Lex Libertas

Saddam Speculation

Having studied European politics for the past several years, I'm going to make a prediction. If Saddam is found guilty by an Iraqi or an American court, and he is sentenced to death (very likely), the Europeans will begin a campaign of righteous indignation. The "enlightened" Europeans will explain how the death penalty is a barbarous tool of uncivilized societies. Then, the ultimate irony will begin. All the "Peace" activists, bolstered by numerous European newspapers, will denounce us as "the real human rights abusers," and Amnesty Intl. will document the atrocities of the death penalty. If there were a futures market for this, I would bet my retirement fund on it (about $25).

Saddam is the most clearly guilty defendant since OJ. Even Slobo has plausable deniability. Just to recap, for all the "Anti-War" readers of my blog, there were numerous reasons to go to war against Saddam, not the the least of which being the human rights violations.

1. Human Rights - Saddam Hussein would have people eaten by dogs or burned alive, killed for the most minor of offenses. He had professional rapists. The man institutionalized one of the most barbaric and horrific acts possible. The rapes were often done in front of husbands and family members. Women prisoners, as punishment, would be hung upside down during their period, so that the blood would flow down their bodies. Torture chambers were commonplace. Uday Hussein was free to run rampant over the country, doing as he pleased, including raping thirteen year old girls for his pleasure. Even more surprising were the images of children being freed from prison, or mass graves of kids buried with their dolls.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam used chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds. Yes, using chemical weapons is clear and distinct war crime. As a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, 605 Kuwaitis are still missing, and as many as 1 in 4 Kuwaitis suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Total killed from Saddam is probably near the 2 million mark, but may well be higher. As if this number weren't high enough, the stunning brutality and cruelty of Saddam punishments stand out, even in a world of violence.

I continue to be astonished that all these worldly, peace types supported this man. Especially since Iraq's attitude could be summed up by this quote from "Chemical" Ali al-Majid, when referring to the gassing of the kurds: "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them! The international community, and those who listen to them!

2. WMDs - After the first Gulf War we found plenty of materials, including a nuclear weapons project. This is what spawned the 17 UN Resolutions over the next decade. We knew what he had, so did the UN. Defectors regularly gave details throughout the 1990's. Saddam Hussein was supposed to get rid of his stockpiles, and verify that fact through the inspectors. Since he did everything he could to impede the progress of these inspectors, it was very reasonable to assume that he was not cooperating, and hence still had the materials. We know what it is like when a country gets rid of its nuclear and other materials. They cooperate, they allow flyovers, they give unlimited access. We have empirical examples of this in countries such as South Africa and Ukraine when they disarmed. Given this information, the logical conclusion was that Saddam had not disarmed. We knew he had these materials at one point, he was supposed to provide documentation that he destroyed them, and he never produced it. Period. No reasonable person would conclude from his actions that he had disarmed.

3. Terrorism - Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. Abu Nidal, one of the most accomplished terrorists ever, lived out his life in comfortable asylum in Iraq. Saddam had office space in Baghdad for Hamas. And he gave $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. During the war, we found Abu Abbas. Saddam's actions showed he is a friend, harborer, funder, and trainer of terrorists. Terrorists who hate Israel, America, democracy, and the West in general. Couple this to the idea of WMDs and we see why Saddam was such a threat. He could easily give WMDs to a terrorist group to devliver anywhere in the world, without his fingerprints.

4. International Law - If anyone wants international law to be respected at all, this action was necessary. Saddam violated 17 binding Security Counsel resolutions over the course of a decade. Many of these were Chapter VII, calling for military action to be imposed if there is a breech of compliance. Saddam violated more resolutions that any other country in history. Some people would point out Israel, but that comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of international law. The vast majority of resolutions against Israel were done by the General Assembly, and thus non-binding. The highest Security Counsel resolution against Israel was a Chapter VI, calling for mediation on the part of the parties affected, not military action. To allow Saddam Hussein to flout, on an annual basis, the highest and most binding of International Law demonstrates its desent into irrelevance. Anyone who truly cares about the "rule of law," ought be concerned with such behaviour. Furthermore, the UN was in dereliction of duty when it refused to follow through on its function of enforcing the resolutions, as described in Chapter VII of the Charter. US military action was not a pre-emptive strike. Since Saddam Hussein was in violation of the ceasefire terms ending the Gulf War of 1991, that engagement was continuing. Allied military action in 2003 was simply a continuation of '91, and an attempt to enforce the ceasefire.

These are just a few of the crimes I can think of that Saddam Hussein will be prosecuted for. I'm sure that there are far more specific crimes to charge him with. Especially now that we have access to what remains of his regime's records. Additionally, the nature of Saddam's government makes it particularly difficult for him to use the "I didn't know" defense. Nothing happened in Iraq without Saddam's approval.

We must always remember that anyone who did not want the war was de facto complicit in the atrocities that occurred under Saddam's regime; and if they had their way, women would still be daily raped, pre-teenage children would be imprisoned and executed, Uday would be on the loose, terrorism would still have a home and benefactor, and the world would be a much more dangerous place. Now the world knows we are serious.

In the words of Paulo Freire, "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."

----------

On a lighter note, the Alaskan Bulgarian has devised a Shakespearean play based on the War in Iraq. Freakin english majors, everything's always Shakespeare this, Shakespeare that. Yeah, well if he was such a good playwright, how come he's dead?!

Posted by Owen at December 15, 2003 02:13 PM | TrackBack