I'm conflicted over this whole execution deal. I'm sure that most people on the planet are aware that it has been carried out. And a lot of people have opinions on the matter. Being in the United States, most people around me seem convinced that it is a good thing, and perhaps they are right. Still, what defines something to be good or not? Simply a personal judgement on the issue. And please don't give me that natural morality bullshit. If there is such a thing as natural morality, then every person on earth would be possessed of it, and no crime would be committed. Allowing for some people being born without this trait, punishing this minority for subsequent actions as a result of the lack thereof smacks to me of genetic profiling. Punishing someone because he or she did something that they are inclined to do, but society at large is not, is fairly similar to assaulting people for their race. These criminals, so to speak, are genetically inclined to commit crimes, so you punish them for this genetic disposition? Genocidal maniacs, the lot of you.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. I'm conflicted about this because there's a clash here between my usual common sense view of the judicial system and the entire concept of a reliable one. I believe that this person is most likely guilty of a great deal of murder, genocide and so on. From a personal point of view, a death sentence seems reasonable for his actions. Generally speaking, I am an advocate of dealing out punishment as efficiently as possible where warranted. I detest the concept of jury trials simply because there is no chance of neutral jurors. The big man theory of government works for me, and this includes the judicial branch. Have a judge, smart fellow naturally, figure out if the defendant is innocent or guilty, and dole out a sentence.

The problem in this particular case is that, well, for starters, any trial in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion cannot be fair. I don't think anybody had the slightest doubt that the verdict would be guilty and the sentence death. If the judge had ruled otherwise, there would be an uproar beyond imagination. This is nothing more than a mockery of a judicial process then. Why even bother? Just shoot the chap in that hole in the ground and be done with it.

So why was this a kangaroo court? Well, he was the former ruler of a country, who had been deposed by a foreign power, then captured and tried by the new government of his country, now dominated by his opponents. After a military coup, you don't expect fair and open trials. This had the same outcome. Tried by a government essentially composed of people who are at war with his own, the poor chap had no chance. Besides, given that he was the government at the time of the alleged crimes, even if he had given the orders, I don't see any rationale for considering those acts to be illegal. What's next? Trying every American president for the deaths of civilians during "precision" bombing of the many many countries that the US has bombed in the past hundred years or so? Even better, have the judge and jury at these trials be chosen from the families of the victims. Oh yeah. Definitely impartial.