Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, January 3, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

by Richard Dawkins

UPDATE 1-6-07: LATimes.com publishes this piece. CLICK HERE

The obvious objections to the execution of Saddam Hussein are valid and well aired. His death will provoke violent strife between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and between Iraqis in general and the American occupation forces. This was an opportunity to set the world a good example of civilized behaviour in dealing with a barbarically uncivilized man. In any case, revenge is an ignoble motive. The usual arguments against the death penalty in general apply. If Bush and Blair are eventually put on trial for war crimes, I shall not be among those pressing for them to be hanged. But I want to add another and less obvious reason why we should not have executed Saddam Hussein. His mind would have been a unique resource for historical, political and psychological research: a resource that is now forever unavailable to scholars.

Imagine, in fancy, that some science fiction equivalent of Simon Wiesenthal built a time machine, travelled back to 1945 and returned to the present with a manacled Adolf Hitler. What should we do with him? Execute him? No, a thousand times no. Historians squabbling over exactly what happened in the Third Reich and the Second World War would never forgive us for destroying the central witness to all the inside stories, and one of the pivotal influences on twentieth century history. Psychologists, struggling to understand how an individual human being could be so evil and so devastatingly effective at persuading others to join him, would give their eye teeth for such a rich research subject. Kill Hitler? You would have to be mad to do so. Yet that is undoubtedly what we would have done if he hadn't killed himself in 1945. Saddam Hussein is not in the same league as Hitler but, nevertheless, in a small way his execution represents a wanton and vandalistic destruction of important research data.

Saddam Hussein could have provided irreplaceable help to future historians of the Iran/Iraq war, of the invasion of Kuwait, and of the subsequent era of sanctions culminating in the current invasion. Uniquely privileged evidence on the American government's enthusiastic arming of Saddam before they switched loyalties is now snuffed out at the tug of a rope (no doubt to the relief of Donald Rumsfeld and other guilty parties – it is surely no accident that the trial of Saddam neglected those of his crimes that might – no, would – have implicated them).

Political scientists of the future, studying the processes by which unscrupulous leaders arise and take over national institutions, have now lost key evidence forever. But perhaps the most important research in which a living Saddam Hussein could have helped is psychological. Most people can't even come close to understanding how any man could be so cruel as Hitler or Saddam Hussein, or how such transparently evil monsters could secure sufficient support to take over an entire country. What were the formative influences on these men? Was it something in their childhood that turned them bad? In their genes? In their testosterone levels? Could the danger have been nipped in the bud by an alert psychiatrist before it was too late? How would Hitler, or Saddam Hussein have responded to a different style of education? We don't have a clear answer to these questions. We need to do the research.

Then again, are there lots of Saddams and lots of Hitlers in every society, but most of them end up as football hooligans wrecking trains rather than dictators wrecking countries? If so, what singles out the minority that do come to power? Or were men such as these truly unusual? What can we do to prevent them gaining power in the future? Are there changes we could make to our democratic and other political institutions that would make it harder for men of Hitler's or Saddam Hussein's psychological types to take them over?

These questions are not just academically fascinating but potentially of vital importance for our future. And they cannot be answered by prejudice or preconception or intuitive commonsense. The only way to answer them is by research. It is in the nature of research on ruthless national dictators that the sample size is small. Wasn't the judicial destruction of one of the very few research subjects we had – and a prime specimen at that – an act of vandalism?


submit to delicious Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, January 3, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 98 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #15801 by Omnibus on January 3, 2007 at 4:51 am

Saddam was also privy to information certain western Governments might not have fancied getting into the public domain. We are become what we despise.

Other Comments by Omnibus

2. Comment #15802 by scooternyc on January 3, 2007 at 4:55 am

avatarYour point regarding research is a valid one, spot on. It would have been more useful to science to understand the inner workings of a mad man. I also understand the human reasons why the Iraqi people needed this hanging to occur.

The political tone at times through your work does not serve the greater argument at times and it's the mistake that I see often made when someone is brilliant in an area where great progress can be made. Politics and science don't mix as politics is not objective and science is, you either prove a theory or you don't. Politics has a subjective nature and quality that doesn't make for good science.

This is, of course, a fine line to walk most especially when one is famous for his appearances and writings as you are Mr.Dawkins. I contemplate the concern of having your science considered dismissed because statements of Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and the like, provide a connotation of a political position whereby an agenda could be perceived thus negating it all together.

I like it when science stays out of the political arena, so to speak, because it allows for facts to be presented by politicians who we know have an agenda, but facts are facts, and the waters are less muddied, if you will, by the scientist presenting the information than the politician.

Other Comments by scooternyc

3. Comment #15804 by satanhimself on January 3, 2007 at 5:17 am

Richard is absolutely right, of course, and typically courageous in saying so.

In addition to the loss of scientific and sociological evidence, the mere act of snuffing out a life (innocent or guilty) is, according to my evolved conscience, wrong, except in the case of immediate self-defense. Then again, I'm not related to any of Saddam's victims.

Saddam got off easy. Unless one believes in silly "hell", his punishment was quick and relatively painless, although barbaric. Keeping him alive, in prison, would have been much more of a "punishment" and useful to science, too.

Other Comments by satanhimself

4. Comment #15805 by AkitaOnRails on January 3, 2007 at 5:18 am

It's becoming less clear if we should try to maintain science out of politics. Althought it should be very clear to maintain religion out of the constitution and laws of any kind.

This Saddam-as-sample idea is brilliant. I admit that I was too narrow minded to have thought of that. My mistake.

But your last statement strikes me: "... it allows for facts to be presented by politicians who we know have an agenda, but facts are facts ...". I don't know if I got the meaning: "the facts will be the same regardless of who present them". Something like this?

Don't forget that History is written by the winners. And fact can be twisted over time. That's why History books across many countries do sometimes present controversy.

Other Comments by AkitaOnRails

5. Comment #15806 by MouthAlmighty on January 3, 2007 at 5:21 am

avatarProfessor Dawkins, for someone who's just drawn a pretty clear line between yourself and Tony Blair...

The very idea of giving that control freak Tony Blair any more power over people than he already has appals me...


...you do a damn good job of blurring it again here...

What were the formative influences on these men? Was it something in their childhood that turned them bad? In their genes? In their testosterone levels? Could the danger have been nipped in the bud by an alert psychiatrist before it was too late? How would Hitler, or Saddam Hussein have responded to a different style of education? We don't have a clear answer to these questions. We need to do the research.


Whilst Saddam would indeed have made a fascinating research subject, the fact that you hold out hope for this data supporting some kind of future "nip it in the bud" project puts you right back into Mr Blair's good books.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

6. Comment #15807 by Ole on January 3, 2007 at 5:52 am

avatarSpot on Richard Dawkins!

Btw, it was dissapointing to hear the new Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's statement about the death penalty. As the South Korean former foreign minister he was used to capital punishment from his own country (last execution in 1997), so it was perhaps "no big thing" for him? (Let each country decide for themselves...)

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

7. Comment #15809 by Christiaan on January 3, 2007 at 6:14 am

Well we still have Tony Blair. I think he'd make pretty good research material once he's locked up.

Other Comments by Christiaan

8. Comment #15810 by VanYoungman on January 3, 2007 at 6:15 am

avatarIt is because the scientific community has meticulously tried to keep politics out of their domain the community now suffers at the hands of bullying politicians, christian right and many others.

It is time for scientists like Dr. Dawkins, Dennett and others to speak up. That they are doing so shows a brave and positive step toward progress.

Other Comments by VanYoungman

9. Comment #15811 by fatcitymax on January 3, 2007 at 6:39 am

First, all mass murderers should be executed following a fair, clinical, and public trial. Unfortunately the Bush/Blair administrations did not follow the Nuermberg model or use the Hague International Court of Justice. They allowed the trial and execution to turn into an Islamic revenge spectacle, but this has the advantage that it further discredits them and that religion.

Second, what does this have to do with atheism and religion? The capacity for murder lies in nearly all of us; there is nothing mystifying about it. Richard's article makes it appear that he lives in an academic ivory tower oblivious to reality. The notion that we should have kept Hitler or Hussein alive for scientific examination of their mental processes is worse than ludicrous, and it detracts from the important messages in The God Delusion.

Other Comments by fatcitymax

10. Comment #15812 by bjflanagan on January 3, 2007 at 6:48 am

"It is because the scientific community has meticulously tried to keep politics out of their domain the community now suffers at the hands of bullying politicians, christian right and many others."

What about academic politics? As Kissinger famously remarked, it is so vicious precisely because the rewards are so small.

"It is time for scientists like Dr. Dawkins, Dennett and others to speak up. That they are doing so shows a brave and positive step toward progress."

Those who are also politically clueless? I read that Dawkins and his minions want atheists to shun all religionists -- including the more enlightened, on the grounds that they enable the fundamentalists. The irony of their own intolerance mirroring the latter group's would seem to be utterly lost on them.

Curious, how 3rd-order intellects are often attracted to atheism, whereas guys like Newton, Einstein and Schrodinger were deeply reverent. Perhaps it is because, as a British wag of the last century had it, "They don't believe because they think that makes them clever." It's rather as though the tone deaf were to insist on the cessation of all music.

Now we read that Dawkins seems to look forward to Blair and Bush being tried for war crimes and that he thinks Saddam should have been preserved for research purposes. Has anyone thought to point out to the good professor that he is a ridiculous dork?

Other Comments by bjflanagan

11. Comment #15813 by aoratos philos on January 3, 2007 at 6:54 am

I don't know how much data the psychological study of Saddam would have yielded, and of course we will never know.
In terms of trends that you speak of, education, family, genes all that stuff, I would suspect that the study of others in society that display the same kinds of authoritarianism and disregard for the welfare of others, would prove just as useful.
In any case, studies of this type would involve many many people before one could start to get a picture of the issues involved.

I don't think that this serves as grounds for keeping Saddam alive. What does serve mankind and the particular situation in Iraq, would be to keep him alive as a reminder that 2 wrongs do not make a right, and as civilised people, (supposedly), we would have sent a message to the terrorists that there is a more moral and better way to treat those who have caused gross offence to civilisation.
Personally I do not agree with the state having this kind of power over an individual, no matter what their crime. in fact I'd go further and say that I don't agree with the concept of that state at all for this and many other reasons.

Other Comments by aoratos philos

12. Comment #15814 by jeepyjay on January 3, 2007 at 6:54 am

avatarThere was nothing special about Saddam. Have you not heard of "the banality of evil"? Power corrupts. The problem that needs to be addressed is not how to stop such people gaining power, it is how to depose them once they have the power. As for keeping people in prison for purposes of psychological research - even prisoners have human rights.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

13. Comment #15815 by Pilot22A on January 3, 2007 at 7:06 am

There are a lot of Kurds and Iranians who will disagree with Dawkins on this. Although eliminating despicable characters like Saddam make us uncomfortable (I oppose the death penalty) it was probably outside our view of the big picture to judge this act.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

14. Comment #15816 by MouthAlmighty on January 3, 2007 at 7:07 am

avatarbjflanagan said...

Those who are also politically clueless? I read that Dawkins and his minions want atheists to shun all religionists -- including the more enlightened, on the grounds that they enable the fundamentalists. The irony of their own intolerance mirroring the latter group's would seem to be utterly lost on them.


I could be wrong but I'm guessing that you've read a few reviews of The God Delusion but not the book. I suspect you views would be different otherwise.

It's rather as though the tone deaf were to insist on the cessation of all music.


Very witty but hardly appropriate - music appreciation doesn't usually license claims to authority about how the tone deaf should live their lives. If it did I imagine that more than a few sufferers of that condition would be getting vocal, and rightly so.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

15. Comment #15817 by scooternyc on January 3, 2007 at 7:15 am

avatarComment #15805 by AkitaOnRails on January 3, 2007 at 5:18 am -

Thanks for your comment, pardon my lack of clarity on the subject. My position was that science can easily be dismissed if what is presented is done so in a manner which postulates a political agenda.

Clearly Al Gore has an agenda between now and 2008 of presenting himself as a leader by jumping on the global warming wagon, he desperately needs to build street cred as a result of his last campaign.

But as he presents his "science" of global warming it should bring to question in anyone's mind what is his agenda?

Although he claims he's been on this crusade for an extended period of time, one might wonder if it were that serious why didn't he get on with it sooner; why now?

I'm big fans of Dennett, Harris and Dawkins thus far as I've embraced their arguments about religion and god (I truly think it's just all ridiculous and have known so since I was 8) but I become concerned since I know how ugly politics can be when it wants to thwart someone's credibility, findings, or position. I would hate to see this valuable debate about religion thwarted because suddenly the press has decided that Richard Dawkins has a political agenda of whom he is supporting or not supporting.

While his quips are often humorous I'm not sure they will ultimately be useful. Time will tell.

Other Comments by scooternyc

16. Comment #15818 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 3, 2007 at 7:18 am

avatarThose who are also politically clueless? I read that Dawkins and his minions want atheists to shun all religionists -- including the more enlightened, on the grounds that they enable the fundamentalists. The irony of their own intolerance mirroring the latter group's would seem to be utterly lost on them.

For goodness sake!! Tolerance cannot extend to intolerance, that is nonsensical, and would eventually result in the destrucion of all tolerance. By definition, revealed monotheistic religions are intolerant, it's in their genes, so to speak. Secular societies have to aggressivley reject all absolute truth systems such as fascisim or religion, it's a matter of survival. People can beleive what they like, but can expect resistance when what they beleive claim to be some kind of revealed exclusive truth that the rest of us must kow-tow to. Screw that!

Curious, how 3rd-order intellects are often attracted to atheism, whereas guys like Newton, Einstein and Schrodinger were deeply reverent.

Curious how apologists always trot out the same carnards, scientists from the 16th century beleived in God!!! Go figure!!! Or Einstein beleived in God!!! Wow!!! Actually no ... he didn't. Schrodinger I've no idea, can someone advise?

Now we read that Dawkins seems to look forward to Blair and Bush being tried for war crimes and that he thinks Saddam should have been preserved for research purposes.

What is the problem here? Dawkins is not suggesting they be hung. Did you read the article?

Why is it always the christians who want to kill people, and the atheists saying "lets think about this". Says it all really.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

17. Comment #15819 by Lionel A on January 3, 2007 at 7:22 am

avatarHussein, of course, was a monster but what created him as such? His earlier life was one of learning to survive, and prosper, in a brutal and capricious environment, the breeding ground of the thug that he became, a thug who accrued a following which he manipulated to climb the rungs of increasing power, until he reached the top in his country.

Having got there, and having made numerous enemies along the way, he had to administer more brutality and other forms of coercion to maintain his position. Preservation of his power base necessitated that he attempt to take on the role of champion of Iraq and then the Arab world, well at least those sectors of it which were not oppressed by being 'of the wrong faith'.

As leader of Iraq, a country created out of a miss-mash of provinces after WW1, by the allies and oil barons keen on preserving access to their gravy train, his increasingly bellicose regime require arms and other forms of support from other countries, many in the west. Apart from the US, France, Germany and even Britain took part in supporting the development of Iraq's infrastructure and military capability and of much of its maintenance.

Thus in nearly every country involved in material support to Saddam's regime there are those who would prefer that Saddam was silenced. The role of the US as a Saddam prop is unquestionably large, for it was they who provided Saddam with his tools for war on Iran, including the chemical warfare agents deployed, and even biological agents which were not as far as I know.

Indeed, examination of the dealings of the Regan and first Bush administration is revealing. Rumsfeld for instance was involved, as was James Baker III (of Baker, Botts – law firm for America's energy giants, the Bush family and the House of Saud) and many others in the US, the countries mentioned above and others.

The following books are revealing:

'House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties' by Craig Unger. Curiously the copy I have has 'BANNED BY AMAZON.CO.UK' emblazoned on its front cover, make of that what you will,

'American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush' by Kevin Phillips,

'Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil' by Michael C Ruppert,

and Greg Palast's web site at:

gregplast.com is worth watching and exploring.

As for Hitler, I recall reading that he was mistreated in some way by the Jewish community when he was young which may have caused resentment that grew to rancor in later life having gone through the mill of WW1.

Other Comments by Lionel A

18. Comment #15821 by scooternyc on January 3, 2007 at 7:34 am

avatarAlice Miller has an amazing story regarding Hitler that I read some years ago while attending University.

Much of the manner in which Hitler's father treated him, one such example of Hitler attempting to run away from his father, he was humiliated by having been stripped of his clothing, chastised and beaten by his father.

Certainly you make the connection between this behavior and what Hitler actually did to the Jews. It's obvious. Alice's books are fascinating in this capacity. The abused identifies with the abuser and then becomes his/her self the abuser.

Other Comments by scooternyc

19. Comment #15827 by Youssef51 on January 3, 2007 at 8:17 am

avatarI agree completely with R.D. It was an awful mistake to kill the man. Especially in the way they did it. More and bigger death squads.

However, in reply to R.D.'s question

"Could the danger have been nipped in the bud by an alert psychiatrist before it was too late?"

I'll venture a guess. No. A psychiatrist would not have been able to help. Sadly, only a loaded 9 millimeter pistol would have been of any real help in saving the many tens of thousands of innocents killed by Saddam.

Other Comments by Youssef51

20. Comment #15830 by christopher.bloise on January 3, 2007 at 8:45 am

avatarThere are many arguments about why or why not Saddam should've been executed.

Dr. Dawkins makes a compelling argument about the wealth of knowledge we can extract from a imprisoned yet alive Saddam Hussein.

What about the fact that killing if not in the religious sense, then the moral sense, is wrong, or at least morally reprehensible. For myself as an atheist I find any kind of killing, even the hanging of a horrible and malicious dictator to be repulsive. Just because the decision was enabled by people who've been wronged by the person in question, and the judicial process, doesn't make it ok.

We live in a world increasingly desensitized to suffering and violence, too often do I hear people say with no remorse that someone deserved to die (i.e. Saddam, child molester, whoever). I think that everyone should be forced to watch a live execution just to see how horrible it really is.

Other Comments by christopher.bloise

21. Comment #15831 by Kevin Ronayne on January 3, 2007 at 8:54 am

avatarWhile the point about having the opportunity to analyze Saddam's personality and pyschological development is a very valid one, I hope that RD is not arguing that it is somehow more important than his basic right to live. I think not, and I think the main thrust of the article is correct.

One nit-pick I have is this sentence:

Then again, are there lots of Saddams and lots of Hitlers in every society, but most of them end up as football hooligans wrecking trains rather than dictators wrecking countries.

I don't think so. Anyone who is serious dictator material would probably very quickly gravitate to the role of organizer, inciter and exploiter of other people. They are often very intelligent people who know how and when to keep themselves out of serious trouble.

Uniquely privileged evidence on the American government's enthusiastic arming of Saddam before they switched loyalties is now snuffed out at the tug of a rope (no doubt to the relief of Donald Rumsfeld and other guilty parties – it is surely no accident that the trial of Saddam neglected those of his crimes that might – no, would – have implicated them).

It is correct to say that Rumsfield et al are relieved to see end of someone who could implicate them on any number of counts, although Saddam's credibility would have to be taken into account - I'm not sure I would have believed a single word that he might have said without independent corroboration.

However "American government's enthusiastic arming of Saddam" is wide of the mark. I am always taken aback to see this assertion. It seems to imply that either:

(a) The US was the prime supplier of arms to Iraq
or:
(b) that only the US arms deals matter, and that other countries are somehow exempt because of their subsequent actions (or more accurately, inactions).

The second option is nonsense in my view, yet many people behave as if this is in fact the case. A moral philosopher could have a field-day with this. As for the actual arms sales to Iraq, see the following Wikipedia entry for a summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

This table explicitly excludes WMD's - biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. However, even with those included, the US would still have been a minor player in terms of arms supplies. Very probably, the supply of information and know-how and the organizing of some finance deals was much more important. Even taking these into account, the US would still have been a minor player, and much more so if a relative measurement is made adjusting for the size of the US economy. Another Wikipedia entry goes into more detail about this whole subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Military_armaments.2Ftechnology_2

For specific information on US arms deals (and other support) see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

As far as WMD weapons and technology is concerned, the US was far from the only country involved - even in the specific and devastating case of chemical weapons. I am scratching my head as to how the US can attract (very, very justified) criticism for supplying these, while other countries again seem to be exempt. For example, as far as I know, France has never been brought to task for supplying the nuclear technology and know-how that would have eventually allowed the Iraqis to build nuclear weapons. They cannot have been ignorant of Iraqi intentions, not least because the Iraqis were openly trying to acquire even more weapons-oriented nuclear technology than what they had to eventually settle for.

Very little of this information should be big news to anybody - most of it has been common knowledge for many years.

It is also worth pointing out that the Iraqi regime was largely bankrolled by the oil-rich gulf states, including Kuwait. This was presumably because of the war against an Iran intent on exporting (with revolutionary fervour) it's brand of Shia Islam. In other words, religion again. As far as I know, none of these countries have ever been seriously brought to task for funding a war against another country, which goes to show just how fickle standards of morality can be.

Other Comments by Kevin Ronayne

22. Comment #15843 by Michael on January 3, 2007 at 10:12 am

I tried to post this a while ago but it went awol so sorry if it appears twice.

There are umpteen reasons for not executing Saddam but keeping him for research is not one of them. a) a prisoner has his rights and b) RD has a very touching faith that psychologists and psychiatrists could unearth anything new or useful which is not already in the public domain. The Nazis incarcerated yielded very little.Tyrants leave a huge footprint for retrospective study.

The 'allies'have already meddled enough in Iraq and it would be a bit rich to interfere again with Iraqis following their own law.

I am pleased that at least the UK government publicly said that they opposed the death penalty.

US states continue to execute hundreds annually having kept their prisoners on death row for eons. A particularly cruel double punishment. So perhaps the US could not call the kettle black.

Other Comments by Michael

23. Comment #15850 by Thrall on January 3, 2007 at 10:34 am

This is a hard thing for most people to understand. I have always thought that studying serial killers and child molesters would be a much better use for them than filling our jails/graveyards. If we know why these people are doing these horrible, horrible things, we might have some insight on how to keep these people from doing such things in the future. Bravo

Other Comments by Thrall

24. Comment #15853 by jefferson on January 3, 2007 at 10:48 am

I'm against the death penalty, although I have to admit, I didn't exactly lose sleep over Saddam's death.
"His mind would have been a unique resource for historical, political and psychological research"
That's a very good point. I hadn't thought about that until now, and now that he's mentioned it, I'm a little bit more dissappointed that Saddam was hanged.

Other Comments by jefferson

25. Comment #15863 by Nelis on January 3, 2007 at 11:39 am

Does anyone really think this evil person would have wanted to cooperate with psychological studies conducted upon him by his enemies?

Other Comments by Nelis

26. Comment #15866 by godma on January 3, 2007 at 11:54 am

I have a few reactions to the idea that politicians and scientists should refrain from speaking out on subjects outside their respective pigeon holes. It's come up several times, and I was particularly bothered by this in the comments of the Templeton Foundation representative (on what he called "scientism") at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference (watch those videos if you haven't already).

Basically, I strongly reject the idea that anyone, scientist or otherwise, should keep quiet on political matters. Our society and culture benefits greatly from a diversity of opinion from a variety of sources, and politicians' opinions don't deserve any special respect. The citizens all get to share their opinions and the politician's role is to try to reflect the will of their constituents as much as possible.

Secondly, just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that everything they say in public is to be taken as science. Science is a collaborative effort, and the results of science will stand on their own, regardless of what any individual scientist happens to think about those results. People should understand this (I think most do), but if they don't then the correct response is not for the scientists to shut up, but for the people to be better educated by society.

Likewise, politicans should not be scolded for speaking out on "scientific" matters. Either they're doing real science or they aren't, and that will be determined by the community of scientists. Anything else is just their opinion, and they have as much a right to share it as anyone else has. The audience should be afforded the respect of being able to judge the opinion on its merits, and the qualifications of the speaker based on his or her own merits.

Other Comments by godma

27. Comment #15869 by DavidJMH on January 3, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Dear Richard Dawkins, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The execution of Saddam Hussein was simply and only an act of revenge by the Bush family upon the Hussein family, because Saddam had both duped George senior when he was Director of the CIA and tried to have Bush senior murdered in the early 90's. As we are all now only too well aware, the allegations about Iraq and WMD and El Queda were a fabrication; the Bush administration decided to use 9/11 as an excuse to extract their revenge in the earliest days after the attack on the US, whilst at the same time, hoping to gain control of Iraq's oil.
With all due respect, it is naive to suppose that morality plays any part here on either side of the equation. Saddam Hussein was an amoral thug; there is nothing genetic here and nothing to research; some people are like that in the same way some people are exceedingly humane. No amount of probing in a laboratory would reveal anything else. The Bush family have the power at present to exact whatever they choose and no matter how much they may try to justify their actions, they used their power for personal retribution.
To the victor the spoils and this is an example of pure Darwinism, which in case nobody has noticed, has nothing to do with altruism or moral sensibilities. There is only one reason the Husseins and Bushes of this world seek power, it is to use it however they see fit for their own interests.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

28. Comment #15871 by CaptainShiny on January 3, 2007 at 12:17 pm

avatarGive me a break. Everyone knows Hitler was did it because he was an athiest.

Other Comments by CaptainShiny

29. Comment #15872 by CaptainShiny on January 3, 2007 at 12:18 pm

avatarThat was irony, by the way.

Other Comments by CaptainShiny

30. Comment #15875 by Vadjong on January 3, 2007 at 12:53 pm

avatarO dear,

I think we may have a big problem here soon.
Irrelevant of whether RD is right or wrong in this case or whether I, you or the pope agree on this or not, people who already believe science is amoral and easily subverted for evil uses will see their worst fears confirmed.
Scientists want to study EVERYthing, so keeping evil-doers in a lab will be associated with releasing chemical weapons & deadly viruses unto some unsuspecting populace, or dumping radioactive waste in ponds to study mutations, and other B-movie mad-scientist plotdevices.
I fear RD will be made to look like Dr. Mengele by avid irrationalists.

Other Comments by Vadjong

31. Comment #15877 by Andrew Charles on January 3, 2007 at 1:02 pm

It's very simple...

The people of Iraq decided that Saddam should die, so he died. It's really not a case for pampered western "liberal/humanists" to debate in the comfort of their cushy homes. Have any of them had a family member who was killed/raped? Have any of them witnessed genocide? Some people are just plain evil, and I don't mean that in any superstitious sense. They need to be removed from society. What could we have learned from Saddam that we don't already know? If anything could have created such a monster it was certainly the hypocritical/ineffective West.

Does that mean that Bush or Blair deserve to be hung? Well, that is a case for pampered western "liberal/humanists" to debate.

Other Comments by Andrew Charles

32. Comment #15878 by nine9s on January 3, 2007 at 1:13 pm

I'm profoundly ambivalent about the death penalty. My primary objections are 1) possibility of mistaken guilt, and 2) lengthy appeals processes that render any additional deterrence factor above and beyond imprisonment mute. Neither case here is applicable to Saddam Hussein.

Since almost everyone here is against the death penalty, I'll focus here on the good arguments for it. First of all, keeping him in prison as an "example of civilized behavior" will be read by the terrorists as a sign of weakness, not of strength. Treating Saddam with any more than minimal dignity would fuel the idea that mass violence gets you respect.

Also, if you give someone who murders hundreds of thousands the same punishment as someone who murders one, it kills any incentive to stop murdering once you get started. And are any other dictators in the world going to be intimidated by the prospect of sitting in prison while all their bodily needs are met? I doubt it. Will they be deterred by the prospect of being hanged while the people they oppressed are taunting them? Could be.

Finally, in prison you can still read, have visitors, remember, write, and even hope for the equivalent of a presidential pardon. In Saddam's case, there was probably no shortage of people willing to risk their lives to break him out of prison. While there are certainly fates worse than death, being confined to a room while still being taken care of (like a naughty child) isn't one of them.

Some here have said that "a prisoner has rights," and that Saddam had "a basic right to live." My impertinent question is, how do you know? What convinced you that no amount of evil you commit can ever deprive you of your right to life? What could convince you that you're wrong?

Some say, "How can the state murder someone to show that murder is wrong?" Well, how can the state hold a kidnapper against his will to show that holding someone against their will is wrong? We already accept that to infringe on rights means that you give up some of your own, and for an evil bastard like Saddam, the only fitting punishment is, in my opinion, death. (BTW, we've already studied serial killers and historical evidence from Stalin, Hitler, etc. What more could one more case study yield, even assuming that Saddam cooperated?"

Other Comments by nine9s

33. Comment #15879 by rhubarb on January 3, 2007 at 1:21 pm

To answer your question, Dr. Dawkins: No. It's not an act of vandalism.

Vandalism is the willful destruction or damage of property belonging to someone else.

Since when is the mind of any human being – even a Saddam Hussein – the property of anyone besides that particular human being? And how, precisely, could Saddam have been persuaded (or coerced) to give his mind, his property, over to "researchers?" It is possible to restrict a person's freedom; it is possible to take a person's life, which is a serious decision and one not to be undertaken lightly; how does one go about appropriating a mind as though it were independent of an individual's person and declaring it a "unique resource," a "prime specimen" for the collective "we" to use for "research?" It's no wonder someone has already mentioned Mengele.

Initially I thought this idea was creepy. Now I'm convinced it's just damnfoolishness.

You're out of your depth here, too, Dr. Dawkins.

Other Comments by rhubarb

34. Comment #15882 by harryh28 on January 3, 2007 at 1:46 pm

An act of vandalism indeed, from a one point of view but perhaps it is a positive step in the quest for the removal of religion from politics worldwide. As a symbolic and permanent end to the rule of Saddam in the minds of Iraqis and people in surrounding countries he threatened, his death is advantageous.

Hopefully now the majority Iraqis who are not extremists can have even more courage to confront the remaining two sources of politically motivated violence , the Shiite and Sunni extremists, and openly support forces of moderation. In this way I see Hussein's execution as an effective method of memetic engineering.

A coalition of moderate Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis is emerging in the Iraqi parliament, it's power being recently strengthened with approval from the most senior Shia Ali al-Sistani . He is obviously partly motivated oppose the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr whose Mahdi Army is instigating most of the violence.

This I believe to be a necessary first step towards an Islamic period of Enlightenment which should eventually be followed by the removal of religion from public society an achievement we are yet archive in the West.

But perhaps we need to achieve that further maturation of our societies before we can rightfully expect them to move to the next stage.

Other Comments by harryh28

35. Comment #15898 by DavidJMH on January 3, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals will spout volumes about the injustice and immorality of the death penalty from the comforts and priviledges of a free society, whilst simultaneously squeeling like stuck pigs because their own authorities and governments, which they voted into office, fail to take a strong stand on crime and punishment.
Punishment should fit the crime; judicious punishment is a priviledge we have fought and sacrificed for in the English speaking world. Many people on this planet do not have that luxury. As stated in my previous posting to this article, the execution of Saddam Hussein was pure revenge by the Bush family, however, if that is what it takes to rid the world of a murderous tyrant, then so be it for we have no moral right regarding those who have suffered at his hand to say otherwise.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

36. Comment #15900 by gwolf on January 3, 2007 at 4:40 pm

avatarYipes! Richard Dawkins agrees with me! I published a letter making the same points in the Washington Post shortly after Saddam's capture. I reposted it in the forum area here at:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64979&highlight=#64979

on December 30, shortly after the execution, where you may read it.

I'm glad that the idea has some currency.

Sincerely,

George Wolf

Other Comments by gwolf

37. Comment #15902 by Fozziwig on January 3, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Although I probably agree with pretty much everything Richard Dawkins has to say on the
subject of religious belief we probably disagree about the wisdom of military action in Iraq
and its foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences.

On the matter of the execution of Saddam Hussein my view is that it was the right action at
the right time. Yes, I know it's really weird to actually have the same opinion as the vast majority of peaceful Iraqi citizens but there you go.

I do not believe this action will lead to more violence as the current bombings and shootings
are not motivated by any love or loyalty to a man who authorised and engaged in the murder and torture of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children - even using chemical weapons in the process.

Those currently blowing themselves up in Iraq didn't really care about Sadam but that's not to say the powers behind (some of) the terrorism didn't have a notion to use him at some future time. Imagine a few years from now when foreign forces have left Iraq - except for the Iranians, Saudis and Syrians (the ones who the 'Don't attack Iraq' banners don't apply to). It wouldn't take much of a political shift for someone to arrange the release of Sadam who would then be paraded on TV (especially on the BBC) to torment and humiliate the UK & US governments.

This scenario is now impossible and I think that's a positive thing for Iraq.

Other Comments by Fozziwig

38. Comment #15903 by Duff on January 3, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Saddam was executed for one reason and one reason only. The Shiites were convinced that if they didn't kill him when they had the chance, the Americans would leave and somehow Saddam would no longer be protected and the possibility existed that he would be freed by a Sunni force, (weirder things have happened).
The only possibility of making sure he wouldn't fall into the hands of the Sunnis would be to transfer him to the Hague under the supervision of the UN. That wasn't about to happen, so the Shiites killed him the first time they had the chance.
While I agree with Professor Dawkins that it would have been interesting to drain his mind of any relevant knowledge, I'm afraid that would have been impossible under the circumstances. The US doesn't have the same latitude of action in Irag that it had with its Allies in Germany after the World War 11.
The truly reprehensible aspect of the whole thing is that the US forces didn't foresee what would happen the moment they turned the hapless schmuck over to the Shiite government. What a bunch of losers, the US leadership who didn't realize what would happen and the Shiite clowns who perpetrated this farce.

Other Comments by Duff

39. Comment #15909 by HappyPrimate on January 3, 2007 at 6:47 pm

avatarWhile I agree it would be fascinating to study people such as Hussein and Hitler, these high profile people cannot be allowed to live on in captivity without gaining some sort of following and resulting power. The mass murderer Charles Manson was able to maintain an influence and may still have one although people have somewhat become a bit bored with him over the years. Here in Louisiana, we have several serial killers on death row. I would like to know what turned these men into killing machines but I will not blink at their execution. Prisons all around the world have plenty of subjects for study if that is what is needed. As for Saddam, I believe it most certainly could have been handled better, but it had to be done. After hearing and reading about the outrage of his execution, I thought -- What? Where was this outrage when we all witnessed the Taliban execute women all over Afgan. in 1992? Perspective please!
Thank you.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

40. Comment #15913 by jefferson on January 3, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Killing killers would make me a hypocrite. I would kill in order to defend, but I definitely wouldn't kill a mingy old man in captivity.

Other Comments by jefferson

41. Comment #15916 by atheisticism on January 3, 2007 at 7:59 pm

the Saddam Hussein trial was a total farce. Were US forces not trying to take Saddam out with selective missile strikes early in the confrontation? Why the trial?? Why did they not simply shoot him on the spot when he was discovered in the spider hole? Saddam's transgressions against others are known with certainty, they are part of history. The trial was nothing more than a pathetic attempt by the US to appear "just" and "noble" It didn't bother me that he was hung, I just wish that Bush and Blair were hanging on either side of him!

Other Comments by atheisticism

42. Comment #15917 by denoir on January 3, 2007 at 8:15 pm

avatarI fully agree with Dawkins' argument – as a matter of fact I've used it in exactly that form as a case against executing Saddam. It is important however to understand that why many people would find that argument unpersuasive if not flat wrong – and yes, it has on one level to do with religion.

The basic premise is a deeply materialistic view of what constitutes a person. A person is formed by the genetic material and the environment its brain adapts to. End of story. That's the materialistic view.

The common view however stems from a dualistic view on mind and matter. Saddam wasn't a bad person because of his "dictator genes" and childhood experiences. He did have free will and as a fundamentally bad person he chose to do bad things. Studying him won't yield anything – he was just bad. Personal responsibility is central to this and hence an appropriate punishment is important. This is the standard view that most people hold and is among other things the basis for our legal system.

Current scientific knowledge of the brain strongly supports the materialistic part. Intelligence and mind are emergent properties of the brain wetware. Free will it would seem is not the first cause of a thought or action, but rather a delayed post-processing action that kicks in after a decision has already been made – in order to place the decision in an abstract information structure. Of course brain research has still a lot of work to do before we can say that we truly understand the brain. These are however the best models we have right now.

One final comment – regarding science and politics. Science is about finding truth about how the universe works. It should not and cannot be normative – i.e decide which truths are important and which are not. That is for the society as a whole to decide. It is a complicated issue as the general public generally does not understand the science in order to be able to evaluate it properly. Having said that, the opposite has in practice has had disastrous effects in the form of technocratic societies. Science can provide information, but the decision on how to use that information is a much broader question which must include the broader society. Science can tell you how to split the atom, but not if you should build atomic bombs, nuclear reactors or none of the above.

Other Comments by denoir

43. Comment #15918 by Tuiliq on January 3, 2007 at 8:44 pm

avatarProf. Dawkins asserts we have wasted an information resource. Without debating the merits of that opinion, I'd like to point out that, waste or not, we now have a measurement opportunity.

If we were to track the beliefs of people directly involved in the prosecution, trial and execution of Saddam, the proportion of theists would likely be very high.

The proportion of theists involved in EVERY execution is probably very high.

This might be a research project we could undertake collectively. It would certainly help buttress the argument that a mind filled with theism is a very poor breeding ground for practical morality.

Other Comments by Tuiliq

44. Comment #15929 by DavidJGrossman on January 3, 2007 at 10:06 pm

avatarI also think that executing Saddam was a mistake.

I think a more fitting punishment would be to keep him in jail and play South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut continuously for the rest of his life.

When George Bush goes to jail for his crimes against humanity (one can hope), they should play the Daily Show with Jon Stewart continuously. :D

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

45. Comment #15931 by Sancus on January 3, 2007 at 10:19 pm

From denoir

One final comment – regarding science and politics. Science is about finding truth about how the universe works. It should not and cannot be normative – i.e decide which truths are important and which are not. That is for the society as a whole to decide.


No, it's for the individual to decide, and not at the expense of other individuals to decide. Given that all individuals empirically experience the world differently, this is furthermore a scientifically normative view.

Other Comments by Sancus

46. Comment #15932 by Joadist on January 3, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Why did Hitler, Stalin, Saddam,,,etc Kill so many people?

I know! I know!

They lived in nations that had Capital Punishment.

When the next leader of Iraq decides to begin mass murdering his people, his legal justification will already be in place.

There has never been a mass murdering leader in a nation without a death penalty.

Other Comments by Joadist

47. Comment #15933 by Russell Blackford on January 3, 2007 at 10:37 pm

I'm not sure that the usual reasons do apply. It depends, of course, on what you think those usual reasons are. Jonathan Glover has the best and most balanced discussion that I know of about the rights and wrongs of the death penalty in these rather special cases (in Causing Death and Saving Lives). I actually think that these cases involve rather different considerations from those relating to the death penalty for ordinary murders and so on.

That said, I still agree with the thrust of the argument. I have tended to emphasise what I see as the hastiness and unfairness of the trial - which was a travesty in my view - but I agree with the point made here that killing Saddam also meant losing a vital source of information.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

48. Comment #15938 by Fanusi Khiyal on January 3, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Hmmm. Well, for once, I need to object. Saddam Hussein was every bit as monstrous as those who died at Nuremberg. The trial and the execution was under the auspices of the Iraqi interim government, carried out by the Shia who had suffered unspeakable cruelties under him. If Hitler had been captured alive, I suspect that the survivors of the camps would have been a little miffed if he had been spared execution.

I'm sorry, but the point bears repeating. We haven't lived under such apalling cruelty. We haven't not seen entire families wiped from existence. This isn't about whether or not it was right to go into Iraq - noone can argue that Saddam Hussein was an evil monster. And now he has what he deserves. The Iraqis are celebrating - and who can blame them? On the day that Osama bin Laden is finally put to death, millions around the world will celebrate - and I'll be one of them.

Some monsters just should not walk on earth.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

49. Comment #15940 by Joadist on January 4, 2007 at 12:13 am

Fanusi Khiyal,

And after the new Shia Government has killed hundreds of thousands, will their replacements cheer their execution also?

Other Comments by Joadist

50. Comment #15942 by denoir on January 4, 2007 at 12:17 am

avatarSancus:

"No, it's for the individual to decide, and not at the expense of other individuals to decide. Given that all individuals empirically experience the world differently, this is furthermore a scientifically normative view."

I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense. An individual cannot decide if we should use the knowledge from chemistry to build chemical weapons. If nothing else for practical reasons. This is generally handled at group level and specifically at society level. As for doing something at the expense of another individual - of course you can and should. First of all you cannot operate in a physical world without interacting with it and every such interaction can be seen as a potentially negative event for another individual. When you drive your car, you pollute my air. When you cause a change of any kind in an irreversible process you deprive other individuals of making that change. Hell, even in a reversible process, you deprive other individuals of making that change at that specific time. Saying that "an individual may do whatever he/she pleases as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" is kindergarten ethics. It's nonsense in the real world.

As long as you interact with a system – a group of humans or otherwise – in the real physical world, the interaction is bound to be complex and have a massive number of consequences either intrinsic or as emergent properties. Even if you had an absolute standard of evaluating the consequences, you have no intrinsic normative system to compare their values. Even if you manage to define a metric such as "maximizing happiness" you are not out of the woods. Utilitarianism is nice except for it doesn't tell you how that happiness should be distributed. In many cases it is a zero-sum game.

To take a practical trivial example: you might say that taking recreational drugs is a personal liberty. That's fine, but you also need to consider that statistically those that do not take drugs will have to pay for excess medical costs. Accepting these costs is by modern ethical standards a moral imperative – so we can't just let the addicts that can't pay for themselves die. So how do you measure the relative deprivation of one individual's rights to take drugs to the other individuals' rights – the ones that have to pay the bill? Unless you are advocating a complete dissolution of all human societies and groups, this will never be decided on an individual level. It will be a matter of one decision that goes for the whole group. That's what laws are all about.

As for your statement that all individuals empirically experience the world differently - that is at best unsubstantiated. Science is based on the assumption that on average our empirical experience of the universe is invariant between individuals. Gravity is on average experienced the same way by everybody. That is a postulated assumption - you can't prove it to be true. However assuming that it is false won't help you anyway as you will lose all ability about saying anything about the world.
What science can do is give an explanation of the physical processes of morality, but it cannot dictate what we should do with it.

Other Comments by denoir
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: