Professor Levinson:

Iraq has held three national elections with far higher turnout than our last midterm elections to elect a provisional government, ratify a constitution and then elect a permanent government. While we whined about standing in line for an hour or two, Iraqi voters were killed and maimed eagerly trying to exercise their franchise Moreover, the Iraqi voters went their own way, rejecting the interim PM which we supported none to subtly in the elections. More recently, the Iraqi government ignored our "advice" not to execute Saddam. Therefore, I find the comparison of the elected Iraqi government either to a puppet or a windup toy to be factually incorrect and rather insulting.

In contrast, the attempted analogy of the US surrender of Hussein to the Iraqi authorities for lawful execution with a white sheriff turning over a presumably innocent black prisoner for lynching goes beyond insulting.

Quite contrary to your implied comparison with the innocent black prisoner, Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who admitted in open court televised to the world that he ordered the murder of dozens of Shia men and boys to terrorize the Shia community from attempting any more assassinations against him.

The Iraqi judge trained by US attorneys granted Saddam hours on end to provide a defense to the self admitted charges and (unlike a US court) allowed Saddam to use that time to rant about how he was still President and spew enemy propaganda.

The Iraqi judge wrote a detailed 15 page opinion laying out the evidence of Saddam's guilt and sentencing him properly under Iraqi law.

The Iraqi appellate court (also trained by US attorneys) issued a detailed opinion upholding the verdict and ordered the execution held within 30 days as required by Iraqi law.

The elected Iraqi government is sovereign and the US is a guest. The only basis upon which we held Saddam was a negotiated agreement whereby the Iraqi government granted us temporary permission to do so. In turn, we agreed to turn over the Iraqi prisoners we hold for Iraqi legal proceedings.

Unless you are saying that the US should actually conquer Iraq and install its own puppet government, I am uncertain upon which basis you argue that the US has any right to interfere with the Iraqi legal process over an Iraqi citizen.

Further, unless you are saying that the Iraqi government should start ruling by decree, I am unsure upon what basis you argue that the Iraqi government should ignore the appellate court ruling and its own law to stop the execution of Saddam.

Finally, you bemoan the fact that the Shia run the elected government of Iraq. However, under the unavoidable mathematics of a 60% Shia majority versus 20% Kurd and Sunni minorities, the Shia will run any democratic government.

While the Iraqi government has many shortcomings, so did our young democracy for many decades after the ratification of our Constitution. In comparison, the Iraqis have been in charge of their own political destiny for only a matter of months. I know we live in the era of instant gratification, but expecting perfection out of a brand new elected Iraqi government at this early point is a bit much.
 

"Bart" DePalma says:

Iraq has held three national elections with far higher turnout than our last midterm elections to elect a provisional government, ratify a constitution and then elect a permanent government.

Fat lot of good that did. "Democracy" is over-rated, I tell ya.

But, "Bart", what does that have to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?

More recently, the Iraqi government ignored our "advice" not to execute Saddam. Therefore, I find the comparison of the elected Iraqi government either to a puppet or a windup toy to be factually incorrect and rather insulting.

"Bart" totally misses the point by Prof. Levinson about the difference between a "puppet" and a "wind-up toy". Imagine my surprise; "Bart" doesn't do a very good job of trying to figure out what others are trying to say, and instead concentrates on hearing what he wants to hear.

In contrast, the attempted analogy of the US surrender of Hussein to the Iraqi authorities for lawful execution with a white sheriff turning over a presumably innocent black prisoner for lynching goes beyond insulting.

Prof. Levinson explicitly says ("yet the US supinely turned over Saddam Hussein, just as many white sheriffs in the past turned over prisioners, at least some of whom were guilty, to the lynch mob") that some people lynched were guilty (and FWIW doesn't say "presumably innocent black" prisoner). "Bart" 'hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'....

The Iraqi judge trained by US attorneys granted Saddam hours on end to provide a defense to the self admitted charges...

Ummm, what are "self admitted charges"?

The elected Iraqi government is sovereign and the US is a guest.

Which is why the U.S. held Saddam for all but a few hours where Saddam was hanged (and then took custondy of the body again). And which is why the U.S. continues to occupy a country which wants the U.S. to leave. The ones that want the U.S. to stay are the ones that are being propped up and kept n power by the U.S.

Unless you are saying that the US should actually conquer Iraq and install its own puppet government,...

That's what the U.S. has done from day one. But as Prof. Levinson pointed out, it didn't work in Vietnam, and it won't work in Iraq.

Further, unless you are saying that the Iraqi government should start ruling by decree, I am unsure upon what basis you argue that the Iraqi government should ignore the appellate court ruling and its own law to stop the execution of Saddam.

Read this.

Cheers,
 

the US supinely turned over Saddam Hussein, just as many white sheriffs in the past turned over prisioners, at least some of whom were guilty, to the lynch mob.

There's an even better (worse?) comparison: Bush acted the part of Pilate by "sleeping" while Maliki/Herod gave in to the religious zealots.

Marx was right: History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
 

An additional observation, if I may.

The NYT article makes it appear that the US was either engaged in a CYA exercise or was throwing up roadblocks to delay Saddam's execution for an undisclosed policy reason.

The objections proffered by the US delegation came down to requesting a signature by Mr. Talibani and a Saddam era law barring executions during a fast approaching religious holiday. There was never any doubt as to Saddam's guilt or the propriety of the death sentence.

Mr. Talibani opposes the death penalty on moral grounds, but finessed the signature requirement by submitting a memorandum stating that he did not object the execution.

As to the Saddam era law, the government consulted the courts and the courts reportedly consider Saddam era laws to be void.

As far as legal defenses go, this is exceedingly thin soup.
 

I once watched Barney Frank's quick wit in action at Yale. When one of his fellow panelists delayed answering a question by asking, "Why is Bob Bork smiling down at us?" (as he was in one of the portraits in the room), Frank immediately replied, "Because it's a painting and not a photograph."