Okay, I wasn't finished
How can the Bush administration feel that there is still some value to be had in interogating low-level fighters five years after they were captured, but also feel that a head of state, who controlled a large military and intelligence apparatus for decades, is better put permanently beyond the reach of questioners?
After all of the ethical and moral reasons for opposing the death penalty have been exhausted, historians, journalists, and prosecutors should oppose it for the simple reason that dead men tell no tales. We can argue all day whether a swift extinction or a slow, powerless rotting is the more just end for someone like Saddam and not come to an agreement (you know where I stand), but the one thing that all sides should agree on is that Saddam won't be giving up any of the information he had after last night. To whose advantage that serves is, I suppose, another question we could argue all day.