-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
As Bill Stuart pointed out, this is not an American war. This is a war (or so the U.S. claims) based on alleged violation of an agreement between Iraq and the UN. It seems to me that American Courts or American Tribunals have no authority to preside over Saddam's case in general. I don't think anyone wants to try Saddam for crimes over which the U.S. might have jurisdiction. There's likely a much better case that he killed various subordinates, or that he gave orders to murder a bunch of Kurds, or that he murdered various people in his ascent into power, than there is that he offered material support to Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group.
I agree they should. But this war was not sanctioned by the UN, nor did the US ratify the ICC. Sure, the British and spanish and Italian where along for the ride, but the US Administration made it clear several times that THEY are going to call the shots on Iraq.
Even if such a U.S. law-based prosecution were to be pursued, clearly there are serious international law issues. Saddam was not some rag-tag nation-less scoundrel. Even if he was directly involved in terrorism, I would think the only way to prosecute him for any such crimes would be in some international court, because he was essentially sovereign.
Agreed.
Please explain why an Iraqi court must give Saddam U.S. style procedural rights, because I don't understand. I know you said "should", but what does that mean if not "must"? The U.S. has no influence on Iraqi judicial proceedings, or at least it shouldn't. Appeals to ethics don't mean anything when one talks about a different culture.
If the US is serious to establish a democracy in Iraq than this would also mean a reform of the Criminal Justice system. Most likely built on the "best" system in the world and that would make it the US one, no? M. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+Y6tWlCnxcrW2uuEQLOGACfeTsQ+8D5cD6Siz2km+1qp+K+57MAoN/f DMN1fZOIoWhYhRlXXKvgrNTW =zLGJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----