A great deal of nonsense has been said and written
since the death sentence was pronounced on Saddam
Hussein in Bagdad, on Monday November 6th (2006).
As was expected, US President G W Bush and his
European gofer Tony Blair have both argued that
the sentence has little to do with them, which
is hardly a surprise as these two men seem to
have an inability to take responsibility for anything
that does not work out as their spin doctors predicted.
On Saddam being sentenced to hang both men feebly
proclaimed that the sentence was the will of the
Iraqi people, and should be welcomed as it proves
the rule of law now runs within Iraq.
Which
is just about the stupidest statement in a long
line of nonsensical bleating that these two men
have offered up to their electorate on Iraq. The
fact is the current Iraqi Government and those
who hold senior positions in its failed institutions,
along with their masters in the US Embassy in
Iraq, are unable to venture out of the comfort
and protection of the heavily defended Bagdad
Green Zone without the protection of US armored
cars, tanks and Apache helicopters, let alone
provide an iota of law and order for the unfortunate
Iraqi people.
The
court that sentenced Saddam, a creation of the
US forces of occupation, was also situated in
the Green Zone; the judges and prosecution lawyers
were schooled and appointed by the said same US
forces of occupation. The judge was changed half
way through the trial — presumably because
the forces of occupation sensed he was being too
correct with the defendants in the dock —
and three of Saddam's and his fellow defendants
defense attorneys were murdered for good measure
during the course of the trial. In other words,
this tribunal amounted to little more than victor's
justice, although with the current incendiary
situation in Iraq it may be a little premature
to call the USA and those who do their bidding
in Iraq the victors.
Due
to the justifiably ghastly and murderous reputation
of Saddam Hussein government when he held power
in Iraq, few people who normally argue against
judicial murder are willing to speak out against
the death sentence passed on the old butcher.
This is perhaps understandable, but it is a mistake.
When we are against Capital Punishment, we do
not cherry pick those we give our support to,
nor should we turn a blind eye to those who are
for the drop that we find reprehensible as individuals
or politicians.
If we are against Capital punishment, then that
is it, we oppose it no matter who is to be executed,
or whatever State wishes to implement such a cruel
and inhumane punishment. We should therefore oppose
vigorously the death sentence that Saddam now
faces, as his trial was both a sham and as I have
aforementioned, yet another example of victor's
justice. Not even the most dim witted Neo-Conservative
or craven Blairite could truthfully claim the
rule of law exists in today's Iraq.
My
own opposition to this particular judicial murder
has little to do with Saddam and all to do with
restricting the right of the State, any State,
to take human life. If Saddam was given a life
sentence without parole, he might just, for the
first time in his life have done something useful
for human kind and his people. If he is executed,
it will not be long before the US sponsored Iraqi
State authorities justifies further judicial murders
by claiming, if we executed a former President,
who is an ordinary decent criminal to complain?
Unlike
in the United States, British law is firmly set
against the judicial death penalty and when overseas,
the UK's armed forces still supposedly come under
the said same law. As there is little doubt that
British troops who have been stationed in Iraq
played a minor part in Saddam's current predicament,
this once again highlights the fact, and not for
the first time on Iraq, that the Blair government,
by acquiescing in this sentence, have acted in
a manner which would be illegal at home.
All
those who oppose capital punishment should also
vigorously argue against the death sentence passed
upon Saddam from being implemented. If we do not,
who will? Capital punishment is wrong in its entirety;
the State and those who administer it are far
from infallible, as is demonstrated almost daily.
Whilst those who administer the law can perhaps
be forgiven for making genuine mistakes, as when
this occurs in a nation where the death sentence
is not an option the means to correct such judicial
errors are at least available.
However
when capital punishment is on the statute book,
and the judiciary make a decision in the clear
light of day to execute a citizen, it is a decision
which if implemented and found to be wanting can
never be corrected. To do the aforementioned is
to give the State a wisdom it simply does not
possess.
There is also the example the State should set
for its citizens. This is why we view corruption
within the State machine with such distaste. For
if the State is corrupt, why should we not all
have our hand in the till? Thus, it is imperative
where the taking of human life is concerned, that
the State acts in a manner which is far above
that set by its worst of citizens.
There
are wider political questions to be raised here.
Why was Saddam Hussein not sent to be tried at
the International Court at the Hague, as indeed
his fellow satrap, the former Serbian President
Milosevic was? Or sent to the international court
set up by the UN in Arusha, Tanzania, where many
of those who allegedly committed Genocide in Rwanda
are currently being tried?
One
of the main reasons why the international community
felt it was necessary to establish these institutions
was because they concluded that due to the tragic
events that the people of the former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda experienced, it would be a nigh on
impossibility for any Court within their jurisdictions
to impartially try crimes against humanity. Few
would suggest that the Iraqi people have not passed
through a similar maelstrom as to that which the
peoples of Yugoslavia and Rwanda experienced,
so surely the same criteria should apply to Iraqi
citizens who are accused of committing crimes
against humanity, if justice is to be seen to
be done.
One cannot but also feel that the US administration's
decision not to put Saddam Hussein before an international
court had a great deal to do with its wish to
keep control of his fate, hence my mention of
victor's justice. If they had sent Saddam to the
Hague, uncomfortable questions about the legality
of the US/UK invasion of Iraq would undoubtedly
have been raised during the course of any trial.
For the US to have sent Saddam to the Hague may
also have highlighted the current US administration's
of GW Bush's failure to fully recognize the international
court; to this day its troops serving in Iraq
do not come under Iraqi or indeed international
law. Thus if they commit any crimes or atrocities
within Iraq, as they undoubtedly have, they cannot
be sent before the International Court, nor, incidentally,
could George W Bush, at some later date, be sent
before the court for waging an illegal and unjust
war — which perhaps explains why he was so
keen to back track on Bill Clinton's decision
to recognize and help finance the court at the
Hague.
