Lookie lookie Bush may be next for the Hague

[malaise]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ExUN_prosecutor_Bush_may_be_next_0307.html
<snip>
An ex-UN prosecutor has said that following the issuance of an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan, former US President George W. Bush could -- and should -- be next on the International Criminal Court's list.

The former prosecutor's assessment was echoed in some respect by United Nations General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, of Nicaragua, who said America's military occupation of Iraq has caused over a million deaths and should be probed by the United Nations.

"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," reported the New Zealand Herald

[NavyDavy]

1. We can only hope!

[malaise]

3. I can't wait to hear from Jonathan Turley and John Dean

To the Hague war criminal.

[BuyingThyme]

8. Does John Dean go there?

[DKRC]

2. Great news ~ off to the greatest page!

:woohoo:

[graywarrior]

4. I pray that it is so

[alsame]

5. Jonathan Turley said a few weeks ago on Countdown that it

was very possible that the international community would charge Bushco with war crimes. Let's hope they do it.

[malaise]

7. That's why I want to hear his response

first. :fistbump:

[alsame]

10. Yep, it should be good. I'm interested to hear his opinion on what

Bushco would do.

[leftstreet]

6. K&R

[Pavulon]

9. Right after the rapture..

will an American president sit in front of a gaggle of foreign nationals to do anything other than provide foreign aid.

[Ishoutandscream2]

11. True. But it would probably benefit Bush and Cheney

To stay within our borders.

[Pavulon]

13. As much as I dislike them

every American is entitled to due process. If they are charged with a crime it would need to be done here. Any silly event like you discuss would just get someone shot in the process.

[tritsofme]

12. This is just flawed on so many different levels.

For starters, the US is not a party to the Rome Statute.

Obama could sign the treaty, but it could never win ratification in the Senate.

Further more, federal law currently prohibits any cooperation with the ICC. Once again, this could be overturned, but that is yet another roadblock.

It is a matter of some controversy whether or not the ICC has jurisdiction over nations that are not parties to the Rome Statute.

The US and Iraq are not parties to that treaty.

Even if that is not an issue, the ICC only has jurisdiction when the home states have failed to prosecute or impose justice domestically. This would make it the implicit position of the Obama administration to have opposed prosecution. That would make it even harder for them to justify to the extradition of a former President of the United States to an international court that the United States is not a party to.

Its just not realistic.