WHY NOT A LIFE SENTENCE FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN?
The announcement, that Saddam Hussein had been found guilty and sentenced to be hanged was predictable. Already many people were uneasy about the prospect of inflicting the death penalty, for the alternative of imprisonment for life shows some
useful precedents. Two notable instances were those of George Papadopoulos, the Greek dictator, who ruled from 1967 to 1973, and his successor, General Ionides, who lasted about a year.Both died in prison, having been there ever since the collapse of the military regime in 1974. Their crimes were not as brutal as those committed by Saddam Hussein and his supporters, but no Greek democrats favoured their release, although one right-wing government did briefly consider the possibility.
Whether or not the Iraqi authorities would consider commuting the sentence on the former dictator to life imprisonment is problematic, although such a course would have some merits:-
[A] the late dictator would be denied martyrdom; and
[B] he would spend a number of years in strict custody, during which he would have time to reflect on his misdeeds.
Some will object that Iraq is unstable, and there is a risk that another coup might restore him to power. However, that never happened in Greece, a volatile state with an indifferent security record. It should be feasible to incarcerate Saddam Hussein safely in a high security prison near Basra in the Shi'ite South, where the chances of escape would be minimized.
Present day Iraq is deeply divided, and currently much well-informed comment favours for the future a loosely knit federation, with three strongly autonomous governments, one in the Kurdish area, one in the centre and West for the Sunnites and the third for the Shi'ite communities in the South. Inevitably demarking the boundaries between the trio would be a tense and irksome process, but it would not be impossible.
That leaves one question to be resolved, planning the withdrawal of American, British and other allied forces at the earliest practicable date. The conventional answer to that, "when the job is done," is not good enough, for it is too vague. Some commentators have refined that to mean as soon as the Iraqi Army and police appear able to cope with law and order, but gauging that will be a difficult judgment in the present context. Many people hope that that stage will be reached within the next year, but even that is problematic. Recent events, such as the Democrats' victories in the mid-term elections in the United States , the deliberations of James Baker's committee, reviewing progress in Iraq and recent public remarks about conferring with Iran and Syria, suggest that some marked changes of policy could materialize. They certainly indicate a more pragmatic view of Middle Eastern affairs, and that could only be a welcome change from the preconceptions of the so-called Neocons.
Michael B. Buck.
useful precedents. Two notable instances were those of George Papadopoulos, the Greek dictator, who ruled from 1967 to 1973, and his successor, General Ionides, who lasted about a year.Both died in prison, having been there ever since the collapse of the military regime in 1974. Their crimes were not as brutal as those committed by Saddam Hussein and his supporters, but no Greek democrats favoured their release, although one right-wing government did briefly consider the possibility.
Whether or not the Iraqi authorities would consider commuting the sentence on the former dictator to life imprisonment is problematic, although such a course would have some merits:-
[A] the late dictator would be denied martyrdom; and
[B] he would spend a number of years in strict custody, during which he would have time to reflect on his misdeeds.
Some will object that Iraq is unstable, and there is a risk that another coup might restore him to power. However, that never happened in Greece, a volatile state with an indifferent security record. It should be feasible to incarcerate Saddam Hussein safely in a high security prison near Basra in the Shi'ite South, where the chances of escape would be minimized.
Present day Iraq is deeply divided, and currently much well-informed comment favours for the future a loosely knit federation, with three strongly autonomous governments, one in the Kurdish area, one in the centre and West for the Sunnites and the third for the Shi'ite communities in the South. Inevitably demarking the boundaries between the trio would be a tense and irksome process, but it would not be impossible.
That leaves one question to be resolved, planning the withdrawal of American, British and other allied forces at the earliest practicable date. The conventional answer to that, "when the job is done," is not good enough, for it is too vague. Some commentators have refined that to mean as soon as the Iraqi Army and police appear able to cope with law and order, but gauging that will be a difficult judgment in the present context. Many people hope that that stage will be reached within the next year, but even that is problematic. Recent events, such as the Democrats' victories in the mid-term elections in the United States , the deliberations of James Baker's committee, reviewing progress in Iraq and recent public remarks about conferring with Iran and Syria, suggest that some marked changes of policy could materialize. They certainly indicate a more pragmatic view of Middle Eastern affairs, and that could only be a welcome change from the preconceptions of the so-called Neocons.
Michael B. Buck.
posted by Michael Buck at 4:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home