The Death of a Dictator

Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq for 30+ years, the "Butcher of Baghdad" is now dead.

This is a man directly responsible for the torture and murder of countless people both in and out of his country. He will go down in history with such names as Hitler, Stalin, and countless others who prided themselves on the number of people they killed.

He intended this legacy to go on through his sons and grandson. Even his 14 year-old grandson was being trained to torture women and children so he would be ready to run Iraq when his time came around.

No one on this planet can truly deny his guilt of these crimes against humanity. The most liberal of liberals agree this man was one of, if not the most brutal head of state in our time.

Some claim that his trial was unfair. They point to the safety of defense representation for Hussein, access to evidence, and other issues. People who hold the view that this trial was unfair draw the reasonable conclusion that the execution was invalid (I say reasonable because if a trial is truly unfair, then the sentence is logically unfair).

But I ask this of those that hold this view. Would full and perfect access to the evidence make any difference in the outcome of guilt? Would perfect safety and protection that rivals that of the US President's Secret Service protection make any difference in a death sentence?

Question asked and answered: No, it would have not made any difference. The whole world knows that this man was guilty of the murder and torture of countless men, women, and children. The whole world knows that this man did it with all deliberate intentions. This is a fact that he did it, and did it intentionally.

And it is also a fact that he will never be able to do it again. We, the people of the world, will enter the year 2007 with one less brutal dictator. And with one less obstacle to peace.