|
Well, there's always international law, and basic human rights, and the whole UN, which Iraq was a member of. There's a UN charter which allows for international law, and there's all kinds of conventions (Geneva, Hague), which Saddam broke.
Why should he *not* be tried by his people? He broke international law, and someone has to try him. It might as well be an Iraqi court.
But wait a minute. I'd say that it'd be illegal, even in Saddam-era Iraq, to commit murder, to rape, to torture, etc. If so, he and his henchmen broke all those laws. If not, there's still that pesky international law thing.
Besides, history shows that it's quite normal for countries to put on trial their own leaders for their crimes (South Africa comes to mind). Even if the things these people did were not illegal (due to them being above the law), there's still human decency and (again) international law.
As for your examples: It's not illegal to put down an armed rebellion, but it *is* illegal to murder random civilians who just happen to be of the same ethnicity as the rebels - that's called genocide. And it *is* illegal (according to international law, the UN charter, which Iraq signed on to) to invade another country.
|