Which guy? The bishops who make the moral equivalence between the two, or this author pointing out their moral vapidity for doing so?
(You'll note the author is criticizing the moral vapidity of certain bishops and is obviously in agreement with you.)
And the issue of guild, of whether there is Good and Evil, defined by a power higher than us mortals, is at the heart of this strange result.
Those who believe in a Higher Power understand that we should use the power vested in us by that Higher Power, to further Good and fight Evil. There are crimes worthy of the death penalty, and surely if anyone is guilty of such crimes, Saddam is.
Those who don't so believe, the secularists and amoral atheists, conclude that it is Wrong to make such Moral Judgements. Taking the life of an unborn child is acceptable, because it is simply an act of convenience for the mother, not a moral judgement on the child. Taking the life of Saddam is wrong, for the very reason that it is being justified on Moral grounds.
Strange - one side finds that the more guilty the victim, the more justified the murder, while the other side finds that the more innocent the victim, the more acceptable the murder.