Saddam, who did not conduct the killing himself, and for which there was due process of law, as law was conducted in Iraq, was hanged by the neck until dead, for a revenge attack against the males of a town which had attempted to assassinate Saddam.
Saddam's people did not simply go on a rampage, killing on the spot obviously innocent women and old men going about domestic chores and children hiding under beds.
They got the likely males and their likely sympathizers, probably getting the perpetrators in the process, took them out and killed them. About 148 or thereabouts if I remember rightly.
Note that it was NOT Saddam who did it, but he was executed as issuing the battle order and terms of engagement.
On an ethically equivalent basis, one could reasonably conduct a trial of those involved in the revenge attacks by the Americans for the bomb attack on them [which was a suicide bomb so they couldn't even get the culprit, as he was already dead]. One could reasonably take the matter up the chain of command to the top, who is The Decider.
I am not holding my breath for such a trial because the law that applies is nothing to do with ethical analysis, but Victor's Justice. If Saddam had won, conquered the USA and taken King George II prisoner, I suspect that a trial might have detected some crimes against humanity, from torture, to wanton or at least unreasonably careless civilian killings, and so on.
Saddam is dead, but Lt William Calley is not. Nor are a lot of other American war criminals.
Mqurice |
