Bobert told us:

The governemnt of Iraq that has appointed judges and overseen the trial of Saddam is completely and totaly bogus...

Thats your judgment, Bobert. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is your opinion. Quite a number of other countries have recognized it, and it has sovereign rights. If you complain that it's based on violence imposed, without much if any say by the populace to be governed, I would point out that far and away most governments in the history of the world can be so described.

Therefore, should Saddam be hanged then I would think that Bush should be hauled up on charges as an accomplice to murder..

Different situation altogether. First, hanging him is not murder, since it is to be done under the sanction of the recognized government. "Murder" is a crime under conditions defined by a sovereign government, and I feel confident in stating that never in the history of the world has a sovereign government defined a crime of murder so as to outlaw the working of its own laws and authority. And while Bush (for whom I hold no brief) undoubtedly has/had influence with that government, his position is remote enough that "accomplice to murder" could not apply even if the laws and legal process of Iraq could be said to define themselves and their own actions as murder.

---
Someone said something to the effect that the only purpose hanging Saddam could serve would be for revenge. Though I think that's wrong, I'll grant that just for the purpose of argument, and point out that, while many in our culture deprecate revenge as a motivation, revenge is a very powerful and living part of Arab culture, and could be seen in that culture as a perfectly valid reason for putting him to death. (And by many, many in our own culture, too!)

Dave Oesterreich