 |
The Execution Of Saddam Hussein |
 |
. . . marks a low point in the relations between the United States and the Middle East, in the development of international law and minimum standards of justice for all human beings, and in the struggle for freedom and dignity that exists worldwide. Though the point will be made many times in the coming days as the world discusses Mr. Hussein's death, I wish to make it again here: the victors, the judges, the United States, and any other body that claims to represent justice and freedom cannot use the same methods as those it denounces. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who was personally responsible for many deaths and injustices. But can we not show our moral superiority over such a man by using restraint, instead of succumbing to a bloodlust that demands that violence must be punished by further violence?
In the media frenzy over the executions there have already been many commentaries written on Saddam Hussein's life and death, and on the consequences his execution will have for Iraq and elsewhere. Some of them, such as The Economist's comments on the executions and the BBC's discussion of the feud between the Bush family and Hussein, reflect points of view that I personally would endorse as sober and balanced.
However, those media sources who neglect to mention, in their recounting of history, the fact that Saddam Hussein was a staunch American ally throughout much of the 1980s, have failed in their duty to present a full understanding of events to their readership. One such failure comes from the New York Times' obituary for Hussein, which confines its discussion of these events to one vague paragraph. Reflecting more deeply on this relationship, and the role it played in the creation of a monster, could offer us some of the deepest lessons regarding Saddam Hussein's life and times.
