2003 Year in Review

Saddam - Dead or Alive?

The capture of Saddam Hussein raises an intriguing question that begs to be answered. Why wasn’t Saddam killed “resisting arrest?” According to news reports, he was armed and, presumably, dangerous, ready to go down in a blaze of gunfire like his sons, Uday and Qusay.

“’Are we going to catch Saddam Hussein alive? I think that's unlikely,’ a senior official with the authority said last week.” – Washington Post 12-16-2003. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that the coalition had not issued orders one way or the other regarding the apprehension of Saddam. But it’s clear from nine months of hunting for the deposed dictator that the administration would much prefer the man had been killed, rather than captured.

The Bush administration – if the truth be known – would much prefer a dead Saddam to a live Saddam. Why? A good deal of American money, legal talent, and time will be used in bringing the man to justice. Some legal experts are talking in excess of nine months before a trial can be organized and the prosecution and defense teams can scour the millions of documents for relevant materials to bolster their cases. And for that period of time, Saddam will be in the limelight.

No clear-thinking person doubts the guilt of Saddam in perpetrating some of the most heinous crimes against humanity since the Nazi era of the past century. What crimes he did not order, he acquiesced in. As the former leader of Iraq, he bears the brunt of the guilt for the commission of these crimes. Yet, he will be placed on public trial in Iraq, judged by Iraqis, and receive the punishment due a man of his malevolence. It may be, ironically, that Saddam becomes less of an ogre as the constant, repetitive litany of his crimes dulls the general population’s hatred of the “Baghdad Baddie.”

A dead Saddam would hasten the end of the insurgency that arose after his fall from power. As the ranks of the Saddam loyalists were decimated, so the sway the dictator has over the population would decline, and peter out. A live Saddam, even in chains, guarantees the continuation of the insurgency, and the acquisition of new recruits, especially from that part of the population disenchanted with the American occupation.

A dead Saddam would place no real burden on the Iraqi legal system. While the trials of Saddam subordinates would undoubtedly take place, none of these individuals has a following able or willing to subvert the legal process. A live Saddam will bring out the loyalists in public demonstrations before, during, and after a trial, thus creating problems for law enforcement. One can even foresee a hostage situation in which Saddam loyalists demand his release – unlikely, but possible.

A dead Saddam would proscribe any consideration of the death penalty. True, some groups might raise the issue of how he met his death, but the fact of his death would make their objections moot. A live Saddam means that civil liberties groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch will protest any efforts to execute the sadistic former dictator. Already, Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General, has stated the UN will not sanction the death penalty, and the British have lodged a formal declaration against the imposition of capital punishment.

The United States has given its blessing to an Iraqi trial and stiffed the international community. The Iraqi people have suffered, thus, the Iraqi people should mete out punishment – and the Bush administration knows the most likely punishment from an Iraqi court will be death to the Butcher of Baghdad.

by William Driver, Guest Columnist
December 17, 2003