Three law professors debate the best forum in which to try Saddam Hussein.

One professor believes the war is illegal under international law and therefore a trial in any tribunal would be tainted.

The second professor "has questions about the legality of U.S. military action -- though not its legitimacy -- but said a tribunal could work."

The third professor "believes Iraq's violation of the Gulf War cease-fire and succeeding United Nations resolutions, coupled with humanitarian interests and the right of self-defense from weapons of mass destruction, give the United States more than enough justification to prosecute the war."

There are four basic tribunal options: U.S. Military Tribunals, Nuremburg-style tribunals, U.N. tribunals and hybrid tribunals, meaning ones with a mixture of international judges and judges from a newly formed Iraqi government.

Another expert says the U.S. "blundered" in not joining the International Criminal Court. That option most likely is not possible now. However, this expert thinks it might be possible to expand the jurisdiction of the U.N. Rwanda and Kosovo tribuanls to include Iraq.

Like some of the experts mentioned in the article, we see a difference between Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, who directly attacked the U.S., and Iraq, who did not. The preemptive nature of the war, in our view, could make garnering support to try Saddam anywhere quite difficult.

Update: Brutal Hugs chimes in.