Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism
 

This is an article I liked by Richard Dawkins at the Huffington Post. I have copied and pasted it here for convenience. Original link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar...-_b_37690.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

Good article that makes some good points, IMO.

A good read, I never quite thought of it that way.

Wow MJ not too bad of a find, a few spins that aren't mentioned enough, if at all. I'm not sure, though, how studying a criminal like Hitler, or Hussein that we can really benefit and learn from, they we're both psychotic, and unconventional leaders/dictators.

They were, however, excellent at what they did despite their moral perversion. I would love to know what made them tick.

Essentially, they want to learn how they managed to seize such a power backing and why they turned out to be so brutal, so that this kind of thing can hopefully be prevented.

There are also reasons for historical accuracy, as there are many unanswered questions regarding the upper tier of the Nazi regime that could only be answered by people close to Hitler.

I've heard on different documentaries that several people thought Hitler was a homosexual, that he had somewhat of OCD with many of his daily life activities, not that either of those make a difference or not.

People will really do whatever they can to paint people they see as 'evil' with a brush that makes them as different from them as possible. People don't like to see qualities they share with people they don't like.

He very well could have been, but it's also highly likely it's just people making themselves feel better.

Yes, which is why most of them are tagged with "evil genius" ... most of them aren't as powerful as they are/were on accident.

Dude what made them become so famous was their charisma...case closed.
Honestly what the fuck do you think makes people popular? A big dick? A beard? No, charisma. With charisma comes the know-how to play peoples fears and hatred to your own gain. Other than that they were your typical person with some perks and flaws that happened to work to their advantage or disadvantage. You can't call someone a psycho simply because they enforced their own belief on another person if so then christians were and still are psychos because I know a few that would force someone to convert if they knew it wouldn't cost them their lives and most force their children to follow the same belief.

Charisma is strength of personality, largely. The ability to properly use your charisma is a question of intellect.

The perfect example was Hitler (as much as I hate to use an example used by everyone for most things). The man was charismatic, and he was known for his stirring speeches. His propaganda campaigns (often perfected by associates of his) helped sway others to his cause.

Everything has a role in their rise to power, but you always want a charismatic figurehead that will touch others.

There are a lot of charismatic people. There are very few people as powerful as Hitler.

Damn your ability to say what I wanted to but succeeding. I should stop posting at work, it's making me look stupid.

As I said he had many other perks and flaws that worked with and against him.

That's like saying aside from a few quirks, Venus is the same as Earth.

Are you saying it isn't? Because they look the damned same to me...
A sphereical objest made of tons of mass known as land or dirt in the english language. I mean they both are made of mass and both are round and both orbit a star and those are like the basics of a planet.

Earth:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Apollo_17.jpg
http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/E...rthsurface.jpg

Venus:
http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/assets/channe...n/ae/Venus.jpg
http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/niel/...n-mountain.jpg

I'm not sure, but they do seem different. I mean, one can give rise to life, one can't, but sure, small matter.

I still see the same basics. Like all humans walk on two feet? You know?

So aside from small quirks all humans are the same? Depends on perspective. To the unacquainted outside observer, sure. All humans walk on two feet. All humans live in a social society. All humans become doltishly consumed by the pursuit of sex. (the previous three statements apply generally) But to a psychologist, certainly all humans are not the same otherwise the job of a psychologist would be obsolete. The variables studied can become evermore intricate, illuminating the differences between humans with increasing intensity. So yes, looking at it from a broad perspective, humans are all practically the same. But when we come down to the proper level of detail required to study human psychology, your insinuation that humans are all practically the same is stupefyingly idiotic.

Don't forget he also did a lot of good in regards to public works as well as pull Germany out of its own deep economic depression. Anyone who can pull shit like that gets extra points with the people.