Incompetence Inc.

Well finally, after a more than fair trial (remember – “Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule”*) and a lengthy 15 minute appeal process, the people can celebrate with the hanging of the brutal, psychopathic dictator Saddam Hussein.

Woo!

Isn’t it a great feeling to finally know that some completely irrelevant guy is now dead, and he won’t be escaping from his maximum security prison and going after your family?

Finally we can all relax and know that the Allied Forces have done a great job, and that its finally over because “it is an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy
that can govern, sustain, and defend itself, and be an ally in the war
on terror”*.

Because, obviously, killing off an old hack who has been in US custody for some time, and who is unable to so much as move, yet is obviously capable of using his imaginary WMDs to blow up things, is such a great achievement in this war on terror.

The war in Iraq is going swell, so this could not have been some clever ploy to draw our attention away from the bloodshed, and towards the way we joyfully kill bad people.

And how many people actually feel this way?

Between his sentencing and the execution yesterday, too many people have been hailing it as a great conquest, hailing “good riddance” to the brutal dictator. Completely irrelevant was the fact that he had been “rid” back in 2003, where he became a fugitive, with absolutely no influence, and no possible way to commit more crimes. He was then again “rid”, when they captured him in late 2003. And yesterday, as if he were still some incredibly dangerous man, he was executed, ridding him for the third and final time, all three instances timed impeccably well. So well, even, that had George Bush not stated otherwise, it would seem that this was the workings of a President who could offer the people nothing – not peace, not victory – but the killing of a frivolous, downtrodden man.

Yet no less troubling is the fervour with which people, including most Western governments are celebrating the execution of Mr. Hussein. It is deeply disturbing, yet not in the least surprising, that the Commonwealth Government of Australia has itself fully supported the hanging, even praising America and Iraq, with Prime Minister Howard saying: “I believe there is something quite heroic about a country that is going through the pain and the suffering that Iraq is going through, yet still extends due process to somebody who was a tyrant and brutal suppressor and murderer of his people”.

The irony being, that Australia seemingly is quite opposed to Capital Punishment, except, of course, in the case of murderous dictators. And while several members of the EU have mentioned that they did not support the execution, Australia has not so much as made a peep about condemning the hanging.

And this hypocritical nature and “moral flexibility” is making Australia look futile in efforts to fight for human right around the globe.

Supposedly justice has been done here, because, admittedly he was tried, and sentenced according to the law in Iraq. However, relativism would also suggest, that if we cannot criticise the Iraqi law, then who are we to condemn the absurdity of Sharia law, and of stoning women because they allowed themselves to get raped? Or for that matter, who were we to remove Saddam from power in the first place?

Nevertheless, the issue at stake here is not doing “justice”, if it is indeed that, and not a revenge killing: Saddam has been influentially incapacitated for quite some time now.
The issue is about not compromising one’s moral stance because before them comes a “global villain”, an undoubtedly “bad” person, infamous worldwide. It does not matter that it is Saddam Hussein. What matters is that he is a person, captured by the supposedly “ethical” Western world. And if and when, one such person is found guilty, after a FAIR trial, he should rot in jail, not be barbarically executed.

* All quotes provided by Mr. G. W. Bush, unless otherwise specified

powered by performancing firefox

Vote on Reddit

Shout on Shoutwire

No, perhaps unfortunately (for many of you), this blog is not dead.

And while I will keep this particular post fairly succinct, I hope to return to this blog more frequently in the next few weeks.

What inspired me to come out of this recent hibernation was possibly the most absurd article I have read in quite a while.

It will not surprise most of my readership that this article comes from an American source, nor, sadly, should it.

What I am referring to here is this Denver Post article.

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim

By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated:12/06/2006 01:12:35 AM MST

Salt Lake City - Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act – in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.The Ogden, Utah, girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.

There are several issues in this one piece, some of which make me feel awry, most – downright sick.

Right now, though, I will address just one.

I won’t talk of the astronomical threat of paedophilia and sexual assault to your children, which is fortunately being addressed by the mainstream media and the government, and which led to the formation of laws such as this.

I will not talk of the completely amoral, taboo act of sexual intercourse, which god clearly forbids.

Neither will I talk of how children must be protected, sheltered and monitored by the government, using whatever means possible.

I could write an editorial on each of the above.

No, what I will post-ironically discuss today is a simple concept, an oxymoron of sorts, known as Common Sense™. Something that has undoubtedly been lacking in Christianity, American politics, and not least in the American Justice System as just a brief glimpse here will show.

Let’s look at what happened here: consensual sex, between two pubescent teenagers, both of whom are now facing delinquency status and are being charged as sex offenders, touted as both perpetrator and victim.

What perpetration? What victimisation? Where and how is this present in this case? What part of these two terms are not irrelevant?

And more importantly when will education be based not on morality, but on fact?

How about the people in charge look at the case? How about they look at the context, the circumstances and the details? In every case, individually?

Sure, the laws exist (their usefulness, or requirement, is a different issue) but the world is not, and never has been black and white. There is always hectares of grey, ever increasing as concepts, societal norms and ethical ideas change and evolve. The book cannot be used to cover the grey, which is where people need to do the thinking for themselves.

And once this thinking gets done, then perhaps we will not have kids charged as sex offenders, burglars winning money after breaking into people’s houses or suing airline companies because New Jersey sucks:

powered by performancing firefox