Justice is done: Why doesn't it feel like it?
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | January 4, 2007 |
| Vol. 4, No. 30 |
As the world prepared to celebrate World Peace Day, Saddam Hussein walked to the gallows in Baghdad. "The Americans," commentators pronounced solemnly, "had handed him over to the Iraqis."
The phrase carried with it eerie echoes of another moment in time when another ruler also maneuvered to avoid responsibility for the death of another prisoner. And just as surely as Pilate is remembered for the death of Jesus, so will the United States be remembered for the death of Hussein, however intently we argue that the execution was "the work of the young democracy" in Iraq.
But that is only the beginning of the inanity of such hollow justice. The ironies and questions raised by such an event are legion. The very process of the hanging brings such hangings into question:
First, for his trip to the gibbet, Hussein wore a dark suit and hat, overcoat and leather shoes. No derelict this one. Instead, we have here a head of state, once supported in his ruthlessness by the very ones who "handed him over" to his death. Then, he was the U.S. bulwark against an ambitious and increasingly Islamicized Iran. Now, he is the hero of those who would defy the United States and its own self-righteous religious or chauvinistic tendencies. Just as he went to the gallows, Quran in hand, praising God, expecting glory, so did we go to war, Bible in hand, proclaiming the justice of God.
The situation is sobering. Had we managed, as a result of this kind of frontier justice, to turn a political tyrant into a new kind of idol? A champion for those who are intent on vanquishing what they see as a new generation of Crusaders? A martyr for the Palestinian cause and a model of resistance against those who are seen to be an unholy threat to the Muslim world? Are these two different Gods? Or is it possible that both of us have misread God a bit?
Second, the mask traditionally put over the faces of condemned prisoners to save their executioners a reminder of their humanity, he refused. This was a man whose defiance was proud to the end. Now he is celebrated across the world as a martyr to U.S. domination, in fact. So the question is, who won here? Anyone?
Third, his hangmen, on the other hand, all worked with covered faces to hide their identities. Clearly, they fear reprisal. They are not nearly as naive as we were when we rolled triumphantly into Baghdad. They are not so callow as to expect to have flowers strewn at their feet for hanging him.
On the contrary, they know that this very act of hanging can only give new energy to the insurgency, to the killings, to other executions that only continue the history of executions symbolized by this one. So where is the peace here? What kind of justice is being served here?
Street dancers in Dearborn, Mich., celebrating the execution may have come much closer to the bone of it: "Now we have revenge," they said. Re-venge. New vengeance in the chain of unending vengeance. Once his, now theirs. And when and where will it ever end if someone does not end it?
Fourth, they tied a cloth around Hussein's neck before dropping the heavily knotted noose over his head. It's an interesting humanitarian gesture designed surely, to prove that a barbaric act by civilized people is more humane than the inhumanity of its violent counterparts. After all, saving the neck of a hanging victim from rope burns is not only hardly necessary, it is also ludicrous, laughable, absurd. What does it mean to be human? What is justice? How is peace served by violence?
Finally, Hussein was executed on the Muslim feast of Eid ul-Adha which celebrates the deliverance of Ishmael from the sacrifice of Abraham. On this Islamic feast it is customary to release prisoners -- not to execute them.
The event was, in other words, totally surreal. Except for one thing: the questions it raises, if we will only face them, are profoundly important ones for us as a nation and for a world in transition to a village.
But the ultimate irony, perhaps, lies in the fact that now political pundits are saying what philosophers, theologians, mystics and holy ones have been saying ever since Jesus said, "Peter, put away your sword." They are all clear: "No," they tell their interviewers across cyberspace, "No, this will not change anything in Iraq -- except, perhaps, make it worse."
Violence begets violence the saints have told us over and over again.
We have seen it with our own eyes. We invaded Iraq and started a war. We justified the invasion on false grounds and now carry on our own backs the onus of injustice: There were no weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis did not lie to us. They had nothing to do with Al Quaeda. They had not been breeding terrorists. They did not support the attack on the Twin Towers.
All of those things have been forgotten. Now, instead, we tell ourselves that we did, at least, eliminate a dictator. But how? And at what cost? And with what gains as the numbers of our dead climb and theirs skyrocket?
Maybe we should listen again to the saints. Perhaps we should give our own role in World Peace Day new attention as we approach the day in which we will be given "a new strategy" for Iraq. If it were not for American voters, we would be nowhere near such a moment. But the vote may not have been enough to make the difference. We may all need to do more to make the point that World Peace Day is a pressing, immediate, demanding and real challenge, not a celebration of the kind of self-serving sanctimonious nationalism that says we believe in peace, therefore we are peaceful.
From where I stand, it seems to me that we need to look this execution in the eye, unmasked, and demand that our politicians do more about peace than more violence.
I have an idea that if we begin to do something about the violence we do as a nation in the name of justice, we will all begin to think differently about all kinds of life always.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Seems to me that Christ
Seems to me that Christ said, "when you do this unto the LEAST of these... you do unto me..." Saddam was certainly least when it came to the horrific choices he made to kill so many people... but when Christ spoke about the LEAST there were no "buts" about it...
as the Fisherwoman see's it...
So no one in our world can
So no one in our world can be imprisoned no matter the crime? We must close our courts? -- because we'd be doing the same to Christ. Want to try the meaning of that one again. How about this -- if the Pope excommunicates someone, he's excommunicating Christ? I think you need to work on your logic, fisherwoman.
".... if the Pope
".... if the Pope excommunicates someone, he's excommunicating Christ?" ... I would say, Yes... and no matter what logic I use... you would disagree spiritfed, and thats quite alright... in the end, Christ is the only one fit to judge, not i . . . and not anyone else.
Love, Laugh, Live
"...whatever you hold bound
"...whatever you hold bound will be held bound..."
...Yes, I wish they would
...Yes, I wish they would have held the pedopheliacs "bound"... see the problem with that logic?
Love, Laugh, Live
redundant sarcasm spirtfed -
redundant sarcasm spirtfed - redundant.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
I'm sorry, but I don't find
I'm sorry, but I don't find anything "hysterical" at all in Sr. Joan's column. In fact it was quite ordered and gave us a clear line of thought. I'm really grateful that you can see that she is "Christ based" and hope that you also aspire to this, because you seem kind of angry. I always find that a lot of what is presented in the NCR is Christ based.
Your conjecture about what she would do with Saddam is purely speculative and has nothing to do with the content of her writing. I am able to read that "the process of such hangings bring hangings into question." Later on she asks us "What does it mean to be human? What is justice? How is peace served by violence?"
I wonder if you read the work as thoughfully and carefully as it was written. Could it be that you became just a bit hysterical when you read it? I don't know, but I get a whole different insight than you. There's an awful lot more in that piece of work than an analogy. To those seeking peace it is worth going over again and again.
jayne
jayne, Chittister's article
jayne, Chittister's article is obviously incomplete if she cannot identify what should be done with Saddam. In fact, she seems to offer only criticism constantly for what is done, but doesn't relate to the real world of the problems that do exist. It is her constant pattern to be incomplete.
Not of this world....
Not of this world.... indeed, Joan Chittister is not! In this world, well, she calls it as she see's it! And Bless her Brave Heart for that...
Shalom!
What to do with Saddam
What to do with Saddam Hussein was never a point in question until it was brought up by eratt. The whole jist of the column, as far as I'm concerned, had to do with the barbarism of hanging in this modern age. Be it for Saddam or any criminal. I can wholeheartedly agree with Sr. Joan's writing, because I do not believe in capital punishment.
And what in the world is this new twist about completeness? For the love of Sam! I think you guys are just trying to make things up to keep some kind of flow of hatred going on. To me the column was very complete.
As to what should be done with Saddam, well, that's hardly worth speculating over now, is it? After all, the man is dead.
As far as who's hysterical and who isn't, well I'll leave that to the doctor. But, for now I'm calm and hope you are, too.
jayne
I chalk up the late arrival
I chalk up the late arrival of the point to the fact that it is customary for Chittister to not point up solutions to what she criticizes. However, it is a very valid point. Also, if you find the article to be about the barbarism of hanging, exactly how is the US to blame again? We didn't arrive at the decree and we are forever being told we can't enforce our standards upon others -- democracy, morality, etc. On this occasion we were supposed to? I don't get the criteria. And I don't get the Chittister criticism in light of how she otherwise falls on such issues. If we turn our back on what other countries are doing morally, aren't we always acting as Pilate? This whole column seems directed to criticize the US harshly -- again somehow it is always us(US) who are to fault?!?! This is extremely dubious thought.
Unfortuately my discovery here shows those that agreed with Chittister are doing so because they agree with her politics and have really not thought to deeply about the meaning of what she's said -- 1) drawing some parallel between Saddam and Christ; 2) advocating US intervention and enforcing our standards; 3) design to criticize the US. Apparently Chittister isn't even aware of what she's written, so absorbed is she in her politics she hasn't pondered meaning.
It seems I'm obligated to overlook a heck of a lot of faults in this column to extract its limited meaning that you are directing me to.
I can see where you're
I can see where you're trying to go with this, but there are so many redundancies.
First of all, there truly is a parrallel or similarity between the events of Saddam and Christ's executions. Secondly, we already enforced our standards when we invaded Iraq, and thirdly, there's no better thing for the soul than self criticism. In fact, I was far too vague and broad when I said that the jist of the column was about the barbarism of hanging. It was also about vengeance, self righteousness, chauvinism, hatred for those who don't think like us, and much more. Sr. Joan follows up with the admonition that we ask questions about what is justice, what is peace?
I think that if we truly want to see ourselves as "the greatest nation", as our president is fond of saying, then we should really do something great. Wouldn't it be great if tomorrow we somehow negotiated some kind of a cease fire because we had to comb the land with huge planes which would drop food and water and blankets and medical supplies to all the displaced men, women and children whose whole way of life has been turned upside down by the invasion of a foreign army.
Well, so, "you may say I'm dreaming, but I'm not the only one." Peace is possible only if human beings make it possible. In hindsight, the simplest sentence of Sister Joan's column is for me the most poignant: "Violence begets violence the saints have told us over and over again." Well, I'm no saint, but if I can choose one or the other, I'd rather be a saint.
Pax
jayne
Parallel between Christ and
Parallel between Christ and Saddam? Now you are asserting what so many here say was not the intent of Chittister. You confirm it.
Again, if we are the greatest nation, we have the right to undo all decisions we find inferior? We enforced 'our standards' when we invaded Iraq? That was Saddam's Iraq, not the one of the new government with their system of justice. We are not at war with them for any reason.
Well, spiritfed, I'll go out
Well, spiritfed, I'll go out on a limb here just to see if I can clear the air on this point of "comparison" or "parallel". Sr. Joan is a writer. In writing, there is an age old technique which is often used. It is called juxtaposition. To help the discussion along, I've looked up the denotation of this for you: to juxtapose is "to place two or more things together, especially in order to suggest a link between them or emphasize the contrast between them." From my end of the pasture, I see a lot of contrast as well as links. That's as good as it gets for that. I will say no more. You are set on your own conclusions and so am I.
As for the rest, it seems that the United States already made a decision for Iraq when it invaded it. We must now take it on ourselves to be responsible for what we have done. It wasn't just Saddam who was invaded, it was a country filled with innocent people, beautiful Mosques, and ancient culture, much of which has been blighted. Would you really walk up to an Iraqi woman with three children and no home or food or clothing or running water who listens to the sounds of gunfire and sees ruin all around her and tell her that we are not at war with her? I don't think she would find you believable.
jayne
jayne, would you say to
jayne, would you say to those who were tyrranized by Saddam that they had no right to not be and that they have no right to freedom? And were all innocent? There is the wheat and the chaff.
I am left to believe that we are forevermore left in charge of all Iraq's choices -- because we 'invaded' in your eyes. So there is never a break in this, never a break in aspects? The juxtaposition has this purpose -- that Chittister believe's US is to blame when we act and when we don't act. It is very obvious from the links and contrasts that don't hold that is the case.
Spiritfed, The Saddam
Spiritfed,
The Saddam situation is full of ironies. America supported him. We supported him after he was exterminating people. We even enabled him in his extermination campaigns. What made Saddam a target for legal assassination was that he contemplated selling his oil to other than America. There was a clear and honorable way to try Saddam--the International Criminal Court, the heir apparent of the Nuremberg Trials. GWB objected to them because they did not have a possibility of the death sentence. So we have a mockery of justice in the Saddam trials for the killing-heinous killing-of some 140 people. His death truncates further trials and the potential for an embarassing exploration of how America aided and abetted him in his trials. Stephen Zunes has written some excellent stuff on this.
Saddam's trial was about many things but surely not about justice.
What do I think should have happened to Saddam? I think he should have been tried by the International Criminal Court, imperfect organ that it is. Having Saddam live out his life in incarceration would have been just fine with me.
Sr. Joan's imagery that just as Pilate is forever tied to Jesus' death, America is forever tried to the Kangaroo Court trial and lynching of Saddam Hussein is right on.
May God have mercy on us.
MollyJ, I suggest you
MollyJ, I suggest you reexamine are so-called support for Saddam. It is vastly overstated and an inaccuracy to make such a contention. The Clinton administration put through the US policy of regime change for Iraq.
Despite Iraqi court imperfections, to contend that justice was not done -- well, you are talking about YOUR justice. That you suggest an international court, now that's just plain kangaroo.
Kangaroo, huh? Are you
Kangaroo, huh? Are you suggesting that some of our own supposed trials of "war criminals" (example Yamashita-1945) have NOT been "kangaroo"?
At least in an International Court of Law, there are real Judges, REAL lawyers, a REAL judicial process, and the prisoner, leawyers, and members of the Court are hopefully secure from harm, unlike in the Trial of Saddam, where numerous lawyers and their family members were whacked, and there was insufficient security.
Clever wording, but I sincerely question your knowledge of history, OR your discernment.
Shootingstar, you find
Shootingstar, you find everything international to be superior to the US. Apparently you can apply no objective criteria. International courts have 'real' judicial process and 'real' judges. I suppose the UN had real leadership under Kofi, too? We just have to overlook the deals with Saddam and the corruption of the Oil for Food program that they swept under -- excuse me, that they investigated internally. Shootingstar, I question your motives.
I do note that The
I do note that The International Court at The Hague was more effective as a vehicle for prosecuting Milosovic, as far as it went. It isolated him away from his Country, and allowed some measure of stability to begin to take shape in Yugoslavia. The same might have been more effective with Saddam, in retrospect, who knows?
I do not appreciate your generalizations about me and what I think. They are way off base. I note that most of these insulting conclusions are directed toward the women on the site. In the interest of genuine dialogue, I would ask that you desist.
shootingstar, from many of
shootingstar, from many of the names I don't know who's man or woman. I guess a fair majority of the writers here are also women -- as far as I know. They are also liberals and feminists, both doctrines that I find to be so misguided as philosophies. I am in significant agreement with the Pope and so many here are not only against the Pope, but insulting to him, something I choose to not remain silent on. I guess the odds are that I will take on women.
It seems to me that you are quite insulting toward the men who appear at this site.
Why? Because I dare to speak
Why? Because I dare to speak up? Please give me an example of "quite an insult".
To me, for instance, on many
To me, for instance, on many occasions. You had a bigger insult war with another writer who I believe is no longer with us here. Open warfare.
JT Spiritfed, So does
JT
Spiritfed,
So does Justice Stephen Breyer apparently.
Kangaroo courts? I dunno, I think that the international courts are best characterized by a different marsupial. Wombat, I think.
In any case,
"Cheeseburger. Cheeseburger. Cheeseburger. Pepsi, no coke!"
Yes, Justice Breyer wants to
Yes, Justice Breyer wants to apply international law, or law from anyplace else, at his whim, whatever suits his purposes. Rather than respect OF LAW, Breyer exhibits he respects NO LAW. As a Supreme Court justice he should be applying only AMERICAN LAW. It according to what we have decided -- not the Cambodians or Senegalese, etc.
If its up to whim, why not the best law -- God's law. Ban abortions and no gay marriage.
By what you say, spiritfed,
By what you say, spiritfed, you are asserting that we invaded Iraq in order to dethrone an evil tyrant and free its' people. That's a pretty bold statement considering that we went there to rout out weapons of mass destruction. As many have mentioned, it's only now that we have this big blunder to cover that we try to excuse ourselves and say that we have succeeded because we have removed an evil tyrant. Accepting this excuse leads me to believe that we ourselves have been tyrannized. In fact, having been lied to about weapons of mass destruction, perhaps we have been.
And, yes, in war, all are innocent in that unarmed citizens have no means of self preservation. They are at the mercy of the vileness and violence of military warfare. This is not about judgement day and "wheat and chaff". This is about "who is my neighbor", and "forgiving 70 times 7,000" and "turning the other cheek". It's about choosing life or choosing death. It's about really believing in Christ's plea: "Put away your sword."
You take it upon yourself to hurl attack after attack at Sr.Joan, and yet you come here week after week to read her column. Why do you do that? Can't you see what you're doing? You are choosing the sword, you are slapping the face of someone whose work upholds the truths of what is right and just from a Christ-like perspective. You are trying to take what is beautiful that is left for us to ponder in our pursuit of peace, and distort it and twist it out of context to make it look bad. Well, I for one have to admonish you, because I'm no saint, but far be it from me to contest that this is an unjust war and that Sr. Joan is able to verbalize it in a passionate and understandable way. The facts are just too plain. And I don't need to put anyone down to say it. I am going to pray for you.
jayne
Jayne, you are the one who
Jayne, you are the one who insists we invaded, not I. As I have pointed out to many here in denial, WMD was not the ONLY reason for toppling Saddam. Most important, he was in violation of the terms of peace with his attacks on our enforcing the no fly zone and in not permitting the inspections to take place to verify the status of WMD. You do recall the inconvenience of that history, don't you? You do recall that even the UN's intelligence on Iraq was that Saddam HAD WMD, because so many were unaccounted for. The concern, too, was that Saddam could develop nuclear weapons should the circumstances continue as they were or, as the international community response and solution to inspection problems go into effect, the inspections were discontinued. You do recall all of history, not just your useful portions picked by hindsight?
Your remarks are rather
Your remarks are rather belittling and chiding. But, I forgive you.
I hope that as you grow in the Christian life, that you will find the peace of Christ shed abroad in your heart.
I won't be at the cafe any longer. But, it was a pleasure trying to help you find the peace of Christ as I sought it also.
jayne
I hope you grow enough to
I hope you grow enough to take correction when it is valid. As for your hope in my Christian growth, now who is being belittling?
I'm sorry you found offense.
I'm sorry you found offense. None was intended. Let me rephrase that: I hope that as we grow in the Christian faith, we may both find the Peace of Christ.
jayne
Well put. My same regards
Well put. My same regards to you.
Jayne, you are honest,
Jayne, you are honest, courageous, and true. I think your valiant efforts against the blind and angry are wonderful! Your manner of expression is encouraging to me, and to many others, I think.
I know that the tedium that accompanies the relentless empty-drum diatribes of the blind-and-angry is hard to bear. PLEASE don't depart from this discussion on that account. But if you do decide to take a rest, rest in peace, my sister-in-Christ. I hope that you will be back soon, refreshed and keyed to a life of genuine discussion.
God's peace be with you.
[Forgive the double post,I wanted you to hear this before departure ...]
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
Thanks doubley, Reverend. I
Thanks doubley, Reverend. I responded to your other post. I'll be reading you. Keep the faith.
Peace of Christ
jayne
McCoy, I do hope you get
McCoy, I do hope you get over your anger that colors your responses. What was sighted as anger was indeed a correction of facts. It is unfortunate that too few here are even engaged in the facts.
"Incomplete" is not the same
"Incomplete" is not the same thing as "hysterical," which is hardly a word that relates to Sr. Joan Chittester in general, or in particular in this article...which was jayne's point, after all...although "hysterical" does relate, linguistically anyhow, to women...Hmmmmm, am I picking up another thread in eratt's words?
Hmmmmmmmmm indeed ! :-)
Hmmmmmmmmm indeed ! :-)
JT Annie, Sometimes these
JT
Annie,
Sometimes these postings can be hysterically funny!
Am I the only who caught the pun in your username and the subject of hysteria?
Is this a reference to
Is this a reference to Bertha Papenheim?
JT Yup, the one and only,
JT
Yup, the one and only, "Fraulein Anna O", from Sigmund Freud and Joseph Breuer, 'Studies On Hysteria'.
Shoot, I thought it was a
Shoot, I thought it was a reference to Annie Oakley, not Anna O. I never did like Freud. Sorry, I have to stop my arm is going numb.
Actually, colkoch, the
Actually, colkoch, the username is. The humor is welcome, anyhow. :0)
Laughing Out Loud!!!!!!!!
Laughing Out Loud!!!!!!!!
I believe that the
I believe that the comparison of Sister Joan is of Pilate to the American administration (or the main figure in the administration). It is apropos, even though the analogy does not fully play out in all its ramifications. It doesn't have to. It is enough to show the hypocrisy of what it is that we are doing in Iraq and the excuses we make. What can we do about it?
Peter
Analogies don't work if they
Analogies don't work if they don't play out. They fall apart, Peter. You are obviously in denial. The US and Pilate are no longer in parallel of parallel objects aren't there.
Besides, are you aware the US didn't choose to avoid judging Saddam? Although we captured him, the crimes for which he was convicted were those committed against Iraqis. And justice was carried out by an Iraqi court. Even the 'washing of the hands' comparison is ridiculous, contrived and false on Chittister's part. We merely provided incarceration. Peter, it is plainly laughable that people like you and Chittister go out of their way to make the US look bad -- even changing the facts. Talk about bearing false witness.
Sister Joan's comparison is
Sister Joan's comparison is with the hypocrites of imperialist and puppet governments who make no distinction between good and evil when their interests are at stake and will kill/murder to protect or pursue them. If that means that Jesus and Saddam are comparable as victims of treachery then let it stand. To allege that she equates Jesus with Saddam as to morals or historical value is the deliberate ploy of liars,hypocrites or mentally deficient. Take your pick folks; you know who you are.
Hey is anyone going to march
Hey is anyone going to march against the war in D.C.?? Here is the link if anyone is interested... I only wish I could go... thanks for sending it to me... and you know who you are. :-)
www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3468
Love, Laugh, Live
Chittister has made
Chittister has made hysterical analogies to Saddam/Christ and USA/Pilate. Her Christ based opposition to capital punishment comes through clearly. She gets so inviolved in these dragged out analogies that she forgot to tell us exactly what SHE would have done with Saddam. Well, would she could have set him free? We're left to wonder if her Christ driven sympathy would go that far. Would she have him in Gauntanamo for life? Perish forbid! Not even Saddam deserves that hellhole. How about life in prison in Iraq? Now that's an interesting idea. Given his loudmouthed defenses of his acts during his trial and the vast sympathy he obviously has from so many Iraqis, such a place of confinement presents endless problems for his Iraqi guards and (obviously according to Chittister) for the USA. Such confinement would invite endless escape plots by his many Iraqi sympathizers. He would probably get lots of opportunities to continue his rants of defense of his actions in power.
Well then, where else would the good Sister have placed him? What country could possibly have wanted the respionsibility of confining and controlling him and putting up with the inevitable attempts of freeing him by his sympathizers.
Can Chittister come up with one rational alternative to his execution? She must have one or else she couldbn't have dedicated so much print to objecting t0 it.