We invade other countries, prop up a legal charade, and execute their leaders.
I hate Saddam Hussein as much as the next person. He was a dictator and a major human rights abuser, and he deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity. But what better way to promote international human rights than to execute someone, which is entirely contrary to the very basis of universal human rights?
Cases like this test our commitment to human rights ideals. In my gut, I want Saddam Hussein to suffer, like he made so many others suffer. But this is bigger than Saddam Hussein. It’s a question of what kind of ideals we’re exporting, and which policies and norms we want to support. Do we want to support killing people as “justice”? Is depriving someone of their right to life the kind of standard we want to set, the way we want to see justice done? Saddam was most certainly guilty of all the crimes he was accused of, but trying him in a kangaroo court and then killing him achieved what, exactly? As long as we justify execution as an acceptable consequence for committing crimes, no matter how horrible, we can’t feign surprise when others, who lack the institutional backing accorded to the United States military, decide that they too are justified in executing those who do harm to them, or who do harm to their allies, or simply to other people. It sets a pattern in which there are no winners.
Human rights are human rights. State-sanctioned execution is uncivilized, backwards, and contrary to the most basic notions of what we deserve simply by virtue of being human beings. Human rights aren’t doled out according to how virtuous you are. They’re a baseline. And as much as it can frustrate us (and it does frustrate me), a deep commitment to them requires that they be applied to everyone — even to the most vile among us.
No good will come of this. But lots of bloodshed is most certain to follow. And we picked a hell of a day for it.