If we believe that murder is wrong and not admissible in our society, then it has to be wrong for everyone, not just individuals but governments as well.
HELEN PREJEAN, Dead Man Walking
I have long felt a physical revulsion at capital punishment. I just about remember its abolition in Britain in 1965. Sydney Silverman was a hero of my youth for his campaign on the issue. I wrote to him in 1964 at the age of 10 when I was about to fight a campaign as Labour Party Candidate in my Primary School's Mock Election. His reply and the material he sent me to use had a profound effect on my future political evolution.
My belief then, as now is that the ritualisation of destroying a life is something that reduces a State to the same level as its criminals. To see pictures of this nature on the BBC, and doubtless in the not to distant future to see the full execution on the web (now that will be a test for U-Tube) is obscene. Saddam Hussein was without a doubt a criminal and a murderer. The invasion of Iraq can I think be justified on human rights grounds even it could not by the presence of WMD, but despite all of that his execution is wrong. I see from this morning's RSS feeds that Euan is also concerned and it will be interesting to see how this is picked up over the next few days. I did debate not posting at all, but decided that would be cowardly, a way of avoiding the necessary acknowledgment that, although I am pleased that he is dead, I am disturbed by the manner of the death; the title of this post reflects that feeling.
I am not a pacifist, I work with the military and I would fight in a war. That however is a very different from cold blooded execution.
Comments (3)
David,
I share your thoughts and am happy to do so publicly.
Matthew
Posted by Matthew Rees | December 31, 2006 7:52 PM
Posted on December 31, 2006 19:52
Hi Dave,
Notwithstanding Saddam's undoubted status as a tyrant ad despot, the nature of his execution shows a lot about the whole enterprise of the invasion. It was clearly a revenge execution by Shia, rather than a state execution, but then there is no Iraqi state any more and probably never will be again.
The only point I don't understand in your post is where you say the invasion could be justified on human rights grounds. Given more people are being killed every day - many more than under Saddam - and given that "we" have helped create a vicious internecine civil war, why do you think the invasion was justified on human rights grounds?
Posted by Lee Bryant | January 2, 2007 10:54 AM
Posted on January 2, 2007 10:54
It's a big question Lee. I think it contains two spearate issues. Firstly, could military intervention to bring down Saddam be justified (and a related issue, could it be justified without UN sanction). Secondly, can the assumptions and conduct of events post such intervention be justified.
Your comments on people being killed every day etc apply to the second rather than the first. On the first, I think there was greater moral authority at the time of the first gulf war, and many anti-Saddam Iraq citizens felt betrayed, and suffered for their support of the first invasion to free Kuwait. The manner of the actual invasion in effect and the failure to get international backing increased the probability and length of the "vicious internecine civil war". I heard military arguments at the time for other tactics wich avoided a Paris assumption: "capture the capital city and they will welcome us as hero's". However those voices were not heard.
I make no claim to special expertise or wisdom on this by the way. The person who made the best human rights case before the invasion was Ann Clwyd MP. I can't find that reference, but she has an article in the Guardian about the current position which bears consideration
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 2, 2007 11:34 AM
Posted on January 2, 2007 11:34