Please don't get me wrong, I agree that the way the whole affair was handled by the government was far from ideal, equally I agree with Beags that there are other equally tyrannical regimes that we haven't invaded that we probably have an equally strong moral obligation to do something about.
Neither of these change the basic premise of my point though, I think the prevention of crimes against humanity provided a legal reason for the war therefore this doctor can't defend himself.
Whether or not we made the correct tactical/political decision by embroiling ourselves is I think a seperate matter.
Mike