At 6:10 this morning (Dec. 30, 2006), Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq for 3 decades, was executed by hanging for the 1982 killings of 148 men and boys in the Iraqi town of Dujail. In a statment, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said: “To you who have endured the anguish of the years, and suffered from the injustice of the tyrants during the era of odious dictatorship, your pure land has gotten rid of impurity of the dictator.” In a statement prepared in advance, George W. Bush (who was sleeping at the time of the execution) said that Hussein “was executed after receiving a fair trial — the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime.” He continued: “Saddam Hussein’s execution comes at the end of a difficult year for the Iraqi people and for our troops...Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror.”
I wish to draw attention to the rhetoric of "justice" and "injustice" in these two men's statements. To whose notion of justice does such an act of execution align? How are they describing "justice" and what does it mean to have "[brought] Saddam Hussein to justice"?
In one sense, "justice" seems to be described in the sense that Thrasymachus described it in The Republic, as the interest of the strong. Those in power make the rules, might makes right. Now that there are new people in power, these killings are viewed as unjust. Also with new people in power, and backed by the USA as a superpower, the execution of Hussein is viewed as just, because those in power judge them as just. This may be a good description of of what is politically called justice but I wouldn't want to hold this up as normative, as something that we should strive toward.
The execution itself is seen as being just by those in power, but this sense of justice seems to go along with the assumption that justice is getting what you deserve (and what you deserve is decided by those in power). Saddam Hussein had 148 men and boys killed at Dujail, therefore he deserves to die.
My question is this: can the hanging of Hussein be viewed as just? Instead of stopping the body count at 148 , it is now at 149. Are the injustices done by Hussein made right through further injustice? Do two injustices make justice prevail? Is justice a zero-sum game? Basically, can killing a human being serve justice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Good stuff Chris. It seems so Old Testament-y, eye for eye stuff. And it seems that both men are trying to put themselves in the place of God, as the one(s) who doll(s) out justice, who has the power to give life, and to take it away, etc. In this view, justice is a zero-sum game. In Bush's view, it's probably overall negative, but it's most certainly a game.
What will happen when Bush meets his justice?
thanks, chris.
another interesting point: many iraqis are asking, "if Saddam has to die because he killed hundreds of people, what has to happen to the American soldiers who have killed thousands of people in Iraq?"
quite an inconsistency in the defintion(s) of justice, i'd say.
Right with you there Sara. And what happens to those who order those to kill? And what happens to those who decided to go to war? And what happens to those who pressure those people to decide to go to war?
Nothing.
We worship Mammon. The rich are the priests, the ones who are closest to him.
So is justice served? 148 are killed in Dujail, Suddam Hussien is killed, (according to some body counts) around 50,000 Iraqis have been killed, and around 3200 coalition casualties. 148+1+50,000+3200=53,349 (plus) killed=justice. How many people have to die for justice to be served? Or will violence never lead to justice?
Post a Comment