Aside from how the timing of yesterday's news that Saddam was sentenced to die by hanging (two days before U.S. Congressional elections) was an obvious demonstration that the U.S. government directs the Iraq justice system, what is the message for fledgling democracies? What precedent was set? Should democracies hang former government leaders who used force to put down rebellions? If so, how will that choice motivate members of the current regime in Iraq a few years down the road when the U.S. is gone or nearly so and they are facing a violent rebellion or possible defeat in an election? Will they worry that they may face the same fate as Saddam if a different party were to take power? Could that motivate them to use any anti-democratic means at their disposal to stay in power?
Citizens and leaders of other democracies also might do well to ponder whether democracies ought to hang former government leaders guilty of violating domestic or international laws banning torture or killing of innocent civilians. (To see the editorial in the November 11 issue of The Economist, click here.)
The Case for Normalizing Part-Time Schedules
-
*As a country, we have spe*[image:
51jNN5QoeTL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_SX225_SY300_CR,0,0,225,300_SH20_OU01_]*nt
the l...