Obama does not need to prosecute Bush, he just needs to sign onto the ICC

[Fireweed247]

I keep seeing people discussing whether Obama should prosecute Bush, how it would cost too much money, be too divisive....

All Obama has to do is sign onto the International Criminal Court(which should be his first official act as president) and hand Bush over...

"With Australia's John Howard and Britain's Tony Blair now out of office and George Bush starting to count his final days as US President, human rights and other international law organisations are beginning to line-up with submissions to the International Criminal Court to have George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard charged with various international law offences that include Crimes Against Humanity, breaches of the Geneva Convention, Laws of War as well as breaches of numerous other international laws and conventions."

http://www.thecheers.org/article_2757_Bush-Blair-and-Ho...

[tekisui]

1. That sounds like a reasonable and great approach.

[theboss]

25. Until you actually, like, think about it.

Who is going to arrest Bush so he can stand trial?

[tekisui]

26. Who arrested Pinochet?

Who arrested the Nazis?

[theboss]

27. The Court in Chile where he lived

The Israelis have their own system for dealing with ex-Nazis - and it is one that I am not exactly comfortable with, though I understand their position. Thankfully, that is a chapter that is nearly closed at this point.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Actually, Pinochet was first arrested in Spain.

That's why it's called the INTERNATIONAL criminal court.

[Fireweed247]

31. You mean putting them into power in the US?

Some punishment.

[Richardo]

2. Yeah, that'll happen.

Right after the introduction of the milk-powered automobile.

[Fireweed247]

9. It is not that far fetched of an idea...

Clinton Administration Policy Toward the ICC

* Supported the creation of the ICC in principle.

* Conditioned US ratification of the Rome Statute on special concessions and protective measures for US nationals.

* After failing to secure immunity for US nationals, made an unsuccessful attempt to limit the jurisdiction of the Court to cases that had been referred to it by the Security Council, and therefore to interpose the US veto power as a check on the Court's power.

* Voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute in Rome on July 18, 1998, but continued to participate fully in all subsequent negotiations.

* Signed the Rome Statute on December 31, 2000, but said that it would not recommend that its successor send it to the Senate because of "significant flaws."

* Said that "signature will enhance our ability to further protect US officials from unfounded charges and to achieve the human rights and accountability objectives of the ICC. In fact, in negotiations following the Rome Conference, we have worked effectively to develop procedures that limit the likelihood of politicized prosecutions. For example, US civilian and military negotiators helped to ensure greater precision in the definitions of crimes within the Court's jurisdiction."



Bush Administration Policy Toward the ICC

* Strongly hostile to the Court due to ideological opposition to an international court that the US doesn't completely control.

* Withdrew the US from all ICC negotiations after April 1, 2001.

* Nullified the Clinton administration signature on the Rome Statute on May 6, 2002.

* Refuses to participate in the Assembly of States Parties as an observer state, unlike every other major non-state party, including Japan, China, Russia and Israel.

* Signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), which, subject to broad presidential waiver authority, purports to prevent the US from cooperating with the ICC, authorizes the US to use all necessary means to free US personnel detained by the Court, mandates the withdrawal of military training and assistance from countries (except major allies) that join the ICC, and requires the US to withdraw from major peacekeeping operations unless US personnel receive immunity from the ICC.

* Conducting a vigorous campaign to pressure states to conclude bilateral agreements preventing the surrender of US nationals to the Court or face the cessation of US funded military aid under the ASPA, as well as unrelated funding. Affected states include NATO accession countries, members of the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, countries that provide peacekeepers to help maintain regional security in Africa, and countries that are key partners in the fight against global terrorism and drug trafficking.

* Using the US position on the Security Council to undermine the ICC by, on the one hand, carving out jurisdictional exceptions for peacekeepers and, on the other hand, challenging the inclusion of all constructive references to the Court. For example, even after the UN bombing in Baghdad, refused to allow language recognizing the ICC's criminalization of attacks against humanitarian aid workers as war crimes to be included in a resolution on that topic.

* Refuses to join any consensus resolution in the UN General Assembly recognizing the existence of the ICC.

[Richardo]

12. You can copy and paste all you want, Obama will never 'hand over' Bush

[Fireweed247]

13. all he has to do is sign on

and the world will do the rest.

[Richardo]

17. It will never, ever happen

If charges were brought and indictments issued (which can take DECADES, and only if the Court deems it worthwhile), what law enforcement organization will go to the Bush's house and arrest him? What are the odds that the Secret Service will let that happen? I could go on and on.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. OTOH, he'd spend the rest of his life being unable to leave the country

because he'd be arrested as soon as he set foot on foreign soil.

Not much of a restriction on someone who never goes anywhere, but just the knowledge of it is satisfying. As for those in the administration who might LIKE to visit foreign lands, it would be all the more galling for them.

IIRC, there are indictments against Kissinger outstanding in more than a couple countries, preventing him from ever setting foot there.

[theboss]

19. He ain't gonna sign this

No US President will.

[NEOBuckeye]

33. People said an African American would never be President, either.

Change happens. The US isn't as powerful as it once was. Even if Obama doesn't want to do it, he may be forced to hand over Bush to the ICC because of international pressure.

[TahitiNut]

16. "milk-powered automoibile"???

Well, that explains all the boobs I see on the highway.

[EFerrari]

3. The problem I see is that American money won't want this

because globalization makes them too vulnerable to the ICC themselves.

[Pavulon]

7. ICC is vulnerable

just a tool for others to interfere with us policy. US citizens are tried in the US.

[bdamomma]

4. I only wish to get the ICC involved.

[Pavulon]

6. Never going to happen

us citizens are not tried in this manner. Part of your rights as a citizen of this country.

[mymessageboardid]

15. Like Padilla?

[Pavulon]

20. E Stanton..

Abdullah al-Muhajir (jose p) was convicted in open court. Now living a happy life in ADX.

A. Lincoln's sec war was a bastard:

The prisoners for better security against conversation shall have a canvas bag put over the head of each and tied around the neck, with a holes for proper breathing and eating, but not seeing.

History is cool, read it.

[Pavulon]

5. No us president will

sign this agreement, ever. It is not good policy and can present problems for any administration. Us criminal systems deal with us citizens, not external courts that do not provide the same protection as the constitution.

[tekisui]

8. What protection does the ICC lack, that our Constitution has?

[Pavulon]

10. Trial by peers

appeals process, etc. Basic con law covers this. WE DO NOT hand citizens over to foreign courts.

No administration will sign into that, ever.

[Fireweed247]

11. we have proven we are so much better than everyone else

US law, the Constitution is being ignored, that is why we need outside help!

[Pavulon]

23. Nope. We need to follow our rules

not trash them and get a new set.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. But US citizens are arrested overseas for crimes in foreign lands

all the time.

ICC could issue indictments making the Bush crew vulnerable to arrest if they fall into their jurisdiction. Also, once ICC has issued indictments (as I understand it) that would enjoin the US to arrest the suspects themselves, i.e., the arrest of Milosovic, who was indicted by the international war crimes tribunal and then arrested in his own country, and initially tried there before being transferred to the Hague; or Pinochet, who was arrested in Spain, but then returned for trial in Chile when they agreed to indict him there.

The only way, after signing on with the ICC, to prevent them from trying any of the Bush crew arrested would be for us to agree to try them ourselves.

Just how are we better than Serbia or Chile, when they will try their war criminals and we will not?

[Romulox]

14. ICC allows for Double Jeopardy, for one. That's a deal breaker. nt

[theboss]

18. Um...not so much

I don't see any president agreeing to the ICC.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. "American Exceptionalism" will prevent Obama from signing on.

Politics trumps justice every time.

[theboss]

22. The ICC is laughable...who is going to serve warrants?

I want to see some UN swat team involved in a shootout with Bush's Secret Service Detail.

That will be super.

[cobalt1999]

24. No administration will EVER turn over a previous President to an international court.

I'll win the lottery before that happens.

[Fireweed247]

29. Hitler would not have like the ICC either

But it was created for maniacs just like him, whose home Country failed to bring him to account.

We have failed.

Bush seems to fear the Hague himself...or he wouldn't have asked for the "Bomb the Hague" bill

"President-elect Obama is the living embodiment of what human rights can do—the product of Brown v Board of Education and the achievements of the civil rights movement in the 60s. His victory is greeted by a world where suddenly the American flag is waving not burning, in the expectation that he will somehow right the wrongs of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, of Bush administration defiance of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions. There is no doubt that Team Obama is committed to global justice: how can they re-engage with the struggle to achieve it?

Firstly, by supporting the International Criminal Court. The treaty establishing it was signed by President Clinton before he left office; a petulant George W. Bush “unsigned” it, then approved the American Serviceman Protection Act (Jesse Helms’ “bomb the Hague” bill) which empowered him to use force to free any American charged with war crimes. This puerile behaviour continued for several years, with the U.S. threatening to withdraw aid and military support from any country that joined the court. "
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-...