I was merely commenting on the fact that they might as well have skipped the trial, because there was no way in hell that Saddam was going to get anything less than death.
Regarding his sentence, it would arguably be better to keep him alive to aid in any investigation behind the invasion such as the [albeit questionable] allegations raised in another thread. He could give a unique perspective as to the actions of the government just prior to and during the invasion, and is thus far more valuable alive than dead. Indeed, killing Saddam now will only serve to exacerbate violence by pro-Saddam elements in- and outside of Iraq, and while some may argue that it will provide a morale boost to 'friendlies' and vice versa to 'hostiles', the effect will undoubtedly be negligible considering the current conditions within the troubled nation.
My own opinion on the subject, for those few [read: none] who want to read it, is that this is surprisingly ironic given that he is being killed for ordering the murder of 148 people, while the American leadership is lauded for ordering the deaths of hundreds of thousands [though indirectly]. It troubles me that most simply dismiss the fact without a second thought.
Finally, let's just leave the notion of an 'afterlife' out of this discussion, as we don't want this to become a debate on that particular issue. While I for one enjoy metaphysical discussions on the usefulness of the death penalty when applied to the possible existance of the supernatural, this is neither the time nor the place for such a discussion.
