Worst case of BDS I've seen yet.

Saddam surely deserves his impending execution. But your own standards seem to be rather malleable - however awful his crimes, he wasn't a genocide, at least as you've defined it. In fact, if one were to use your own argument vis-a-vis the Turks in the early 20th century, he had good reason to gas all those Kurds...

You can have a good reason of state for genocide. Look what we did to the aboriginals. No one regrets it.

I stand corrected. Your standards aren't malleable at all. Just repulsive.

If you win it's not genocide, just good tough warmaking.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

"tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are."

But we had known that about the left all along: Folk-enemies and culture-traitors.

If you can round up any of the people responsible for those early 20th Century genocides, why shouldn't we put them on trial and then shoot 'em? The problem is that Life in general imposes a statute of limitations, and some people just end up escaping their just punishments. But to whine about how Lenin or Stalin or Mao or those Turks (or Castro)didn't get properly executed is no reason to let Saddam out of the noose.

Because we approve of those genocides--the savages had to go.

In the comments to the post referenced here, I wrote this postscript:

PS: I can just see some cowardly war-blogger viewing this post as an opportunity to distort the arguments of an opponent of the war. He'll (they're mostly men) carefully strip anything from the text above suggesting that Saddam Hussein is a vile, sadistic bastard deserving of the worst punishment that society can administer -- including the death penalty -- and then he'll assemble his meticulously selected excerpts to argue that liberals don't care about torture or human rights abuses, all they care about are legal niceties. We see this all the time.

Let me say this to that war-blogger in advance: you are the lowest of scum not only for your unexamined blood-lust and the mindless arguments you use to justify it, but also for your habitual intellectual dishonesty.

As the post makes perfectly clear, I believe Saddam is deserving of the worst punishment society can mete out -- including the death penalty. I also believe that to try him in a highly flawed process viewed as illegitimate by many if not most legal experts is to miss an opportunity to demonstrate some of the best principles of liberal democracy -- an independent judiciary, the right to a rigorous defense and the presumption of innocence among them -- to the world.

So, the question is: does the right even remember what it once stood for? Because all of those things were certainly included at one time.

Thanks for validating my point about the intellectual dishonesty.

JH

Oops, I meant to italicize the third graph in the comment above.

The best principle of liberal democracy is to mete out justice, not to satisfy people who hate America so much that they'll fret about procedural trivia.

You're elevating means above ends, which is what folks do when they oppose the ends.

The best principle of liberal democracy is to mete out justice

Exactly, and justice is not being served in this case. I suggest you read the whole post, in which I make a detailed argument with links to relevant supporting information.

You're elevating means above ends, which is what folks do when they oppose the ends.

The opposite is true. The ends we agree on -- Saddam should be punished as an example to other brutal dictators. That would be the result of a non-political process in keeping with the most minimal of legal norms --- which this case is not. Without that, we may get the punishment, but we won't get the example.

Here's some more of the post, with the links intact. If you disagree with the argument, fine, but I think you'll see that Orrin Judd's assertion that "Democrats no longer believe in giving genocidal dictators what they deserve" is clearly false (and I'm not a Democrat).

Of course, if anyone deserves the death penalty it's Saddam Hussein. Let's be clear on that point.

But the importance of Saddam the human being pales next to the significance of Saddam the dictator -- the leader who ordered the gassing of the Kurds, who drained the "Marsh Arabs'" marshes, who put down his opponents with remarkable cruelty, who ordered whole villages to be razed and under whom torture was almost as prevalent as it is in Iraq today. In order to get vengeance against Saddam the flesh-and-blood man -- and for the sake of the American electoral calendar -- Saddam the dictator will never see justice.[...]

Occupation forces launched the proceedings even before an Iraqi government with a veneer of sovereignty was established. Three of Saddam's defense lawyers have been murdered, others have boycotted the proceedings and still others have been barred from the courtroom. According to Human rights Watch, defense counsel hasn't been allowed to consult with their clients; HRW expressed "concerns" over the proceedings' "inappropriate standard of proof and inadequate protections against self-incrimination." The defendants have alleged that they've been beaten in custody. They've been kicked out of the courtroom every time they open their mouths, probably because of fears that they'll remind people that the same country occupying them today was supporting Saddam during the worst of his abuses. There aren't adequate transcripts of the proceedings. After the first judge quit in response to political pressure, the government dismissed the second for being "too soft" on Hussein. Iraq's Prime Minister has publicly called for a swift execution before all the evidence has been presented and a guilty verdict rendered.

The occupation's supporters -- George Bush's "dead-enders" -- concede only that the process I've described is less than perfect. In fact, it's a sad joke -- a kangaroo court at which any self-respecting kangaroo would scoff. And it's not necessary for a conviction; Saddam Hussein would be found guilty of horrific crimes against humanity in any fair judicial proceeding.

The alternative would have been to ship his ass to The Hague, where a hundred mutilated bodies aren't showing up every day, and where Saddam's three lawyers, one of the prosecuting judges and his son and another judge's brother-in-law wouldn't have been gunned down in the streets. And there he could have gotten a fair trial that would have demonstrated to the world some of the best principles of liberal democracy: judicial independence, the right to a rigorous defense and the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

Justice is served, as you've acknowledged, by punishing Saddam. How that comes about hardly matters. Justice is metaphysical, not technical. It would have been better to just hand him over to a Shi'ite crowd to deal with him.

If we kill Saddam irrespective of petty international legal norms other dictators won't get the message that we'll kill them too? That's just not a serious point.

How that comes about hardly matters.

That's a mighty dangerous worldview you have, and certainly not a conservative one. Conservatives -- principled conservatives -- never favored mob justice.

If we kill Saddam irrespective of petty international legal norms other dictators won't get the message that we'll kill them too?

Given how Iraq has turned out, I imagine dictators around the world are sleeping pretty soundly these days.

You do know that he couldn't be executed at The Hague yet you acknowledge that justice requires his execution, right? So your "solution" would deny justice in favor of some technicalities. Thus do you make my point.

It would have been more than sufficient to say 'Saddam, you know what you have done, we know what you have done, take him outside and shoot him'.
Anything more is engaging in legal niceties. Claiming that Saddam is innocent until convicted in whatever court would indicate an almost terminal moral bankruptcy*.

Giving the (relatives of the) victims the opportunity to have their say in court is good in principle. However, allowing defense lawyers to have their say** is reducing the moral value of the proceedings to a theatre that has little to do with justice.

* Would such a person also hold that Hitler is innocent, as he could not defend himself, or that the victims of various showtrials must be guilty since they were convicted?
** Historians can quible over the details.

Claiming that Saddam is innocent until convicted in whatever court would indicate an almost terminal moral bankruptcy*.

Then the entirety of Western civilization is based on an almost terminal moral bankruptcy. The presumption of innocence, the right to a defense, a judiciary free from political interfereence -- these are not minor technical details. They represent some of the bedrock principles of Western democracy. would you suggest we do away with those things here, as long as it appeared to most people that someone was guilty?

You do know that he couldn't be executed at The Hague yet you acknowledge that justice requires his execution, right? So your "solution" would deny justice in favor of some technicalities. Thus do you make my point.

Again, nobody's talking about "technicalities" -- legitimate judicial systems have minor differences in parctice and custom and that's got nothing to do with the case at hand.

As for the death penalty, I only said that justice demands he get the harshest penalty that society can mete out, including the death penalty. I do know that the Hague can't hand one down. If you must have that, fine, another alternative not discussed would have been to hold him until a functional judiciary system existed -- or at least a sovereign government -- before trying him. The process underway will take over two years to complete -- would it have been so terrible to wait an extra year and do it right?

I'm pretty sure that Saddam would prefer death to life in prison, BTW.

Lastly, your president, whom I assume you all admire, claims that Iraq is part of his War on Terror, and he acknowledges that that war needs to be won on the power of our ideas as well as military might. So it's bizarre (and informative) that people here are so eager to reduce our civilization's philosophical foundations to "legal niceties" and dismiss them as minor "technicalities." Does that describe the Constitution? The Magna Carta?

Anyway, whatever else you might say, everything I've argued is consistent with the oldest traditions of liberalism, going back to the enlightenment. That answers the question in Orrin's title.

PS: Hitler killed himself or he would have been tried at Nuremburg, where all the principles I've discussed were in effect.

Sure, one of the reasons for a real trial are to see that the perp gets what he deserves, but there are other reasons.

For one thing, there's seeing that all the perps get what they deserve. What's the good of holding a show trial for one of a gang of 5 mass murderers, for example?

For another thing, you have to admit it looks bad. Fergoddsakes, there's so much evidence, why the hell not have it all out? Give the bugger his day in court. Let all the victims have their say, and let the defence counsel do their worst. That would demonstrate that the US really is committed to justice and democracy and all those fine words you claim to believe in.

This makes your government look afraid. There's no other reason to avoid a fair trial, because there's no shortage of evidence that he's a bad man. A show trial only reinforces the view that the US is a hypocritical bully whose love of democracy only extends as far as a fund-raising rally.

Josh, as you say, "your president ...," I wonder where you're from and who's your president?

Mr. Holland:

You've already conceded that justice requires his execution. The only means you'll accept as fair is oner that can't deliver justice by your own terms--The Hague. Your argument is incoherent.

oj: yes, my argument is incoherent as long as you invent it from whole cloth.

You:

You've already conceded that justice requires his execution.

I did not.

You:

The only means you'll accept as fair is oner that can't deliver justice by your own terms--The Hague.

I didn't say that.

Have you read my comments here?

AJ:

Of course we're afraid. If folks like Mr. Holland had their way Saddam would escape justice in The Hague. He's had a fair trail, though he shouldn't have. Note that what you're calling fore is a show trial--one that arrives at the same verdict but that is prettier to you. Justice isn't about looks.

Mr. Holland:

Does Saddam deserve the death penalty or not?

Of course we're afraid. If folks like Mr. Holland had their way Saddam would escape justice in The Hague.

Don't you think there's enough evidence to convict him? Do you think there's anything he could say that would be powerful enough to derail the case against him? If not, then why be afraid of a fair trial? Makes everyone wonder why your government wants him dead before he can speak.

He's had a fair trail, though he shouldn't have.

Fair? How can it be fair, if he's not allowed to speak, his defence counsel is muzzled, several judges are murdered, and so on and so on? If he were a mob boss, would you call that a fair trial, or would you say that someone was trying to influence the outcome?

And as for what he should or shouldn't have, one of the most important reasons for a fair trial is not for his benefit, but for yours. If one person doesn't get a fair trial, why should we believe that anyone else will?

Note that what you're calling fore is a show trial--one that arrives at the same verdict but that is prettier to you. Justice isn't about looks.

What I'm calling for is a fair trial under the law. Everyone gets the same treatment, isn't that the definition of fairness? He wants to have his say, bloody well let him. Let his defence counsel have their say. Let everybody cross-examine every witness. Let everyone see the evidence. Then it's a fair trial.

You don't seem to understand that once you start saying "Oh, he's clearly guilty, so we don't need to give him a fair trial" you're abandoning centuries of struggle toward justice. It's important not just that justice be done, but that it be seen to be done, and that the US be seen to abide by it. Sure, your military can turn the entire planet to glass, but that's not justice, is it? Regardless of what your government says before or after. Mob vengeance isn't justice, despite how appealing you find it.

And please note that I've not said a word about the verdict or the sentence, I'm arguing why he should be given a fair trial, not about what I expect to happen afterwards.

Does Saddam deserve the death penalty or not?

Obviously, this is very important to you, oj. Let me point to a graph in the original post that might help you understand why it's less important to me:

...the importance of Saddam the human being pales next to the significance of Saddam the dictator -- the leader who ordered the gassing of the Kurds, who drained the "Marsh Arabs'" marshes, who put down his opponents with remarkable cruelty, who ordered whole villages to be razed and under whom torture was almost as prevalent as it is in Iraq today. In order to get vengeance against Saddam the flesh-and-blood man -- and for the sake of the American electoral calendar -- Saddam the dictator will never see justice.

First, Saddam can never be killed enough times over to make things "even" -- he's got one miserable little life to give. Demonstrating that we hold ourselves to higher ideals -- that we have respect for the rule of law -- is much more important.

Second, let me repeat: I have no doubt he'd prefer a quick, painless death than to rot in a cell as a fallen man viewed as a scumbag and a loser by the whole world. His egomania dictates that. A firing squad or the gallows would make him a martyr to some, and I'm sure he'd find that idea appealing.

And, as I wrote above, I would have had no problem keping his trial in Baghdad where he can get the death penalty.

So: yes, he probably deserves the death penalty -- which I wouldn't oppose in this case -- but it's certainly not a prerequisite. And if it comes after a kangaroo court proceeding -- a patently and visibly unfair trial, then justice is by definition denied.

Remember, oj, that Saddam gave his victims sham trials. It seems that you lean towards his ethics rather than those of, say, Thomas Jefferson. That's your choice, but I won't join you.

Mr. Holland:

Does not justice require that one get what one deserves?

My God! It's like debating a five year-old.

I've responded to this point 8 ways to Sunday: he could have gotten a trial that adhered to the minimal standards -- minimal standards -- of the rule of law and been executed at the end. If that's what you need, fine with me. Saddam would no doubt thank you.(Are you even reading my responses?)

Say, is this the level of discourse you always have at your place Orrin? Because I get sharper arguments from liberals who mostly agree with me over at mine.

Mr. Holland

Bingo! The just end, as you acknowledge, is execution. your quarrel is with the means to that end.

AJ:

No, we require certain procedural standards within our constitutional regime so that citizens are protected from abuses by the government.

Saddam, or any other dictator, has no legal rights that he can claim against an America of which he isn't a citizen and he's obviously not entitled to claim any against the Iraqi people to whom he extended none. That they have given him a fair trial anyway speaks volumes about the eagerness to be seen as adhering to at least some international norms. However, it has been a mistake and has merely allowed him to abuse the process and his supporters to imagine that he might return to power. Justice would have been best served by letting the Shi'ites who he'd persecuted execute him immediately.

Consider only the purposes for which we have procedural safeguards and then try to formulate an argument for why it is in anyone's interest that we extend such to dictators.

Yes, oj, Bingo. Even though I have certainly not acknowledged that the only just end is execution.

Captain of the debating team were you?

If you'll excuse me, I'm off to find a substantive, two-way argument.

No, we require certain procedural standards within our constitutional regime so that citizens are protected from abuses by the government.

So you're saying that law, and/or justice, can only be applied within your country? That it doesn't matter what you do outside of your country?

Saddam, or any other dictator, has no legal rights that he can claim against an America of which he isn't a citizen

So, if he's outside the legal jurisdiction of the US, why is the US interfering in his trial?

That they have given him a fair trial anyway

Ohhh, man, this is getting tiresome. He hasn't had a fair trial. Really.

However, it has been a mistake and has merely allowed him to abuse the process

How has he "abused" the process?

Consider only the purposes for which we have procedural safeguards and then try to formulate an argument for why it is in anyone's interest that we extend such to dictators.

A couple of points. First, in my state a few years ago there was a series of murders. At least two killers were involved. Now, if the cops had grabbed one, said "He's a right villain, off wi' 'is head", would that have been justice? Clearly no. The remaining perps would have been running around still happily murdering. Same here: don't you want to know who else is guilty? He couldn't have run the whole damn thing by himself, you know.

Second: if you have a fair trial, you make it abundantly clear that he's guilty as hell. If, on the other hand, you have a show trial, you make him a martyr and make everyone (including his supporters) wonder whether he was set up. This is one of the reasons for having fair trials.

Third: it makes the US look like hypocritical bullies. You can't claim to be the repository of democracy and justice when you're occupying countries, running show trials, and training death squads, now, can you?

I'm curious as to why you're so resistant to the idea of giving him a fair trial. I mean, there's no shortage of evidence against him, so what threat could it be, to hold a fair trial? Unless you're afraid that he'll say something your government doesn't want said...

The purpose of a criminal court (at least, a US court) is to establish guilt or innocence. In Saddam's case, this is not necessary, since there is no question that he is guilty.

To give true justice in Saddam's trial, the trial would have been real short:
Q: "Are you Saddam Hussein?"
A: "Yes"
"This trial is over. Defendant will be released on the front steps of this building at 8AM tomorrow morning."

Forget execution - that's easy. Should Saddam be tortured in the largest public square in Baghdad, for days on end, until he dies as a lump of barely recognizable flesh?

When people say they want the harshest punishment possible, there it is. But do they really want it?

AJ:

No, I'm saying that justice has nothing to do with legal procedures. Nor is justice for dictators a legal matter.

I oppose giving him even the fair trial he's received because he's been able to exploit and because dictators should know that when we change the regime justice will follow surely, brutally, and swiftly. Turning him over to his victims like a Mussolini or Ceausescu could serve as the sort of deterrent that the Milosevic trial obviously didn't.

The title of another of mr. Hollands posts: 'I won't allow Bush's crimes to disappear down the memory-hole ...'

So Saddam is innocent until proven otherwise and GW Bush is without doubt the guilty party. I feel so reassured that we have people like mr. Holland to defend the bedrock values of Western democracy.