Thursday, December 08, 2005

Dictators are fully responsible.

Classic misconception here.

First off, he or she (I'll call him/her he for now) seems to think 'hearsay' evidence is inadmissable in an Iraqi court. He admittedly gets this notion from an american TV show. Now I'm not certain why he would think this pertains to an Iraqi court, or why this even pertains to an american court (certain hearsay is admissable, in fact).

Anyways, the big misconception is that somehow, because American tactics have in some cases overlapped with tactics used by the former Saddam regime, Bush must be equally guilty of something or other.

Should Saddam be punished for the work of his minions in terrorizing and torturing his populace, while Bush is given a pass on the Abu Ghraib torture abuses? Simply, yes.
There are a few good reasons, but probably the most important part is that Saddam deprived his people of a mechanism for righting these wrongs. From this perspective, his dictatorship is the main transgression, which makes him responsible for the crimes committed through it.

This is vaguely akin to the felony murder law practiced by many states in the US. If you are committing a qualifying crime while someone dies, even for an unrelated reason, you are guilty of murder.

Here, the crime is depriving a nation of its choice of governance. That other crimes were committed by his regime only compounds his guilt. That he was not the triggerman for some crime or another is irrelevent. He was dictator, and is thus completely responsible.

This brings me back to a previous posting, where I pointed out that democracy is the only way of transferring governmental liability onto its people. That is, in essence, why no US gov't official can reasonably tried for such a crime. The American people have both the responsibility and the power to prevent and correct for such crimes. With them lies the sole responsibility as well.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home