Making of a martyr
The meaningless execution of a tyrant
Saddam's hanging, when it comes, will produce neither universal relief nor outrage
There won't be many people who mourn Saddam Hussein's imminent death - if he hasn't been executed already - any more than there were many who mourned the death of Slobodan Milosevic this year. They were both tyrants of the worst sort, ruling by fear and the word of the informant. Both were responsible for war on their neighbours as well as oppression of their own people.
The Serbian dictator managed at least to cheat the judge of the international court in The Hague by passing away from natural courses. Saddam Hussein hasn't managed that. But, like Milosevic, he has been able to turn what was meant to be a grand cathartic ceremony of closure and reconciliation into a desultory almost meaningless damp squib of a trial. His hanging, when it comes, discreetly and without ceremony, will produce neither a sense of universal relief nor outrage. It will simply happen, to be announced after the event, an event out of time and even place
The fall of the regime, the trial of a tyrant, the imposition of a new order were all part of a vision that was never grounded in the facts of Iraq, because the facts on the ground were secondary to the purpose. Had it been otherwise, there would have been a proper post-invasion plan.
To those who still claim that the invasion was right, because it removed a tyrant, one has this simple question: "Did we do it to make ourselves feel better or to make things better for the Iraqis?" For, if we ever thought they were one and the same thing, then we have been cruelly deceiving ourselves and even more cruelly deceiving them.
Saddam has said in a letter he is willing to sacrifice himself for the Iraqi people and would die as a martyr. He called on all Iraqis to unite against the common enemy, the US.
Iraqi and human rights activist Khalid Issa Taha, chairman of Lawyers Without Borders and vice president of the UK Iraqi Lawyers Association, said in an in interview with Adnkronos International (AKI) he believes ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein deserves capital punishment but that the trial which led to the death sentence was unfair.
Secular Baathists desperately needed charismatic leader or idea, and the US provided both by allowing execution of Saddam. Besides not invading Iraq in the first place, the US had several options. One, bring Saddam to the US as a POW and detain for years, questioning him on many interesting issues. To fear retaliation for holding Saddam is ridiculous because his execution would provide Baathists with equally good reason to inflict damage on the US citizens worldwide. America could hold Saddam at Guantanamo. Two, commit him to jail in Iraq and keep him in the conditions so bad (normal there) that he would die soon or come out totally disabled. Three, let the Iranians catch him. Four, give him to the Kuwaitis; let the cowards handle their enemy. Five, poison or otherwise kill him inconspicuously. Six, let him disappear or keep him secretly, possibly in Israel.
Instead, the US allowed secular scoundrel Saddam, despised by Muslims everywhere, to become a religious martyr. His farewell letter to Iraqi people would make it into the history: a call both for humbleness and unrelenting struggle against heretic invaders.
Saddam’s trial was predictably a sham. Genocide? America already caused more civilian deaths in Iraq by ruining the police state. American-sponsored civil war in Afghanistan killed many more people than did Saddam. Gassing of Kurds? That was Iran’s job; Iraq had no cyanogen chloride. Massacre of Shiites at Dujail? Here is the true story.
Dujail was a hotbed of Shiite insurgence in Iraq. During the war with Iran, Shiites in Dujail and elsewhere supported Iran – a state treason. Still, Saddam came to Dujail in 1982 to win its inhabitants peacefully. He was fired upon. The would-be assassin was not a lone gun: the ensuing fight between Saddam’s guards and the inhabitants lasted hours. The population was heavily armed. In reprisal, Saddam’s forces killed only about 150 men, an extremely low figure by wartime norms of any country and insignificantly minuscule by the standards of Muslim states. Some men were 13-year-old – boys by the Western notions, but grown-up soldiers in Iraq. Iran, too, extensively conscripted teenagers during the war. Population of Dujail – wartime enemy collaborators – was interned in camps. Some were arrested. That is not a crime against humanity. Time would come when the US would see Saddam’s killing of Shiites as favor. Now, Sunnis will correctly see the Iraqi Shiite court as biased against Saddam, and Americans oddly cooperating with pro-Iranian Shiites.
It is hard to enforce justice in a place where you don’t understand right from left.
Opinion Mid East Saddam Hussein Iraq
Saddam's hanging, when it comes, will produce neither universal relief nor outrage
There won't be many people who mourn Saddam Hussein's imminent death - if he hasn't been executed already - any more than there were many who mourned the death of Slobodan Milosevic this year. They were both tyrants of the worst sort, ruling by fear and the word of the informant. Both were responsible for war on their neighbours as well as oppression of their own people.
The Serbian dictator managed at least to cheat the judge of the international court in The Hague by passing away from natural courses. Saddam Hussein hasn't managed that. But, like Milosevic, he has been able to turn what was meant to be a grand cathartic ceremony of closure and reconciliation into a desultory almost meaningless damp squib of a trial. His hanging, when it comes, discreetly and without ceremony, will produce neither a sense of universal relief nor outrage. It will simply happen, to be announced after the event, an event out of time and even place
The fall of the regime, the trial of a tyrant, the imposition of a new order were all part of a vision that was never grounded in the facts of Iraq, because the facts on the ground were secondary to the purpose. Had it been otherwise, there would have been a proper post-invasion plan.
To those who still claim that the invasion was right, because it removed a tyrant, one has this simple question: "Did we do it to make ourselves feel better or to make things better for the Iraqis?" For, if we ever thought they were one and the same thing, then we have been cruelly deceiving ourselves and even more cruelly deceiving them.
Saddam has said in a letter he is willing to sacrifice himself for the Iraqi people and would die as a martyr. He called on all Iraqis to unite against the common enemy, the US.
Iraqi and human rights activist Khalid Issa Taha, chairman of Lawyers Without Borders and vice president of the UK Iraqi Lawyers Association, said in an in interview with Adnkronos International (AKI) he believes ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein deserves capital punishment but that the trial which led to the death sentence was unfair.
Q: Do you think the ruling is fair?
A: No doubt Saddam Hussain has done a lot of things for which he should be punished. I do not agree with the formalities of the trial...These mistakes were done by the court and attorneys of law, allowing people, lawyers and judges and human right organization to criticize the trial. Honestly, they should not have done these mistakes to enable people to criticize the decision. This discourages justice. In 1959, I had asked the Iraqi Court to implement the death sentence of Saddam Hussain after he was accused of killing his own cousin to get all the power. Even this crime alone convinced me that he deserved the death sentence.
Q: Do you think that they will execute him within 30 days as stipulated by law?
A: If they hang him they will make a fatal mistake. They will make him a hero in front of other people. And they will make way for another civil war. This civil war will likely hurt only Iraqis again. So I believe they will pretend he is sick in jail and they will poison him.
Q: What do you think would be fair?
A: In my opinion they should re-try Saddam Hussain with a more independent court which is not influenced by the government. That will give judges a better quality, not fanatical, but fair and neutral... In my opinion he is a first class criminal because he did not defend Iraq when American troops invaded the country. He escaped like a frightened rabbit and they caught him in a hole.
Secular Baathists desperately needed charismatic leader or idea, and the US provided both by allowing execution of Saddam. Besides not invading Iraq in the first place, the US had several options. One, bring Saddam to the US as a POW and detain for years, questioning him on many interesting issues. To fear retaliation for holding Saddam is ridiculous because his execution would provide Baathists with equally good reason to inflict damage on the US citizens worldwide. America could hold Saddam at Guantanamo. Two, commit him to jail in Iraq and keep him in the conditions so bad (normal there) that he would die soon or come out totally disabled. Three, let the Iranians catch him. Four, give him to the Kuwaitis; let the cowards handle their enemy. Five, poison or otherwise kill him inconspicuously. Six, let him disappear or keep him secretly, possibly in Israel.
Instead, the US allowed secular scoundrel Saddam, despised by Muslims everywhere, to become a religious martyr. His farewell letter to Iraqi people would make it into the history: a call both for humbleness and unrelenting struggle against heretic invaders.
Saddam’s trial was predictably a sham. Genocide? America already caused more civilian deaths in Iraq by ruining the police state. American-sponsored civil war in Afghanistan killed many more people than did Saddam. Gassing of Kurds? That was Iran’s job; Iraq had no cyanogen chloride. Massacre of Shiites at Dujail? Here is the true story.
Dujail was a hotbed of Shiite insurgence in Iraq. During the war with Iran, Shiites in Dujail and elsewhere supported Iran – a state treason. Still, Saddam came to Dujail in 1982 to win its inhabitants peacefully. He was fired upon. The would-be assassin was not a lone gun: the ensuing fight between Saddam’s guards and the inhabitants lasted hours. The population was heavily armed. In reprisal, Saddam’s forces killed only about 150 men, an extremely low figure by wartime norms of any country and insignificantly minuscule by the standards of Muslim states. Some men were 13-year-old – boys by the Western notions, but grown-up soldiers in Iraq. Iran, too, extensively conscripted teenagers during the war. Population of Dujail – wartime enemy collaborators – was interned in camps. Some were arrested. That is not a crime against humanity. Time would come when the US would see Saddam’s killing of Shiites as favor. Now, Sunnis will correctly see the Iraqi Shiite court as biased against Saddam, and Americans oddly cooperating with pro-Iranian Shiites.
It is hard to enforce justice in a place where you don’t understand right from left.
Opinion Mid East Saddam Hussein Iraq
Labels: Opinion- Mid East
posted by Ah Yun Wong at
11:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home