And so it ends. Saddam has been executed and the event captured, from beginning to end, on video. As the media are reporting it, Saddam’s Shi’a executioners slipped the noose around his neck whilst people in the crowd can be heard to chant “Moqtada, Moqtada” in obvious reference to Iraqi Shi’a leader Moqtada as-Sadr. As the trapdoor opens and he drops through it, Saddam can be heard saying the shahada (testimony of faith). The grainy snuff film speaks volumes about what took place yesterday.
Few Muslims will lament the end of Saddam’s reign and injustice and oppression rarely lasts forever — sic semper tyrannis — but one can’t help but be less than optimistic about the effect that his execution will have on the course of events in Iraq.
Firstly, contrary to what some people are now saying, this was not the Nuremberg Trials (not that the Nuremberg Trials were themselves free of criticism); but this was not a didactic exercise for other would-be tyrants and a supposed example of justice and due process. Saddam was tried only for one of his more minor offences against humanity and not for what are thought to have been far more serious atrocities such as the gassing of the Kurds. The opportunity that the trials afforded to examine and judge every detail of Saddam’s rule was largely wasted in favour, it seems, of a quick trial and execution.
It’s important not to forget that Saddam was tried by a state which his supporters continued to wage war against, whereas Nuremberg took place after World War II had ended. A more proper analogy might be to consider whether the trial of captured Nazi leaders would have had the same credibility had it been conducted at the height of the blitz on London. This goes some way to explaining one of the more fundamental criticisms about the trial of Saddam.
Furthermore, we have witnessed a trial which seemed, at times, almost farcical. Shortly before the trial began, the judges undertook a quick course in Western ideas of justice and held a few practice sessions in mock courts established in Western hotel rooms. When the trial finally began, many of the judges’ names had to be kept secret for fear of retribution from Saddam supporters. As the trial proceeded, some judges were seen to be almost supportive of Saddam and others were sacked by the government. Numerous people, including witnesses and several of Saddam’s own lawyers, were murdered and there was constant reports of threats and intimidation from both sides.
The court was located in a heavily fortified bunker deep in the green zone. If this really was meant to symbolise the birth of a new Iraq, then it speaks volumes that the trial had to be held in such conditions, replete with a 24 hour curfew over all of Baghdad when the verdict was announced.
In the recent past, war criminals and people of Saddam’s ilk more usually found themselves facing trial in an international court. Aside from the standards of justice and process, an international court would have ensured that Saddam’s involvement in the gassing of the Kurds were more properly explored. Instead, the US and her allies opted to have Saddam face a more localised form of justice. One can only speculate as to their reasons but it is reasonable to assume that a full and frank accounting of Saddam’s rule would have involved some mention of his relationship with the US and other Western governments during, for example, the Iran-Iraq War.
The execution of Saddam was supposed to provide the Iraqi people with what Oprah might describe as “closure” on the Saddam era and to usher in a new Iraq. President Bush described his sentencing as a “milestone” and other commentators spoke of Saddam as though his death would have almost metaphysical redemptive power for the people of Iraq. Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, for example, spoke yesterday about how the death of Saddam would allow Iraqis to sleep easy in the knowledge that he couldn’t now return to power.
However, it would be a mistake to think that anything has been proven or changed by the execution of Saddam. Far from demonstrating the legitimacy and strength of the new Iraqi state, the trial has revealed its weakness and the insecurities of the Coalition of the Willing.
10 comments ↓
Yes, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, and I am sure many feel vindicated right about now, but I think executing him was merciful since he would have suffered much more if he was to be kept alive.
But what struck me the most is how perverse and grotesque the whole “spectacle” was. A loud, horrific execution. And I don’t see how anyone can rejoice in watching such a punishment (dancing, fireworks). It’s too disturbing to even contemplate. The man is being executed, that is your vindication. To dance makes it even more barbaric.
Raed Jarrar makes some interesting observations on the execution.
I agree, its almost pornographic in nature and very twisted, grotesque. It does not show an advancement of Iraqi society rather a replacement of one brutal regime with another. The people in the execution chamber may use religious imagery but it is profoundly irreligious in any tradition to gloat and taunt like that. The shia who presided over it should realise what message it conveys to the world about their religion.
Is this what the coalition of the willing has brought to Iraq? it is indistinguishable from the type of grotesque display that Saddam would arrange himself.
My other point concerns the trial itself, which was a sham. Undoubtedly he is guilty and deserves execution, however if one wishes to conduct a trial then it should be a court with some semblance to justice, rules of evidence etc. From the snippets one sees and reads about the trial itself was farcical, with an almost operatic quality.
This is in keeping with the rest of the war on terror where reality is replaced by crude symbols and slogans, beneath which there is no real substance. So civilised POW arrangements are replaced by camp x ray and rendition, the laws governing fair trials are replaced by draconian arbitrary rules that are unfair, and now trials themselves are replaced by street theatre of the absurd.
It fits into the underlying theme that the coalition believe, i.e. that Muslims are less than human, less than civilised and that western or worldwide standards of human treatment need not apply to them.
Unfortunately the way that some Muslims behave (as witnessed by this execution) reinforce this view.
The link below show Saddam in an earlier Christmas in happier times (1983) with a close friend
here
This meeting occurred 16 months after the crime in Dujail for which he has now been executed
Rumsfeld hides his moral outrage very well
punishment as pornography
Salaams,
I found Robert Fisk’s analysis best, and in my view this entire event has confirmed that the occupation is in sync with the sectarian thugs.
It also makes me wonder who will be chosen as the next Iraqi bogeyman to keep the “occupation spirit” now that Zarqawi and Saddam are out. Any guesses?
Ironically, 2007 was meant to be the year that they went after Moqtada as-Sadr and his “Mahdi Army”.
Izzet Ibrahim ad-Duri it is being reported has been declared the new leader of the Baath Party and the “rightful president of Iraq”.
Juan Cole (www.juancole.com) mentions it in his latest entry.
I think 2007 will still be a year Muqtada is taken out.
The irony in all this is that just 5 years ago Saddam was seen as a Zalim (Oppressor) throughout the Arab world, yet at his death he is seen as a Mazlum (Oppressed) and a Martyr.
How is any of this meant to be good for the region?
The barbaric display the shiites were putting on during the last moments of this mans life shows how much Iraq needed Saddam to keep them tame.
It is very depressing, and the thoughts above echo my sentiments. I really don’t know how things can get much worse than they are now.
[...] UPDATE (6/1): As well as looking at the reaction of blogs in Australia, this site details some of the links and articles on Arab and Muslim websites and blogs, as well as gives its own view. Regular Australian Muslim commentator, Irfan Yusuf also gives his view. « Palm Island inquiry mess gets worse | More on Palm Island and Indigneous justice » [...]
Leave a Comment