Saddam was convicted and sentenced to death by hanging this morning. So maybe South Park's prophecy of him being Satan's Hell bitch is getting closer to happening.

Of course he still has another trial as well as an automatic appeal.

But the real concern obviously is for the possible (make that likely. make that very likely) increased violence, especially once he is in fact executed.

Perhaps now George W. Bush will get in Iraq what he and his cohorts have not managed to accomplish here. A public execution by a slow, and no doubt botched, hanging - televised around the world.

The Romans and their gladiators can eat their hearts out. The ultimate act of vengeance by the Christian president of a Christian nation will put even reality TV to shame.

Good riddance to him. However, is it worth the lives of nearly 3,000 American troops to achieve this outcome?

This is Henry Rollins' advice way back in 1998...

Henry Rollins - World Peace (You may have to right click and save target as...)

Please remember this is pre-9/11 and that Henry likes to use a few blue words so don't play this at work or around anyone sensitive to naughty language.

I wonder if he'll use this song in his appeal.

Saddam - "I can change"

What a shocker........We have know this was going to happen for weeks.

Mighty convenient the way this came less than 48 hours before elections in this country. Funny how them new-fangled courts work these days!

I don't think that as human beings we have the right to condemn & take the life of another--no matter how despicable they may be. Living in prison for the rest of their life may be more of a torment than snuffing out their life. They would have a VERY long to time to think about their crimes. That to me is more of a punishment. But I know that I'm in a VERY small minority in this country who opposes the death penalty. I just think that it's simply state-sponsored murder. And emotionally it simply is vengeance--a very negative & unhealthy mind-set.

More than 25% of the population is not that small

And most law enforcement officials and researchers that the deterrent effect is minimal if it exists at all. It is a waste of money, resources and (most of all) life. And since no judicial system is perfect is often state-sponsored murder.

Thanks sportinlife that's great news to read. I hadn't followed the numbers recently re: the death penalty in this country. Another thing I wanted to point out that it's actually cheaper to keep some encarcerated for their lifetime rather than putting them to death. The costs for everyone's fees (judges, lawyers, appeals, clerks, guards, etc.) ends up being in the millions of dollars when someone's on death row.

And somewhere around 655,000 Iraqi lives, regularly glossed over?

No.

Glad someone mentioned that.

Mubarak chimes in about hanging Sadaam. I think he makes a good point. I'm sure he's speaking for many of the Arab leaders' sentiments. Maybe the Iraqi & US leaders should take heed.

Interesting he's being tried for the deaths of 180,000 and the number of deaths since our invasion is several times that.

Sentanced to Death! Former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, is expected to be hanged before New Years Eve. Saddam is to be executed after being found Guilty after the murder of 148 people from a Shiite Muslim town in 1982.

This intrigues me as I wonder what effect this execution will have on the rest of the world.

Saddam was behind the murders of many innocent people and as such, should face an execution as per Iraqi law. Yet at the same time, this issue is much more complicated. For one, the Americans are virtually at war with Iraq which would mean technically Saddam is a Prisoner of War which should prevent him from being executed. Then again, the Americans only consider POW's as "friendly soldiers who have been captured" (wikipedia). None the less, Saddam should have been tried at the Hague similar to Slobodan Milosevic instead of by the Iraqi courts. The Iraqi government was put in place by the American Government so instead of facing criticism of an "unfair trial" they should have sent him to the Hague...of course, the Americans don't believe in it.

Please keep in mind that under no circumstance do I support Saddam Hussein. I believe he should be punished for his crimes against the Iraqi people. Should he be put to death...absolutely...but under what circumstances.

I've heard rumblings that it could be a public execution as it would be the only way the people of Iraq would truly believe that he's dead. I personally think it'd be tasteless, and would only fuel more hatred towards the Americans. Yet at the same time you have to figure out a way to prove to the Iraqi's that he's really dead. Do you show a picture of his lifeless body similar to the way his son's picture was released to the media? Again, it's tasteless in my opinion yet I'd rather that than have a public execution.

The thing that bothers me about this whole issue is the involvement of the Americans. They're the ones who put Saddam into power in the first place. They're also the ones who finally captured him after they invaded his country over "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which turned out to be false. Saddam's Reign of Terror is over and many Iraqi's are celebrating...yet there continues to be widespread violence particularly in the larger cities. Will Saddam's execution send Iraq spiraling out of control and into full chaos? Will it create an even greater anti-American sentiment? Will it create even more violence in Iraq and possibly abroad? Time will tell.

I'd like to think that Iraq is a better place without Saddam there. While there will be violence and more bloodshed, I just hope that in the long run things will quiet down and finally get back to normal. Iraq is moving towards being a democratic society, and we must remember that it will take time for the country to evolve into the place President George W. Bush envisioned when he first invaded Iraq (Oil interests aside). A place where citizens have freedoms, and can live a life without fear.

As I end this post I'd like to re-state the fact that I do not support Saddam Hussein in any way shape or form. He'll get what he deserves. And whether or not you agree with the invasion of Iraq, let's not forget the soldiers who are over there fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people (Oil interests aside)...continue to pray for them and their safe return home.

I personally can't wait...for thr South Park episode. I mean, they've actually had Saddam dead for a decade. He was ripped to shreds by a pack of wild boars. Remember?

Saddie's Dead, That's What I Said!

Now he really can be with his boyfriend Satan as the South Park guys predicted.

And now let the violence in the name of a "martyr" in Saddam Hussein begin.

Happy New Year America! You just spent a trillion dollars (give or take a few billion) to kill the wrong guy. Just in time to celebrate the deaths of more USA troops in Iraq than died in the WTC attack.

The NYTimes has the largest headlines I've seen since...well ever.

Now if they could just speed up my computer and fix that pothole down the street I will be in heaven, along with GWB and all us other good Amercian (except for those nasty little Catholic wetback illegals) Christians.

Edit to add: God I feel so much safer now.

Second edit to add: Intesting that today is Waqfatul-Arafat in the Islamic calendar:I assume Iraqi Muslims of all sects were aware of that.

I've never been a supporter of the death penalty, in part because I couldn't see myself sitting on a jury and imposing a death sentence. The guilt of finding out later that the person was innocent would be too much.

In the case of Saddam, I think it was probably a lose lose situation for the government. If you execute him he will undoubtably be called a martyr by some, and if left alive in prison or in exile he would be a rallying point for those who continue the fight. In either case I believe the violence in Iraq will continue for a long long time with more US service people being killed (108 so far in December) and of course uncounted thousands of Iraqi's continuing to die. Will the violence increase as a result of Saddam's execution? Probably, but how will we really know given the daily violence there now? The situation is a mess and I can't imagine a way out of this disaster that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair have created. I certainly can't say that the world is a safer place as a result of this war.

Is it wierd when I read Saddam's Obituary I keep hearing Daniel Powter's Bad Day in the background?

I don't know why people keep bringing up the fact that more US Soldiers have died than those who perished on 9/11.

I feel for every single soldier, whether it's American, British, or even Canadian! I pray for a safe return home for each and every one of them and proudly support the troops. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was done under proper terms is beside the point...the fact is, our soldiers are out there fighting to help the Iraqi's gain a sense of freedom once more.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and you're dreaming if you thought that this whole conflict would have been done a long time ago. Many inside Iraq, are grateful that soldiers from around the world are helping to give some hope to their people. Yet at the same time there are still many who continue to support Saddam's regime and will do so for quite some time. The key word being "time". It will take time for things to get better there and I'm sure a civil war will break out if it hasn't already...but in the long run things should get better.

In cases of war, it's unfortunate that there are so many casulties but that just goes with the territory. Our Men and Women know that by getting into the Military, there's a chance they'll be deployed to some high conflict situation and may never return. It's a risk they take in order to protect us and help make this world a better place.

While watching CNN's Anderson Cooper last night, I discovered the American Death Toll in Iraq is nearing 3,000. An awful statistic, yet it's no where near the numbers during the two World Wars. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's an awful situation, but don't use the number of dead as an excuse to want to pull out. There have been great strides made in Iraq and if countries start to pull out now, then all those soldiers would have died in vain.

Enigma, what are those "great strides"?

Let's see:

The US overthrew, arrested, tried, and hanged Saddam Hussein, who was a brutal dictator that Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush armed and supported financially, especially during the period from 1980-1988. Good riddance to Saddam Hussein, former US friend, now deceased arch-enemy #1.

Yet:


Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the two masterminds of Al Qaeda, are still on the lam, and have planned and executed attacks all over the world.

Other notable Al-Qaeda operatives behind the 9/11 attacks, as well as the US Cole attack, the Kenyan Embassy bombing, etc., are still free, and have planned and executed attacks all over the world.

Al Qaeda, which was not active in Iraq before George W. Bush's vanity war, is now one of many forces tearing that country apart and is providing active training to Sunni insurgents from across the Middle East.

Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban and an avowed enemy of the United States, is still on the lam and has spearheaded repeated attacks on the fragile Afghan government.

The Taliban in fact are back and have repeatedly attacked the current Afghan government.

Whole portions of Afghanistan are not under the Afghan government's control, and poppy cultivation, which provides funding for the Taliban and other anti-Afghan govt forces, as well as pure heroin for Western markets, is flourishing.

Iran is both militarily and financially stronger than it was before the Iraq War, and its mullahs are pulling the strings of key elements of the Iraqi government.

Lebanon is more divided and in political crisis than it was before the Iraq War, as the Shiites under Hezbollah demand that the current government resign, and the Christians, Druze and Sunni elements are trying to keep the government afloat.

Hezbollah is stronger than it was before the Iraq War, having fought Israel to a stalemate, which it proclaimed as a victory.

Not only was the anti-American, anti-Israeli political faction/terrorist organization Hamas popularly elected in the Palestinian territories, but since the Iraq War, Hamas and Fatah, Arafat's organization, are now engaged in a pitched battle in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, tearing the lives and the possibilities of peace for the Palestinian people apart.

Turkey has massed troops on the border with Kurdistan, and has suffered several terrible bombings since the Iraq War by Kurdish separatists. More than once Turkey has threatened a war against Kurdistan.

And just look at the situation in Iraq. By every measure, things are FAR WORSE there than before the invasion. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, far more have been maimed, every day scores of people are found in Baghdad tortured and killed, Shiite Islamicists now control the south of the country, Sunni Islamicists rule Anbar Province, ethnic cleansing is occurring every single day, the country's infrastructure has been destroyed, its government is ineffective and ineffectual except at organizing reprisal killings, it's signed military treaties with two of the U.S. staunch enemies, Syria and Iran, and the main power lies in 1) a cleric who is avowedly anti-American, Moqtada al-Sadr and 2) a cleric who is a puppet of Iran, Hakim. Billions of US dollars have been wasted or stolen, and billions of Iraqi dollars have also been stolen and wasted, with no end in sight.

And yes, nearly 3,000 US soldiers have died and more than 20,000 have been wounded, some severely, for what? You mention World War I and II, but the stakes were much clearer in both, AND the US was fighting against combined, very powerful conventional forces of countries with populations far larger than Iraq's. Germany alone was nearly 3 times the size of Iraq's before the Iraq War. 3,000 is a huge toll, and it's unfair to try to dismiss it by comparison with WW I and II.

If there's some way to see this horrorshow as "great strides," please do tell.

Enigma, your comparison of this war of choice to WWI or WWII is specious at best, hideous at worst. In both World Wars, we had a clearly defined goal and a way to measure victory.

If you want those soldiers to not die in vain, then tell me in specific and clear details exactly how you could or would define victory in Iraq. What are your lofty goals for having achieved said victory? If the Bush Regime can't do it and will not do it, then please elucidate for the rest of us who are not as enlightened.

On that matter I would tend to agree with Saddam Hussein's lawyer Esam al-Gazawi who suggests "that the timing of the execution was determined by the highest levels of the American and Iraqi governments.And since God seems to talk to George W. Bush before he gets around to the rest of us, I will assume the timing was pretty much up to our president. In which case it would be peculiar that this execution should take place at the perfect time to distract attention from the deaths of these soldiers surpassing the number of victims of a crime that the executed person has absolutely no direct connection to that anyone has shown so far - yet another deft act of legerdermain by a man so many take to be a fool.

That president Bush could have stopped this premature act and did not is a further crime because ofall of the trials that will not take place now, not to mention the possible future endangerment of citizens of the USA both at home and abroad.

Apparantly I struck a nerve with some people. Look, I don't condone the invasion of Iraq, especially the way the Bush Administration went about it.

I understand that Saddam was put into power by the Americans, and he only became an enemy when he decided to attack Kuwait, which if successful, he would have had control over a LOT of Oil which of course isn't in the best interests of the United States. Since then he's been an enemy and last night he was executed.

Let's not forget that Saddam was a man who killed many, tortured many, hell he even used poisonous gas to kill his own people! So in a sense, I'm glad troops went in, found him, and the Iraqi Government eventually found him Guilty and sentanced him to Death.

This whole invasion is far from perfect...very far. It's been a disaster from the start and violence continues to grow. With that being said, there ARE strides being made. Iraqi's were able to vote, look how proud some of the Iraqi's looked when they voted or when some became Police Officers! Look at some of the Iraqi's in smaller areas who are happy to see troops and welcome the supplies and toys for their children.

I just don't understand what people expected when the Americans went into Iraq. Did they expect things to resolve quickly? Come on now, it takes time. Slowly things are getting better there...and yes there are still car bombings, and yes there is still violence, and yes Soldiers are still getting injured and getting killed. But should they pull out? Of course not...progress is slowly being made...it's a great sacrifice but in the end it will be worth it.

I spoke with a Canadian Soldier who just returned from Afghanistan and he told me something that I'm certain is the same way in Iraq. He said that we're constantly hearing the negatives from the "big cities" but every where else the violence is down, the enemy is retreating and people are happy that the troops are there. Yet when politicians and media members go there, they want to go to the "hot spots" to give the perception that things are still bad.

Of course, that's not to say that everything is all rosy and beautiful over there. It's just that yes there are TONS of negatives and still lots of violence, but PROGRESS IS BEING MADE...albeit slowly.

Now someone asked what would be considered victory...I really don't know. But if you ask me, seeing those Iraqi people vote democratically, was certainly a step in the right direction.

As for Osama Bin Laden, I agree...I wish they'd find the bastard sooner rather than later. That was supposed to be and should have been the ONLY priority...since then the focus shifted to Iraq...rightly or wrongly, at least you can say "The Butcher of Baghdad" is dead and will no longer ruin the lives of so many innocent people.

Enigma I did not wish to single you out because there are many in this country, and the other nations allied with the US, who would like to believe that things are going better in Iraq.

I suspect that the allied soldiers do see a lot of calm in areas where they are stationed. Perhaps that is because of their very presence and would change were they not there. In which case they have no choice but to stay indefinitely or return each time violence breaks out between the factions.

You are assuming we have to deal with the situation created by leaders who lied to us, as it is. I believe we have to change the situation positively by abandoning the current approach. Step one is to stop facilitating the dependency of Iraqis upon our continued presence.

The so-called insurgents do not dare directly confront allied troops who are not only better armed but backed up by enormous killing power in the form of traditional weapons of mass destruction. But they are learning everyday, at a high cost of life to be sure, how to bypass our weapons with IEDs etc., to constantly kill our troops and not agitate us enough to bring about the use of even greater slaughter on our part.

It is also likely that, despite the prosecution of US troops for events like Haditha, there are others that have happened and will continue to occur that we will not know about. Revenge is a tribal obligation for tribal groups and may not soon be forgotten. We do not want our troops to become just another Iraqi tribal group.

Edit to add: A very relevant article by a Kurdish-Iraq exile here in the US. How long will it be before some one of the Iraqi exiles turn on us?

I was the one asking what victory can be defined as. While I can see and understand all of your points, I have yet to have anyone give a clearly defined objective that we can all agree would be a definitive point that we could take as "victory". That's been my entire problem with what the Bush Regime did. "Mission Accomplished" has been declared. So why are we still there?

Executing Saddam certainly cannot be defined as "victory" or we would be withdrawing now. It's more of a rhetorical question, really.

I agree that there needs to be a new course of action in the Iraqi invasion. Whatever it is though, I just don't think the right answer is to pull the troops at this stage of the game.

I also feel the urge to mention that I am absolutely DISGUSTED that someone was allowed to bring in a camera phone to videotape Saddam's execution. It's a disgrace, an embarassment and above all else humiliating to Saddam. I don't excuse him for anything he's done, but to videotape it and then release it on the internet...that's just poor taste.

Don't you think the Iraqi Prime Minister, a Shiite, gave the go-ahead to have Saddam's hanging taped? Don't you think this is the best propaganda that Maliki, Hakim and others who were pressing to have Saddam hanged could have come up with for their followers?

The situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are very different. I do recognize that the Canadian soldier you spoke with has seen the situation in that country up close, but really, Iraq is in a far worse state than Afghanistan, by almost every objective measure. Iraq has billions of dollars worth of oil reserves beneath its land, yet is billions of dollars into debt right now, and cannot feed its people or even provide basic needs like clean water and electricity to large sectors of the population. This is not the case just in the "big cities" but throughout the country south of Kurdistan. Just read some of those daily Reuters reports, and you'll see that the "it's all in Baghdad" or "it's all in the big cities" comments are propaganda; there are so many bombings, killings, attacks, abductions, rapes, beatings, and so on from Kirkuk and Mosul south that it's a wonder that so many Iraqis stay. And you do realize that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled the country, right? There are 700,000 Iraqis in Jordan's capital alone, and hundreds of thousands more have fled to Syria and other nearby countries. They are a people without a future, without hope right now. It's painful to say it, but this is what George W. Bush's vanity war against Saddam has caused. All of this destruction, this high price, to take out a man he want to avenge on behalf of his father. Was it worth it? And what would victory look like?

But let's remember something. The people of Iraq did not ask the US to invade and overthrow Saddam. When the Shiites asked for that assistance back in 1991 from Bush's father, and revolted, they didn't get it. Yes Iraqis have voted, but for WHAT? For mass disorder and killing? Do you think that the imposition of sharia law is a good thing for the mass of Iraqis? Do you think that a destroyed infrastructure, a jobless rate of over 40%+ or higher, mass killings every day, and so on, are positive things? Do they trump show votes and a government that is both abetting and overlooking sectarian murder and destruction?

FT, you said it far more eloquently that I could have. Yes, Saddam's execution could very well be a step in the right direction. However, with no end in sight to this madness placed upon us and the Iraqi people by the Bush Regime, how can get out? How can we "achieve victory" where there is no real way to do so? How can we make sure that other soldiers don't die meaningless deaths in a meaningless war of choice?

In the business world, it's called "cutting your losses", and the profit margins go up. Yet when it comes to international politics, the right-wing wackos add in a good measure of pride and say its "cut and run". So when our Imperious President swallows his pride, will it still be "cut and run"?

Hey, great comments - and you have a lot of guts to put them on here. Generally the comments are 99.% "hate Bush no matter what he does". I think Iraq is a mess that hopefully we can exit ASAP but anyone who tries to help get rid of an evil dictator should at least be given credit for his good intentions (although more planning for the "post invasion period should have been done, it seems apparent in hindsight.)

But were those George W. Bush's true intentions?

We know now that the reasons he gave for going into Iraq were either invalid (WMD, fighting terrorism) or misguided (transforming the Middle East into peaceful democracies through wars that establish docile colonial oil producing states).

How can we say with certainty that his "intentions" were any more legitimate?

Perhaps someday either a more responsible congress or historians will have the information to better establish what his intentions truly were. For now it is an open question IMO.

The only intentions I can see that are consistent with the facts are that he saught revenge (for threats against his father), power (affirming his self-esteem and legacy) and material gain (oil).

Humanitarianism does not seem to me to be his strong point.

Perhaps history and full facts will prove me wrong. But I do not see that the current situation is a better one.

You make very valid points about the Saddam issues. Our Imperious President's intent doesn't truly matter when the outcome is so horrific in planning and in execution. No matter what, history must and should judge this entire failure in judgment by what has happened, not by what was intended to happen.

Bush's strongest point is not his humanitarian policy but his policy of self-aggrandizement. History will likely remember that long before his humanitarianism is recalled.

As one who does hate our Imperious President, I do so based on his actions, not on his intentions.

I don't hate George W. Bush. I think he's been a terrible president, the absolute worst we've ever had since 1789, and am fully convinced that he's a pathological, cynical, manipulative liar who values politics over the country. I was disgusted by how he gained office in 2000, and as we've all seen, we've had to pay the consequences nonstop since then, be it the September 11, 2001 attacks, or the anthrax mailings, or Hurricane Katrina, or the Valerie Plame affair, or global warming, or ballooning budget deficits and reckless spending under his watch, or this horrible mess in Iraq.

He is, however, the president of our nation till 2008, for better or worse, though over the last six years it's been overwhelmingly for the worse. His policies regarding Iraq have been a disaster both for the American people and for the Iraqis (more than 1,000 have been killed EVERY MONTH during 2006), and if you look at the grandiose claims that he and his fellow neocons made for their "transformation" of the Middle East, I can't see how you could claim that anything other than failure has been the result of his Iraqmire. I understand that people like Copman really do like this man, or his politics, or his policies, or something about him, but objectively and respectfully, I ask any of them again--and that would include many of our fellow Outsporters on the political red end of the spectrum--what are the positives that have resulted from this debacle?

Also, if it's murderous dictators we're after, are we going to overthrow the leaders of Uzbekistan, or Kazakhstan, or Zimbabwe, or Burma, etc.? What about North Korea, whose last two dictators have outstripped anything Saddam came up with? Seriously, as horrific as Saddam was, Kim Jong Il is FAR worse, AND he has nuclear weapons. So are we now to invade that country according the logic that toppling dictators is our responsibility?

BTW, now we learn that the US tried to delay the execution, and that it's turning out to be a lose-lose situation, as we--WE, the US, not Moqtada al-Sadr and the Shiite nuts running the government--are being blamed by Sunnis across the Middle East and the globe (the vast majority of ALL Muslims across the globe are Sunnis) for the humiliation of the vile dictator at his death, which took place on a Muslim religious holiday! Heck. of. a. job!

Bush told the American people that it would be resolved quickly and that the troops would be pulled out in 2004. Why do you find it so hard to understand that they believed their President?

Add to that, hadn't "Mission Accomplished" already been declared nearly three years ago? If the mission were accomplished, why would we need to remain in Iraq? That has been my problem and why I have begun to hate our Imperious President. No need to hide that hatred any longer.

You're right they most certainly are. I'm very proud of the progress our Canadian soldiers have made in Afghanistan. While there's still no sign of Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban appears to be weakening in certain areas.

Either way though...I just hope that both these situations get resolved within a few years.

I always think, had W just concentrated on Afghanistan how much further along that country would be, and how many fewer American--and coalition--troops would be dead now. Our military could have eliminated the Taliban, found Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, rebuilt Afghanistan, and worked with partner nations to ensure that the remnants of the fanatics didn't get a foothold there again. Where else would they have gone? Saddam Hussein certainly was no fan of Osama bin Laden's, and vice versa. Saddam, despite all his mosque-building, was a secularist most interested in championing HIMSELF. Not some nutcase from a neighboring country pushing an austere and violent form of Islam.

At any rate, he is now a hero in many parts of the Sunni Arab world. This is a problem. And he could become a hero to the broader Sunni Muslim world. A bigger problem. Why? Because 90% of the Muslim world is Sunni. That's right. Nearly all of African Muslims, most European Muslims, most Middle Eastern Muslims, nearly all Central and South Asian Muslims, and even the majority of American Muslims practice forms of Islam that are based on Sunni principles. Only Iran, parts of Iraq, Lebanon, and small pockets in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and a few other neighboring countries, are predominantly Shiite. It's really disgusting that Saddam is now being touted as a hero for his "dignity" in facing the Shiite taunts as he was hanged. Libya, of all countries, is erecting a statue in his honor, and youth in Morocco, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., are reciting poems about his valor and so on. Give me a freaking break!

I'm very much against the death penalty for ANYONE, but I have to ask, if they were intent on killing this former tyrant, did it make any sense to have Mahdi Army militiamen hang him? Did it make sense NOT to cover his head with a bag, so that his Islamic prayers and championing of Arab Palestine might not have been heard? Was it too difficult to prevent everyone witnessing the hanging from bringing any recording material that would have captured the taunts and his prayers and defiant statements? I mean, didn't they THINK about these things beforehand? Are the dumbest people possible running that government, like ours?

Well it worked for Jesus...

1. Saddam asked to be hanged without a hood, I don't see why he should have been forced to do otherwise.

2. I agree 100% in that there is absolutely NO EXCUSE that other recording devices were allowed inside the chamber (excluding the official recording from the government). That was ridiculous and EVERYONE involved should have to be severely reprimanded.

Let's hang the folks who made Iraq the mess it is NOW next.