Ramsey Clarke, who somehow found himself stuck with being Saddam's defense attorney, (it's funny how fate can move) questions the charges that there was any torture during Saddam's rule, and asserts the defense that the court trying Saddam does not have the legal authority to do so.
With regard to the legal authority, evidently, Mr. Clarke hasn't heard that the people of Iraq have ratified a new constitution and government.
How does he do it? How is it possible that a person could be consistently wrong over an entire career? Chance would say that he would get something right sometime.
We either have to figure out a way of taking his citizenship from him -- which can't legally happen -- or we have to set him up as a modern oracle who can unnerringly indicate the right path. Just take the path 180 degrees from the line he indicates and you'll be cool.
Actually, now that I think about it, the "illegitimate forum" defense could work out. The court could agree at a televised hearing that the court lacked jurisdiction -- and might just kind of kick Saddam out of the courtroom without delay. I expect at this point that if live television were to point to Saddam walking down the street, sans bodyguards, being smacked by multiple thrown sandals would be the least of his worries.