I will be happy to resume our discussion after you graduae–do you really think it will take four years? I did it in 2 and 1/2, but I went to summer school–always a good idea, by the way, the grades are far easier.
The fiasco that prompted my derision was arraigning a defendant in the absence of counsel.
While to the uninitiated (viz, mehitibel) nothing of consequence appears at issue, jurisdictional objections are extremely fragile, and can be demed waived by ANY action recognizing the court’s authority, including (had he done so) affixing a signature to the charging document.
Whether Saddam had had a brief brush with first year law school (doubtvul) or was merely8 being instinctively cantankerous, he should have had the advice of his many attorneys WHEN IN COURT. He has many lawyers willing to appear, and volunteering or paid to do so, but no one has entgered an appearance on his behalf, and HE is speaking to the tribunal. This is not how it is done.
Re:the jurisdictional issue as it intersects international law, the problems cover several bases, as per your query.
Thje acts alleged as crimes were not crimes IN Iraq at the time they were committed, or, if derelictions of Saddam’s duty as president, the remedy ( I surmise) is set forth somewhere in the enabling documents of the Baath Iraqui Consitution (I bet they have one…). That governmment, of course, is defunct.
The present “government” is unelected. That may not be a problem for us (hell, we have an unelected president ourselves) but it terms of international law it’s a big onel.
Crimes aginst humanity are a category sui generis.
The whole concept arose because it was presumed that such crimes enjoyed the support and sanc tion of the governing bodies that would normall7y be expected to curtail the bestiality of the more aberrant among us.
The so-called “statute” establishing the court hearing this case was a decree, produced through negotiations between our viceryo and hs appointees. It seeks to retroactively criminalize behavior (retoractively because the forum and the decree are substantially removed from the conduct, neither existed at the tme of the conduct, and much of the conduct itself was deemed legitimate at the time INCLUDING BY OUR GOVERNMENT, (as far as the Kuirdish gassing)
Anyway, these are a few problems that appear to me. Tell me what you think after a couple of years of law school, but wait till at least you get past year one.,
because youy wonl’t take Jurisprudence, Con Law or Int’l Law till yer two or thee.
(disclaimer:International Law and Jurisprudence were two of my summer school subjects, but on the other hand, the Prof. was Julius Stone, and he gave me a first in both)