The News and The Noose

Will the death of Saddam Hussein bring peace to chaotic Baghdad? Does violence bring an end to violence?

Terry Davis, secretary general of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, answered: “A country ravaged by violence and death does not need more violence, and especially not a state-orchestrated execution. Saddam Hussein is a criminal and should not be allowed to become a martyr.”

And Amnesty International said that it “deplored” Mr. Hussein’s sentence, describing the trials as “deeply flawed and unfair.”

European politicians on Monday spoke out against the death sentence and even British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he opposed the death penalty for the former President. Arab officials and commentators derided what they said was a flawed and politicized trial, and many noted the timing of the verdict just in time for the US election.

Yet in the US, the right applauded Mr. Bush. His media friends gave him some politically useful coverage. “Good Noose” was the headline of the New York Post.

Of course Saddam Hussein hung more than his share of political prisoners. He gassed more than his share of minority groups, men women and children. And yet one could not help notice that the information about the US original of the gas has been suppressed.

Some would hide the truth. They enact laws and block any attempts to discover the evidence. The latest of many examples is the new plan to check the identity of every single person who leaves the country, and prevent any appeal or discovery of evidence.

Other new bills require indefinite detention and prevent effective relief. Still other bills are enacted in obscurity. The president signs little known executive orders, and also almost 1000 signing statements modifying his signature on Congressional Bills.

Duncan Hunter (R, California) recently had his staff insert in the Defense Department's funding bill, literally in the middle of the night, a provision to shut down the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces."

Looks like the party in power wants to continue the same secrecy. Mr. Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has announced he will be seeking the Republican Party's nomination for president in 2008.

Secrecy, Lies and Hypocrisy. We all know how the Quran condemns hypocrisy. And yet how widespread a problem! What a trap! Our leaders certainly do not lead by good example. A Republican will condemn one politician’s moral failings, while finding ways to defend and sympathize with the corrupt of his own party. A Democrat may be equally opportunistic. Where is the sense of justice in such manipulations?

We have just emerged from an election season covered with the mud of negative and irresponsible character smears. Some Republicans especially distinguished themselves in their ability to spin and self-justify. As Glenn Greenwald notes: “The authoritarian Bush movement is so Wise (in the case of neoconservatives) and so Good (in the case of the religious fundamentalists who are their loyal comrades) that everything, including the most blatant lies, is not only justifiable, but necessary. Reality can and must be fundamentally distorted for our own good.”

In the wake of sexual scandals, many from the right wing have tried to defend Congressman Foley and the Evangelical Minister Ted Haggard, denying that hypocrisy was important issue, affirming that both men wrestled bravely with sin. And wrestled, and wrestled; enjoying the struggle for many years. The Rights asks; “So what if they preached against the sins they embraced in secret? What is honesty worth against the image of virtue?”

For example, Larry Frum, a speech writer previously employed by the President Bush, observed about Ted Haggard: “Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?” (National Review, 11/3)

However the same political writers showed no mercy to President Clinton. The same writers show a selective sort of sympathy and surely that too is a form of hypocrisy. It is a form of moral relativism that the conservatives like to accuse liberals of.

For example, Irving Kristol, the “grandfather” of neoconservatism, explained the "justification" for lying: “There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people ... There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.”

Is this something we Muslims can agree with? I hope not. Surely there are different ways to express Truth. But not different “truths.”

We are stuck with a machiavellian political culture, with little respect for truth-telling. And unfortunately even if the Republicans lose power, we cannot expect them to give up such tactics. As one can read on Digbysblog: “Winning this election will not change this. The political establishment has been trained in this method for almost two decades now and the Republicans are actually better at wielding this power as the opposition. I have no answers about how to deal with it. It's one of the most difficult challenges we face.”

Hypocrisy is not uncommon in the “Muslim World” either. Let us all beware.