1 Answer | Add Yours
I am not entirely sure that a case can be made for Saddam Hussein representing the interests of justice. Given how he utilized murder and state sanctioned execution as a way to consolidate and expand his own power, it seems to me that control was more important to Hussein than justice. If one operates under any reasonable understanding of justice, it would involve transparency, solutions to disputes that involve negotiated interests of as many voices as possible, and ensuring that violence was minimized. Hussein's rule in Iraq does not embody any of these tenets. The fact that he used violence from the earliest of stages to ensure his own rule was not to be challenged is one such point to be made in him being against the interests of justice. Additionally, Hussein showed little hesitation in using violence against sections of his own people. The "Anfal" campaign against the Kurdish people in Iraq embraces principles of genocide. In this process, justice was set aside in favor of control. Hussein welcomed the use of chemical weapons against civilians and showed little in way of mercy when using his army to increase his own control. In these instances, one can display how Hussein was a leader, but one who did not embrace justice in a sense of fairness and transparency as a way to guide his administration.
We’ve answered 319,200 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question