Maybe someone can explain this. Saddam is on trial for war crimes in his own country, but the crimes were committed under the last regime. How can the new regime try crimes committed in a defunct regime. Is this ex post facto, which is declared unfair/illegal here in America?
Should he not be on trial, as are other war-crime defendants, in international court (the Hague) instead?
mrn
Well, it’s quite simple. The new regime is America, and America is built on double standards, so it is only natural that the Iraqi courts inherit this hypocrasy.
Saddam’s toast, man. I think even under his own regime’s rules he broke the law. If his war crimes trial fails and he is set free, then the whole war crimes business is a farce. I mean if you can’t convict Saddam Hussein, damn!
my real name,
Let’s see now, the crimes supposed to have been committed by Saddam’s regime:
The “key Bush administration justifications for invading iraq” have been (“which have since been called into question.”)
Now in all this how does US have any right to invade Iraq illegally itself and then present Saddam with charges of 1) Saddam’s illegal invasion of Kuwait, 2) So many killings when their very invasion has resulted in the deaths of so many?
“The interim Iraqi government assumed legal custody over Saddam and 11 of his top deputies on Wednesday.” But he “remains in U.S. physical custody.”
He [Saddam], “is subject to the Iraqi criminal code.”
Now, the U.S. desires info or “clues” on “the fate of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs” “and” info on “whether his regime had contacts with terrorists” although everywhere around me I just hear that U.S. invaded Iraq for their oil, to have control over it and the rest is just an excuse. Whatever…
Now as far as I know about the law, if someone’s privacy is illegally invaded, anything that is obtained therein cannot be brought into court for trial or proof. As such US CANNOT try Saddam in court legally. The reason this law is in the constitution because then one has no incentive to invade anybody’s privacy illegally to get proof or something else and will use legal means. As such I believe it is the Bush administration that is really at fault here and should be tried in court.
But since it is evident that Saddam or his regime have committed gross crimes and at present the interim Iraqi govt. has “assumed legal custody over Saddam and 11 of his top deputies,” as such if this interim govt. tries them in court, I’d say that would be legally right. However, if this interim govt. is going to follow directions from US and is to an extent composed of it then that I don’t think would be legally justified.
If you ask my opinion of the whole thing honestly, If Saddam's case was brought to me in the US, I'd throw it out of court for lack of basis, no matter how gross a crime Saddam may have committed. It's the responsibility of his country people to bring him to task not another country! Another country has no business invading another's privacy (US simply does not understand exactly where its boundary ends), the only time it has rights to be in another country is when it is invited or asked for help and after that it should leave and NOT overstay its welcome. And invasion of someone's privacy I guess would be fine by you if that someone is invading your privacy and causing harm and not leaving and there is no other alternative in sight but to invade their privacy and settle all dispute.
Some after thoughts:
Saddam says that he has “immunity” because he is Iraq’s president and so no one can press charges on him. Oh! Yeah? Why not? Why are you above the law? It’s the general public, the masses that have placed you where you are, how can you be more important than THEM? You can only be their servant, to look after their welfare. On top of that we all know that, ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,’ so the head of the country is the very person who CANNOT be above the law because he has the most potential to become corrupt and hence become a dictator. Do you think that’s why the masses made you who you are? Mr. President of Iraq? In all this how did you forget who made you president in the first place? Nonsense!!!
I believe that just like there is the body of government, there should also be a body of the public completely different from the government body so that if the government starts to show signs of dictatorship because ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,’ then this public body can take due action and should have the power to take such action against the government and if necessary call for help perhaps another country if needed. Otherwise how can the helpless public overthrow a dictatorship government ever?
Hey! I wrote a whole essay on this now, boy! Just like to honk my horn sometimes too 
P.S. Sorry if I hurt someone’s feelings.
Because Saddam and his regime would not agree to a trial if his own country before his eviction brought him to trial, as Saddam considered himself above the law as he himself points out that he has, “immunity as Iraq’s president” therefore negotiation with him and his regime would be impossible. Now since US invaded Iraq and it was illegal so US should not be able to try Saddam and his regime in court on any count, by law. But since force is the only language Saddam and his regime understands, the new regime in Iraq if independent of US interference should be able to try Saddam and his regime in court I think.
And why can’t the new regime, “try crimes committed in a defunct regime?” Is Saddam and his regime not the same people anymore? We don’t try the concept of a regime in court, we try actual citizens or people. Just because the dictator regime is defunct or extinct or dead now, does not mean the people comprising it are as well, they are not, and they are responsible for the attrocities and so can be taken to court. Just what I feel.
“Condi: The problem with Big Thinkers”
“…George W. Bush’s reaction against Clintonism wasn’t just reflexive and political; it was also philosophical. He filled his administration with strategic thinkers, mostly neo-conservatives, who had big ideas about how the world should work…”
“…The response to Islamic radicalism would be strategic, as Rice said, not tactical: the Middle East would be rebuilt according to American principles, and Iraq was the key. If If Saddam Hussein could be replaced by a democracy (or perhaps just a pro-American government headed by every neo-con’s favourite Iraqi, Ahmed Chalabi), then there would be a “benign domino effect.” Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and, ultimately, the Palestinians would be intimidated into moderation. Terrorism - which was, after all, just a tactic - would evaporate because the states sponsoring it would be transformed. In all that big thinking, al-Qaeda was an inconvenience at best. Strategy so overwhelmed tactical thinking in the Bush Administration that practicalities of any sort - except the military details of an Iraq invasion - were bumped down the ladder to deputies…”
“…The same was true in Iraq: the tactical details of the American occupation - the mind numbing complexities of keeping the peace, turning on the electricity, negotiating with Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds - were not nearly so important as the strategic goal. Iraq was to be liberated. The rest would fall into place…” ~ Joe Klein (Time, April 19, 2004)
I’d say that if all of the above what the Time says is true then, US better watch out. Next time it won’t be Twin Towers but Twin Cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know life tends to balance in the long run and this is probably the only thing that will make US mind its own business and shut up, just like Japan and Germany did after the Twin City disaster. Just what I feel. Somehow US fails to understand that its way of life MUST NOT DICTATE HOW OTHERS LIVE. It also fails to see itself as other countries do, the biggest terrorist. Why does it not understand that? Because it has more military power? Well! Then that’s what some other countries will make US see as well, their military power because that’s the one thing US understands and nothing else. No offence to anybody but just voicing my fears out loud 
I feel that,
US wants to see some countries’ weapons of mass destruction? It WILL see them but in action and over its own twin cities because it doesn’t mind its own business.
US wants to transform some countries? It WILL see transformation but of its own twin cities crumpled to dust.
Perhaps that’s the only way life works, as one big balance in the long run. howlwailsobsobsob 
You’re going to blow up Minneapolis/St Paul? You monster!
You said that not me! Perhaps that is your mentality, “you monster!” I was just voicing my fears. Don’t have anything substantial to add, fine, don’t. But stop criticizing for no reason and stop talking bloody nonsense! 
Beena,
you really need to get a sense of humor. This is like the fourth joke of mine you’ve flipped out at. I was kidding. the Rhetorical move that created the Twin Towers/Twin Cities (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) parallel unfortunately fails because in the US “Twin Cities” specifically refers to Minneapolis/St Paul in Minnesota. The idea that someone would blow up the Twin Cities, Minnesota is hillarious if you’ve ever visted those cities. I don’t think there’s a more innocuous large city in the US. I can understand blowing up New York City; being as it’s the center of the financial world and a whole mess of other things. But to imagine somebody threatening to take out Minneapolis/St Paul is ludicrous and very funny - in a black sort of way. “Oh No what will we do without Prince and our Bauxite mines !!!”
There really doesn’t seem to be any good basis for a trial.
We should just set him free. And then shoot him if he runs away, and shoot him if he aprroaches threatingly. He is allowed to stay in one spot, or attempt to walk in a perfect circle around his guard.
Look, I meant twins in the sense of two neighbouring cities and as for Minnesota thing, I don’t know the US well so I don’t know what you’re really saying. Like are you saying that the twin cities you are calling in Minnesota are too small or negligent or big or something? And you know what? Let’s just stop this right here, I don’t want to discuss anything on this.
To,
The Bush Administration and all those whom they choose to call terrorists,
You fools just because you are all scared of something or terror in your life does that give you the right to invade other lives and their privacy illegally? When I am scared do I not try to find why and how I can overcome the fear in a legitimate reasonable manner? What gives you morons the right to do what you do and the terror that you create in the INNOCENT public’s mind? What did they do wrong?
Where is your sense of justice? Where is your claim now that, “The pen is mightier than the sword?” Did the ink dry up or did you discard the pen because you have the sword now, you spineless creeps, get a backbone that does not consist of military power or a killing streak.
Otherwise just go and drown yourself in a mouthful of water you cowards because you can’t do any better. One accuses and abuses the other and yet you stand tall and the innocent public perishes. You morons get a life and start to live like all those prophets advocated. They DID NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE. They advocated humanity, so be humane or learn to be so if you’ve lost the ability.
You whom the US administration calls as terrorists, why don’t you do what Gandhiji did to drive the British out of India? Together with non-violence why don’t you non-cooperate too? When there is no meaningful interaction that brings capitalism benefits then the US will leave. India did not cooperate with the British anymore, they went dead on the British. How could the British rule a dead economy? So the British had no option but to leave. Why don’t you non-cooperate too rather than act violently? Are we the public not God’s children too? Are just you God’s children, you morons! Is that what Mohammed advocated? Is that what Islam is all about?
And you the US administration, you spineless creeps just 'cause you’re scared of some threat from somwhere, you’re going to invade Iraq illegally and change the whole middle east to your way of thinking eventually? Are you stupid? And why do you think that you have the right to be so capitalist minded that you can go to any lengths to make profits? Are you so poor? Then why do you try to show the world how big you are? Morons!
Why? Because You fly off the handle At trivial things and then look really foolish when the “offender” explains themselves? Damn Beena, you REALLY need to get a sense of humor. I’ve never set out to attack you. You’ve always taken what I’ve said humorously Or ironically as if it were serious and offensive. That would be fine in and of itself. But you don’t stop there. You get pissed off at me and start hollering and shouting and going all crazy about how disrespectful I am (or some other Poster). Why don’t you learn to ask questions FIRST and shoot later?
As to why it would be ridiculous to blow up Minneapolis/St Paul, I will simply repost my above post with my reasons in bold.
innocuous means harmless, not dangerous, things of that nature
hermes the thrice great,
As far as I know, you started the accusation, I only reacted. And I know now there’s something called Twin Cities in the US but I didn’t know that before (and I don’t want to know about it ok?). I was just putting my fears on paper considering the Eastern and Mid-East mentality and how much they value respect and their privacy of which US has no clue because it considers itself above any other country because of its military power and therefore the dire reason why someone else should not have WMD. And you didn’t have to accuse me again in the post just above just because I didn’t take your humour as humour, you could have simply stated that rather than accusing me and said that the Twin Cities are big and harmless, rather than making me look as if I would try to harm something harmless when you are trying to do exactly that. To me it was a serious issue and so I took it seriously and your humour as an accusation. And from my side I don’t accuse or shout but only react when someone like you is doing just that. Don’t try to lie here and pretend otherwise. Because you’ve decided to attack and abuse me in some threads here, perhaps you should change your name from hermes the thrice great to hermes the thrice abuser!
Beena, the problem is that everything is an accusation to you. Everything is serious to you. You loose credibility
To make a long story short, if this was my forum, I would have given you a warning to stop attacking me because you’ve done it more than once and without basis!
Beena, I don’t attack you. You misunderstand things and think people are persecuting you when they aren’t. You misread what I write and think I’m harrassing you when in fact I’m not. I will stop bringing this point up about our miscommunication, but expect no quarter from me the next time you get all offended and self-righteous about some random point of mine that was intended humorously. My intention several months ago was to make friends and you’ve spat on that. I don’t understand, but I’m not going to trouble myself with it anymore.
Being jealous of others’ entries and so accusing them, abusing them verbally and shouting on them is not the way to make friends you monkey!