The man who stepped into the court had the demeanor of a condemned man, his eyes swiveling left, then right, his gait unsteady, his curious, lisping voice raised to a tenor that resonated fear....I too have that "profound moral corruption" of expecting to see "the civilities of democracy and due process." I hope that corruption spreads.
At that instant, I felt sorry for him, as a man in distress and perhaps, too, as a once almighty figure reduced to ignominy. ...
That I could feel pity for him struck the Iraqis with whom I talked as evidence of a profound moral corruption. I came to understand how a Westerner used to the civilities of democracy and due process — even a reporter who thought he grasped the depths of Saddam’s depravity — fell short of the Iraqis’ sense, forged by years of brutality, of the power of his unmitigated evil.
December 30, 2006
"That I could feel pity for him struck the Iraqis with whom I talked as evidence of a profound moral corruption."
John Burns on Saddam Hussein:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Stretched by the neck into infamy and eternity but the reality is he is now maggot food
Do you doubt that he committed the crimes for which he was executed, or the other crimes against humanity he was being tried for?
"Due process" is a mechanism to arrive at an approximation of truth; would a better process have arrived at a different result?
I too have that "profound moral corruption" of expecting to see "the civilities of democracy and due process." I hope that corruption spreads.
As much as I agree with Althouse, I must disagree on this point. The essential arrogance of the liberal is his/her moral superiority.
We would all like to believe that we are above such untasteful things like revenge and execution, but we can only contemplate these things because of the vast violence that is applied on our behalf. Our confortable lives are supported by the efforts of soldiers and police everywhere.
We are only humane because we can afford our humanity - but place us in the jungle, and we would savages just the same.
I'd feel better about 'due process' if the follow-through was more reliable.
For example, the (alleged) spiritual mastermind of the Bali bombings has been released after about 2 years. Legally, I believe the argument was miscarriage of justice the first time, but some people (most of them Australian) think it was a political release.
If executions are forbidden, then the alternative is to lock people away for a long time or let them loose. Wasn't there a thread at althouse blog just a few weeks ago questioning the brutality of Wisconsin's Supermax?
I think you're misreading Burns, or maybe he's misreading the Iragis. I don't think the Iraqis he encountered considered him morally corrupt because of his preference for the civilities of democracy and due process. Such a preference is totally independent of whether one has pity.
One can have no pity at all for the condemned and still feel strongly in favor of observing the civilities of democracy and due process. In fact, due process is in large part a structural protection against ad hoc judgments based on pity.
The Iraqis have bought into our notion of due process and provided him a fair trial. That they do not also indulge westernized hangups about recognizing evil for what it is and melancholy about dispatching it is hardly evidence that they aren't respectful enough of the civilities of democracy and due process.
Jeff D puts it well. Saddam had his trial, and now it's over. Should we have insisted on 20 years of appeals for him or objections to the noose as cruel and unusual punishment? The price for that: encouraging the insurgents and tormenting his victims for the rest of their lives.
John Burns is a great reporter. He exquisitly describes what most have failed to report; that Saddam finally showed fear. Whether fear of Allah, fear of death or fear of finally losing his sense that someone somewhere would rescue him for his ultimate return to his former "rightful place" as Ruler of the Arabian People, who knows.
But it is worth it to me to read Burns' account for the satisfaction that this evil monster of a man finally was truly afraid.
I suspect there are many Iraqis that are emotionally satisfied with this result.
I do not believe they are any less civilized for that satisfaction.
Ernie:
At one time, Saddam was used by officials of the USA as a tool in the fight against the Soviet Union.
Stalin was likewise an ally of the US in the fight against Nazi Germany.
My judgment that Saddam was an evil human being with a monstrous homicidal streak is not changed in the least by his having been at one time on "our" side. Nor is my judgment that Stalin was similarly deficient in the morality department changed in the slightest by the fact that without him, a victory in WWII would likely have been much delayed, if not denied to the allied forces.
My opinion about Saddam's worth as a human being remains the same.
I trust that in the future, the decisions we make about allies are strictly made according to a cold calculation; taking all factors into consideration, will they help us achieve our strategic objectives.
You got that right about 'celebrity effect,' Daryl.
The Iraqi government has been hanging people right along, and hardly anybody has been blogging or grieving or examining his own entrails over them.
I don't know who these anonymous executees were, whether they were guilty of anything or not, but I will bet the house that they were not all Dawas. Cole is nothing but an apologist for terrorism.
"Remember that we supported him against the Ayatollah in the Iran-Iraq War. Rummie shook hands and delivered the weapons of mass destruction used on the Kurds."
I see this claim being made repeatedly, but I have yet to see evidence backing it up. Can anyone supply such?
Paco, here's what Wikipedia says about that topic:
"According [sic] Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq."
TT, thanks for the reference -- I was familiar with the Wikipedia article, but it (and the sources it cites) are a bit light on specifics. I don't think it supports 'Ernie Fazio's' interpretation of events, though.
Paco Wové, I think you have to understand how the argument works.
If someone in the United States sells a dual-use technology (such as an insecticide) which could conceivable be turned into a WMD to the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, that’s considered the same as the United States government providing WMD’s to Saddam Hussein and is fair game for attacking the United States government.
However if Coalition troops find dual-use technologies in Iraq with signs that they have been modified to be turned into chemical weapon, they are not considered WMD’s because doing so would add legitimacy to the argument that Iraq had or continued to keep technology for making WMD’s.
Bottom line: if a normally benign technology could be turned into an awful weapon with the right know-how, it’s considered a WMD for the purpose of accusing the United States government of “hypocrisy” for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. If normally benign technologies have actually been turned into or were being turned into weapons, they’re not considered WMD’s for the purpose of attacking the United States government for “lying” about one of the reasons for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
Post a Comment