In the last couple of weeks, the U.S. news media have carried much reporting and discussion of the deaths of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and of former President Gerald Ford.
The former was executed by hanging, and much commentary argued over whether that was a good idea. The latter died of old age, and the commentaries mostly recalled that one of the first things he did in his administration was to pardon his predecessor, President Richard M. Nixon, who was impeached for his role in the Watergate crimes.
These events and discussions have made me think about justice.
It is a commandment in Judaism to pursue justice. I’m sure we’ve all heard many a rabbi deliver many a sermon on the verse “Justice, justice you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20). Moreover, the rabbis of the Talmud deem justice essential to the health of the human community: “The sword comes into the world because of justice delayed and because of justice perverted” (Sayings of the Sages 5:11).
But what is justice? I don’t recall seeing a traditional Jewish text anywhere that answers this question directly.
Rather, Judaism seems to provide suggestions and hints, such as: It is unjust to punish the innocent along with the guilty in a large population (Genesis 18) or family members for the deeds of other family members (Deuteronomy 24:16). One must be penalized (or, by implication, rewarded) in proportion to one’s actions (the famous, or infamous, “eye for an eye” verse, Exodus 21:24). The death penalty is appropriate for murder (Genesis 9:6). And so on.
But I don’t recall having heard or read of an instance in which the Torah, the Talmud or any other Jewish text tries to articulate a definition or theory of justice that underlies all these hints.
But the quest to find a definition or theory of justice lies at the heart of Western secular thinking. One of the first great books of Western philosophy, ancient Greek philosopher Plato’s dialogue “The Republic,” presents an argument over justice. The quest to understand and apply this idea hasn’t ended yet.
And this quest is not an abstraction without applicability to life. The whole Arab-Israel conflict, to pick one huge example, is partly grounded on a dispute over conflicting claims about justice.
Maybe Judaism’s approach is the right one. The great British poet and novelist D. H. Lawrence once wrote, “The profoundest of all sensualities/ is the sense of truth/ and the next deepest sensual experience/ is the sense of justice” (“The Deepest Sensuality”).
Maybe the way to approach justice is by sense based on hints rather than via an overarching and rigid definition.
And so I must say that according to my sense of justice, justice was perverted by what was done to Saddam Hussein and by what Ford did for Nixon.
Justice, not revenge
In the first case, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and many others have publicly objected to his execution out of belief that the death penalty is always wrong. My sense of justice cannot accept that view, and definitely cannot accept it in the case of Saddam Hussein.
The most cursory description of his crimes shows that he was a monster in the class, if not the scale, of Adolf Hitler and the German Nazis. Even Israel, which does not have the death penalty for most crimes, makes an exception for this kind of mass murder and torture; and it executed German Nazi genocide architect Adolf Eichmann in the 1960s.
But an execution in the name of justice must clearly be done for the sake of justice, not for revenge. The Torah apparently makes a distinction between the two by forbidding the taking of vengeance (Leviticus 19:18). The execution of Hussein, however, as New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote on Jan. 3, “resembled a tribal revenge ritual rather than the culmination of a constitutional process…”
Not only was this Sunni Muslim executed by Shi’ite Muslims, but the executioners taunted him when he had the rope around his neck. Moreover, his trial hadn’t been completed yet; he was found guilty of his crimes against Shi’ites, but not even tried for his crimes against the Kurds. While executing him was just, doing it this way was a perversion of justice.
In the second instance, Ford committed a perversion of justice by pardoning Nixon. The founders of this country installed the impeachment process in the U.S. Constitution to make sure that we had “a government of laws, not of men,” and that no office-holder should be considered above the law.
Indeed, in Federalist Paper No. 69, Alexander Hamilton pointed out how the impeachment possibility constituted one vitally important difference between having a president and having a king; and in No. 65 he expressed fear that an impeachment proceeding could become a mere weapon of partisan politics, leading to the “greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
By pardoning Nixon before he was even tried, much less sentenced, for his crimes in office, Ford corrupted the whole idea and process. In effect he placed the President of the United States above the law for serious offenses and turned the impeachment process into a partisan weapon that can be invoked on the excuse of not serious offenses, as happened with the Bill Clinton impeachment farce.
Will “the sword come into the world” as a result of these events? Well, swords were already out in Iraq; fortunately, they have stayed absent in the United States in the decades since the 1970s. Still, one should not ever minimize the possible long-term effects of perversions of justice; and therefore never cease to strive to correct such instances of it as these.
One last look back at winners, losers of 2006
By Douglas Bloomfield
Loser — President George W. Bush. I’m sure he was very happy to see his annus horriblus (horrible year in Latin) of 2006 come to an end.
Some historians already are branding him one of the worst presidents ever two years before his term ends. His leadership and his policies were soundly repudiated by voters in both parties last month and by some of his father’s closest friends.
His “mission accomplished” in Iraq has been a dismal failure and the only remaining question is how to get out without adding to the damage. That makes him 2006’s biggest loser.
Winner — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The most popular man in the Arab world isn’t even an Arab, but a Persian. He may have little real power at home, particularly in military and foreign policy, but he has the rapt attention of millions as he calls for the destruction of Israel and America.
Loser — The Israel Defense Forces. Israel didn’t lose this past summer’s wars with Hezbollah and Hamas, but didn’t exactly win, either, since both are still standing. The IDF suffered from poor leadership, inadequate training, and woefully underestimating its enemies. Hopefully, the IDF learned from this and will do better in the next round.
Winner — Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. The Hezbollah leader is still breathing, isn’t he? Israel tried to kill him and failed, so far — and that constitutes victory. He is widely credited with beating Israel in a war he admits he regrets starting; his stature has soared across the Arab world.
Loser — The Palestinians. Traded corrupt and inept secular leaders for a group of Islamist terrorists, which brought economic collapse. Still can’t decide whether they’d rather build their state or destroy the Jewish one.
Winner — Israel. It won American and European backing for a tough economic and political embargo on the Hamas government in Gaza until it meets basic requirements. Frankly, I never thought the Euros would stick to it this long, but, as Scarlett O’Hara said, “tomorrow’s another day.”
Winner — Al-Quaida leader Osama bin Laden. Because Osama bin hidin’ and we can’t find him.
Loser — The Republican-led, do-nothing, scandal-ridden 109th Congress. Cover-up and corruption are its legacy. Speaker Dennis Hastert and other GOP leaders were more interested in protecting Rep. Mark Foley’s seat (read that any way you wish) than protecting young pages in their trust. Super-lobbyist (and prison inmate) Jack Abramoff’s pals Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Bob Ney quit; Duke Cunningham is in the slammer.
Winner — Joe Lieberman. The Jewish Connecticut senator (D) lost his party’s nomination for a fourth term, but came roaring back to wage a tough independent campaign, pulling off a landslide victory that will make him a top power broker in the 110th Congress.
Loser — American voters. We just went through one of the dirtiest, most expensive and most obnoxious political campaigns, and now a bigger and grungier one is beginning. And we wonder why turnout is so poor and it’s so hard to recruit high quality candidates.
Winner — Nancy Pelosi. The new Speaker of the House stumbled out of the gate, but she has time to regain her footing. She’s a winner because her party was victorious, she makes history as the first woman Speaker, and she replaces one of the most ineffective speakers in recent memory.
Loser — Jimmy Carter. Accusing Israel of apartheid is not only inaccurate — and malicious — but gives fodder to those who seek to delegitimize, if not eradicate, the Jewish state.
Winner — Al Gore. The man who won the 2000 presidential vote is being talked about as a contender this year. He’s got a hit film on the environment and may get an Oscar nomination — something Ronald Reagan never did.
Loser — The Republican Jewish Coalition. Despite spending tons of money to declare Republicans love Israel more than Democrats, exit polls showed that 87 percent of Jews voted Democrat in November’s House races. Time to buy a new strategy.
Winner — Barack Obama. A fresh face with a positive message and a winning style, the freshman Democratic senator from Illinois is expected to toss his hat in the presidential ring soon. He’s enjoying rock star status and a media honeymoon; but how will he respond when the opposition researchers let loose?
Loser — Dick Cheney. The Vice President not only shot one of the few trial lawyers who supports Republicans, but his mentor and friend Don Rumsfeld was fired, and Cheney didn’t get to pick his successor. After all his happy talk about success in Iraq, word is that his influence is on the wane.
Loser — Dennis Prager. This Jewish and conservative columnist condemned Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) for planning to take the oath of office on a Koran, saying it “undermines American civilization.” Kudos to former New York Mayor Ed Koch for calling a bigot a “bigot” and urging his removal from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council.
Loser — Sen. George Allen. Turned an easy victory into a spectacular defeat. Incensed that anyone would accuse him of being Jewish, he finally had to admit his mother was born Jewish, but announced that she makes good pork chops and he just had a ham sandwich for lunch. How many other closet Jews lurk on Capitol Hill?
Douglas M. Bloomfield is a Washington, D.C.-based syndicated columnist and a former chief lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Loading ...