Um, I'll take that first one.

Iraq's caretaker government on Sunday reinstated the death penalty for murderers, drug traffickers and those endangering national security, government officials said...

"Yesterday we announced an amnesty. Today the death penalty. Choose one of them," spokesman Gurgis Sada told AFP. The law came into immediate effect.

A limited 30-day amnesty unveiled on Saturday by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi for "minor criminals" had been delayed because the caretaker government wanted to unveil the death penalty at the same time, Sada said.

Of course, this is really a bit of rhetorical flourish since most won't be eligible for both. Here's some information on the amnesty:

A senior Iraqi official, appearing with Allawi, said the amnesty would last for 30 days. He said it would not apply to insurgents who have murdered, raped, looted or been involved in destroying government buildings.

"This law is directed toward individuals who have committed minor crimes and have not yet been apprehended or prosecuted ...," Allawi said.

So here's your Iraqi death penalty/amnesty scorecard (asuming the emphasized lists above are complete). Please study carefully before turning yourself in to Iraqi authorities:

1) Death Penalty/No Amnesty: Murderers

2) Death Penalty/Amnesty: Drug traffickers, those endangering national security

3) No Death Penalty/No Amnesty: Rapists, looters, those involved in destroying government buildings

4) No Death Penalty/Amnesty: All others

So only the second group really has a choice, right? Basically, if you're a drug trafficker or you're endangering national security you should go take them up on this now. Unless you've murdered too. (The article also mentions that foreigners can be sentence for crimes committed on Iraqi soil, which sounds kind of tricky when talking about endangering national security... although foreign "security" forces are excepted I'm sure).

I really don't have much of a point here, and I'm probably having a little too much fun with a serious issue. Perhaps I should emphasize that I am personally strongly opposed to the death penalty and I'm really not trying to minimize the issue. So here's an attempt to explain why this little scorecard (as a general idea, not as a specific argument) really is significant:

It seems the Iraqis, unless the spokesman came up with this clever little line on his own, have taken a page out of their great liberator's book. It actually sounds a lot like "you're with us or against us," making it sound like there are two possibilities when in fact there are many. Being opposed to the Iraq War doesn't mean you're against the U.S. and therefore with the terrorists. And not choosing amnesty doesn't mean you've chosen the death penalty. Although this is not as egregious in my view as equating opposition to US policy with support of terrorism (and the analogy is of course very limited), it is, as I said, something of a rhetorical flourish to suggest that those who end up being executed were extreme enough to make that choice on their own because they refused amnesty. This seems to go along with the deliberate choice to make the announcements at the same time, perhaps to give the reinstatement of the death penalty, which will be frowned upon by most outside of the US (and, it should not be forgotten, is a return to the law under Saddam) some appearance of legitimacy.