Indisputably, the execution has ended the life of one of history's most cruel and barbaric torturers, a mass murdering dictator who was given a trial, one which was not without its critics, but still much more than his victims received. But to my main point: Does any of this justify his execution? Not surprisingly there are already emerging diverging views on the subject. I will say now that after doing some reading, I am not persuaded that execution was, in the final analysis, the only choice available; however, we should be mindful that as this was necessarily a decision that had to be made by the sovereign Iraqi government (to the extent that such a government can be independent not only of the U.S.-led coalition, but also its internal sectarian warring factions, and external influences from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional powers). Having said that, US and UK voices (like that of the Italian Prime Minister) should not be quieted by this decision, and should have spoken out constructively, in objection. (Worth reading as bookends on the subject are the London Times, "Victor's Justice Will Deepen Rifts" and, alternately, anti-death penalty New Republic publisher Marty Peretz's TNR blog post which, not surprisingly, takes a pro-execution stance in "Spare Saddam?". I can't fully agree with Peretz' analogies to Mussolini and Eichmann. Perhaps those executions were also wrong? Can we not go back and re-think our application of capital punishment after Nuremberg? Just because bringing down evil dictators in the past ended with their execution does not mean that we cannot find a more civil and humane way to isolate, punish and render harmless a mad butcher and tyrant like Saddam Hussein. Peretz also argues that for Iraqis a dead tyrant is a victory, anything short of death would be tantamount to his vindication. I cannot for a moment understand why Peretz would suddenly defer to this standard (if it is even accurate), considering that he is against the death penalty himself. If Iraqis required that all family members of the tyrant be burned alive in the public square would he surrender to this cultural idiosyncrasy as well? While we might respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi government to apply its own legal code, we can express an opinion opposing the death penalty. Americans might be reluctant to do so, especially since that would put them in line with the Baathists and other Saddam loyalists in Tikrit, and most importantly, open themselves up to the charge of hypocrisy as Americans execute criminals whose hands are far less bloody than the former tyrant of Iraq. Brownwen Maddox, writing for The Times, argues that the execution should have been condemned by Britain as wrong for a country already awash in blood, and unpragmatic for a country so divided by faction. Whatever jubilation is felt today in Iraq or other parts of the world (and it is hard not to emphatize with the happiness of Saddam's victims or their survivors), it will fade quickly as we continue to lose the war and Iraqis continue to kill each other in greater number week after week.