It's an interesting point, all the same.

Wolfgang, do you happen to know what formal status was accorded to the German fascists tried at Nuremburg for war crimes? I've got Lord Russell's book "The Scourge of the Swastika" and some others, so if the answer is not readily forthcoming, I'll do some hunting.

My instinctive reaction in Saddam's case is to go with McGrath. Unlike (say) Eichmann, Saddam was captured in consequence of a war, and he had been a military leader. What if a British PM behaved as badly as Saddam (allegedly) has done? Would he/she be given PoW status even though a non-combatant? The queen, as head of the armed services, would presumably qualify, as would any US president.

The problem for those who say Let the Iraqis deal with Saddam, is simply that Iraq has had nothing remotely resembling an independent judiciary for 30 years or more. Even post-apartheid South Africa was in a better position to build a credible system of justice than Iraq is now. This is a serious difficulty, given the importance of Saddam's trial being seen by the world to be fair and impartial.