When America woke up on Dec. 14, a shaggy face crawled from a hole in the ground dominating the airwaves and our attention.

Fugitive Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was now neutralized and the ideological culmination of the second Gulf War seemed apparent.

When he was captured, he wanted to bargain. But, since Dec. 14, the bargaining of Saddam's fate has been a plot twist in the U.S.-led coalition reconstruction of the Iraqi government.

Saddam is at American mercy and due process should apply whether you bunk in a palace or a spider hole.

The United States says Saddam's government killed at least 300,000 Iraqis. While those actions are inexcusable he still deserves a fair trial.

As the primary occupier of Iraq, the United States is responsible for how and where Saddam will be tried. And the United States is in a position to grant unpopular due process to a war criminal.

So where can a murderer get a fair trial in this world? When Timothy McVeigh destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City nearly nine years ago, it was determined that an Oklahoma jury wouldn't be impartial enough for McVeigh to have due process to a fair trial.

Placing Saddam in an Iraqi courtroom is throwing him to the wolves under the auspicious guise of justice. Yes, a trial of his peers in Iraq will be administered with sufficient jurisprudence, but sufficient is simply not enough for a case of this magnitude.

A legitimate judicial system needs to be established in Iraq so Saddam can get the due process he deserves as a human and prisoner of war. If a judicial branch is not established in adequate time, an international war crimes trial, held on neutral soil and conducted with strong Iraqi presence is the most reasonable solution.

A war criminal should be held accountable for their actions, but keeping human rights consistently accountable should remain the first priority.