Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead?

[ag]

Unfortunately, there is no legal possibility of trying him in the Hague. To begin with, there isn't much horrible he did after July 1, 2002 - and the ICC (I guess, you refer to that) has no jurisdiction over anything that had occured previously. Then, of course, Iraq hasn't signed or ratified the treaty (neither did Iran - in fact, in the entire region there is only one country that did, and it is Jordan), so the only way he'd be subject to the jurisdiction is upon the referral by the security council - but still, I believe, the July 1, 2002 date would be operative.

The only real possibility would be for the Security Council to set up an ad hoc tribunal (like the Yugoslavia tribunal in the Hague, or the Rwanda tribunal in Abuja).  Could be done, in principle, and, in fact, there is nothing in the US position rules out doing something like that for similar cases now or in the future (in fact, such ad hoc tribunals are whoel-heartedly supported by the US, including this administration). Perhaps, China and Russia could have been induced to vote for this, or even to abstain (UK, US and France would have no trouble voting in favor here - though, of course, UK and France would not agree to set up an ad hoc tribunal for post-2002 cases).

However, I guess, it has been decided that giving the guy to Iraqis to roast was better local PR - which is, probably, right.  Without knowing how it plays out in Iraq, there is no way to tell whether this was the right decision, but it does not strike me as a major mistake in any case, though I might be wrong.  An international tribunal could be set up to have more legitimacy among at least some of the Sunnis, perhaps.