That is the view of Vincent Browne in today's SBP. Browne argues that Saddam Hussein was quite right to question the presiding judge at his trial. He asks under what authority was Rizgar Mohammed Amin sitting in judgment on the legal president of Iraq?
According to Vincent Saddam was a tyrant, he manipulated the electoral process to give feigned legitimacy to his rule but, under international law, he was - and remains - president of Iraq. In contrast, the judge presiding over the trial of Saddam has no legitimacy whatsoever.
He was appointed by the illegal invaders and occupiers of Iraq. The court has no basis in the Iraqi constitution or Iraqi law. It has no basis under international law.
This is an excellent article from Vincent and one that can't easily be refuted. Vincent argues that occupying forces could have brought Saddam before the International Criminal Court but because it can't deliver the death penalty and because the Americans are opposed to the ICC they decided not to. The Americans are worried that some of their soldiers or politicians may end up before the ICC if they show it any legitimacy.
The entire hypocrisy of the Americans and British on this issue would make you want to vomit.
Let's not forget that when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam George Galloway was warning of the dangers.
Hypocrisy at it's finest!