Reply #5: This is an excellent point [View All]

[gratuitous]

And the fact that Saddam was the maximum leader of Iraq for the time of his crimes, there's a legitimate ex post facto argument to be made in his defense. That is, as the dictator of Iraq, he certainly couldn't violate his own laws because his word and his will was the law of Iraq when he was committing his atrocities.

The proper venue, of course, is the International Criminal Court in The Hague to charge Saddam with crimes against humanity. But the U.S. isn't interested in giving the ICC too much (or any) credibility, because the corrupt bastards running our country right now might have to do some in-depth explanation for some of their actions should the ICC come a-calling at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Is this just lawyerly over-consideration for the niceties of the law? In part. But the overriding concern is for the legal redress of crimes committed under the color of government by an impartial court. If Saddam is guilty, and I'm pretty sure he is, I want him convicted where the introduction of error or prejudice is minimized as far as possible. I want him tried and convicted fairly, with a sentence commensurant with the evidence so that no one can say later that he was victimized by people jealous of his success or who couldn't get the better of him in any other way. A fair trial and conviction also sends the message across the planet that even ruthless dictators are subject to a higher law than their own word, and that fair treatment of the populace is not just an expectation but one of those inalienable rights Thomas Jefferson was gassing on about back in 1776.