According to this
I remember that Charles I of England said something similar, that the court judging him had “no jurisdiction”. I didn’t stop them from cutting off his head.
So, has anyone ever actually avoided conviction for a crime by claiming that they don’t recognize the courts authority? And if not, why do they do it?
England took the king of Sealand to court, suing him to recognize their authority over his offshore platform, which he had declared a sovereign nation. The court found that, in fact, Sealand was a sovereign nation, and so they (a British court) had no jurisdiction over their dispute. The case was dismissed… 
A claim like that is as much a political statement as it is a legal one. In the case of Charles I, he really had the last laugh, as his son Charles II was restored to the throne 11 years later. So in Saddam’s case, it’s partly a call to his supporters not to give up their fight against the US occupation of Iraq.
not in the sense that the tribunal is then going to say, “Oh well, then I guess we’re all done here. Everybody go home”.
[nitpick]
That would be the Prince, Bob.
[/nitpick]
Which in turn, I think, is because in most situations like this the court would consider whether it thought it had authority over the accused and jurisdiction in the case before beginning proceedings. Once they’ve made the decision and brought him in, they’re not going to be swayed by the defendant claiming he’s not under jurisdiction…
or, in some conceivable cases, the court just REALLY doesn’t care. 
Sure it works–if you’ve got an army to back you up.
Has a deposed dictator ever been put on trial and acquitted?
John Trochmann, co-founder of the Militia of Montana, filed court papers in the 90s, claiming HE was a sovereign, in order to excuse himself from government regulation and taxation.
Whoops, you wanted an example that worked.
It’s bound to work at least as well as any other option he has.
Doesn’t this essentially happen all the time, albeit in far less dramatic and notorious circumstances? Don’t defendants file briefs arguing that such-and-such court should not have juristiction on a case? They are not claiming that they are “above the law,” just that they are being tried by an inappropriate court. I am certainly no lawyer, so please straighten me out if I’m wrong.
I figured Saddam was going to claim it was an accident.
“I was cleaning my gun and it went off…1,754,311 times.”
That’s an interesting point. But I think Saddam’s POV is that he is still the legitimate head of Iraq, so the new government has no authority at all - which includes not having the authority to try him. So it’s more extreme than a question about a court’s standing. I’m sure he wouldn’t recognize a tribunal at The Hague either, because it’s run by Americans and Zionists and suchlike.
Maybe you should have.
D’oh!
Well, I might have, if I had been alive at the time, and had the power to do so, and had wanted to do so.
Though Charles did seem like a bit of a Jerk.
But so was Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England(Puritan).
Something I think Saddam is lacking. I’ve gotten the impression that while many people in Iraq are not happy about the US occupation, very few of them have any love for Saddam and would be willing to put him back it power…or let him walk.
Maybe Bricker or some other legal minded doper will be along shortly, but it’s a general principle in Anglo-American law that a court has to have proper jurisdiction over you to prosecute you. This probably holds true for many other court systems in the world as well.
Simple and obvious example: If I get into a fistfight with you in Missouri, an Iowa court can’t charge me with disorderly conduct.
Of course, the court can say anything it wants If it’s a corrupt court backed by a bloody dictator or godless communists, you can scream “no jurisdiction!” until you’re blue in the face but that won’t stop them from turning your ass into bacon.