Can Bush be arrested for crimes against humanity by the UN?

[peat moss]

Crimes against humanity ? Lets start with the UN's council and cronies and their oil for money scam .

[Rat Faced]

Actually its a grey area.

As Bush was a Head of State he cant be.

However there are also former heads of State that have been arrested and are undergoing trial from the International Court.

Saddam isnt being tried by the International Court, hes being tried by the Iraqi's... much simpler legally speaking.

[Busyman]

i asked this question in the drawing room in hope of an answer

but here you have it
un law
http://www.un.org/law/

Be more Pacific and not Atlantic.

Where's the law in your link?

Also, didn't Saddam invade Kuwait years ago? Where was his arrest then? Did he not have crimes against humanity?

If sanctions were enough then for Saddam and he was trying to take over the country of Kuwait, how is Bush worthy of arrest when he is not trying to take over the country?

If the insurgents in Iraq wanted the US gone, all they'd have to do is chill out until after the election and we'd be gone. They can then mount a Coo Day Ta.

[Santa]

@busyman you have still not answered the question

[peat moss]

@busyman you have still not answered the question

Of course he could but who's got the balls to do it ? Norway......please !

Christ Airforce One, is bigger than that country . By the way what would Norway hope to gain ?

[j2k4]

Of course he could but who's got the balls to do it ? Norway......please !

Christ Airforce One, is bigger than that country . By the way what would Norway hope to gain ?

Which is precisely the point:

Could they?

To ask this unrealistic question is to risk the unrealistic answer.

To ask the question as a realistic proposal is to beg a response such as peat's.

To ask such a question seriously is to be seriously non-serious.

[Vargas]

they could bring it to a vote, but the US could veto it

[j2k4]

they could bring it to a vote, but the US could veto it

Another point arguing against unreality.

[ahctlucabbuS]

I doubt very much the UN can do much to punish the US, as long as they don't recognise the validity of the International Court.

Apparently there was a case some years back where there were produced massive amounts of evidence of American terrorist involvement in different countries, presented before the International Court.

The reason why the US refused to accept the International Court as a legal body is precisely because they knew these countries had rock solid evidence against them, and that in a trial they would most probably lose.

The information above is mostly taken from Noam Chomsky (freely from my head), an American linguist and political activist with solid and sound argumentations, which I happen to very much agree with.

Check out some of his "documentaries" and books on the matter (like for instance "Rebel without a Pause") - http://www.chomskytorrents.org/Torrents.php

The point though lies in the fact that the US don't acknowledge the International Court (and correct me if I'm wrong), which leaves the UN more or less incapacitated as far as any punishment of US terrorist activities goes.... I do not know who would be held physically responsible if such a trial were to commence, Bush one can hope.

[j2k4]

I doubt very much the UN can do much to punish the US, as long as they don't recognise the validity of the International Court.

Apparently there was a case some years back where there were produced massive amounts of evidence of American terrorist involvement in different countries, presented before the International Court.

The reason why the US refused to accept the International Court as a legal body is precisely because they knew these countries had rock solid evidence against them, and that in a trial they would most probably lose.

The information above is mostly taken from Noam Chomsky (freely from my head), an American linguist and political activist with solid and sound argumentations, which I happen to very much agree with.

Check out some of his "documentaries" and books on the matter (like for instance "Rebel without a Pause") - http://www.chomskytorrents.org/Torrents.php

The point though lies in the fact that the US don't acknowledge the International Court (and correct me if I'm wrong), which leaves the UN more or less incapacitated as far as any punishment of US terrorist activities goes.... I do not know who would be held physically responsible if such a trial were to commence, Bush one can hope.

Your deductions vis a vis the topic are apt and on-point.

Bringing Chomsky into matters marginalizes your post, but...well, I'll leave him to you.