Noahth i think you have it spot on, i think that basically he has the right to kill those in his own state if those are what he mandates the rules of his own country as. As wrong as i think it is its the principle at hand that we can't charge his retroactively for laws we believe he should have had and human rights protections he should have given to people but never did in the first place.

We should have just extradited him to Kuwait and let them hang him for war crimes...trying people for genocide is always a joke and a disaster if its against his own people, even if all human beings are entitled to Human rights as a basic right of life from birth you can't retroactively institute that as a mandate for punishment against someone as it therefore undermines the entire independance or credibility of the or a judiciary or judicial proccess.

This is totally about procedure and technicalities not about Saddam by the way, he was a bastard and deserves everything he has coming to him but most of the charges against him do bear no weight, we have to fry him for the right things.

I suppose there could be a very procedural argument made that he overhrew the old system in Iraq and the governance structure was illagelally ciolated under that law then when he led the military revolution but as i understand it that would require that system to be actively used or the current one to accept and recognise it as at least some form of docemntation for then and that's assuming there's no stature of limitation under their (new and the law then when he committed the crime) law.

This is completely procedural but this is something i've thought from day 1 and eventually it'll pose the question of whether the ruler of a country or leader of a country reserves the right to implement laws he legalises or should he always fear being unable to run his own country?