International Criminal Court’s case against Bashir could provide...precedence for going after Bush

[ProSense]

International Criminal Court’s case against Bashir could provide legal precedence for going after Bush.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) yesterday issued an arrest warrant for Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Today, the AP reports that, based on the legal principles the ICC used to arrest al-Bashir, former President George W. Bush could be next on the list:

David Crane, an international law professor at Syracuse University, said the principle of law used to issue an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir could extend to former US President Bush over claims officials from his Administration may have engaged in torture by using coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects.

Crane is a former prosecutor of the Sierra Leone tribunal that indicted Liberian President Charles Taylor and put him on trial in The Hague.

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, said the al-Bashir ruling was likely to fuel discussion about investigations of possible crimes by Bush Administration officials.

President Clinton signed the “Rome Statute” setting up the ICC in 2000 but Bush then “unsigned” the document in May 2002, thereby withdrawing U.S. support for the court. However, the Wall Street Journal reported today that according to a senior White House official, the Obama administration may reconsider joining the court.

[ProSense]

1. What if the ICC issues a warrant for Bush's arrest? n/t

[tritsofme]

2. Federal law currently prohibits any cooperation with the ICC.

That law could be overturned.

But this scenario simply won't happen.

And the Rome Statute could never win ratification in the Senate. Not now, and Clinton knew as much when he signed it ten years ago.

[ProSense]

3. Participation has nothing to do with the OP statement about precedence.

Edited for clarity.

[ProSense]

4. Another factor,

from the AP article:

The US Government does not recognise the court and the only other way Bush could be investigated is if the Security Council were to order it, something unlikely to happen with Washington a veto-wielding permanent member.

Sure the U.S. could take issue, but it would demonstrate to the international community that they believe the U.S. President is above the law and demonstrate that they don't take the issue of war crimes seriously. They'll wind up fighting the international community on war crimes charges.





edited typos

[tritsofme]

6. Its fairly controversial whether or not the ICC could have jurisdiction

over citizens of a non-participating nation.

And even if it that was not an issue, the court would only have jurisdiction after the US declined to prosecute, making it the implicit position of the Obama administration to oppose the prosecution.

That being said, this is a fascinating hypothetical discussion, but the ICC will never indict a US citizen, let alone George Bush.

[ProSense]

7. You're most likely right, and

it is fascinating. One thing for sure, Bush is the subject of a lot of international discussion.

[williesgirl]

5. One can only hope since it's not looking like the US will make him pay for his crimes any time soon.

rec'd

[struggle4progress]

8. Support international law! eom

[burrowowl]

9. Plus the fact that Bu$hCo committed

Crimes against Peace by carrying out an unjust war!