So what was the governing constitution then?


Iraq was a dictatorship. There was no law in Iraq other than Saddam's.

If you are claiming Saddam broke the law, what law did he break?
These questions aren't important for dictators and tyrants, but the rule of law is supposed to be based on law, it's not about the result, it's all about the process.


The Nuremburg precedent established all the Iraqis need.

If Saddam was brought to the Hague, he could be tried as a war criminal, and imprisoned, but in Iraq he has constitutional immunity, legally anyway, if this court doesn't recognize the law, then it's not a court of law, it's just a show trial, to be followed by victor's justice, not unlike a Roman Triumph.


The Iraqis don't want him to die a natural death while his trial drags on for ten years. Or even worse, found innocent due to a politically motivated tribunal wanting to make a statement about the war.

This may not make a difference here in the US, but in the Middle East, it will be seen as the infidel nation, invading an arab homeland, and killing it's legitimate leader, denying him his legal rights, treating him and by implication all the people of the region as inferior subjects, not entitled to rights under the law.


The Iraqis are doing it their way. This is Arab justice, and the Arab peoples understand it.

On the contrary, I think that denying them their justice will create far more anger.

He should have been turned over to the Hague. If we are going to introduce the rule of law to a region, then following the law is a good place to start.

The Hague proved they aren't capable in the Milosevic trial.