I read a Slate article today that talked about the State of the Union Address, and its subsequent comments. One thought in the comments discusses bringing terrorists to justice. I think the main sentiment, though, is one that occurred to me while I was thinking about our ongoing troubles with Iraq.
Why do we not evaluate these other nations by measure of our own law?
If you hurt someone, you get punished. You get a trial first, but presumably if you are guilty (after assumed to be innocent before evidence) you will be punished. The sentence should be commensurate with the crime. If you or a group with whom you affiliate ends the lives of others (for reasons just or unjust), you should suffer the consequences.
By that standard, how would one convict Hussein/Iraq of a crime? Ignoring the entire Gulf War (which in itself would put Hussein in the gas chamber), Iraq is (according to our secretive government) holding toxic chemicals. I am sure that there is some law that prohibits the storage of more than a certain amount of Sarin gas at my house. Can't we just cart Hussein away?
Maybe part of the problem is that world law - United Nations resolutions and sanctions - moves too slowly and is influenced by too many nations bending to their own agendas.
War also blurs the picture. How do laws change when war is in effect? Would armies be unable to uphold the law? I have heard many times that by definition they could not. The structure of armies would not allow for them to make distinctions of guilt or innocence. They carry around weapons, for pity's sake.
My point is that maybe there is another way to approch this situation.
Why haven't we simply flown a missile down his house's chimney? He's a bad man.
Man, I'm tired of writing about possible war. Let's either do it or not do it, but either way, we should move on to actual important things, like the economy.
