It was just supposed to be a trial of a high-profile dictator,
not the global, finger-pointing, conspiracy-theory-provoking,
divisive issue that it has become.
“Politicize” is definitely the verb du jour;
everything from Sept. 11 to abortion to stem cells has been used to
further individual politicians’ agendas.
Silly me ““ I thought Saddam Hussein’s trial might be
different.
Not even the condemnation of a globally vilified tyrant can
bring about a unified standpoint in this world. Now we have to
fight about how and why he is to be punished.
On Sunday, The New York Times Web site dedicated the biggest,
boldest black letters to the verdict: “Hussein Is Sentenced
to Death by Hanging.”
The article ran on for several paragraphs with a “finally,
it’s done” vibe that convinced me the world was washing
its hands of the whole issue.
The article on the Le Monde Web site, a prominent French
newspaper, was completely different.
The headline flashed that the issue was dividing the entire
international community.
So does our press disagree with this point of view or did it
just miss this completely?
Since then, the verdict has been called, among other things, a
facilitator of chaos, an invitation for increased violence and a
convenient boost event for the Republican Party.
In a London news conference, British Prime Minister Tony Blair
declared that the U.K. stood firmly against the death penalty
whether it be for Hussein or anyone else.
His sentiments were echoed by the chancellor of Germany and the
governments of Spain and Denmark. Yet this cry of strong
condemnation for the death penalty rings hollow.
I didn’t exactly see any bleeding global hearts for any of
the 60 inmates that were executed last year in the United States,
let alone anywhere else.
Then suddenly Hussein comes along with the world’s cameras
focused on him and there’s a massive soapbox for the death
penalty debate.
Hussein’s trial, his verdict, his reign ““ all this
was never about the death penalty.
What could be an interesting tidbit, however, is the timing of
this business.
Does anyone else think it a bit odd that this long trial reached
a verdict two days before the midterm elections?
For the past few weeks, we have been bombarded with reports of
the Democrats speedily gaining congressional seats. But wait
““ now that big bad Hussein is sentenced to death, people can
visibly understand the benefits of this “war on
terror.”
Presently, the verdict is under an appeals process and may take
months to arrive at a final decision.
My prediction is that this “final decision” will
arrive just in time for the next batch of national elections.
Plenty of nuances are embedded in this situation that can
provoke raised eyebrows and dubious conclusions.
But when was the verdict ever going to be different? There is
more than enough evidence to condemn Hussein as a maniacal
despot.
Moreover, even without a smidgen of American interference (dare
to dream), the death penalty has always been a form of punishment
in Iraq.
So really, no amount of protesting would have made a hint of
difference.
The fact of the matter is that this is the newest item on the
global vaudeville program, and the most obvious course of action
for every pubic figure in sight seems to be to use it to their
advantage.
Anyone’s limelight is good enough to advertise political
goods, even ““ maybe especially ““ Saddam
Hussein’s.
Send your sympathy letters to James from BubbyGram, whose
Saddam Hussein-impersonating career just ended. For anything else,
e-mail Joshi at rjoshi@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.