WHOM would you like to try and imprison Bush for War Crimes?

[tom_paine]

Poll question: WHOM would you like to try and imprison Bush for War Crimes?

3000 + soldiers dead for a lie

50,000 + soldiers maimed and crippled

500,000 + innocent Iraqis killed

$3,500,000,000,000 more in debt

America's reputation for truthfullness gone

respect for America plummeting everywhere

America's position as world leader gone

So many actionable felonies easily provable. Where to begin? But the question here is WHO should begin?

Impeachment aside, and assuming this occurs AFTER Chimpler leaves office, WHO should get to try and imprison the cabal?

I will speak first for my own beliefs, which some may say provincial, but for good or ill are my own. I believe that Bush's crimes should properly be tried in the USA. For though his crimes are against humanity, he is one of our own and it should be up to us to mete out the law to a tyrant.

Also, I share a certain queasiness about the structure of international law and it's application as it pertains to the present day. I understand the validity of the Nuremburg Trials and so forth, as well as the necessity of international tribunals, but in this case (and given that the Busheviks' have done great damage, but they have not set the world aflame anything close to Hitler-level) I think it is best served if the trial of Chimpler happens here and the justice meted out by Americans.

I am going to speak "DU treason" and say the horrid Freepers do make a decent point (one in a million, but there you have it) when they correctly point out that there never seemed to be any crimes against humanity tribunals against the Soviets.

Second, I will try to give the other side a good speech: There is a strong argument for an international tribunal since the crimes of the Imperial Family and Chimpler/Cheney have long since gone beyond the scope of being merely crimes against America and Americans but against the world and humanity.

There is the proud tradition of Nuremburg to uphold, carried on to this day in war crimes tribunals like Milosevic.

I am sure the proponents of this side will fill in additional arguments to support their cause.

So, here's the poll. Vote away! And don't be shy about telling everyone what you think the sentence of said trial hould be either.

Again, I will be happy to go first: Orange jumpsuits for Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and DeLay (among others). 25 to life at the Supermax facility in Colorado alongside the other Mafia Dons and their loyal buttons.

[karlrschneider]

1. I get your point but the question is posed really badly...

??

[tom_paine]

7. I don't understand what you mean. Please make suggestions...

...while my editing time window is still open.

In what way is the question unclear? How can I improve it?

[pocoloco]

2. How about both?

[dipsydoodle]

3. Supermax sure - but forget the jumpsuits

Dress them all up in women's clothes with wigs and make up.}(

[mike_c]

4. it MUST be an international tribunal for the same reason...

...that Nuremberg was an international tribunal. Justice for crimes against humanity is bigger than than the jurisdiction of any single nation. The NEED for such justice cannot be served by a single nation's courts.

[badgerpup]

5. Actually, both would be favorite.

Crimes both domestic and international.
If we- America- are going to regain any credibility with the rest of the planet, then Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and probably quite a few others must be tried at the Hague in the World Court.

[Minnesota_Lib]

6. How about an "impartial" Sunni court in Iraq?

Just kidding.... :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. He needs to be tried at both - we have to deal with him for crimes against America

And then, when that trial is done, ship him off to the Hague and let the world try him for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. I put down here because I'd love for Fitzpatrick to prosecute.

[tom_paine]

10. The internationalist streak runs strong here at DU. This is not a bad thing.

I generally favor internationalism, but not in this case, IMHO.

Clearly, I/we are not just in the minority, we are in the uber-minority. The Tiny Tim of minorities, it seems.

So be it. DU has spoken...a part of it, anyway.

[TahitiNut]

11. The ICC at the Hague is a court of last resort.

The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes.

It's also only applicable to signatories, afaik. Neither Iraq nor the United States are parties to the Rome Statute - the 104 nations. Afghanistan is, though.

Jurisdiction and Admissibility

The Court may exercise jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These crimes are defined in detail in the Rome Statute. In addition, a supplementary text of the “Elements of Crimes” provides a breakdown of the elements of each crime.

The Court has jurisdiction over individuals accused of these crimes. This includes those directly responsible for committing the crimes as well as others who may be liable for the crimes, for example by aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime. The latter group also includes military commanders or other superiors whose responsibility is defined in the Statute.

The Court does not have universal jurisdiction. The Court may only exercise jurisdiction if:

* The accused is a national of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court;

* The crime took place on the territory of a State Party or a State otherwise accepting the jurisdiction of the Court; or

* The United Nations Security Council has referred the situation to the Prosecutor, irrespective of the nationality of the accused or the location of the crime.

The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002. In addition, if a State joins the Court after 1 July 2002, the Court only has jurisdiction after the Statute entered into force for that State. Such a State may nonetheless accept the jurisdiction of the Court for the period before the Statute’s entry into force. However, in no case can the Court exercise jurisdiction over events before 1 July 2002.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/jurisdiction_admissibility.html

Since the US has veto power in the UN Security Council, there's virtually zero likelihood that they'd make a referral to the ICC. Some subsequent US President and administration would have to promulgate such a referral. What're the chances? (Zero or none?)

[Lilith Velkor]

12. I'm with you, except

...I think Bush, Cheney and Rummy should have hemp neckties to go with their jumpsuits.

[tom_paine]

13. OK, but they GOTTA be orange, too!

:hi:

[Lilith Velkor]

15. Nah...orange and hot pink go together well enough

:toast:

[tom_paine]

14. Shameless kick for the morning crew!

I am a glutton for punishment, eh?