In its editorial, the New York Times, without indicating whether or not it approves of the death sentence, says that “horrendous crimes deserve exemplary punishment.” But most of its words are addressed to shortcomings of the trial:

Mr. Hussein got a fairer trial than he ever would have allowed in his courts. But Iraq got neither the full justice nor the full fairness it deserved. President Bush overreached in calling the trial “a milestone in the Iraqi people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law” . . . powerful politicians regularly tried to influence the outcome, judges were not allowed to rule impartially, and defense lawyers were denied security measures and documents they needed. The appeals court that will now review the verdict can undo some of the damage by taking into account some of these deficiencies. At least, it should defer the carrying out of any death penalty long enough to allow the completion of a second trial . . .

And why, pray tell, did Bush “overreach” in calling the trial a milestone? The Times doesn’t say, but I’ll aver a guess: for the Left (or, if you prefer, Progressives), anything short of perfection is a failure.

The Washington Post’s editorial admits the obvious (“his nine-month-long trial [was not] the model of fairness that the Bush administration and many Iraqis had hoped for”) but then uses the very word to which the Times objects—“milestone”—in its assessment:

His trials nevertheless may come to be seen as milestones in the slow and painful attempt to construct a more civilized Iraq from the poisonous wreckage of his regime. Like the rest of that enterprise, the trial was tumultuous, deeply flawed and often painful to watch; and some of the brave Iraqis who committed themselves to making it work lost their lives. The result was imperfect, to be sure, but also well-founded.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial applauds the trial without any mention of its shortcomings:

The verdict reminds the world of his crimes, specifically the 1982 murder of 148 Shiites in Dujail, which in its systematic revenge recalls Hitler’s slaughter at the Czech town of Lidice during World War II. That the U.S. and its allies were willing and able to depose, and his countrymen then try and punish, a national leader who ordered those crimes is a warning to other tyrants. The U.N. routinely deplores the Saddams of the world but never has the will to act against them—whether in Rwanda, Darfur, Kosovo, Bosnia, Cambodia, or Kurdistan. In Iraq, the U.S. finally acted.

The Europeans, of course, are opposed to the death penalty, even for so heinous a person as Saddam. From Reuters:

    “We are against the death penalty, whether it is Saddam or anybody else,” British Prime Minister Blair told a news conference.

    Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, speaking to reporters during a visit to London, said: “Italy is against the death penalty so even in such a dramatic case as Saddam Hussein, we still think the death penalty must not be put into action.”

    French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy said: “So for purely ethical reasons, Saddam Hussein should not suffer the death penalty.”

    Finland, which currently holds the EU presidency, said the EU was opposed to the death penalty and did not believe Saddam should be executed.

It’s a good thing that the European attitude toward the death penalty at the end of World War II wasn’t what it is today. Had Hitler been captured before killing himself and had the Europeans of that time shared the sentiments of their current counterparts and prevailed, even der Fuehrer wouldn’t have been sent to the gallows. A Hitler alive and in jail wouldn’t have promoted stability in post-war Germany.

The same goes for an incarcerated Saddam. In the short-term, his execution might very well incite a burst of violence. But, in the long-term, the removal of the chief rallying point for both his friends and enemies from his earthly existence will increase whatever chance there is for a stable Iraq.