Mr Aryeh Neier's Amnesty for Saddam? is a finely tuned argument for not going to war. I have benefited from having had the chance to read and consider it.

Yet, I felt some disquiet about the article. O­n reflection, I decided that my disquiet was not with any of the details in particular, but with the manner in which the argument was or was not contextualised.

First, let me thank Mr Neier for despatching with the argument that even if the Iraqi regime were in full compliance with UN resolutions, and had no weapons of mass destruction nor links with al-Qaeda, we should still go to war because of its inhuman record.

But in fact, while Mr Neier focuses o­n the appalling human rights record of the Iraqi regime, the Bush-Blair-Howard axis' argument for war is primarily focused o­n compliance with UN resolutions, the question of the regime's weapons of mass destruction and its alleged links with al-Qaeda.

The human rights record of the regime has been an added bonus, pushed to the fore as the axis' arguments have proved unconvincing - at least as an argument for war - to the majority of the people of the world and, I dare say, even to the majority of governments.

Second, but not secondarily, my disquiet. The greater part of the specific horrors raised by Mr Neier were committed when the Washington-London-Canberra axis, as well as 'old Europe', were backing Saddam Hussein in the appalling carnage with Iran, apparently supplying him not o­nly with the material, but also informational wherewithal to commit at least some of those crimes.

Wasn't it Rumsfeld himself who was Reagan's envoy to Baghdad back in 1983?

Indeed, not o­nly was the axis backing Saddam Hussein, it would appear they were even prepared to cover up for him. Thus, the Defence Intelligence Agency report o­n Halabja that Pelletiere cited in his New York Times op-ed of Jan 31 was evidently a "con job" to cover for the Iraqi regime and to justify continued US backing for it.

The immediate post-Gulf War horrors were even worse. Having encouraged uprisings against the regime, the axis then sat back, having helped set the stage for the 'final solution' of the Marsh Arabs 'problem'.

And now, we hear of a deal being struck with Turkey in which the Turkish military will move into a part of Iraqi Kurdistan. The Turkish military are not famous for their tender feelings towards the Kurds.

I hasten to add that none of this even remotely mitigates the crimes committed by the Iraqi regime. But if we are to talk of them in an even-handed way, and if we are to observe the evolving stance o­n crimes against humanity and, especially, genocide, then the axis must be considered to be probably complicit in terms of knowledge and in terms of act.

By all means, the world community should constitute an ad hoc international tribunal to consider charges against Saddam Hussein and his regime. But this tribunal should not restrict itself and must be prepared to consider whether other parties were not complicit as well. With regard to Iraqi Kurds, this should include some of the Kurdish factions which apparently worked together with Baghdad to eliminate rival Kurdish factions.

Additionally, I fully support Mr Neier's position of no amnesty for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. Let it be the position of the world community that o­nce an indictment has been issued by such a tribunal or the International Criminal Court, the indictee falls under world jurisdiction and can be arrested at any opportune moment or location.

Still, if we are indeed to move towards a truly global regime o­n human rights using the gold standard of equal treatment, we need to increasingly distance ourselves from the stain of victors' justice or the justice of the strong.

Thus, there should also be an ad hoc tribunal to consider war crimes in the Gulf War and for the International Criminal Court - which Washington has rejected - to consider war crimes in the coming war.