If Saddam had not been executed...

Here's an arresting thought. What would have happened if Saddam had not been executed?

Andrew Sullivan links to a post by UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge on the dictator's death. Much of it is an argument about Catholic teaching on the death penalty, but it finishes with this:

[Michael] Joseph [a thinker engaged in the Catholic debate] exercises prudential judgment in concluding that "Saddam's death sentence does not meet the criteria of Catholic social and moral teaching, and Martino has correctly noted that fact." I disagree, albeit respectfully. The basis for Joseph's judgment is as follows:

"The likelihood that Saddam could ever rise again to power is negligible; the world would not permit it. The atmosphere of death and fear that he generated will never arrive again by his doing."

First, "the world" did nothing to remove Saddam from power. The US and UK did more or less on their own, along with a fig leaf coalition. If Saddam were to escape, presumably it would be the US and UK that would have to prevent his return to power. Suppose Saddam did not escape until the US and UK have withdrawn from Iraq, however. Is it likely they would invade Iraq again to prevent Saddam from returning to power, especially given the political trends in both the US and UK? As for "the world," is it likely France, Germany, or any of our other allies who sat out Gulf War II would participate in a Gulf War III?

Second, is it realistic that Saddam might escape? In December 2006, an ex-Iraqi minister, Ayham al Samaraie, "who had escaped once before after being convicted in October," escaped from "a police station just outside the heavily fortified Green Zone where the dual U.S.-Iraqi citizen was being held on corruption charges." (Link) In February 2006, 23 al Qaeda operative broke out of a maximum security prison in Yemen. (Link) In November 2005, four top as Qaeda operatives broke out of US custody in "one of the most heavily fortified military prisons in the world" at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan.  (Link)

Most pertinently, Saddam's own nephew, who was serving "a life sentence for financing insurgents and possessing bombs escaped from prison ... in northern Iraq." (Link)

Given the unsettled nature of Iraq's government, the apparently rampant corruption, the likelihood of additional chaos should the US and UK pull out, the persistence of Saddam loyalists, I believe reasonable minds could conclude that the risk of a return by Saddam to power was non-negligible and thus justified his execution in the name of ensuring the safety of Iraqi society.

This seems to me a very strong, and infrequently considered, argument for Saddam's execution.

Comments

[Nick Anstead]

"In December 2006, an ex-Iraqi minister, Ayham al Samaraie, "who had escaped once before after being convicted in October," escaped from "a police station just outside the heavily fortified Green Zone where the dual U.S.-Iraqi citizen was being held on corruption charges." "

How does that fact that the police station was just outside a heavily fortified zone make it harder to escape from? :-)

[Linda]

My favourite(US)editorial cartoon on the subject of "what to do with Saddam" showed him with the noose around his neck and the hangman ready to kick the box out from under his feet, whilst the judge pronounced the alternate sentence: for him to be mayor of Baghdad, which alternative, with the city in its present state, Saddam might well have hesitated to choose.

[John Thacker]

There's also a possibility that some of those financed insurgents could, quite possibly, take hostages and demand Saddam's release in exchange.

[John Hirst]

He would be alive today.

[Joan Moira Peters]

Cold-blooded murder, which is what the death penalty is, cannot be justified.
As regards Christian teaching referred to in the article above, it is about compassion and forgiveness, the latter also being closely linked to the Christian teaching that each person is infinitely precious, and is also capable of freely (ie, should not be subjected to ideological/political pressure)changing interiorly, where appropriate, and moreover, has the potential to make a positive contribution to society in one form or another. The death penalty is inhumane, cruel, in two ways: first the act of execution and secondly, cutting short the life and depriving the person of a future. Forgiveness is, again, closely linked to the Christian teaching that we should not judge others. The Christian teaching on not judging others was always ahead of its time. It is only in relatively recent history that psychology emphasized the fact that a multiplicity of factors may influence a person's behaviour, some theories going so far as to say that we are all, in fact, predetermined in a sense. While determinism contradicts the common sense by which we all know that we all do have and exercise free will, nevertheless, environmental factors and heredity may affect behaviour to a degree. Perhaps, then, it is only since the above-mentioned theories in psychology have arisen, that the virtue of being non-judgemental can be understood in its entirety. Obviously, it should not surprise Christians that Jesus should have had such an acute perception/insight into this aspect of the human condition. In the contemporary social sphere, non-judgementalism has perhaps become the virtue, par excellence. However, as Christianity has, until recently at least, in the West, been less obviously observed, it is possible that this tendency may be less connected with non-judgementalism per se, and more related to the rejection of the idea of moral absolutes, so that it may be felt that there are no longer valid criteria upon which judgements may be based. However, this is not meant to deny that there is now a genuine attitude of love, care, and reaching out towards those who hold different values and beliefs. Is there a move towards non-judgementalism in the international sphere? If it were so, it could be related to a more informed and consequently humble opinion about our own nation's/ religion's/culture's/society's historical shortcomings, which, however, does not negate the immense gratitude, appreciation, and pride we feel with regard to our own heritage and its social and political achievements.
If contemporary non-judgementalism does, in fact, mainly emanate from a rejection of moral absolutes, then it is entirely at odds with Christian teaching. For, distinct from the precept on non-judgementalism, Christianity, like most other religions, sets the balance, clearly stating that the moral laws are absolute and integral to religious practice - and the fundamental moral laws are, no doubt, common to most religions.
Thus it can be appreciated that the Christian teaching that one should not judge others does not mean, as the critics of Christianity may interpret, that wrongful acts or omissions should be ignored.
The "religious" moral approach described is entirely different from the atheistic/secularist approach which heralded the idea of "situational ethics".
"Situational ethics" holds that an act or omission is right or wrong according to the circumstances and that there is no such thing as moral absolutes. (I even read, for example, of a mother, obviously influenced by this idea, who was proudly teaching her child that there was no such thing as right or wrong). "Situational ethics" obviously appealed to atheistic political ideologists as as it dispenses with moral absolutes, which are rejected by atheists as they do not fit in with their philosophy (because philosophically, they cannot properly explain where moral absolutes could come from - although they have tried to. Moreover, I think I am correct in that,
under atheistic communism, the State is Supreme and all morality is based around that idea, acts being considered right or wrong in so far as they benefit the State).
While, on the one hand, as alluded to, "situational ethics" may even lurk behind the good which is evident in current social non-judgementalism, on the other hand, it is that same "situational ethics" thinking which seems to have malignly infiltrated politics on an international scale. It is doctrinally anathema to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc., and is the forerunner, in the philosophical sense, to the notion that "the end justifies the means" and there is probably not one country which has not succombed to its expediency at some period. It has even been succombed to by religions themselves at various stages, (eg, The Inquisition). Perhaps the first politician to exploit the notion in its worst excesses was
the Italian, Machiavelli, and his writing on the subject was fiercely condemned by the Catholic Church. It has been claimed that his work was intended to be satirical rather than prescriptive,
yet the most evil regimes in political history seem to have brought to reality the political nightmare it described, for this is the philosophy which may have been latched on to by dictators such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Amin, etc.
On the other hand, perhaps it is absurd to suggest that a mere philosophical theory could have played a part in the immense evil which was propagated by such dictators. (Yet, there is no doubt that prevailing philosophies can exert a tremendous influence on individuals and whole populations. On the whole, the spread of philosophical ideas in the past seemed mainly to occur top down: socially empowered intellectuals had ideas which gradually filtered through the ruling classes to the proletariat,
Christianity, perhaps being - in one sense - an exception, when we consider that its message was initially spread by the like of simple fishermen).
In order for the nations to live in peace with one another, they all need to rid themselves of "situational ethics" based thinking - that some societal/political malign beligerant behaviour is acceptable in some circumstances, (ie, "the end justifies the means"), and instead, all adhere to the moral absolutes. People must have a right to defend their nation or others against attack/cruel oppression/torture/murder & genocide.
However, how can a person, including a person who claims to be a religious adherent, murder people, even civilians, whom they consider to be ideological enemies? How can one not be judgemental about such a person and about any person who would actually torture another? Yet perhaps even here one should be inspired by the example of the devout people of the Amish sect, who recently demonstrated to the world a Christian response to an evil event, judging the sin, not the sinner.
Murderous hordes of communists or dictators of other political persuasions, should never be allowed to terrorize populations; commit genocide; nor should groups or individuals (as was Litvinenko, for example), become targeted victims, doubtless murdered under the banner of "situational ethics" - that "the end justifies the means".
Unless there is an international moral consensus that there should be a return to moral absolutes on the part of the right, the left, and the whole political spectrum, the international political scene could descend into a spiral of increasing terrorism, counter-terrorism and assassinations, people could become wary of expressing their political views, and there could be political stagnation, anarchy, or more wars.
However, on a positive note, we can look
to the change which has occurred in a faction of about 35,000 people, as an example of a group which reportedly, (under the banner of "situational ethics", no doubt), used to murder thousands of civilians who would not cooperate with them. The group referred to are the Nepalese Communist insurgents: The last report I read indicated that this group wants to turn away from the path of violence and is cautiously disbanding and in place of murder and intimidation, its members are intending to use the political debating process as the means to achieve social justice and improve the lives of the poor in Nepal, and they may also appreciate the positive potential of their traditional culture to assist in this.
The original communist ideology in its "hay day" obviously exerted a tremendous influence over a lot of often, young people, many of whom had probably not received an education, and were sometimes forcibly indoctrinated and coerced into joining. Whereas at one time, many people, myself included, thought that dialogue with people such as these would be wrong, the wiser thinking now is so obviously right, that the insurgents should be given the chance to reintegrate into society, an approach which is line with the Christian teaching referred to.
(With regard to the particular situation in Nepal, perhaps some environmentally friendly multinational factories could be set up in the region, which would provide employment and also bring wealth to the local population, which has up until now relied on agriculture, which due to the size of the land available, has been insufficient).
Broad political movements are increasingly transparent due to enhanced electronic communication, so we may be hopeful that under the glare of international public opinion, malign regimes may be less able to claim any sort of legitimacy.
Perhaps one should be alerted by any regime which has large posters of its leader's portrait permanently (not just at election time - if there are elections), displayed prominently in multiple locations, as this may signify that yet another dictator has elevated himself as Supreme, yet is in reality far removed.
The world's religious leaders must work hard to inspire compassion and the noblest ideals of their religion in the hearts of their followers and politicians must continue to work to urgently bring an end to starvation and cruel oppression, to eliminate dire poverty and aim at enabling everyone to have a good standard of living, whilst at the same time pursuing "green" objectives for this small planet on which we all live together.