Sunday, April 17, 2005
In Defense of death
The Shiites want Saddam Dead, isn't this a twist. Well, not really.
I have to wonder where they will attempt to find a jury that is even symbolically unbiased. But even without such a miracle panel, it is difficult to conceive of Saddam not being convicted. So what they are really saying here, is that Saddam must die. A rough sort of pronouncement, but we should not easily forget the crimes of which this man is to be held accountable (From the State Department Website):
-- The terror campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq killed between 50,000 and 100,000 people and destroyed more than 2,000 villages and towns.
-- Iraqi officials themselves have privately acknowledged that the regime slaughtered as many as 200,000 Shi'a during the 1991 uprisings against the regime following the Gulf War.
-- The deaths of as many as 400,000 children due to malnutrition and disease directly attributable to the regime's neglect and brutality.
-- Systematic and mass executions of prisoners, and the beheading of at least 130 women.
Scott Peterson was convicted of the murder of his wife and unborn child, and sentenced to death. Why? Not only because of the gravity of his crimes, but also because not doing so would only further burden the victims of his atrocities. The same can, and must apply to Saddam Hussein. Who would bear the burden of his life? The people of Iraq would again be subjected to his upkeep. What sort of message does this send to dictators everywhere, and the brutal regimes that commit atrocities daily in Darfur and Iran, North Korea and South America? It may not have the deterrent value it once did domestically, but the death penalty still causes people to pay attention when applied on the world stage.
Precedent also seems to be on the side of Death. As the head of state during the time of these brutalities, and in many cases directly responsible, we must look to the examples of Hideki Tojo, Slobodon Milosevic and Ernst Kaltenbrunner. Two are gone, one more will be. And who can argue they shouldn't be. As if the gravity and pure animalistic hatred that encompass Saddam's array of crimes is not enough to warrant a permanent removal from society, one has to ask the question: if not death, what?
" Whatever the decision, everyone should follow it, even if the president says he cannot sign it."
I have to wonder where they will attempt to find a jury that is even symbolically unbiased. But even without such a miracle panel, it is difficult to conceive of Saddam not being convicted. So what they are really saying here, is that Saddam must die. A rough sort of pronouncement, but we should not easily forget the crimes of which this man is to be held accountable (From the State Department Website):
-- The terror campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq killed between 50,000 and 100,000 people and destroyed more than 2,000 villages and towns.
-- Iraqi officials themselves have privately acknowledged that the regime slaughtered as many as 200,000 Shi'a during the 1991 uprisings against the regime following the Gulf War.
-- The deaths of as many as 400,000 children due to malnutrition and disease directly attributable to the regime's neglect and brutality.
-- Systematic and mass executions of prisoners, and the beheading of at least 130 women.
Scott Peterson was convicted of the murder of his wife and unborn child, and sentenced to death. Why? Not only because of the gravity of his crimes, but also because not doing so would only further burden the victims of his atrocities. The same can, and must apply to Saddam Hussein. Who would bear the burden of his life? The people of Iraq would again be subjected to his upkeep. What sort of message does this send to dictators everywhere, and the brutal regimes that commit atrocities daily in Darfur and Iran, North Korea and South America? It may not have the deterrent value it once did domestically, but the death penalty still causes people to pay attention when applied on the world stage.
Precedent also seems to be on the side of Death. As the head of state during the time of these brutalities, and in many cases directly responsible, we must look to the examples of Hideki Tojo, Slobodon Milosevic and Ernst Kaltenbrunner. Two are gone, one more will be. And who can argue they shouldn't be. As if the gravity and pure animalistic hatred that encompass Saddam's array of crimes is not enough to warrant a permanent removal from society, one has to ask the question: if not death, what?
Comments:
The guy is a butcher. I find it kinda funny that he's just sitting around reading fiction novels and writing poetry. I'm reminded of the fact that Adolf Hitler had actually applied for art school in his youth and was rejected. How would history be different if he'd been accepted?
Post a Comment
