Report from Greater Tokyo

Saddam is on trial. This is no surprise to anyone.

There is one big reason why I am concerned about his rights. The destruction of the rule of law anywhere is a challenge to the rule of law everywhere. Paraphrased, I believe those are the words of one of the USA's founding fathers, although I can't be bothered to look it up. Even if they didn't say that, it would not change the truth of that statement. I defend his rights to proper legal procedure because in doing so, I defend everyone's right to the same.

First, I have no doubt that he had people killed, tortured, and so on. That isn't a question in my mind. The question is whether there is any jurisdiction with legal authority to try him for these actions. fwiw, I said a long time ago that the intelligent thing for the USA to do would be for him to be 'accidentally' killed in the raid that attempts to capture him.

So, there are a few possibilities I can see here. The trial is either under jurisdiction of domestic Iraqi law, war crimes law, 'common law/customary' International Law, International Court of Human Rights, or US "we won the war - hooah" law.

Domestic Iraqi law. As a dictatorial government, I found it hard to believe there wouldn't be a law somewhere saying something on the lines of the head of state is above the law. I don't know this for certain but I would not be surprised. Saddam seems to be an intelligent (but foolish) man, and as the sole authority from which Iraqi law had been made for decades prior to the actions he is accused of, I can't imagine he would have intentionally made himself open to accusation from his own laws.

War Crimes Law. At the time the actions were committed, Iraq was not at war with any nation, and so nothing he did could truly be classed as a war crime, there not being an actual war you see. And if war crimes law is going to be used, then invading Iraq by the USA is the most obvious violation of this. Saddam can of course be accused of the same wrt Kuwait, but I believe appropriate reparations were imposed and paid as part of the aftermath of that.

'common/customary' international law. I actually regard this as an extremely dubious law set to try anyone under. Analogously, though obviously at a far different level, it isn't much different from the common/customary contract vagueness that so many ALTs rage against. Unwritten rules are after all the hardest to fight either way. But under these rules, the USA is at least as guilty. Abu Ghraib, Camp X, renditions for torture, and that's just the stuff that's come to light.

Formal International Law, aka International COurt of Human Rights. Sorry, but neither Iraq nor the USA, the two main parties involved, seem to be signatories. No jurisdiiction at all here.

US "we won the war - hooah" law. That is what it looks like at present to me.