If the war was wrong and if the occupation is wrong, it doesn't follow that it's wrong for Saddam to be on trial. I think you're saying something of the sort:

p -> q
!p
assert !q

which is invalid.
If the occupation is OK then the trial is OK (p->q) and if the occupation is wrong (!p) then you conclude that the trial is wrong (!q)

But the trial could be OK for other reasons that don't make the occupation also OK.
Let's imagine that if Iraq would have risen up on its own and send its dictator to trial, that would have been OK.

In fact, what makes the trial OK is not how it came about but if we have proper grounds to prosecute the accused.

The trial is not wrong because the charges are property documented and credible.

P.S. Your argument would be valid if the relationship between the occupation and trial would be "if and only if"

"p iff p" or "p q"

By taking me so literally, I think you're missing my point, which is to comment on a logical inconsistency by the antiwar movement. Why do they claim the current government is illegitimate -- a puppet government -- yet not admit that this must mean Saddam Hussein remains the legal president and the status quo head of state in Iraq?

The U.S. removed him from power, captured him and is supervising his trial. His trial is happening because of the invasion and the presence of U.S. forces. While I think that what is happening is the right result, if the U.S. was wrong to invade to remove Saddam from power, it follows that he should still be president -- even if the Iraqis had the right to remove him from power themselves.

If (as is contended) the Iraqi government is not legitimate, I do not see how a legitimate trial can be legally conducted there. I think your point in logic would be valid if Saddam were being tried elsewhere, but my main point was to pose a question: if the war was wrong, shouldn't he still be president?

Gabriel,

You have committed a contextual fallacy in your argument.

You argue that there are other ways for the trial to be OK and the occupation to be WRONG, however you talk about the Iraqi people rising up and removing Saddam from power... (this is a wholly separate context from your argument).

That is where you make your contextual fallacy.

You have to talk about the trial in the precise context as it stands today. You have to say that the trial in its current context is OK or NOT OK.

Since you (liberals) have already said that the occupation is wrong then you are also saying the TRIAL's CONTEXT is wrong. And by labelling the Context of the trial as wrong, you are taking away and legitamicy of the trial itself.

And therefore, Gabriel, you can not possibly say that the TRIAL is OK.

I.E. You have to replace the occupation with a completely different context (scenario) in order to support the trial. This means that for FACE VALUE you do not support the Trial.

You are saying that Saddam Hussein NEVER should be in trial due to the context that put him there.

The Iraqi People tried to rise up and remove Saddam Hussein from power but they got slaughtered by Weapons of Mass Destruction (no less).

So to even bring up this "context" is well weak.

I'm not a liberal (in the American sense). I'm a classical liberal or libertarian.

I understand what you're saying but it's not a matter of context. You seem to be saying that a trial of the leaders of a country is justified if and only if the invasion leading to this trial was justified. I disagree.

If North Korea would have invaded Iraq and if Saddam would have faced the charges for which he's suspected (an implausible scenario, but still...) then I would support that trial too.

I think that the legitimacy of a trial is given by the quality of the case against the accused (i.e. we have proper cause to hold such proceedings). I don't care if the catalyst for this trial was an American invasion or a Martian invasion. I care about the crimes of which the accused is supposedly guilty.

Simply because you can't bring forth a natural law justification for the invasion of a country it doesn't mean that once you get there you should let notorious criminals off the hook.

If it were to me, I would impeach pres. Bush for his crimes (I'm not an US citizen, by the way) but as far as impeachable leaders go, Saddam was at the top of the list.

I object to your assumption that those opposed to the war are, by extention, supporters of Sadaam. This is a falacy constantly repeated by many supporting the war. Unfortunately (for you), repeating it does not make it so.
Many in the human rights community, myself included, have been screaming about abuses in Iraq for decades. The United States only started listening, and stopped supporting Sadaam, after he invaded Kuwait.
BTW, if this war is really about bringing democracy and human rights to Iraq, when do we invade Saudi Arabia?

Kevin,

You may disagree with me but it does not take away from the fact that you and people of your mind set would have kept Saddam Hussein in power.

So regardless if you say that you are against Saddam, you would have done precisely what Saddam would have wanted you to. (i.e. kept him in power).

Gabriel,

Again you are taking the context out of the equation here.

You simply can not find yourself supporting this trial due to the context. So you have to insert a different context (i.e. North Korea instead of America).

"Simply because you can't bring forth a natural law justification for the invasion of a country it doesn't mean that once you get there you should let notorious criminals off the hook."

But Gabriel... You never get there to begin with!

This is a logical fallacy in that because you oppose the liberation of Iraq, your stance does not result in the trial of Saddam Hussein.

Now you can argue a different context in which Saddam Hussein is put in trial... But that goes right back to the Contextual Fallacy.

As it currently stands, you do not support the military removal of Saddam which puts you outside of Iraq still patrolling the No Fly Zone and not putting Saddam in Trial.

Kevin,

"The United States only started listening, and stopped supporting Sadaam, after he invaded Kuwait."

That is incorrect. We verbally recorded into history our end of support to Iraq's Saddam Hussein once he gassed the Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war. But who in the Human Rights sector is counting?

"BTW, if this war is really about bringing democracy and human rights to Iraq, when do we invade Saudi Arabia?"

Ah yes! The Age Old Liberal Playbook "All or Nothing" question.

You can't find yourself supporting the liberation of Iraq, but I am to believe you are willing to disrupt a nation (Saudi Arabia) that has never threatened its neighbors a part from terrorists?

Iraq as a government threatened its neighbors... I can't remember the last time Saudi Arabia did.

I can't remember Saudi Arabia using Weapons of Mass Destruction on another nation. Can you?

But don't misunderstand. If you want to go after every single EVIL nation and provide Freedom and Democracy to everyone then I will join you.

But I won't sit here expecting you to be serious.

Gabriel,

"I'm not a liberal (in the American sense). I'm a classical liberal or libertarian."

Forgive me when I say, "no you're not."
I can not see any evidence to suggest (at this point) switching my view of your ideology from anything other than Liberal.

Of course you have to understand who I am.
I am someone who sees 2 ideologies on Planet Earth. 1 = Conservative and 1 = Liberal.

Since you are not conservative, you are liberal.
Is there anyway to convince me otherwise? Short of supporting the Global War on Terrorism and Smaller Government....Nope.

I support the No Government option. :-) Is that liberal?

Re: context, it's irrelevant. Let me put it this way: *regardless of context* Saddam should go to trial for his crimes.

Criminals should face prosecution regardless of all other considerations.

And before you ask, there *are* other ways by which Saddam could have been deposed. That's not what I want to discuss here, but rather that you try to force connection on us, connections we're not justified in making.

"And before you ask, there *are* other ways by which Saddam could have been deposed."

I haven't heard 1 said that wasn't previously tried for or didn't fall into the realm of the "Wishful thinking."

Simply put... If you can't support what put Saddam in Trial then you cannot logically support the trial. Because the trial would never happen.

Your opposition is against what put him in trial.

If you are going to say today that what put him in trial isn't a deal breaker for you then your opposition to this war never should have occured.

You can't BOTH be against the war and FOR the consequence of it at the same time. It's not humanly possible to (NOT WAR) but some how (WAR).

A does not equal B.

"I support the No Government option. :-) Is that liberal?"

Well it depends. There is (a way) for an anarchist to be "conservative." However, traditionally anarchism is associated with the anarchist organization in Europe. These anarchists are extremely LIBERAL.

It depends on your thoughts on Free Trade and other related subject matter.

Your stance against the WAR by itself (though) make you liberal regardless of your domestic agenda.

To put it more simply...

You can never support what put Saddam in Trial.

Therefore you would never have AGREED to put him in trial.

Therefore your agreement with Saddam being in trial contradicts the above 2 statements.

How can you agree that Saddam is in trial if you never agreed to the putting of him in trial?

It is the same contextual fallacy of the liberals
that say they support the troops but not their mission in Iraq. They support the troops but not when they are doing "troop" things.