Saddam

No Ruler is without opponents. When russian communists chased and killed their opponents right from Moscow to Mexico, it didn't infuriate nobody. When pakistani military ruler General Zia hanged the democratically legitimate authoritarian of pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, No voice raised around the world. Neither did America felt it infringement of human rights or violation of democracy or annihilation of world-peace. When Mao of china routed Chiange-kai-Shek from China mainland to Taiwan, No one dared talk about equality. Why? Because these are power-games. One ruler makes laws, amends constitution to facilitate his legitimacy. Sometimes it makes it possible to suffocate their opponents, as did Stalin in 1940's. Laws of one country are not binding on nationals of other country.

Imagine A supreme court judge of India sentences some person XYZ of capital punishment. Tommorrow, some other country where capital punishment is not in the constitution, annexes India and accuses the judge of homicide because as per their law it is illegitimate. This is flaw. The same flaw is being entertained in Saddam's verdict as well. Whatever he did is part of power-game, everyone does that. Everyone kills their opponents, traitors as per the existing laws in that country, it need not conform to any international dictum. However, if such things are unacceptable to international community then a proper instrument should deviced that makes constitution of all the countries conform some basic humanitarian fundamentals. However it is preposterous to accuse someone on the basis of laws of someother country for the deeds done legitimate as per constitution of his own country.