I don't get it. The author correctly states the reason for Sadaam's execution (gassing the village), but goes on to say that the US executed him. This makes his article lose credibility and focus considering he just mentioned that most Americans don't know the reason for Sadaam's execution. Sadaam was tried in the Iraqi courts and executed under their authority.
First of all, I don't see how the author says that the US executed him.
But even if that is somehow implied, Saddam was in US custody until minutes before his execution. We didn't have to turn him over to the death squad that illegally killed him, but we did it anyway.
The point being that you can't strictly separate the US from any role in the execution. And part of the author's point is that as a nation, we generally think that we executed him (presumably because the majority of Americans are unaware of the technical distinction that the Iraqis did the deed, not because they fully understand the situation and recognize how we were complicit in it).
"Even as [America/Americans] claimed the right as the world's policemen to dethrone and execute Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity ..." I interpret that sentence as the author laying blame on America for the execution. I only contend that the trial of Sadaam was carried out by the Iraqi courts and his execution was again, carried out by Iraqis. Whether they were corrupt or did not exercise due diligience is beyond the scope of my contention. Sadaam was in US Military custody during the trial, but I don't really see how that makes the trial and carrying out of the sentence US initiated or influenced. During the Nuremberg trials, the prison guards were American, but it was an international military tribunal carried out by the Allied Powers and the outcome was not labeled as the will of Truman or America. There are people who feel that the Nuremburg trials were bullshit, and not really justice either. So I guess this will always happen when an overthrown leader is executed?
You're misquoting her. I think you're filling in "America/Americans" where it doesn't quite belong, and missing the entire context when you simplify it as such.
We are not what we pretend to be. As Americans we like to believe that we act with wisdom and good judgment, and those on the right who cheered on this war most vociferously did so out of a conviction that we are a nation possessed of indominable moral rectitude. Even as they claimed the right as the world's policemen to dethrone and execute Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity, they openly mock Jimmy Carter for his insistence that human rights be placed in the vanguard of American foreign policy considerations. For this he is considered weak and naive. In the end I just don't believe that more than one in a hundred Americans knew that Saddam was ostensibly executed for his role in the 1982 killing of 148 Shiite Muslims, nor did they care. I would be willing to bet more still believed that Saddam had ties to Al-Quaeda, a role in the 9/11 hijackings or god help us all, weapons of mass destruction. Somewhere in the distance between political opportunism and national bloodlust the reasons for his death can be found. It's a fetid pile of refuse I'm not particularly interested in picking at just now.
She's not refering to all of America, only those on the right who cheerlead this war. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that it was some farsical Iraqi tribunal and death squad who actually did the deeds, are you seriously going to argue that we weren't responsible? We certainly were the ones who dethroned him, and we enabled the execution even if we didn't hold the knife. Furthermore, do you really think those war cheerleaders didn't think we had the right to kill Saddam ourselves if we wanted to?
So if your entire point is that she was a little bit loose with her language, (which I dispute, but even if you're right) I think it was just a shorthand that doesn't in any way undermine her credibility since her meaning is obvious in context. And I don't think it undermined her focus either, since this wasn't really a focused piece to begin with, more of a lament.
In terms of who is responsible for his execution, I would argue that Sadaam was responsible. I am not interested in engaging in a conversation regarding what was gained or lost by his execution. The politics of the situation I find rather formulaic. Bush supporters say it's great, Bush opposers say it did nothing and undermined our agenda in Iraq and the Middle East. I find truth in both sides, but I do believe that the Iraqi people themselves are better off with this chapter closed. But since I have no first hand knowledge, I really don't know.
"In terms of who is responsible for his execution, I would argue that Sadaam was responsible."
Yeah in some cosmic justice kind of way, a brutal dictator brought it on himself. Ok fine, he was responsible for his own undoing, but that's a cop out from where you started, which was seemingly disavowing any American responsibility for executing Saddam, which I continue to say is ridiculous. If you're backing away from that original claim, that's fine and good but don't pretend that America didn't play a crucial part in the execution of Saddam by sweeping it under some vague karma voodoo. Responsibility and blame aren't soley on any one person or group here, and you can't fairly shift it off one by putting it all on another.
"I am not interested in engaging in a conversation regarding what was gained or lost by his execution. The politics of the situation I find rather formulaic. Bush supporters say it's great, Bush opposers say it did nothing and undermined our agenda in Iraq and the Middle East. I find truth in both sides,"
Regardless of how you draw lines between groups of people and predict how those groups will respond, there's still a productive debate possible on this issue. But like you, I'm not interested in it (at least at the moment).
"but I do believe that the Iraqi people themselves are better off with this chapter closed. But since I have no first hand knowledge, I really don't know."
The Johns Hopkins Lancet report indicates that Iraqi mortality rates are vastly higher now than they were under Saddam. The 650,000+ Iraqi people who have died since the invasion probably don't think they're better off now.
My thought is that mortality rates are always higher when a country is at war as opposed to when it is not, no matter how bad the leader is. Especially with Iraq being on the verge, if not already in, civil war.
My original point was that the Iraqi courts tried and convicted him. I can see a clear distinction between an Iraqi judge sitting on the bench and a US military tribunal being in charge. If we had wanted to, we probably could have stopped the trial and saved his life, but we didn't. If that makes the US culpable then I can't argue with that. The situation in my mind looks like this: If a police officer arrests a killer, and that killer is later executed, is the cop to blame for the killer's death?
"The situation in my mind looks like this: If a police officer arrests a killer, and that killer is later executed, is the cop to blame for the killer's death?"
That is exactly the original author's point: "We are not what we pretend to be. As Americans we like to believe that we act with wisdom and good judgment, and those on the right who cheered on this war most vociferously did so out of a conviction that we are a nation possessed of indominable moral rectitude. Even as they claimed the right as the world's policemen to dethrone and execute Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity"
Where does the US get the right to be the world's policemen? We don't have that right, it is just a brazen power grab.
To clarify, "we don't have that right" is my addition. Her point was that the people (on the right who cheerlead the war) claim that right while at the same time mocking those who preach about humanitarianism, an obvious contradiction if we're supposedly on a humanitarian mission in Iraq. She didn't go the extra step, but we're obviously NOT in Iraq for humanitarian reasons.
It looks like my last comment didn't make it through, so I will try and rewrite as best I can, here goes.
Your last four posts are off topic. Perhaps I did not read the links closely enough, but international power grabs, botched prisoner hand-offs, and sloppy executions do not, in my book, lay blame at the feet of the US government for Sadaam's trial and conviction. All of these accounts and past behaivor allow for inferences to be made and conclusions drawn about the US government, but this was not what drew my original comment. Perhaps there are too many peripheral implications for this to be discussed in a vacuum. And I want to mention that my earlier comment about the Iraqi people being better off after Sadaam's execution in no way was meant to mean the Iraqi people are better off after the US-lead invasion of Iraq. While the later could not have happened at this point in time without the first does not mean I cannot consider them seperately. I admit that I may have made some comments that lead to off topic discussions but I want to reiterate my original point and perhaps rephrase it a little. Sadaam Hussein (sp?) was tried and convicted in a court of Iraqi law. I believe that the previous statement is completely accurate and factual. Using this, I conclude that the US government is not the reason that Sadaam was executed. The US was responsible for capturing him and allowing him to stand trial. But the outcome of that trial was the work of the Iraqi legal system. Again, I find the previous statement difficult to refute, but I am certainly no expert. If Sadaam had been sentenced to life in prison, and the prison conditions he was subjected to were below international standards, I do not think that would be the fault of the US government. This of course does not mean that I endorse the Iraqi legal system, I don't imagine I would want to stand trial in it. I am only implying that the Iraqi government handled the trial how they pleased and also carried out the sentence as they deemed fit. As previously mentioned, the sloppiness of the prisoner exchange, or the legality of the timing of the execution lay with the Iraqi government and I fail to see how these grevious mistakes are solely the fault of the United States government. While the US might have taken the high road and informed the Iraqi government that the prisoner exchange would take place after the required waiting period (I think that was the facts brought to light in one of the links), failing to do so does not equate, in my book, to being responsible for the execution.
After this long winded post, I want to condense my thoughts. Sadaam went to court day in and day out and was defended by lawyers and prosecuted by other lawyers in a court presided over by an Iraqi judge, and then following the trial, Sadaam was sentenced, and that sentence was carried out by Iraqi [henchmen/death squad/murderers]. I do not see the actions by the US that allows for them to be inserted into my above summary. Without the ability to insert the US government into the above account, I fail to see how responsibility can lay with the US.
17 comments:
I don't get it. The author correctly states the reason for Sadaam's execution (gassing the village), but goes on to say that the US executed him. This makes his article lose credibility and focus considering he just mentioned that most Americans don't know the reason for Sadaam's execution. Sadaam was tried in the Iraqi courts and executed under their authority.
First of all, I don't see how the author says that the US executed him.
But even if that is somehow implied, Saddam was in US custody until minutes before his execution. We didn't have to turn him over to the death squad that illegally killed him, but we did it anyway.
The point being that you can't strictly separate the US from any role in the execution. And part of the author's point is that as a nation, we generally think that we executed him (presumably because the majority of Americans are unaware of the technical distinction that the Iraqis did the deed, not because they fully understand the situation and recognize how we were complicit in it).
consider these commentaries as well:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/iraqis-learn-art-of-legal-workarounds.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/how_can_they_screw_up_this_bad.php
Now, is there any point still to be made about credibility?
In case that didn't work, those links are:
PZ
Greenwald
"Even as [America/Americans] claimed the right as the world's policemen to dethrone and execute Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity ..." I interpret that sentence as the author laying blame on America for the execution.
I only contend that the trial of Sadaam was carried out by the Iraqi courts and his execution was again, carried out by Iraqis. Whether they were corrupt or did not exercise due diligience is beyond the scope of my contention. Sadaam was in US Military custody during the trial, but I don't really see how that makes the trial and carrying out of the sentence US initiated or influenced. During the Nuremberg trials, the prison guards were American, but it was an international military tribunal carried out by the Allied Powers and the outcome was not labeled as the will of Truman or America. There are people who feel that the Nuremburg trials were bullshit, and not really justice either. So I guess this will always happen when an overthrown leader is executed?
You're misquoting her. I think you're filling in "America/Americans" where it doesn't quite belong, and missing the entire context when you simplify it as such.
We are not what we pretend to be. As Americans we like to believe that we act with wisdom and good judgment, and those on the right who cheered on this war most vociferously did so out of a conviction that we are a nation possessed of indominable moral rectitude. Even as they claimed the right as the world's policemen to dethrone and execute Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity, they openly mock Jimmy Carter for his insistence that human rights be placed in the vanguard of American foreign policy considerations. For this he is considered weak and naive. In the end I just don't believe that more than one in a hundred Americans knew that Saddam was ostensibly executed for his role in the 1982 killing of 148 Shiite Muslims, nor did they care. I would be willing to bet more still believed that Saddam had ties to Al-Quaeda, a role in the 9/11 hijackings or god help us all, weapons of mass destruction. Somewhere in the distance between political opportunism and national bloodlust the reasons for his death can be found. It's a fetid pile of refuse I'm not particularly interested in picking at just now.
She's not refering to all of America, only those on the right who cheerlead this war. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that it was some farsical Iraqi tribunal and death squad who actually did the deeds, are you seriously going to argue that we weren't responsible? We certainly were the ones who dethroned him, and we enabled the execution even if we didn't hold the knife. Furthermore, do you really think those war cheerleaders didn't think we had the right to kill Saddam ourselves if we wanted to?
So if your entire point is that she was a little bit loose with her language, (which I dispute, but even if you're right) I think it was just a shorthand that doesn't in any way undermine her credibility since her meaning is obvious in context. And I don't think it undermined her focus either, since this wasn't really a focused piece to begin with, more of a lament.
Not sure if it matters to you, by the way, but note that this was from before the actual execution was carried out, so it precedes all that bullshit.
Are you in California? Or is your IP just routed through there?
In terms of who is responsible for his execution, I would argue that Sadaam was responsible. I am not interested in engaging in a conversation regarding what was gained or lost by his execution. The politics of the situation I find rather formulaic. Bush supporters say it's great, Bush opposers say it did nothing and undermined our agenda in Iraq and the Middle East. I find truth in both sides, but I do believe that the Iraqi people themselves are better off with this chapter closed. But since I have no first hand knowledge, I really don't know.
"In terms of who is responsible for his execution, I would argue that Sadaam was responsible."
Yeah in some cosmic justice kind of way, a brutal dictator brought it on himself. Ok fine, he was responsible for his own undoing, but that's a cop out from where you started, which was seemingly disavowing any American responsibility for executing Saddam, which I continue to say is ridiculous. If you're backing away from that original claim, that's fine and good but don't pretend that America didn't play a crucial part in the execution of Saddam by sweeping it under some vague karma voodoo. Responsibility and blame aren't soley on any one person or group here, and you can't fairly shift it off one by putting it all on another.
"I am not interested in engaging in a conversation regarding what was gained or lost by his execution. The politics of the situation I find rather formulaic. Bush supporters say it's great, Bush opposers say it did nothing and undermined our agenda in Iraq and the Middle East. I find truth in both sides,"
Regardless of how you draw lines between groups of people and predict how those groups will respond, there's still a productive debate possible on this issue. But like you, I'm not interested in it (at least at the moment).
"but I do believe that the Iraqi people themselves are better off with this chapter closed. But since I have no first hand knowledge, I really don't know."
The Johns Hopkins Lancet report indicates that Iraqi mortality rates are vastly higher now than they were under Saddam. The 650,000+ Iraqi people who have died since the invasion probably don't think they're better off now.
My thought is that mortality rates are always higher when a country is at war as opposed to when it is not, no matter how bad the leader is. Especially with Iraq being on the verge, if not already in, civil war.
My original point was that the Iraqi courts tried and convicted him. I can see a clear distinction between an Iraqi judge sitting on the bench and a US military tribunal being in charge. If we had wanted to, we probably could have stopped the trial and saved his life, but we didn't. If that makes the US culpable then I can't argue with that. The situation in my mind looks like this: If a police officer arrests a killer, and that killer is later executed, is the cop to blame for the killer's death?
Oh, and no I'm not in California. My IP is just being routed through there. Today I am using a different computer, so the IP will be different.
"The situation in my mind looks like this: If a police officer arrests a killer, and that killer is later executed, is the cop to blame for the killer's death?"
That is exactly the original author's point: "We are not what we pretend to be. As Americans we like to believe that we act with wisdom and good judgment, and those on the right who cheered on this war most vociferously did so out of a conviction that we are a nation possessed of indominable moral rectitude. Even as they claimed the right as the world's policemen to dethrone and execute Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity"
Where does the US get the right to be the world's policemen? We don't have that right, it is just a brazen power grab.
To clarify, "we don't have that right" is my addition. Her point was that the people (on the right who cheerlead the war) claim that right while at the same time mocking those who preach about humanitarianism, an obvious contradiction if we're supposedly on a humanitarian mission in Iraq. She didn't go the extra step, but we're obviously NOT in Iraq for humanitarian reasons.
we fuck up everything
or this
It looks like my last comment didn't make it through, so I will try and rewrite as best I can, here goes.
Your last four posts are off topic. Perhaps I did not read the links closely enough, but international power grabs, botched prisoner hand-offs, and sloppy executions do not, in my book, lay blame at the feet of the US government for Sadaam's trial and conviction. All of these accounts and past behaivor allow for inferences to be made and conclusions drawn about the US government, but this was not what drew my original comment. Perhaps there are too many peripheral implications for this to be discussed in a vacuum.
And I want to mention that my earlier comment about the Iraqi people being better off after Sadaam's execution in no way was meant to mean the Iraqi people are better off after the US-lead invasion of Iraq. While the later could not have happened at this point in time without the first does not mean I cannot consider them seperately.
I admit that I may have made some comments that lead to off topic discussions but I want to reiterate my original point and perhaps rephrase it a little. Sadaam Hussein (sp?) was tried and convicted in a court of Iraqi law. I believe that the previous statement is completely accurate and factual. Using this, I conclude that the US government is not the reason that Sadaam was executed. The US was responsible for capturing him and allowing him to stand trial. But the outcome of that trial was the work of the Iraqi legal system. Again, I find the previous statement difficult to refute, but I am certainly no expert. If Sadaam had been sentenced to life in prison, and the prison conditions he was subjected to were below international standards, I do not think that would be the fault of the US government. This of course does not mean that I endorse the Iraqi legal system, I don't imagine I would want to stand trial in it. I am only implying that the Iraqi government handled the trial how they pleased and also carried out the sentence as they deemed fit. As previously mentioned, the sloppiness of the prisoner exchange, or the legality of the timing of the execution lay with the Iraqi government and I fail to see how these grevious mistakes are solely the fault of the United States government. While the US might have taken the high road and informed the Iraqi government that the prisoner exchange would take place after the required waiting period (I think that was the facts brought to light in one of the links), failing to do so does not equate, in my book, to being responsible for the execution.
After this long winded post, I want to condense my thoughts. Sadaam went to court day in and day out and was defended by lawyers and prosecuted by other lawyers in a court presided over by an Iraqi judge, and then following the trial, Sadaam was sentenced, and that sentence was carried out by Iraqi [henchmen/death squad/murderers]. I do not see the actions by the US that allows for them to be inserted into my above summary. Without the ability to insert the US government into the above account, I fail to see how responsibility can lay with the US.
Post a Comment