[taken from private exchange back to the list with mutual agreement]
Why?
If there is no one with legitimate authority to try Saddam, then they cannot rightly hold him, and he must be released.
What was different about Saddam's regime from the current US-installed regime, that made Saddam's regime legitimate authority and this one not a legitimate authority?
Care to take this back to the list? I'm answering a parallel thread there.
Clearly Saddam has more authority than the US to rule Iraq, because he was a sitting head of state, and the US aggressed in an illegal invasion.
But Saddam's regime itself stemmed from illegal takeover of a previous regime -- doesn't that make all of his regime illegitimate and his authority void?
Thus, Saddam has a plausible claim to authority, but the US does not.
The only reason Saddam has a plausible claim to authority is because he has taken gotten it by force. By the same reasoning, US or US-installed regime, which is being put into power by the use of force, has a plausible claim to authority as well.
By extension, the US puppet government in Iraq also has no plausible claim to authority.
Why not? -- avva