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.