So, our good buddy Saddam is cropping up in the news again. Looks like he faces life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. The government would rather make the concession to the old members of the Baath party trying to return to the political process than to see him come to justice.
Here is the original article.
Myself, I'm torn on this decision. Getting those old members of the former government (at least, those that were not despicable war criminals) into the process is probably best in the long run, in order to avoid any sort of civil war. That the government do what it can to get them out of the insurgency and into the congress is probably not a bad idea.
However, Saddam was a bad guy. If there's anybody in the world who deserves to die, it is him. If there is to be any parity in the way death penalty laws are applied, surely Saddam, of all people, should be one to die. At the same time, the Kurds and Shiites who suffered under Saddam may possibly get pissed at his being allowed to live. Understandable, given what they suffered under him. Is it worth it to majorly tick off the majority just to appeal to the minority? (Hm . . . a good question to ask when it comes to some American politics)
Right now, I'd say stability of the government and an end to the insurgency are the best interests of the Iraqis. Although a living Saddam is more of a threat than a dead Saddam, the longer he sits in jail, and the more welcome his former puppets feel in a legitimate government, the less affect he can have. I suppose he could always be executed in the future, if they wanted. Of course, it might not be so bad for him to sit in a prison cell a broken, rejected old man, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment