Death on the Fifth of November

So, on Guy Fawks day ("remember, remember the fifth of November...") Saddam Hussein was sentenced to--as the old English said it--hang by the neck untill dead. Death through hanging is too kind a punishment for such a brutal dictator.
And yet, the conviction itself is nauseating.
I do not believe that it is a coincidence that Saddam was sentanced two days prior to the elections. There has been political meddling in this trial from the beggining to its end. I am not saying that I disagree with the edict, but the matter should have been allowed to proceed on it's own, not tampered with so that a political party can maintain power in country thousands of miles away.
First, to address those who doubt that the trial was tampered with, and that--as I have no doubts of myself--the date and nature of the sentencing were determined in order to boost republican ratings prior to the election.
After nearly four years of trial the date for the sentencing was issued suddenly and abruptly, around the same time that GOP ratings started dropping as we headed into election season.
Saddam Hussein's defense lawyers protested this abrupt sentencing date on the gorunds that they still had thousands of pages of material to sort through and an insufficient staff with which to do so in the alloted time, and asked for an extension. The judge dismissed their claimes and insisted that sentencing occur on the scheduled day. Shortly thereafter, their offices were ransacked without any sign of a break-in. When they told this to the judge, he dismissed their complaints.
Numerous members of Saddams defense team have resigned on the grounds that the trial is mostly for show, and that it is being conducted under political interference. Several of Saddams chief judges who would be the ones to pass sentence on him have resigned on the same grounds.
Taking these three points and looking at them all together, it begins to paint a rather suspicious picture. Now, to adress the question of wether or not the powers that be within the GOP (I'm not saying everyone is involved, just the ones who set general GOP policy and the Presidency) would be willing to do this.
First, while campaigning maybe at an all time intelectual low on the part of both parties with most candidates prefering to use slogan and catch phrases, and most especially smack talk rather than reason and policy in their campaigns, the GOP has recently sunk to the new low of using scare tactics. They recently released a new voting manual urging judges to be more aggressive in examining the credentials of voters, which is hauntingly reminiscent of reconstruction era tactics used by democrats (ironically enough) to scare away potential black voters. They paint a picture in which they are all that stands between America and terrorist induced chaos in order to swing votes. While this is as despicable as it is untrue that is not the point at the moment; the point I'm trying to make right now is that the GOP is more than willing to use unethical tactics and alter the truth to swing votes their way.
Second, there is the fact that the republicans are inextricably linked to the war in Iraq in the eyes of the American people. If we went to war to depose Saddam Hussein (because now that it turns out that there are no weapons of mass destruction, apparently we infact went to war to depose Saddam Hussein...who knew?) and he's hasn't been sentenced by the time the elections role around then it makes the Republicans look bad...almost as though they're inefficient, incompetent, and possibly lied to us about the whole reason for going to war in the first place. After all, if we went to war to depose Saddam, then why hasn't he been punished yet? In an election where they are already wildly unpopular, they can't afford this. A sentenced Saddam gives the Republican party something to crow over when they need it badly.
The Republicans have every reason to want Saddam Hussein sentenced before election day and they also had the political leverage to make it happen...and it did....after almost four years of indecision.

Now, you might say that it doesn't matter why Saddam Hussein is being killed; all that matters is that he's punished for his crimes. I agree. However, there is a time and a place for everything, and having resolved to do something one should go ahead and do it. In my opinion the right thing to do would have been to shoot Saddam as soon as we found him and had let everyone else in the world know that yes, this is in fact the real Saddam Hussein whom were executing. We knew what he had done and there was plenty of evidence if we needed to reassure ourselves. But quite frankly, if we had any doubts, then maybe we should have set them to rest before we went to war. But we didn't, instead we decided to give him a fair trial, and having decided to do so we shouldn't give it to him and then change it to a show trial for political expedience. It's particularly dangerous to execute him for political reasons (and even if the GOP claims that we aren't all the evidence is to the contrary) because it establishes a precedent and is contrary to some of the most basic tennets of our constitution. It is extremely difficult to give leaders of conquored countries fair trials because war itself is to one degree or another a collapse of international law. Its much better and much cleaner to just dispence with the pretense and execute them on the grounds that they chose to fight a war and lost. But if you're going to go and give them a trial, then it had better be a real trial and not a farce, because that's just dirty and sapps the morality of the conquoring country.

What makes me the most angry about this is that in executing Saddam we do so much to destabilize Iraq. Shiites will rejoice because Saddam is dead, but Sunnies will be angry because they are now under a Shiite government and quite frankly--issues of freedom aside--life was better for them under Saddam (recently police found over 80 tortured bodies over the course of a single night in Baghdad). So there will be an increase in sectarian violence. What does this mean? It means that the Republicans are willing to sacrifice lives and stability in Iraq if it lets them increase their hold on power here in the States.

It would have been so much if we had had the foresight to deal with Saddam Hussein in same way the Italians delt with Mussolini.

Also, Happy Guy Fawkes Day people! Whoever you are, I pray to god that you vote democrat on Tuesday. Not necessarily because the democrats are good, simply because the republicans as a party are corrupt, dishonest, dedicated primarily to perpetuating their own power regardless of the cost, and incompetent. So in the spirit of the movie V for Vendetta, "remember, remember the fifth of november, that gunpowder treason and plot," when you go and vote two days from now.