Ceaucscu (sp?) in Romania, and Mussolini come to mind.
As for your *ex post facto * issue, I think war crimes tend to be that way. How do you think the Nuerenberg trials after WWII convicted anyone?
Those seem ex post facto to me. But since the international rules against such crimes have now been established, those same issues wouldn’t apply here.
Yeah, that’s what I was saying: false, unsubstantiated stories could be used as evidence against Saddam-- perhaps with no one questioning them too closely.
Saddam has become an almost indescribable monster in most people’s minds. They wouldn’t put ANYTHING past him. When they hear a story of an atrocity, like that of the plastic shredder, or the babies tossed from incubators, they accept it unquestioningly. Hell, he’s capable of it-- no one doubts that, but my concern is that the jury might not care if the rumors of some of his evild deeds are actually true.
There are a couple previous examples other than those already mentioned: King Louis and Marie Antionette of France, and Charles I of England come to mind.
I don’t know. If these rulers had people killed, and it’s proven they did, and if there are laws against murder that don’t exempt the rulers, then it’s not ex post facto.
Political leaders have been put on trial before in their home country (and executed) but neither Mussolini [warning: images of dead people] nor Ceausescu would fall into that category. Captured and summarily executed is a more precise description I would say.