With the capture of Saddam Hussein comes the question of how to best impose justice on him for the actions of his life. Without a doubt he will have to face his accusers, those who have suffered at his hand or had loved ones raped, tortured and murdered. But as Saddam Hussein moves closer to receiving the justice he so richly deserves questions are raised about how best to impose it. Who should be the authority that in the end brings him to justice? If the authority should be a compilation of entities which entity should have priority? Should the death penalty be an option? How should he be charged? To be sure, the justice that Saddam Hussein receives will be far more fair-minded than the justice with which he reigned while over-lording the people of Iraq.

The argument is being made that the Iraqi people, by right of their years subjected to Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, should be the ones that bring him to justice. Certainly they have been the most wronged by this self proclaimed Lion of Baghdad. But there are those who would argue the Iraqi Provisional Authority is in no position to try the man as they are in the midst of forming a government and as of yet have no constitution in place, no judicial system. While both sides are correct it is a moment in time that the Iraqi people simply must embrace.

It will be important for the Iraqi people to be the ones who initially bring him before his accusers. If a cohesive and valid government is to exist in Iraq and be accepted by the world community the Iraqis need to demonstrate to the world that they will be swift to take on the onus of justice while being diligent enough to rise above the common sentiment so as to afford this, the most evil of men, a completely fair and equitable trial. How better to demonstrate that to the world community than to afford them the right to try their own oppressor?

While there are those in this country who continue to press for an expedited timeline with regard to Iraqi self-rule, it should be pointed out that it is important, not only for the Iraqi people but for the message that is being sent throughout the Middle East, that the Iraqis assemble a tribunal of fair and ethically steadfast people who will take on the task of prosecuting, defending and ultimately passing judgment on the man who singularly denied them the freedoms, the same freedoms they are beginning to embrace today. Just as the Iraqis will eventually ratify and put into place their constitution and free government of the people, so too should they be afforded the opportunity to confront the demon that terrorized them for decades.

That being said, it is important for the world to chronicle and put into record the atrocities for which Saddam Hussein has been guilty. For that reason he must appear either before The World Court or before a court established for this instance exclusively. Should the panel of jurists need to be assembled it should be done so with the consent and validation of the international community, much like the trials at Nuremburg. If for no other reason he needs to stand trial before the international community so that those who would deny his involvement in deeds so sinister can have their day in court as well. It must be concluded beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein was the heretic that we, the aware, all know him to have been. In this effort the United Nations would be indispensable. It would also afford the UN a face-saving role in the history of this moment in Iraq’s history.

So, it can be surmised that it wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility for Saddam Hussein to stand trial not only in an assembled and legitimate Iraqi court but on the world stage as well. Just like the suspect that is tried in multiple jurisdictions when a crime warrants such action here in the United States, so too should Saddam Hussein be tried in every jurisdiction applicable for his crimes.

Three crimes with which he no doubt will be charged will be crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. All of these crimes should, at least in the opinion of some and perhaps most, carry as its sentence the death penalty. Surely, if the death penalty was ever appropriate it is appropriate in this case. His crimes against humanity almost too many to list include the torture, rape, maiming and murder of thousands if not hundreds of thousands; his war crimes documented by a plethora of human rights groups; his genocide chronicled by the scant survivors for the world to hear and see; the mass graves of those who would oppose his philosophies and rule testimony to his heinous actions, dark heart and non-existent soul. Alas, there are those in the international community that would object to a death sentence even for Saddam Hussein. It is their prerogative and for that there is an answer.

Because Saddam Hussein would be tried in an Iraqi court first they would be free to impose any sentence that their tribunal, their assembled panel, their court of the righteous, would deem appropriate for the crimes he committed against the newly liberated people of Iraq. Then and only then would he be free to stand trial in the World Court or an internationally sanctioned court. While free to impose what they feel would be a just punishment the international court would have to acquiesce to the penalty imposed by the court that holds trump over their authority, in this case the court assembled by those most violated, the people of Iraq. If the Iraqi tribunal should decide to execute Saddam Hussein for his crimes that would be their legitimate right but it would leave the world community free to impose a judgment of lesser severity, say life in prison, and free of guilt for the imposition of a penalty they feel is too cruel, even for the Butcher of Baghdad.

To be sure, whichever avenue is traveled, whether it be the road through Iraq, the Hague or both, it will be a very drawn out and painfully calculated endeavor, and rightly so. We should not be quick to see an end to this moment in history. We should make sure that every story is told, every atrocity is documented and that every entity of the world, both friendly and unfriendly, understands the horrors he inflicted on the Iraqi people. Through the unmasking of this tyrant we will ultimately expose him for the cowering miscreant that he is, the spider hole dwelling coward that begged the US troops not to shoot him while offering to negotiate away his loyalties in an effort to save his own neck. Only through the exposure that true justice will afford will those who once championed him perhaps see the error of their judgment and the mistake that they made in supporting this cretin. Should that be the result I wouldn’t care what they do with him short of setting him free.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.