Saddam Justice ?

Yes, but that doesn't mean they are unable to make mistakes or can act outside of the law with impunity. I may lend somebody my rifle to go hunting rabbits but if they use it to commit a murder then they should be tried for it.

Quite clearly being given a position of responsibility in representing the population does not absolve you of your responsibilities if you commit crimes against humanity.

 

I think my problem would be with your definition of crimes against humanity. If war is authorised then their is no crime in killing your declared enemy, and that isn't genocide. You can argue an unjust war, but that is a different idea altogether. We must remember there is no world police authority and no world law, just a bunch af vague agreements that some try to observe. There is no law broken by the victor ever, the victor is the law.

 

Clearly I have not been talking about killing the "enemy"; military combatants haven't figured in any of the figures or points I've made in this thread. Causing the deaths of over a million civilians as a result of deliberate policy choices is something I would suggest can be called a genocide, and is a crime against humanity by almost any definition.

I think the problem here is that you are talking about how things are, and I would not disagree that things are the way you describe - that the victors get away with atrocities - this is in fact the whole point I've been making all along. That does not mean it's right that things are this way. All I've done is to point out this fairly obvious prejudice or blindspot in the way our notions of justice are put into practice.