> At 9:21 AM -0500 18/12/03, Brian Siano wrote:
>
>> But bringing Saddam to trial is far better than the alternatives
>> (like his escaping to a well-guarded resort in some other country,
>
> Like the Shah of Iran you mean? You are right in a way, but there's a
> nagging concern about the arbitraryness of it all. Its gratifying to
> see the odd dictator face retribution I suppose, but it would be far
> better to see them face justice. And it isn't justice if its entirely
> arbitrary (subject to US political whim) which bloodsoaked monsters
> are eligible for a peaceful and secure retirement in the US and which
> get a show trial and imprisonment or execution.
Not to sound fatalistic, but imperfect justice may be the best we can manage. Leaving aside the issue of the U.S.'s support for Saddam, exactly how "just" could any punishment for Saddam be? I may have said this before, but here goes: if one subscribes to the basic "eye for an eye" morality, how do you punish someone who's murdered and tortured thousands of people? He couldn't even _begin_ to endure a fraction of the harm he'd inflicted on others.
I, for one, don't subscribe to that-- I'm also opposed to the death penalty, for that matter. So the most harm that I'd see visited upon Saddam would be solitary confinement for the rest of his life. Let historians interview him for their books, perhaps. But if _that_ was Saddam's fate, there are probably millions of people who'd say that justice was not served.
There is something odd about some of this discussion. It's as if many people believe that Saddam's trial isn't "just" if American officials aren't indicted along with him. That's kind of a high standard for justice, given the likelihood of the indictments coming through. It'd be interesting to see how far one might go with punishing Saddam's benefactors. We talk about dragging U.S. officials into the dock... but haven't other countries supplied him with weapons, chemicals, and other support? What about them?
> Justice has to be impartial. This clearly isn't, it is a highly
> selective application of criminal sanctions. There can be no
> satisfaction or security for anyone in that.
Justice is never perfect. I once read a pretty good argument that the Nuremberg trials were unjust, because the crimes the defendants were charged with weren't officially "crimes" when they were committed. Personally, I think the trials _were_ just, but it was an interesting argument.