to allow a company under their direct control to steal $300 million from the Iraqi people and give it to Saddam Hussein implies either complicity or incredible stupidity. You’ve continually danced around this point. It’s been glaringly obvious, reading your posts, that you have no concern about the possibility that the government knew or should have known about this. As long as it isn’t proven, it didn’t happen. This position is, as they used to say, objectively pro-Saddam.
No, this position is based on my desire to wait for what the lawful process – the Royal Commission – decides. I suspect that you’ve suspected all along that this was a case of in-house graft writ very large and not a minister-run racket. You hoped for government scalps along the way but that didn’t happen so now you’re insisting that a finding that clears the government of illegality will be the result of a conspiracy theory – one involving, presumably, the unlawful coercion of Commissioner Cole. I suspect the Commissioner’s findings will be very critical of the government and I indicated at the outset that I would write something in relation to his conclusions when they were published. Well, I’ve more or less lost the desire to run an indifferent little blog in the meantime so perhaps I won’t follow through on that.
My position on the left and Saddam Hussein hasn’t changed. The left wanted him to stay in office indefinitely – was, that is to say, objectively pro-Saddam.
This is the quiddity of the accusation levelled by partisans of both sides. I certainly will not withdraw my opinion and you certainly won’t withdraw your opinion. So be it.
C.L., you do yourself an injustice. There are many of us eagerly waiting for you to take up the blogging baton once again. We’ve lost WeekByWeek and Evil Pundit (sites dead): get back on the bike, mate.
The illogic in your position, C.L., is your inability to see that opposing the Iraq War is not the same thing as wanting Saddam to stay in power. I’d have been happy to see him toppled – but by other means than a war of invasion.
It is remarkable that Saddam has been sentenced for a crime he committed in 1982, at a time when the USA was more than eager to provide support to Saddam Hussein’s regime and was complicit in some of his crimes. As usual, this fact has not even been mentioned by our amnesiac media. Donald Rumsfeld, the incarnation of this administration’s moral bankruptcy, went to Baghdad shaking hands with Saddam, on December 20, 1983 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/).
At that time, Rumsfeld knew that Saddam was a dangerous dictator (contrary to 2003, when he wasn’t dangerous any more). He knew about the 1982 massacre that has now been recognized as a “crime against humanity”. Donald Rumsfeld knew that Saddam had ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iran in breach of the Geneva conventions (contrary to 2003, when Rumsfeld knew exactly that there were no chemical weapons). And he went to Baghdad in 1983, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, offering him the support of the United States. That’s the story that will be told in the history book.
Can we not stop a moment to note that never before has a mass murdering tyrant been captured, tried and convicted in a court of law. The only elected government in the Arab ME has just sentenced him for his crimes. How is this not a victory for civilization? It’s a heroic milestone for the Iraqi government and should be recognized as such.
Mark Bahnisch, I’d have been happy to have seem Saddam toppled by means other than a war too. What means would you suggest?