How not to execute a dictator
John Prescott uses the word "". Other commentators have used terms like "tawdry", "obscene", "disgusting", "disgraceful", and "barbaric" to describe the scenes at the gallows which have apparently "overshadowed" the execution of Saddam Hussein. I can't disagree with their word-choice. Those of us who oppose capital punishment on moral grounds may find that those terms apply equally to all state-sanctioned killings.
Nevertheless, the mobile phone footage we've now seen is likely to haunt the new Iraq as it provokes even further civil unrest. That the execution was handled appallingly by the Iraqi authorities seems now almost universally accepted. Critics will ask how a government can hope to run a country when it can't even organize a hanging.
For their part, the Iraqi government now says that the verbal abuse heard in the footage came from one of the hooded guards at the execution, and that was as much a surprise and an embarrassment to them as it was to everyone else. They have begun an investigation. Yet the country’s chief prosecutor, who was present at the gallows in that dark and cold death chamber, told journalists today that he witnessed a government official filming the execution openly with a mobile phone. Another man was also in view, he said, openly filming the execution. So much for shooting history. It now also emerges that the Iraqi prime minister pressed ahead with the execution against an that it should be delayed for two weeks. It's no wonder that Mr is already ruling out a second term in office.
The political upshot of this botched execution is that Saddam is now crowned a "martyr" by his Sunni followers; and they are, as I type, using their own mobile phones to send images of their hero's final moments, confident that the recipients of those messages will see this as they see it: a Shiite lynching dressed up as a judical act.
Comments
I honestly find all of this criticism highly bizarre. It was an execution, for crying out loud, not a tea party at the Ritz. From the comments on the decor to the comments on the lighting or the temperature, one thing is clear. Those who are complaining are against capital punishment in principle, in the first place. If we're to have a debate on capital punishment, let's do it. Instead, we have the whining of sophisticated western liberals about Iraqi justice. How incongruous it is to firstly complain that we're trying to force Iraqis into western-style democracy and then to criticise them for executing their former captor, considering what he did to them for so long. Now we're going to blame the guy with the cellphone for taping it. Weird.
As for the guards shouting, isn't that merely a verbal form of the same judgement meted out at his trial? Here is the exchange, for those who are actually interested in what they were saying (as opposed to merely protesting that they were allowed to talk).
Iraq National Security Adviser Al-Rubaie told the New York Times that one of the guards grew angry. "You have destroyed us," he reportedly shouted. "You have killed us. You have made us live in destitution."
"I have saved you from destitution and misery and destroyed your enemies, the Persian and Americans," Saddam responded, al-Rubaie told the Times.
"God damn you," the guard said. "God damn you," Saddam responded, according to the Times.
Let's have a discussion about capital punishment if that's what the problem is. Otherwise, to call it "botched" is plainly exaggerating. He's dead, isn't he?
John you're wrong about this. A war may be just, but war-crimes may still be committed within the context of a just war. Similarly, one may agree with capital punishment in principle, while also believing that certain ways of executing people are morally unacceptable.
I can believe in capital punishment while being against medieval style executions (where the "convict" is hung, drawn and quartered).
Surely this is a simple principle. There are people who agree with capital punishment and agree that Saddam should have been executed, while believing that what happened to Saddam was unacceptable.
The point of capital punishment is not just to leave the person dead, John. The point is to redress the imbalance left by the person's crimes, and to leave justice in place at the end of the day.
Come on John W, turn on your TV, the whole world is furious about how that execution was mishandled. How can you defend what happened before the hanging? I reckon you're just being difficult. Nobody in their right mind could agree with this. Even the Iraqi government say they're angry about it. The US and UK have expressed their disapproval. Yet John Wright stands along with the argument: He's dead. Job done.
Crazy non-logic to your consistent political incorrectness. It's a bit adolescent though mate.
So let me get this straight, James. You are objecting to Saddam's execution on the basis that it wasn't 'nice' enough? If you say you are, then you've made my point. If you say you're not, then I have another question for you. If Saddam had been executed California-style rather than Iraqi-style, would you be telling me that you think justice had been served?
KatKit- Sorry, just caught your comment. Thanks for your assessment of my maturity. Your appeal to the number of people who disagree with me doesn't particularly faze me, though. Care to make an actual argument?
John, don't be patronising ... intelligent conversation works better when we are respectful. I am not making a point about whether the room was "nice", I'm arguing a moral point not an aesthetic one. An American execution would not have descended into the madness of Saddam's. I don't think you and I are going to agree on this. Since you chide Kat Kit for not dealing with arguments, how about replying to my actual point, which is an old distinction within just war theory (jus ad bellum - jus in bello).
Lynching, exactly ... thats all it was.
James- I'm being perfectly respectful. I'm making the point that the only difference between your 'ideal' execution and the one Saddam was given is aesthetic. Now, either aesthetic concerns are being made into moral concerns in the manner of a molehill that is being made into a mountain, or the REAL problem you people have with this is that you simply oppose capital punishment, which is then the real debate.
So which is it; mountainous molehill or a real debate?
John W, I'll try this one more time. There are (at least)three positions one can defend in respect of capital punishment:
(1) Capital punishment is always wrong.
(2) When the state legitimately convicts a person to capital punishment, it may carry out that sentence any way it sees fit.
(3) When the state legitimately convicts a person to capital punishment, it must carry out that sentence in a way that is consistent with accepted norms of good practice and humane treatment.
Neither of us is defending (1). You seem to be defending (2). I am certainly defending (3). The US Supreme Court upholds (3), since it places limits on the MANNER in which a US state or the Federal govt may execute a person. I agree with the US Supreme Court.
I don't think position (3) collapses into position (1). I've no idea why you would think it does.
James- I understand entirely, and we're both talking about your position (3). Let's take a look at it.
When the state legitimately convicts a person to capital punishment, it must carry out that sentence in a way that is consistent with accepted norms of good practice and humane treatment.
The 'good practice' that you are claiming is lacking in Saddam's execution is what, exactly? The good practice of having the thermostat set correctly? The good practice of having a well-lit room? The good practice of not talking when the execution is in progress, like the good practice of not talking in a library or church? To summarise: aesethetics.
Or humane treatment. What was inhumane, aside from aesthetic concerns, about Saddam's execution - and aside from the fact that it was an execution, which many readers here will posit is inhumane in and of itself (and which I contend is still the main reason for their objections).
Saddam was treated no differently than any other criminal in Iraq, which is exactly what the Iraqi government wanted. What if Saddam's request for death by firing squad had been honoured? Would you be telling me that the execution was more humane? Would you expect any different a response from the abundance of voices who are in a fit about this now?
James- I think it would be reasonable to suggest that you and other subscribers to position (3) are a minority of those 'outraged' about Saddam's execution. Most of my criticism is directed at those who are actually subscribers to position (1) but haggle over aesthetics instead of having the debate they should really be having, which is a debate about the moral and ethical issues surrounding capital punishment.
Execution etiquette is not their main concern.... nor is it Saddam's, who is DEAD.
Oops, forgot to add: It's been a while (if ever) since the international public saw a person die by hanging from a noose. It turned my stomach, quite frankly, and I'm not at all sure that I support the death penalty in any western scenario (for reasons I'd be glad to outline if you want to email me). It is a nasty business, and a very somber affair. The shock of seeing this, particularly in Britain where we have a lot of sensitive liberal souls, is the principal reason we're seeing this outcry.
But emotional (and aesthetic) concerns aside, this execution was entirely humane, an extremely quick death - perhaps quicker than almost any other form of execution - and no breach of that was in evidence at the execution. The correct equipment was used, he was offered a neck scarf to prevent dismemberment, he was offered a hood which he refused, he was given a final meal, a chance to issue his will, last requests, everything was operated correctly and worked according to plan...
It appears to me that if these people are not angry because of their opposition to the death penalty in principle, then they are making a veritable mountain out of this molehill of their aesthetic quibblings.
A cold room and some angry guards do not a "botched execution" make.
I think that under the circumstances the Iraqis showed remarkable restraint. The world seems to have forgotten and doesn't seem to care that he murdered over one million people. They falsely blame the US for having put him there, and they falsely blame the US for having taken him out. The Iraqis went through the process of a trial in which Saddam's only defense was that it was a time of war. I'm sure a lot of executions in Western nations when they had a death penalty were far more brutal than this one was. Were I in the place of most Iraqis, I'd have just wanted him shot at the earliest possible moment...like 30 seconds after they captured him. I'm sure a lot of them felt the same way. In many western countries, there would have been a lynch mob. Look at how Mussolini was killed. By a mob. How about Ceaucescu? Same thing. Don't expect the Iraqis to be as sanitary about executions as the US, they've only been a democracy for five minutes. Old habits die hard.
haven seen and dont want to see the execution.
I support executions in principle if the judicial process is up to scratch; a life for a life is a real deterrent.
Saddam's execution was always going to be "martyrdom" to those who wanted it that way.
Aside from legitimate questions about "victor's justice" and former US support for Saddam, what right do western liberals have to impose their values on the middle east and outlaw executions?
PB
Thanks John for your reply, I think we're making progress.
I think hanging is in fact more human than shooting, for good physiological reasons. One can usually guarantee a quicker death with hanging.
The inhuman part of this execution with the failure of the Iraqi authorities to protect the scene. To ensure that this did not turn into a circus. The head of the execution considered stopping the proceedings, since he believed it was turning into a circus.
I'm not saying silence was required, but the person being hanged should be protected from jeering and insults in their final moments. They should also be hanged in a space with heating, so that they do not shiver with cold in their final moments. These are important matters since they make a statement about the dignity of human life. Those of us who agree with Saddam's execution can surely agree on these matters of final dignity, they are not simply aesthetic points, they go to the moral contect of the execution.
Will ... how comes you knew yesterday that the Iraq PM is not running for a second term, yet he Ö÷²¥´óÐã news website has that as its main story TODAY? Who do you know!?
James- We disagree on the importance of such things as room temperature and silence. I don't believe this was a "botched execution" and I'd be interested to hear if you support Will's use of that term to describe it. I don't believe that justice was served any less by the display of some last minute anger and defiance (on both sides) at the execution. Those people had some excellent reasons for that anger and, although it probably should have been curtailed more than it was, to react as though this execution was unjust because of it is asinine.
I agree with you about the physiological strengths of hanging as opposed to some other forms of execution, though I believe lethal injection is the most humane method available today. I also believe it was important that Saddam not be treated to a 'nicer' form of execution than any other criminal in Iraq. (Mark also makes a good point about not expecting western standards in such matters in Iraq considering the youth of their democracy and the tumultous period they're in.)
In short, I find this whole outcry hugely curious and decidedly unmerited... (unless of course we're talking about capital punishment in principle - which I think we are - and on which we could have quite a fervid old powwow).
What is John Wright on? Of course it was botched. D'yu not read the newspapers or watch the tv news? Who in this wide world is pleased with the way that was handled execpt this guy John Wright who things it was honky dorey. For God's sake, this is a weird debate when theres stuff out there worth debating. The Iraqi govt disagrees with John Wright!!!! THEY think it was messed up by the guys yelling abuse at Saddam and the mobile phone stuff. John stop being disagreeable for the sake of it.
Frankie- I won't dignify your ignorance with a proper response.
Come on John, I justified your ignorance by responding to you! Stop running away.
A few unpleasant final moments for someone who killed one million people in cold blood just before his execution. Why does anyone care?
Frankie- Your ignorance was that you didn't make any actual arguments! If you think that it would bother me or change my mind to know that a lot of people disagree with me you're mistaken. Valid rational arguments may convince me; turning on my TV to find that people disagree will not.
Mark- My point exactly.
JW averred:
It turned my stomach, quite frankly, and I'm not at all sure that I support the death penalty in any western scenario (for reasons I'd be glad to outline if you want to email me). It is a nasty business, and a very somber affair. The shock of seeing this, particularly in Britain where we have a lot of sensitive liberal souls, is the principal reason we're seeing this outcry.
Aren't you not guilty of more than a little colonialist hypocrisy here JW.
You too are squeamish about capital punishment but your fears seem to be quelled if it happens far enough away. Ok for the darkies and the ragheads but not the sort of thing you wouldn't want to see it happen in a civilised country. I bet we never see an american soldier executed in Iraq (or in the US come to that).
PB said:
I support executions in principle if the judicial process is up to scratch; a life for a life is a real deterrent.
Amnesty has produced numerous reports that prove just the opposite. Crime rates in the Us states without the death penalty are no higher than those with. It is no deterrent and your opinion I fear not one consonant with christian charity.
VS- You are wrong about me being hypocritical on this. I support the death penalty in principle anywhere, including in California and Arizona where I live (and they are both states which have a death penalty). My issue is with the possibility of an innocent being put to death in error. If you click the link in my name you'll find an article giving more details.
VS- "You too are squeamish about capital punishment..."
This is a vital point, VS: being squeamish is NOT a valid factor of public policy! I have often been critical of those on the Left for their adherence to emotions instead of rational reasoning. You appear to prove my point. My squeamishness about capital punishment does not make capital punishment wrong, and certainly my squeamishness about it certainly does not make me a hypocrite to support it.
VS
ref post 22
Amnesty International are not exactly dispassionate observers when it comes to putting together stats on executions. And even if a society becomes so evil that murders continue anyway, that is not a good reason to go softer on evil.
Now you tell me, how would you deal with yobs that break into pensioners homes, beat them to a pulp and rape them before stealing from them?
Rehabilitation?
I am no expert but there has got to be a place for real fear for evil criminals.
PB
PS although there are obviously a lot of shortcomings in the system, a liberal friend of mine visited Saudi Arabia recently and spoke in glowing terms of how the justice system meant the streets felt incredibly safe to walk in at night.
This is not a defence of SA's human rights abuses, but it is a suggestion that it does create a real deterrent to mugging and raping grannies.
PB
PB,
I think societies are advanced enough to e able to remove dangerous individuals from the population at large. One can protect society without needing to take revenge I believe, It never ceases to amaze me however followers of a church whose founder was put to death on trumpt-up charges can support capital punishment. As for Saudi use of capital punishment, it is barbaric - they hack the heads off criminals with swords in football stadiums. Check Youtube for footage of this grim spectacle.
NI society is not perfect by a long shot but I would prefer it as it is over one, like Saudi Arabia, which did things like that - can you imagine if we had had the death penalty here how much worse the troubles would have been.
JW,
Glad to see you are coming out of the closet with regard to CP. I do not think CP works against psychos, the drunk, drug-addicted, mentally enfeebled or religious / political fanatics - it creates martyrs. Something we in Europe have discovered and something that will become clearer in the US if it start executing American muslims.
You also seem to have a completely unfounded faith in the judicial system of the US - one I would not share. If a country can overturn the principal of habeas corpus, it is easily capable of putting people to death unjustly.
CP is very final. Oops, sorry does not make up for mistakes in justicial kiling. A society implements CP is one where revenge is sanctioned. I do not want to live in a state like that.