Discussing Saddam Hussien

Want to know what the world is saying about the Saddam Hussien trial? You can probably imagine they are not all that friendly. Some are easily dismissed, but others bring up some very interesting ideas that may merit some discussions later on.

Iran wants him to be tried for his invasion and feels it was purposely left out to deflect America's role in it. The Brits decry that Saddam's co-defendants in British custody may face the death penalty when the country does not support it.

Then check out this editorial view:

Saddam might also argue that the U.S.-led attack was illegal under international law.

In fact, so far "the majority of specialists have argued that, in the absence of an explicit resolution from the U.N. Security Council authorizing it, the invasion ... [can] not be legally justified." In turn, this view "has unwelcome consequences. One is that if the war was illegal, Saddam should still ... be president. That would mean that the court now trying him is exactly what he says it is: the illegitimate tool of an illegal occupation," The Sunday Telegraph editorialized.

I can't see how any of this will make a difference in the trial itself. But it's an interesting read nonetheless.