Opinionated? Be Heard! Write an e-mail to the editors of The Hill and get published.
TheHillPR@unc.edu
We want you to write and edit for The Hill.
Complete the application and then submit it via e-mail and we'll consider you as a writer for our next issue.
|
Table of Contents
Don't Kill Saddam
What should we do with Saddam Hussein?
Josh Glasser
Staff Writer
Almost immediately after the capture of former Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein last December, the question arose, "Now that we have
him, what do we do with him?" Some argued that he should be tried in
an American court while
others pleaded for a trial in an international court. President Bush
pushed for Hussein to be tried in an Iraqi court with American backing.
An important characteristic of such a court would be that it would
be free to put Hussein to death, an option not available at some international
venues such as the International Criminal Court. While it may seem attractive
to assign Saddam the death penalty, the issues underlying capital punishment
have heavy moral, practical, and international consequences.
Two moral principles are applicable here. First, in the interest of
equality, killing Saddam should receive as much consideration as killing
a prisoner in any other part of the world. Thus, if one is morally repulsed
by executions in the United States or elsewhere, morality dictates that
one should also treat Saddam's execution with moral disdain. Moral opposition
to killing a prisoner should not be contingent upon the prisoner’s
identity.
Second, there is a utilitarian moral consideration: will executing
the dictator make the world a better place? While Saddam's fall from
power might certainly have been a good thing, the same argument cannot
be made for his execution. An execution might provide a “defining
moment” that could be a ratings winner for the news media, but
would an execution be making Iraq a better place? Healing the national
psyche and the formation of an Iraqi democracy will be based on far-reaching
reforms rather than media frenzies. For example, in the former Yugoslavia,
former Presidents Milosevic and Tudjman and other leaders responsible
for the horrific wars of the 1990s have not been assigned the death
penalty, yet the process of democratization continues to move forward.
So, from a utilitarian standpoint, the death penalty is difficult to
justify.
Executing Saddam creates a moral conundrum in dealing with the crimes
of the last 20 years. For example, Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld
had a working relationship during some of Saddam's crimes against humanity
in the 1980s. Putting Saddam on trial for capital crimes places him
among “worst of the worst” of world dictators and by implication
worsens the nature of Rumsfeld's involvement; the Defense Secretary
not only aided a dictator but the worst international criminal of an
entire decade. The fact that Rusted is still in government and would
be overseeing the entire post-war process creates a morally troubling
scenario in which accomplices to a crime would not only avoid prosecution
but would be given the power to preside over the trial for the life
of their former partner in crime.
Practical considerations are a factor in this issue as well. Most importantly,
executing Saddam might set back the most vital process occurring in
Iraq today: democratization. One of the key components of stable democracy
is that issues are settled with words and votes instead of guns and
rockets. Vengeance and retribution are dangerous to the formation of
any democratic society, a message that could be clouded over by a seemingly
retributive execution of the former dictator. As such, the use of the
death penalty in Iraq would be a disastrous step backwards for stabilization
and democratization efforts.
In another pragmatic matter, how open is a trial likely to be if the
death penalty is on the table? The problem in many death penalty trials
is that the stakes are so high that the evidence takes a backseat to
procedural wrangling intent on “getting the defendant off”
or “making sure the killer doesn't get away.” However, more
in this trial than in any other, testimony and evidence must be provided
freely. Only in this way can the trial pave the way for reconciliation
and progress in Iraq. Frankly, it is doubtful that a trial featuring
the death penalty would be open enough to include all major issues of
the last quarter-century of dictatorship.
Finally, there are serious problems of divisiveness in present-day
Iraq, especially between virulently anti-Saddam Kurds and Shiites and
the more pro-Saddam Sunnis. An emotional trial for Hussein's life could
easily reopen many of the old scars that are hastily being patched over
in the interest of peace and stability. Thus, Saddam's trial could be
a tactical disaster for democratization and stabilization efforts in
Iraq.
Even if all of these moral and pragmatic concerns could be assuaged,
it is still dizzying to contemplate the barriers to a fair trial. Nearly
every jurist understands that a fair trial is a necessary precondition
for use of the death penalty. This requirement presents an array of
tactical nightmares for the Hussein trial. Not the least of these are
when, where, and how to conduct the trial. For example, to be fair,
time must be given to allow emotions to cool, but how much time is necessary?
Also, where in Iraq could Hussein possibly receive a fair trial? Finally,
how could an impartial jury of Saddam's peers possibly be selected?
The tactical problems in ensuring a legitimate fair trial are themselves
huge barriers to seeking the death penalty for Saddam.
Though it is rarely framed this way, the death penalty
has heavy international implications. The International Criminal Court
(ICC), the European Union, and most of the industrialized world do not
recognize the death penalty as valid. In fact, using the death penalty
in this case really brings to the fore sticking points
between the United States and Europe over capital punishment and the
use of the ICC, a court whose usefulness the Bush Administration has
already rejected. Saddam is an obvious candidate for trial in the ICC,
which was created to deal with precisely this sort of international
criminal. Yet an American decision to try Saddam in a court outside
the ICC, especially to ensure a death sentence, would be a perfect way
for the United States to thumb its nose at Europe once again and end
any hope of reconciliation with the ICC.
Furthermore, such a decision by the United States could create a severe
rift in international criminal justice, between ICC-aligned (anti-death
penalty) and American-aligned (pro-death penalty) countries, largely
over how to deal with dictators like Saddam. Such a break would be disastrous,
because there is no way to implement an effective system of international
law without cooperation amongst the world’s most influential nations.
Countries must trust each other to be responsible in turning over criminals
for international and impartial courts to judge. Shafting the ICC in
order to try to execute Saddam on its own would be a detrimental to
American efforts to gain international trust. And as Bush has learned
so painfully in postwar Iraq, we could all benefit from a little international
trust and cooperation these days.
Treasurer Josh Glasser is a junior political science
major from Chapel Hill, NC and welcomes feedback at: jglasser@email.unc.edu
Table of Contents
|