secured capital,When the War Was Lost- Morally

Last week's poll was quite conclusive, really.

And no, not the result I voted for myself- as I think you appreciate, but you all voted overwhelmingly against outlawing sexual relationships between a man and a woman more than 25% his junior. 17 to 7 against my little proposal.

This week is a simpler issue.
It's about the point where, in my opinion, the west finally lost this little crusade it has going against the Muslim world.

Where the west actually showed to the world that the values it preached were hollow.

The west gave up all claim to the moral highground.

Let's leave aside the issue over whether the war in Iraq was legal in international law. It clearly wasn't. But there are always going to be some who will argue that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, and there was a moral justification for the invasion. Not of course, that Darfur or Zimbabwe are crying out for help of some kind.

Let's leave aside the dire consequences of the invasion.

Let's go right to the key argument supporters of the war would use.
That the UN was unable to cope with situation like these, that evil triumphs because good men do nothing, that the UN had failed as an international organisation to 'do the right thing' and thus unilateral action by the guardians of the world's morality was justified.

The basis of this argument, is the moral superiority of the invaders. That the systems of values being removed is odious, that the invasion is a movement of 'liberation' to put in place a better system of values. That America and Britain were freeing Iraq and bringing hope and freedom to them.

In which case, there was some moral imperative to show that superiority in our actions, not only during the invasion but after.

Now it can be argued that the trial of Saddam Hussein was carried out by an Iraqi court and that he was sentenced by Iraqi judges.
This is an amazing evasion.
Iraq is an occupied country. That trial and execution could only take place with the full support of the United States and the United Kingdom.

Now the moral position of both countries here is utterly suspect.



First of all, the war crimes Saddam Hussein was charged with and convicted of, did not relate to the 1990 Gulf war.

They related to the Iran-Iraq war. Specifically, gas used against the Kurds in that war.
Now, I'm not for one moment saying this wasn't a war crime.
Except that the gas used was provided by the United States- nay more, SOLD to Iraq by Donald Rumsfeld himself.
And the United States didn't take a neutral role in this trial. It didn't happen against their wishes, they actively pushed for his execution. The United States couldn't actually try him for any crimes committed in the wars in which Saddam Hussein was their enemy, so they actively connived at convicting him for war crimes committed in a war in which he was armed and supported by the United States. At a time when the western world generally presented him as the good guy.

So yes, guilty of war crimes he most certainly was. But it still shows up painfully as an example of victor's justice. That you only get punished for war crimes when your winning streak finishes. It only emphasised the LACK of real justice in matters relating to killing fields generally.

And now on to the actual punishment. The death penalty.
Now again, it will be argued that Iraqi courts imposed this.
This was a new Iraq. An Iraq whose new Constitution was brought in under supervision of the US and the UK. So the fact that the new Iraq even has the death penalty, is something it was in the power of the US especially, to determine. And one can't help feeling that allowing it the death penalty was done with the possible execution of Saddam Hussein and other Ba'athists in mind.

Was it really the sign we wanted to be sending of the superiority of western liberal democracy? Executing defeated dictators?

And for the UK, there was no excuse. The UK will not permit anyone to be extradited to a country where they are being charged with a capital crime, unless the country agree in advance not to execute. The UK government has a policy against the death penalty.
And actually, I tend to think that's right. The death penalty isn't something we really want to have as part of our judicial processes in the twenty first century.



So you would have thought, bearing in mind British troops were in occupation of Iraq at the time, some form of FORMAL objection to the execution of Saddam Hussein would have been made by the UK government.
Not only was it not made, Tony Blair was asked in a press conference what his opinion on the execution was, and he declined to answer.

It was a shoddy moment for the West.

We lost all claim to the moral highground when that rope went round Saddam Hussein's neck.

Or such is my opinion.

But you may disagree.
And that's what I want to find out this week.

Poll's in the sidebar.

Have your say!

And if you need a reminder of EXACTLY what was involved here, today's YouTube is NOT Music. Only play it if you want to face what you see.