Call it "victor's justice."  Call it "the ultimate payback for fucking with Daddy Bush."  But, whatever you do, don't call it Karl Rove's "October (or November) Surprise."

First of all, it was hardly a surprise.  Second of all, I doubt that this verdict will make any difference to anyone who will be voting on Tuesday.  Third of all, as I stated when I ended the sub, will anyone notice the difference in violence and mayhem in Iraq as a result of this verdict?  I think not.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

They're going to hang Saddam?  Shit, I thought this was Bin Laden.  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Anybody else think he maybe deserves a pardon and an apology from the US?

1. Falsely accused of harbouring terrorists and holding weapons of mass destruction.
   
2. Attacked in preemptive strikes for the above reasons that crippled his already sanction-neutered country
   
3. Hunted down along with his entire family, sons killed, property destroyed, remaining family scattered to the 4 winds.
   
4. Country left close to civil war, Islamic fundamentalists in charge of large regions.
   
5. Given to his enemies in a show trial and sentenced to execution in the style of a common criminal.

and don't tell me that the Americans did any of it for the sake of the Kurds or any other Iraqi dissidents murdered by Hussein's regime.

Just cause you feel so good, do you have to drive me out of my head?

Well, color me impressed. It sounds like a swinging party, down the line. What about the batshit redrum existence in Iraq, now? How's tricks in 5 years look to my barking brethren? I predict Saddam II: Electric Boogaloo, or more of the current madness. I hope the TSA people are earning a living wage, and aren't suffering from high turnover, know what I mean, Vern?

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

Anyone know what happened to UN protests about capital punishment in this case?

While from most perspectives this is a "just" result for Saddam (he clearly was a bastard, he clearly authorized these activities, and they were clearly illegal under Iraqi and international law), the question right now is whether Iraq needs justice or process. Comparing this to the prosecution of Serbian war criminals is illustrative. In the Serbian case, we have a strict emphasis on process to the point that justice often seems to be curtailed (in that the sentences handed down may seem excessively light, or the clearly guilty are getting off on technicalities). Arguably, this emphasis on process is even more problematic in the Serbian case because the states involved are now relatively stable and in general have strong legal traditions.

In the case of Iraq, however, the state is in disarray and the rule of law is weak. Focusing on process in Iraq would show the Iraqi people that the protection of law is available even to the most reviled; if carried out appropriately (which is, of course, tricky - as the Milosovic case has shown us, if carried too far process arguments can appear to overly favor the criminal), this strengthening of procedural rights would have the potential to draw more people from the margins into the political process.

All that said, the chaotic state that Iraq is in right now probably belies any opportunity to gain advantages from a structural approach. Since the rule of law is so weak as to be laughable, giving Saddam a fair trial would only point out the inadequacy of the rest of the system. The best option would probably have been to delay Saddam's trial until the situation was stabilized, but that probably wasn't a real option either (considering the strong domestic desire of the Shiites and Kurds to have the trial immediately).

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.