Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (5081)	12/30/2003 5:15:29 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6358

Sympathy for the Devil Brace yourself for 2004. AUTHOR'S NOTE: As tradition requires, NRO is running its annual New Year's predictions this week, which you can check out here. But here's one 2004 prediction I wanted to expand one. A shorter version of this appeared in last Saturday's Times of London, by the way. In 2004, more dumb things will be said by more educated people about the trial of Saddam Hussein than all dumb things about all other major subjects combined. Already, we're hearing how Saddam "deserves" to be treated with more fairness, humanity, and dignity. We're told how he "deserves" a fair trial at the Hague, where Eurocrats will no doubt make the issue of American and British arms-trading from 20 years ago (as opposed to French and Russian dealings from less than one year ago) the central issue. One can even see the Butcher of Baghdad getting off on the top counts of the indictment — mass murder, genocide, etc. — but getting nailed for the lesser offense of illegally trading with the United States. So let's clear up a few things. First, Saddam "deserves" nothing. Yes, he should have a fair trial (and a fair execution). But that's because he's a prop. If we can squeeze some good out of this evil man by giving him a decent trial we should do it — because the Iraqi people deserve it, not because he does. I'm in favor of a big legal circus, if a big legal circus will help put that brutalized nation on the path to a decent life. However, if it were clear that loofahing him with a cheese grater would do even more to improve Iraqi life, than I'd be for that. Because there are fine legal distinctions between the British and American systems, and because I am entirely ignorant of what those distinctions in fact are, let me make a fairly simple point that applies equally to both our societies. Due process and the legal protections therein are not and should not be conceived as protections for guilty people. Rather, they are necessary safeguards against falsely convicting the innocent. It is never "unfair" to the guilty if they are convicted without due process. The protections afforded the guilty are the necessary costs of making sure the innocent are protected. But Saddam — duh — is guilty. We know this. Just as a rapist deserves punishment even if the cop who nabs him is crooked, Saddam would still be deserving of an ugly end even if this had been the imperialistic-war-for-oil its critics claim. And, the only reason to delay his just desserts with a long, drawn-out trial is if such a spectacle will help the Iraqis. Fairness to Saddam would require hot pokers, not free lawyers. A second wellspring of idiocy will come from those who demand that the United States "leave Iraq to the Iraqis" as soon as possible but who would also deny the Iraqis the fundamental sovereignty to try their oppressor. Which is it? Should the Iraqis have self-rule, or not? You cannot cherry-pick. In Brussels it may seem rational that a nation can maintain its sovereignty while ceding authority on everything but garbage collection to a foreign authority. But sovereignty means something else to the rest of us. Unlike the Nazis victims, Saddam's were mostly his own countrymen. Why should French or Russian judges decide the man's fate, when their governments didn't even want him deposed? Which brings us to the third front in the war on obtuseness: power worship. Few clichés are uttered with more aggressive ignorance by the speak-truth-to-power radical Left than Acton's aphorism that "power corrupts." Not only it is not true — if absolute power corrupted absolutely, wouldn't God be the devil? — but Acton wasn't talking about the corruption of political rulers, he was talking about the corruption of the historians who judge them. Acton couldn't abide by the tendency of distant observers to absolve bad popes and kings on account of their power. The West is rife with this sort of corruption. Here, the more brutal and totalitarian a distant regime is — particularly if it "stands up to America" — the more likely it is you will find a journalist, intellectual, or professional activist who will forgive it its trespasses from the comfort of his home. This goes a long way toward explaining why the Castros and Saddams are cut so much slack, while Bush and Blair are burned in effigy. The power worship of the chattering classes is too rich a subject to adequately cover here, but it will surely bend morality and reason into a Mobius strip of asininity before Saddam's trial is over. The BBC News Online has informed its staff that they must not refer to Saddam as a "dictator." The designation "deposed former President" is preferred because Saddam had been supported in a national referendum in which he received 100 percent of the vote. By this standard, Hitler — who actually won a real election — should be referred to as the "deceased German chancellor" since he wasn't even deposed. But this is a but a morsel compared to the cornucopia to come in 2004 when Saddam stands in the dock. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. I want to apologize to readers, staff, bosses, colleagues, and anyone else who may or may not be vexed by the paucity of G-Files in recent times. One of my major New Year's resolutions is to get my act back together. Your continued consideration and patience is greatly — greatly — appreciated. 2. If you missed it, you might check out my review of Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment in that other magazine. 3. And now for the most exciting news: Upon their return from their honeymoon (congrats on all that too) in Mexico, my brother- and sister-in-law — who are also neighbors — have adopted a protégé for Cosmo. He's only seven weeks old right now, but the kernel of a mighty beast clearly resides in his bear-cub-like frame. Cosmo is not ecstatic about the presence of another baby in his life, but once it was made clear to him that this is no upstart but a paduan to his Jedi, Cosmo came around. And, most fittingly, the tyke is named..."Buckley"!