Never enough, the fallacy of the excluded middle

‘It was an assassination.’ ‘There was no fair trial.’ ‘It was simply revenge.’ ‘It was an occupier’s leader’s single handed action for solely political purpose.’ ‘It short circuited trials for more serious crimes.’ ‘It was an aggregious example of the wrongs of capital punishment.’ And on and on and on.

A public, legal trial followed by court-sentenced execution? That isn’t going to happen unless…unless a democracy replaces a tyranny. This is astonishing news — history altering news.

Austin Bay (UPDATED: A few thoughts on Saddam’s execution (three updates)) describes the execution in more rational terms.

Western peaceniks and other terrorist enablers will call this further humiliation of Arabs. As usual they are wrong. Its a chance for cultural liberation, to escape the dismal oppression of autocratic bullies

The atrocities were well known. The guilt not a matter of question as near the entire world was witness. The fact, the historically significant fact, is that the tyrant had an opportunity to explain himself and say his piece. An established and internationally accepted process was followed. But for those with an axe to grind, this was not enough. It had to be something else, something more, something less, — no matter what it was it had to be something else, anything else. It needed to have been perfect. There is no middle that is sufficient.

Comments are closed.