The trials in the Hague (Milosevic et al) and in Iraq (Saddam, et el) have me thinking about mathematics.
In math, there are points where the normal rules dont apply. These points are called discontinuities. Black holes are thought to represent physical discontinuities to our rules of physics.
It strikes me that regime change is a political discontinuity. The rule of law works fabulously in stable states like the USA. We are able to use the law to settle disputes (without guns) and even to change the government, although it usually takes years.
But the law is created and enforced by a national government. How do you use the law when the government is the problem? Saddam was the legal leader of a nation. As a dictator, he was effectively above the law so whose law should apply to him now? What about the judge, who claims he was following the law when he sentenced 148 people who confessed to treason? What law did he break by following the law of his nation?
The situation is a terrible mess. I know what human rights and my heart think should happen but I also know that those outcomes are unlikely in the courtroom. It strikes me that violence may be the best course when you talk about regime change. They should have killed Saddam during battle because attempts to try him with the law are going to be unsatisfying no matter what happens.
Regime change is the movement from one legal system to another and there is just no way to use the law to make that process less messy. Although our government opposed it, perhaps a global legal system (the international court) could resolve this problem by creating a 'higher law' but that day is unlikely to happen soon.
