Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Jeff Jacoby :: Townhall.com Columnist
An act of moral hygiene
by Jeff Jacoby
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

"The execution of Saddam, a human-rights monster, turned his unspeakable record upside down." So we are informed by Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch, which issued a statement calling the monster's hanging "a significant step away from respect for human rights and the rule of law in Iraq."

You may not agree with that -- you may be one of those squares who think the death of a mass murderer makes the world a better place -- but Tim Hames does. A columnist for the Times of London, Hames declared himself over the weekend with "those who find the notion of this execution offensive." He recognizes that "the evidence of Saddam's atrocities is overwhelming," but, like Dicker, he is sure that the government that hanged the dictator did something as evil to Saddam Hussein as anything Saddam did to his innumerable victims. "Mainstream middle-class sentiment in Europe," Hames tells us, "now regards the death penalty as being as ethically tainted as the crimes that produced that sentence."

*As ethically tainted.* Got that? The quick and painless death meted out to the Butcher of Baghdad after a reasonably transparent trial is morally equivalent to the horrific brutalities that earned him his nickname.

The chronicling of those brutalities will go on for years, but here is a reminder -- one minuscule fragment of Saddam's record, plucked almost at random from Kanan Makiya's 1993 book about Iraq and the Arab world, *Cruelty and Silence*:

"Children who would not give their parents' names to soldiers" -- this was in 1991, during Saddam's suppression of the Shi'ite uprising -- "were doused with gasoline and set on fire. Some were tied to moving tanks to discourage sniper fire from the rebels. Security forces also burned entire families in their houses when they would not give or did not know the location of the head of the household. . . . Some rebels, it has been alleged, were forced to drink gasoline before being shot. It appears that instead of crumpling into an undramatic lifeless heap, the victim explodes and burns like a torch for a short while. "

If "mainstream middle-class sentiment in Europe" equates burning children alive with hanging the man responsible for burning them, then mainstream middle-class sentiment in Europe, to quote Mr. Bumble, "is a ass -- a idiot."

And so you might conclude from the headlines and the official European reactions to Saddam's death. "The EU condemns the crimes committed by Saddam and also the death penalty," said the spokeswoman for Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign-affairs chief. "Europe condemns death penalty," announced the German paper Deutsche Welle. The British foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, let it be known that "the British government does not support the use of the death penalty, in Iraq or anywhere else . . . regardless of the individual or the crime." Dutch and Belgian officials called the execution "barbaric." The Vatican declared it "tragic." Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com. href="http://www.townhall.com/Secure/Signup.aspx">Sign up today

Be the first to read Jeff Jacoby's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Tyrants require a double standard
As the Supremes are wont to say, I concur in many conservatives' result (Saddam should have been hung), but not their reasoning. LD is merely a parody and is of little educational value in this instance.
Life and death are God decisions. Only God can know when a human life has no further value to anyone, including itself. For humans to usurp a God decision is arrogant and self-absorbed at best. Many people change their stinking little world views on their deathbeds, or standing around the deathbeds of another. Only God can say who those individuals are, or will be. Furthermore it is immoral (Golden-Rule-violative) that a dispassionate and "neutral" punishment for any given act actually BE the act itself (e.g. we're going to punish premeditated murder with premeditated murder). Accordingly, Albert Camus' reasoning appears self-evidently superior to yours.
But here's the crucial context of why Saddam's hanging was justified. As long as we as individuals insist on following, worshipping, and otherwise obeying the dominant members of the suicidally stupid human pecking order of the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring coercion-based Power who call themselves "government," there will be "kings" and tyrants. And those "kings" and tyrants, have never given up power voluntarily.
Because the supporters of any deposed tyrant would cause nothing but heartache and trouble until he was reinstalled as tyrant, it is far better and more pragmatic to simply kill the deposed tyrant ASAP.
True, that is a double standard, but coercion-based "law" ("government") itself is, by nature and definition a double standard. Law has always been made for the subjects. It simply does not defacto apply to those who administer it, the infinite lies of statists notwithstanding. The mechanics are "the law is what whoever administers the law says it is." The defacto axiom is "the judge can do whatever he pleases."
Our pathetic little lemming brains are so scrambled by the sublety of the One Ring that we even invent whole separate languages to disguise the deception. When an individual kills on purpose, it is called "murder", or, at best, "self defense." When the state kills on purpose the word is "execute," or war "casualty" or “tragic mistake.”
These are questions which sincere truth seekers have always discussed.
But, we are stupid, and we do tend to follow "government", at least at this point in our species' history. Given that reality and that context for the moment, Saddam was a sadistic, murdering moral-mutant scum who received the cause-and-effect results of his Golden-rule-violative actions. That was his Karma. And it doesn't bother me in the least, although, on a spiritual and intellectual level, I remain steadfastly opposed to the death penalty in general for the aforementioned reasons.
One additional reason for my opposition remains. Because of the mechanics of the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting One-Ring, its addict-possessers who prosecute, judge, and implement "judicial"/"government" murders will forever tend to lie, cheat, steal and murder to coverup the fact that they sometimes kill innocent people. However rarely that may happen, only amoral amoebas can pretend that it has never happened. When it does happen, from a moral point of veiw, Camus' reasoning applies, and every supporter of the death penalty deserves to be executed for the state murder of the innocent wrongly-convicted person. To preserve "the people's" faith in the justice and fairness of government murders is the reason why government never admits that it does, in fact, occasionally murder innocent individuals in the name of "justice."
If it were possible, it would be my sincere hope an prayer that every death-penalty supporter who arrogantly thinks that the execution of "a few" innocent people is the wise, just and "necessary" price that society must pay for keeping the theoretical deterrent of the death penalty in vogue, will be the next innocent person to find himself executed by the state.
If we were smart enough to let the potheads out of prison (we aren't), we would have plenty of cage space to mete out life-without-parole sentences to murderers. That way we could let the wrongly convicted out when we discovered their innocence. With the death penalty, mistakes are irrevocable, and, from a Golden-Rule moral point of view I find that anathematical.

saddam
I guess i'm missing something. Before (and during) the war I constantly read in the unbiased media that Saddam wouldnt work with the Islamic boys (and they wouldnt work with him ) because he was secular. Why should the Arab street care if we hang an infidel? Thats one less infidel for them to bump off. Also they call what went on when he was hanged taunting? A high school hoop player would get more grief taking a free throw at a road game. If you can argue he shouldnt have been killed how easy will it be to say that if we had a shot at OBL we shouldnt shoot the missle ( or bullet) because that would basically be executing him w/o a trial.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.