Although no one is about to shed a tear for Saddam, there is vigorous argument over whether justice was rendered in his case. US President George W. Bush has called the execution, "the kind of justice (Saddam) denied the victims of his regime." Saddam’s lawyers, on the other hand, regard the process as a charade orchestrated by the US.
The predicted "spike" in the violence in Iraq and elsewhere is now in progress, especially after cell phone video of the hanging surfaced in the internet. Many who viewed it felt Saddam showed more courage and dignity as he faced death than the bloodthirsty guards and witnesses that argued with and taunted the still-feisty former dictator until his body dropped through the hole in the hangman’s platform.
Nevertheless, the consensus, or devout wish, is that Saddam’s execution may temporarily inflame, but is unlikely to be a rallying cry or a pervasive presence.
That scenario, and the speculation that Saddam would not live beyond the New Year, is regarded as a screenplay written and directed by Washington, D.C. Still, Saddam undoubtedly deserved the death sentence. Too much blood is on his hands. Families of his thousands of victims understandably called December 30th "a day of revenge."
The problem is the perception that if the victors want the vanquished hanged to settle blood debts, the vanquished will be hanged, if necessary through processes labeled legal and democratic. That’s the way it’s always been, that’s the way it will always be.
It’s not only the victors of war that act this way, but also the politically powerful. In his heyday, Saddam acted like there would be no eventual accountability. As the world’s media now keep reminding us, he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis – in fruitless and protracted war with Iran, in political killings meant to eliminate rivals for power, and in the indiscriminate gassing of Kurdish communities.
When judgment day came, the claim that he had given Iraq years of political stability and economic development – claims that are hotly debated – failed to win him mitigation, much less absolution. Under Iraqi law, after his appeal of his death sentence was denied, he had to be hanged within 30 days. He was, within a few days.
The point that cannot be missed is that the politically powerful, just like victors in war, usually have their way and can claim legal justification for their vengeance against "war criminals." The weak and the powerless, like the vanquished in war, can only hope that the powerful somehow reward them for their servility and surrender.
I too see the value of realism and pragmatism in state policy. Perhaps more than in any other endeavor, there are indeed times when a country takes one step backward, in order to take two forward in the perceived national interest.
There are also times when unpalatable choices are foisted upon a government, but are swallowed in the hope of some future good. During these times, one issue facing government might be whether realism demands a temporary sacrifice of respect, our self-respect as well as the respect of other nations.
In my own professional career, including those times I jokingly call my periods of temporary insanity, I have been close enough to the seat of power to realize that public, as well as media, opinion may not have access to all the facts and pressures that bear upon The Decider, as George W. calls himself. John F. Kennedy once famously compared a President to a bullfighter, alone in the bullring against a thousand-pound bull trained to maim or kill him. The top, it is said, is often a lonely place.
What I’m driving at is this: Like many of our countrymen, I was dismayed by the sudden transfer by Philippine authorities of custody of convicted rapist, US Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, to the US Embassy.
It’s not that I want Smith to suffer in a stinking city jail, learning survival skills of sleeping standing up and doing one’s necessaries where one stands. But since our laws are applicable to his case, under the Visiting Forces Agreement, I simply cannot reconcile the treatment given him with the fate of other Filipino convicts similarly situated.
To me, that "agreement" between our Foreign Affairs Secretary and the US Ambassador designating the US Embassy as the place of Smith’s detention pending his appeal of his conviction, raises more questions than it answers.
Whether or not the agreement complies with Makati trial court Judge Benjamin Pozon’s order on Smith’s temporary detention at the Makati city jail should be decided by Judge Pozon himself. Executive officials should not conclude on their own that the conditions of the Pozon order have been complied with, and that Smith may therefore be turned over to US custody.
The fact that executive officials have nevertheless decided to risk judicial sanctions, such as indirect contempt of court, suggests to me that there may have been a deal here. Either the US dangled some goodies before our government, or the US made the Philippine government "an offer it couldn’t refuse," if you get my drift.
It still puzzles me how otherwise reputable legal advisers of the government can take the position that the Philippines should comply with treaty "obligations" which are, at best, ambiguous and, at worst, non-existent. Ordinarily, our government might be expected to take the position that an alleged "obligation" which is ambiguous is no obligation at all, and must be clarified through negotiations.
It is possible, however, that the US, given its other priorities these days, is in no mood to bargain and, like Saddam’s trial, has made it very clear to us what its bottom line is. But, as I said, some things have a strange way of making sense. Either our government has gotten some pretty nice concessions, say, in our military modernization program, or it has averted some sort of major cataclysm threatened on us.
For now, I am prepared to eschew knee-jerk ideological posturing, and hope that our leaders will come clean with the facts. Many of us are perceptive enough to cling to the hope that, on balance, what they’ve done will eventually result in the advancement of the national interest. Such an explanation from government, however, will be a hard sell.
But the alternative is for the impression to gain currency that our leaders have consented to a monumental sell-out of national honor, sovereignty and self-respect.
One would like to think that there are times when national honor and self-respect trump realpolitik, whatever the carrots dangled or sticks threatened. A crest-fallen, but essentially savvy, citizenry now waits to hear it from government.