More on the sentencing of Saddam Hussein

A politically astute Slovene acquaintance responded thusly to Craig Murray's wish that Saddam Hussein had been tried at the Hague:

But trial at the Hague was of course impossible. The US-appointed judiciary had to work hard to find the one Hussein crime that the US (probably) was not involved in. All his considerably more serious offenses - starting with his first murder (attempted assassination of president Abdul Karim Qassem, in which Hussein personally fired shots that killed his driver - the attempt was of course organized by the CIA), through the Halabja affair (accomplished with poison produced with know-how and equipment from the USA), to the bloody crushing of the Shia rebellion in the south in 1991 (when the USA obligingly allowed the Republican Guard to pass through US lines, and ignored Iraqi helicopters flying into the Basra area, and prevented Shia insurgents from getting weapons from Iraqi army depots in the south) - all were accomplished with considerable US support or at least a green light. The problem with war crimes and crimes against humanity is that anybody who was in position to prevent them but didn't can be charged with aiding and abetting.

Interestingly, if they actually hang him, it will be an extra-judicial killing, that is, murder, attributable to the US of A. According to the Hague Protocol and the Geneva Convention, any government set up by or with consent of the occupying force is a puppet government, and it has no legitimacy: the occupying force bears full responsibility for anything that a puppet government does.

Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony: Dubya charged with the murder of Saddam Hussein?