Daniel Jonah Goldhagen became a bit of an international celebrity with his 1996 book Hitler's Willing Executioners about the collaboration of ordinary German citizens in the Holocaust. The book was heavily criticized by Holocaust scholars for its analytical problems as well as problems in his usage of both primary and secondary sources. But it became a surprise bestseller on the strength of some vivid narrative (along with a lot of turgid, repetitive writing surrounding it) and a sharp tone of moral outrage and retributive justice.
Now Goldhagen is writing on the issue of Saddam's trial and related matters: Justice Beyond Hussein Los Angeles Times 12/23/03. Goldhagen argues that not just Saddam but "torturers and murderers" should be tried as well. And the moral outrage and demand for retribution are there: "Justice, after all, mandates punishment for crime." And who would disagree with those broad statements?
The problem is, that's pretty much it. On the major practical issues, Goldhagen hardly offers even broad guidelines of what he thinks should be done. Should Saddam be tried by an Iraqi court? By an American court-martial? By a special UN tribunal? By the International Criminal Court? Goldhagen says only that those issues are "in focus and relatively well understood" (!?!) and that "discussion" on that should take place both in Iraq and in the "international arena."
He offers only the vaguest general ideas on how to approach the question of the culpability of collaborators, for instance in the Republican Guard or the Baath Party. "Let as few mass murderers as possible go free," he recommends. But he also tells us that the "decision is not mainly a legal decision, but a political one."
Those who followed the controversy over his famous book will not be surprised at the vagueness of his commentary - vague to the point of useless for even broad policy purposes. And will also not be surprised if in a couple of weeks he comes out with a statement that seems to be of a very different perspective, but with the same tone of moral outrage.
No comments:
Post a Comment