Hypothetical Saddam capture question

[wuushew]

The right is mad at bleeding heart liberals because some called the assination of Saddam's sons brutal and unecessary.

However since they are also the ones claiming that Saddam either had or has WMDs then why is it not acceptable to risk the deaths of US soliders up to a number that would be killed in a domestic use of WMDs?

Since I know there are no WMDs I personally would not advocate an extreme level of risk to our soliders, but still this argument seems to contradict the right's whole assumption about the importance and danger of WMDs. Surely he would be more valuable alive then dead using their own logic?

[Warren Stuart]

1. Exactly, that's why he won't be taken alive

1. Dead men tell no tales.

2. Any trial would be a sham, the US would be in a position of prosecuting Saddam for things that plenty of other tyrants have and still do.

3. Plus there is no question as to what the outcome will be, the legitimacy of this will be questioned the world over.

[Hanuman]

2. I don't "know" that there are no WMD's

I am only willing to reamain open-minded about the matter.

But the fact is, I seriously doubt the Hussein brothers were about to be taken alive. If I am not mistaken, one of them plugged his own ear-hole rather than be taken.

I think that might render the point rather moot, I don't know.

My understanding is that they spent some time trying to get them to leave the house voluntarily. This gesture was reciprocated with shots fired.

I think many would have preferred them to be taken alive for "debriefing," but the practical matters made that impossible.

My $00.02