This morning’s Boston Globe has an interesting editorial. In it, the unsigned author argues that Saddam Hussein should not be executed for his recent conviction, because there are so many other charges pending against him. Apparently, he should stand trial for all of them before any sentences should be passed.
It’s an odd argument. I can almost see the reasoning behind it — it would give a sense of “closure” for all his heinous deeds — but there are a few major problems with the notion.
For one, Iraqi law is clear: sentence MUST be carried out within a certain time once all the legal niceties have been attended to. It’s a clear-cut case of “justice delayed is justice denied.”
For another, Saddam committed a LOT of crimes over his 14-year rule. The trials could go on and on for ages.
For a third, remember Slobodan Milosevic? He was put on trial for similar crimes. His trial — ONE trial — went on for over four years, and only ended when he got bored of the whole thing and kicked the bucket. And Slobodan was four years younger than Saddam.
Saddam, by rights, should have been simply executed on the spot when found. He wasn’t, though, but he did have one benefit he denied literally millions of his subjects — a trial. He was found guilty, so let’s let the sentence be carried out.
And if the Boston Globe doesn’t like it, let them pay to dig up his body and put it on trial all over again.