Wednesday, October 19, 2005

No cameras, please


Am I the only one who has less than no interest in the trial of Saddam Hussein? And by less than no interest, I mean I am offended by the mere mention of it.

I don't know exactly what you do with oppressive tyrannical leaders like Hussein, whose abuse of power is an affront to all that is good in this world. We must hold him accountable somehow, and yet the judicial system seems so feeble in the face of his crimes. What could we possibly do to him that could possibly bring him close to atonement?

Here's what bothers me most about his trial: Hussein will bluster about, denying and defying, without a trace of remorse. In the end, he will be found guilty of whatever, and we will dole out his punishment - whatever - but before we can do that he gets to be the star of the show one last time.

A lot of Jews won't speak Hitler's name, because to speak it, even to curse it, is to acknowledge his power and influence. Centuries from now his name will still known, and it won't matter whether it went down in fame or infamy; Hitler will still be remembered while the names of his victims fell into obscurity long before he even put a bullet in his brain.

Here's the fate I'd chose for Hussein and his ilk: let them waste away in a jail cell bereft of all comfort while waiting for a trial that is continually postponed. Never let them have their say. Never let them play to the cameras. Let them be forgotten.

Just a thought.

9 Comments:

Blogger V said...

He should be made to waste away in obscurity. I agree about this mockery of a trial. Why not just shoot him? Because shooting him is much too kind. He should live a long time.

10:19 AM  
Blogger cynicali said...

The trial is not intended to be a highway to punishment for the accused. Do we know what he did? Yup. Are we sure of his guilt? Yup. Is there a punishment suitable? Nope.

We know what the outcome will be, and that in many ways is the point. The trial is not intended to serve Saddam his justice pie, but rather to honor those who died, their families and loved ones, and all others who suffered due to his actions. The trial is exactly what it is supposed to be, a public humiliation. Saddam will be viewed by some as a martyr for a cause he most likely didn't fully believe in himself (and that is true for every public brutal dictator), but in making a point to recognize his brutality and the inhumanity of his regime, we start on the path to mending that which was broken (with our aide I might add), and to give a reference point as to what should never be allowed to occur again.

If only we were smart enough to learn from our mistakes, or humble enough to view our role in his successes.

1:54 PM  
Anonymous pig said...

Your thought is thoughtless: you're punishing the accused before he's convicted. That type of thought leads to tyranny. It abuses the very rights on which this country was founded. Rethink your thought. Pig

3:29 PM  
Blogger judybat said...

I agree that the trial is for the victims, and many will no doubt get satisfaction from seeing him called out on the litany of his abuses, but it's not like he's going to own up to any of them. For me, any satisfaction gained from seeing him stand trial would be obliterated by his refusal to be humbled by the experience.

3:33 PM  
Blogger judybat said...

And to The Pig: I knew someone was going to give me a hard time on the whole innocent before proven guilty thing - and you're right. I agree that using the judicial system to prosecute any and all crimes is the only way to go for a civil and humane society. But wasn't that the whole problem with Nuremburg? People questioned whether a civilized court could actually hold someone accountable for crimes against humanity. Sometimes justice is not so just. Alas.

3:44 PM  
Blogger AnnaRay said...

Let's move on to happier, less controversial topics.

Quick: Somebody ask the Pig how he feels about salmon skins. Or ask Judy how she feels about a word that rhymes with "witch" but starts with a slightly different letter.

5:23 PM  
Blogger cynicali said...

Judybat, you're angry because he won't outwardly show any understanding of his guilt or remorse? Why enable him with that?

Pig, is there a point that we do not need a jury of our peers to tell us what should be? I agree with your notion but disagree with your wording. That thought was not thoughtless, but rather overwhelmed by emotion.

7:18 PM  
Blogger V said...

Saddam has peers?

8:14 PM  
Blogger V said...

If he were in Texas, they'd fire up Ol' Sparky!

8:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home