Item Source:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0E2C08A9-6269-4E5B-B694-C4388958DE07.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/6218485.stm

Well, it’s now 06:00 on the 30th December and for a number of reasons, I’m still awake and online and just over an hour and a half ago first read the ‘Breaking News’ story on the BBC site rumouring that Saddam Hussein, former President of Iraq, has been hanged following his well-publicised trial.

And, for whatever reason, I find it weird

And I really don’t know exactly why.

Of course, I’m not in any way trying to write in favour of Saddam, and believe he got a suitable punishment, whether or not I’m sure if I’m completely in favour of capital punishment. But all the same, it just doesn’t feel right.

I guess one reason is that it just smacks off too easy a way for the Hawks to celebrate and cling to another minor victory in what is otherwise an overwhelming failure and embarrassment, just as they did with the death of his sons, Uday and Qusay, in 20003. And no matter where you may stand on his execution, or capital punishment in general, can’t be right.

How can it be? When such fanfare will be made of Saddam finally being ‘gone’ that no-one in the mainstream will stop to question where Osama Bin Laden is… remember? The guy this whole War Against Terrorism was intended to hunt down initially?

How can we celebrate the death of someone who’s death is likely to spark another wave of violence throughout Iraq and maybe further afield?

How can we celebrate the death of someone who has been executed, effectively, under US and UK occupation? [remember, we don't have capital punishment in Britain...]

I just can’t get my head round it. No matter what way I try to look at it, all I see is an excuse for face-saving on behalf of the Hawks.

The other thing that is frustrating about such a judgement is that, even if we come to the conclusion that capital punishment is right and fair and all those other bits of fun, why do we apparently have no balance?

What I mean is that the major offence thrown at Saddam was the barbarity in undertaking atrocities against his ‘own people’ (which is a massive simplification of the truth – in fact, he killed people under his control, and there is a difference). The simple fact is he was involved and probably orchestrated atrocities against people. Non-combatants, innocent civillians – people.

Because the truth is, both the British and US governments are responsible for similar-level atrocities in recent times, whether directly or indirectly (Vietnam and Cambodia anyone?), but they were conducted against and ‘enemy’ population, and therefore go under a completely different category. Or, if we really want to go to the source, what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Where was the chair for Truman? There was none. The victor writes history and makes the rules, it would seem.

And so, my apologies, but I just can’t get excited about this. I don’t think it will make anything better, in Iraq or elsewhere, in the long run, and, as I see it, it just seems rushed.

I also need to apologize for the rambling and lack of focus on this post. It really should be time to sleep.

Obituary – Saddam Hussein