Bush’s Law: if it’s possible to make things worse, he will.
by digby
When I wrote about the Saddam execution the other day, I said I was struck by how much it reminded me of other disgusting snuff videos that had circulated earlier in the war. I had not, at that time, seen the worst of it. The underground video of his actual hanging, allegedly taken without permission, is everywhere now and its implications are devastating:
At the funeral in Al Auja and across the Arab world, Hussein’s fellow Sunni Muslims expressed outrage at his chaotic final moments, revealed in grainy footage circulated widely on the Internet and on television showing his execution at dawn Saturday in Baghdad.
The video, which appears to have been recorded with a cellphone, showed onlookers taunting Hussein with chants of “Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!” a reference to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr, whose Al Mahdi militia is accused of hunting down Sunni Arabs and killing them. As the trapdoor snapped open beneath Hussein, some in attendance cheered, “The tyrant has fallen!”
The shocking spectacle appeared to deepen the deadly sectarian divide between Sunnis and the Shiite majority that now leads Iraq’s government.
“Today they proved themselves that the trial and the execution were mere retaliation and not justice,” said a mourner from Tikrit, near Al Auja, who gave his name only as Abu Mohammed, a customary nickname. “It is clear now against whom we should retaliate.”
As the images ricocheted across the Arab world, they drew angry comment in newspapers, on television and on Internet blogs in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and other heavily Sunni Muslim countries that are allies of the United States.
In an interview on CNN, Hisham Melhem, the pro-American spokesman for the Arabic satellite news station Al Arabiya, called the execution a total disaster and described the future for Iraq as “descending into a black hole.”
Saddam Hussein is the the man I would have thought was least likely to be turned into a martyr, but damned if they didn’t manage to do it. Bush’s Law. And here’s the great thing about it — the US, which claims rather unconvincingly that it had no say in this because Iraq is a sovereign country, gets blamed for this right along with the Shi’a government and Moqtada al Sadr. Terrific. Lose, lose for us — as usual. Heckuva job, Bushie.
But then, as Glenn Greenwald points out, the Maliki government is really just emulating their US mentors as they do not let obstuctions like the rule of law stand in their way when they wish to do something; they just seek a “workaround.”
That is a sublime phrase — “legal workarounds”. Our polite media here at home refers to deliberate and knowing government lawbreaking as “bypassing” the law, or sometimes they will even pretend that the law being violated just does not exist. But “workaround” is a nice phrase, too.
The article details the “frantic quest” by the Iraqi government to concoct legal contrivances — any at all — to “justify” the immediate hanging despite the court’s order. They finally compiled enough pretty, signed “decrees” to secure the Bush administration’s approval to carry out the hanging. But the rush to snap Saddam’s neck did not allow enough time for all laws to be “workedaround.” Some laws standing in the way of the hanging had to be deliberately disregarded:
Mr. Maliki had one major obstacle: the Hussein-era law proscribing executions during the Id holiday. This remained unresolved until late Friday, the Iraqi official said. He said he attended a late-night dinner at the prime minister’s office at which American officers and Mr. Maliki’s officials debated the issue.
One participant described the meeting this way: “The Iraqis seemed quite frustrated, saying, ‘Who is going to execute him, anyway, you or us?’ The Americans replied by saying that obviously, it was the Iraqis who would carry out the hanging. So the Iraqis said, ‘This is our problem and we will handle the consequences. If there is any damage done, it is we who will be damaged, not you.’ ”
Or, put another way, the Iraqi Government — revealingly “frustrated” by the need to pretend to operate within the law — knew that hanging Saddam in this manner was illegal, but they did it anyway because they know there will be no consequences. No wonder the President praised their adherence to “due process” and the “rule of law” — the President’s followers and the Shiite militias ruling Iraq appear to share a similar understanding of those terms.
That Iraqi government sure was made in Dick Cheney’s image, wasn’t it?
What a horrible, stupid cock-up on top of all the other horrible stupid cock-ups. The United States simply cannot do anything right in Iraq. Nada.
There remains one question that is probably quite important: what was the rush?
None of the Iraqi officials were able to explain why Mr. Maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait. Nor would any explain why those who conducted it had allowed it to deteriorate into a sectarian free-for-all that had the effect, on the video recordings, of making Mr. Hussein, a mass murderer, appear dignified and restrained, and his executioners, representing Shiites who were his principal victims, seem like bullying street thugs.
But the explanation may have lain in something that Bassam al-Husseini, a Maliki aide closely involved in arrangements for the hanging, said to the BBC later. Mr. Husseini, who has American citizenship, described the hanging as “an Id gift to the Iraqi people.”
I dunno. They woke up ministers at 1:30 in the morning to rush to the hanging. Seeing as a Sadr Army death squad carried out the executution, one might think they had an interest in making this as provocative as possible. And perhaps Maliki had personal reason for wanting to offer this “gift” to certain Iraqis — a gift that would ensure his own continued power. From Juan Cole’s must read article in Salon:
By the time of Saddam’s trial, sectarian strife was widespread, and the trial simply made it worse. It was not just the inherent bias of a judicial system dominated by his political enemies. Even the crimes for which he was tried were a source of ethnic friction. Saddam Hussein had had many Sunni Arabs killed, and a trial on such a charge could have been politically savvy. Instead, he was accused of the execution of scores of Shiites in Dujail in 1982. This Shiite town had been a hotbed of activism by the Shiite fundamentalist Dawa (Islamic Call) Party, which was founded in the late 1950s and modeled on the Communist Party. In the wake of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic Revolution in neighboring Iran, Saddam conceived a profound fear of Dawa and similar parties, banning them and making membership a capital crime. Young Dawa leaders such as al-Maliki fled to Tehran, Iran, or Damascus, Syria.
When Saddam visited Dujail, Dawa agents attempted to assassinate him. In turn, he wrought a terrible revenge on the town’s young men. Current Prime Minister al-Maliki is the leader of the Dawa Party and served for years in exile in its Damascus bureau. For a Dawa-led government to try Saddam, especially for this crackdown on a Dawa stronghold, makes it look to Sunni Arabs more like a sectarian reprisal than a dispassionate trial for crimes against humanity.
Perhaps it was. It looks to me as if the “government” of Iraq has finally been exposed as a simple factional tool of the Shi’a. Good to know. Too bad for us that we are backing such a government since it gives the vast majority of Muslims around the world another reason to hate our guts.
In case anyone’s wondering what the implications of the US taking sides might be:
To the Muslims in the light green portion of the map we seem to be siding with the Muslims in the dark green portion — while at the same time making them hate us too. Excellent plan. Winning those hearts and minds one snuff film at a time.
Update: Perhaps the Americans laid out as part of a deal. Bumbling fools who are in over their heads often have no idea when they are being played.
Update II: Leave it to an atheist to see the glaring religious symbolism:
You know, foreign occupying power, powerful religious group agitating for the execution of a hated, charismatic competitor, promises of who will bear the guilt for the deed, metaphorical washing of the hands…jebus, if I know what a counterproductive PR disaster that was for the Pharisees and the Romans, what’s the matter with the American leadership in Iraq? Don’t they read the bibles they thump? Add to that that they’ve apparently done the execution at a time when it is “religiously unacceptable”, and we’ve got a situation that makes Pontius Pilate look good.
.
. First-time director Tommy Lee Jones casts himself as a contemporary Texas cowboy named Pete who befriends a Mexican “vaquero” (the namesake of the movie’s title). Estrada is an illegal looking for steady work and a brighter future here in the land o’plenty. Jones utilizes flashbacks to illustrate the growing kinship between the two compadres, who bond in the usual “cowboy way”-drinkin’ and whorin’, sleeping under the stars, and reaching a general consensus that A Cowboy’s Life Is The Life For Me (as a great man once sang.) In the key vignette, Estrada confides that, if “something” should ever happen to him, he wishes to be buried in his home town. In half-drunken sentiment, Pete vows to see it through if the unthinkable happens. Guess what happens next?
, which is only available on Australian PAL DVD (Wha?!). Gregory Nava’s highly effective portrait of two Guatemalan siblings wending their way to the U.S. after their activist father is killed by a government death squad will stay with you long after credits roll. The two leads give naturalistic, completely believable performances as the brother and sister whose desperate optimism never falters, despite fate and circumstance thwarting them at every turn. Claustrophobic viewers be warned: a harrowing scene featuring an encounter with a roving rat colony during an underground border crossing though an abandoned sewer will give you nightmares. And don’t expect a Hollywood ending-this is tough going but thoroughly enlightening. Worth tracking down.
, 
, 
, 
, 
. 
, 
and on TV’s 
. He may not have been a big marquee name, and may have made a few ill-advised career moves (
comes to mind) but he was a dependable character actor who always left an indelible impression. Here is some of the Boyle legacy worth revisiting:
-Although the socio-political rhetoric in this 1970 sleeper hasn’t dated so well, this was the starring role that first put Boyle on the map. 
-Boyle is in top form here as Robert Redford’s savvy political campaign advisor. Boyle delivers a number of wonderfully droll asides with perfect timing.
-This obscure crime thriller (set in a dystopian future) from director Alex Cox is a hit-and-miss affair, but Boyle’s intriguing character fascinates.
-Worth renting just to watch the episode “Clyde Bruckman’s Final Repose”, a fan favorite that spotlights a memorable Boyle performance.
