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

[Santa]

Ok this based totally on hearsay hence i have no facts.
a friend of mine said that according to UN law USA attacked and murdered civilians and occupied a country without reason( which they admitted) and bypassed UN authorisation(hence crimes against humanity) and hence the "responsible party" should be arrested and judged in an international court.
If this is true - who should be arrested and judged? Bush?
If this is true - why has this not happened?

My buddy later stated that UN is too afraid to empower this law - hence he speculated that Norway should invite Bush, for the Nobel Peace prize. Once he enters the country he will be immediatly arrested.
What would happen then is that the UN would deny any relation to Norway - but norway having enough Oil aka cash to last them plenty of decadent years would be able to withstand boycotts etc. Holland for example would not last. Ofcourse all neighbouring countries would crawl away from norway.
Yet in the begining after some seriously heavy diplomatic "talk" - norway could not release Bush out of "principle".

and what would happen after the preliminary diplomatic "nogiations" failed?

Is it true that according to UN law that the attacking and occupying of a foreign country is against the law and should be judged?

[Busyman]

Ok this based totally on hearsay hence i have no facts.
a friend of mine said that according to UN law USA attacked and murdered civilians and occupied a country without reason( which they admitted) and bypassed UN authorisation(hence crimes against humanity) and hence the "responsible party" should be arrested and judged in an international court.
If this is true - who should be arrested and judged? Bush?
If this is true - why has this not happened?

My buddy later stated that UN is too afraid to empower this law - hence he speculated that Norway should invite Bush, for the Nobel Peace prize. Once he enters the country he will be immediatly arrested.
What would happen then is that the UN would deny any relation to Norway - but norway having enough Oil aka cash to last them plenty of decadent years would be able to withstand boycotts etc. Holland for example would not last. Ofcourse all neighbouring countries would crawl away from norway.
Yet in the begining after some seriously heavy diplomatic "talk" - norway could not release Bush out of "principle".

and what would happen after the preliminary diplomatic "nogiations" failed?

Is it true that according to UN law that the attacking and occupying of a foreign country is against the law and should be judged?
Norway would also be crushed.

Saddam wasn't a good man by any stretch and I was/am against our soldiers being there.

However, there is no evidence that we are there stealing oil or installing a puppet regime to benefit us. They could easily tell us to GTFO after their government is up and running.

Now if Norway were to take our President, I would be all for kicking their government's ass.

[Santa]

You have not answered the question
did USA break UN law?
(and if so why has there been no "judging")

[Busyman]

You have not answered the question
did USA break UN law?
Show me the UN law.

[Santa]

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/

[j2k4]

It depends on what you mean by "could they", Zed.

"Could they" in theory?

Absolutely.

In practice?

Nah.

Was Saddam guilty of crimes against humanity?

Unless Kuwaitis, Kurds and other Iraqis don't count, you bet.

Did they arrest Saddam?

Nope.

For what reason did they fail to arrest Saddam?

Aside from any normal inclination, because they hadn't the wherewithal, same as with Bush; their stance is further compromised by the fact they have no ability to create the proper international consensus to move aggressively for custody, and there is no way in Hell they could muster the moral authority to expect his unilateral surrender, as they are certainly not without taint.

I mean, look at the Human Rights council.... :lol:

Anyway, there is a totally speculative answer to your equally speculative question. :)

[Santa]

could should would
ok break it down hard
Has the USA broken an International Law of which it should be convicted of, for occupying Iraq?
Yes
or
No?

edit more precisly

y.e.s

or

n.o

?

[Peerzy]

Yes, it has broken UN law and Bush should be arrested along with a number of advisers, Tony Blair and a few other people. However it's not going to happen just because of who he is.

The answer to your question is: Yes!

[Santa]

Thank you Peerzy for your precise answer.

Ok

Now that we have established that the US has broken the international law of "rights".

How do we go about putting the the wrongdoer in jail.
Who exactly is responsible?
Who should arrest this person(s)?
Who should judge?

[Peerzy]

The US has broken loads of UN rules. For example the US invaded because Iraq had WMD's or so they say? America has WMD's and they don't even bother to hide it, but if say France invaded the US to disarm them the US would blow the shit out of France and start a nuclear war.

The US and Bush have become to powerful to be stopped by anyone, not even the UN has the balls to really stand up to them.

[peat moss]

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

[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 ! :lol:

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 ! :lol:

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. :P

[peat moss]

In fairness to Zed this topic has been debated behind closed doors at the UN for years. Its a kangaroo court with no power and should be disbanded .

At the very least rethink their membership requirements . China ,Cuba , Russia one side , Usa on the other and the rest in between . How the fuck is that going to work ?

Ever look at the list ?


http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html


.

[Busyman]

@busyman you have still not answered the question
Be more Pacific and not Atlantic.

Where's is this law in you link?

[BawA]

Ok this based totally on hearsay hence i have no facts.
a friend of mine said that according to UN law USA attacked and murdered civilians and occupied a country without reason( which they admitted) and bypassed UN authorisation(hence crimes against humanity) and hence the "responsible party" should be arrested and judged in an international court.
If this is true - who should be arrested and judged? Bush?
If this is true - why has this not happened?

My buddy later stated that UN is too afraid to empower this law - hence he speculated that Norway should invite Bush, for the Nobel Peace prize. Once he enters the country he will be immediatly arrested.
What would happen then is that the UN would deny any relation to Norway - but norway having enough Oil aka cash to last them plenty of decadent years would be able to withstand boycotts etc. Holland for example would not last. Ofcourse all neighbouring countries would crawl away from norway.
Yet in the begining after some seriously heavy diplomatic "talk" - norway could not release Bush out of "principle".

and what would happen after the preliminary diplomatic "nogiations" failed?

Is it true that according to UN law that the attacking and occupying of a foreign country is against the law and should be judged?

UK has simmilar law, they arrest any person whos participated in war crimies, thats why sharon doesnt visit UK, blair himself said that he wont guarantee that sharon wont be arrested by autrosies. but why not bush?

[Busyman]

Ok this based totally on hearsay hence i have no facts.
a friend of mine said that according to UN law USA attacked and murdered civilians and occupied a country without reason( which they admitted) and bypassed UN authorisation(hence crimes against humanity) and hence the "responsible party" should be arrested and judged in an international court.
If this is true - who should be arrested and judged? Bush?
If this is true - why has this not happened?

My buddy later stated that UN is too afraid to empower this law - hence he speculated that Norway should invite Bush, for the Nobel Peace prize. Once he enters the country he will be immediatly arrested.
What would happen then is that the UN would deny any relation to Norway - but norway having enough Oil aka cash to last them plenty of decadent years would be able to withstand boycotts etc. Holland for example would not last. Ofcourse all neighbouring countries would crawl away from norway.
Yet in the begining after some seriously heavy diplomatic "talk" - norway could not release Bush out of "principle".

and what would happen after the preliminary diplomatic "nogiations" failed?

Is it true that according to UN law that the attacking and occupying of a foreign country is against the law and should be judged?

UK has simmilar law, they arrest any person whos participated in war crimies, thats why sharon doesnt visit UK, blair himself said that he wont guarantee that sharon wont be arrested by autrosies. but why not bush?
What's the autrocity?

[Cheese]

UK has simmilar law, they arrest any person whos participated in war crimies, thats why sharon doesnt visit UK, blair himself said that he wont guarantee that sharon wont be arrested by autrosies. but why not bush?
What's the autrocity?

You two are as bad as each other. One seems to have committed an atrocity trying to spell "authorities" (though she might have meant "atrocities"). The other can't even spell "atrocity".

[Busyman]

What's the autrocity?

You two are as bad as each other. One seems to have committed an atrocity trying to spell "authorities" (though she might have meant "atrocities"). The other can't even spell "atrocity".
Purposefull

[Cheese]

You two are as bad as each other. One seems to have committed an atrocity trying to spell "authorities" (though she might have meant "atrocities"). The other can't even spell "atrocity".
Purposefull

:shit:

[ziggyjuarez]

It would be best just to wait for him to end his term.Hell why start a war when hes almost gone.^%g

[Busyman]

Purposefull

:shit:
I actually misspelled my misppelling incorekly. I mint to say autrosities. :lol: :lol:

[JPaul]

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

I have to re-iterate what busyman asks.

What "crimes against humanity" are you talking about, what law is he said to have broken and what gives the UN the jurisdiction to arrest him for allegedly breaking this law.

Unless one clarifies these points then it's really not possible to answer your question.

[j2k4]

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

I have to re-iterate what busyman asks.

What "crimes against humanity" are you talking about, what law is he said to have broken and what gives the UN the jurisdiction to arrest him for allegedly breaking this law.

Unless one clarifies these points then it's really not possible to answer your question.

Quite right, that.

I made the mistake of leap-frogging one absurdity to speculate on another... :huh:

[whypikonme]

I made the mistake of leap-frogging one absurdity to speculate on another... :huh:

The hypocrisy in your remarks is breathtaking, you ridicule the notion that your precious president could be held to account for the atrocities he has ordered, whilst calling for the opposite for others, you must truly believe that some god or the other blesses the USA.

[j2k4]

I made the mistake of leap-frogging one absurdity to speculate on another... :huh:

The hypocrisy in your remarks is breathtaking, you ridicule the notion that your precious president could be held to account for the atrocities he has ordered, whilst calling for the opposite for others, you must truly believe that some god or the other blesses the USA.

Or rather your own idiocy is displayed in it's rawest form for failing to note that where Saddam wasn't really even pestered by your beloved U.N., you now wish to start a war in order to stand on "principle".

Whatta putz you are, Why...me.

[whypikonme]

you now wish to start a war in order to stand on "principle".
.

Who wants to start a war? Seems to me it's your lot who wants to start all the wars, on the principle of "Might is right".

Well thanks very much, as well as slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians, you've also made the whole world unsafe for those innocent people your country has not yet targeted.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Of course, it'd be naive to think otherwise. That the US isn't governed in its actions as the world's only superpower.
The US government uses its might to primarily further its own interests, often regardless of civilian casualties in the areas it operate.
Just look at Iraq. Was it really necessary to go to war? Sure it was, Saddam had WMD - purely a propaganda initiative from the US to get its people to accept the war. Even Powell admitted they never had any evidence for it, and I surely don't need to tell you people this as its widely known, and accepted....

Of course the government is now trying to cover itself as instigaing peace and democracy - which is surely a consequence, after thousands of dead, but was never the reason for war.

The US is the only country where a government could start a war for the wrong reasons, and still get away with it. The real power is so far away from the ordinary man, which can do very little other than to vote for two alternatives at the elections every 4 years.

If not put on trial in an international court, the american people - if they have any notion of democracy - ought to trial Bush themselves. When you look at the impeachment against Clinton in comparison, the fact that such a thing has not yet occured is a sad joke.

[ahctlucabbuS]

And just as such, if the UN had any say in the matter, all the reason they'd need is to trial Bush for crimes against his own people; Lies, deception, and propaganda surely is a crime in a supposedly democratic country.

[Busyman]

Of course, it'd be naive to think otherwise. That the US isn't governed in its actions as the world's only superpower.
The US government uses its might to primarily further its own interests, often regardless of civilian casualties in the areas it operate.
Just look at Iraq. Was it really necessary to go to war? Sure it was, Saddam had WMD - purely a propaganda initiative from the US to get its people to accept the war. Even Powell admitted they never had any evidence for it, and I surely don't need to tell you people this as its widely known, and accepted....

Of course the government is now trying to cover itself as instigaing peace and democracy - which is surely a consequence, after thousands of dead, but was never the reason for war.

The US is the only country where a government could start a war for the wrong reasons, and still get away with it. The real power is so far away from the ordinary man, which can do very little other than to vote for two alternatives at the elections every 4 years.

If not put on trial in an international court, the american people - if they have any notion of democracy - ought to trial Bush themselves. When you look at the impeachment against Clinton in comparison, the fact that such a thing has not yet occured is a sad joke.
What a great post!!!!

Sadly we have too many brainless automatons to spark such an effort.

I mean right after no WMD was found the conservative right rolled right along with the "but we must bring peace to Iraq. That's why we're there."......crap....1800 dead soldiers and billions of dollars later.

This is why when a conservative says Clinton was a much worse President, they are pegged brainless, by me.

The UN, however, lacks teeth and has lacked teeth for years. If they were to try to arrest our President, I'd be all for fucking the UN. They sure have and have had other fish to fry than to all-of-a-sudden choose a popular target.

[JunkBarMan]

If not put on trial in an international court, the american people - if they have any notion of democracy - ought to trial Bush themselves. When you look at the impeachment against Clinton in comparison, the fact that such a thing has not yet occured is a sad joke.


I applaud your post and find it right on the money for the most part.

This part is flawed in my eyes, as it requires that first the House of Representatives to vote articles of impeachment(formal charges) against the President and then the President is tried by the U.S. Senate.

So let's just say for arguements sack that these two things miraculously happen; do you really think that Dick Chaney would be a better president?
For that matter, is Dick Chaney an innocent in this matter?

In all honesty, I thought hitting Iraq in the beginning, going under the assumption of WMDs, was a good if not great idea. Once, the idea about WMDs was proven false and the shit hit that fan about it, I like a lot of other people really didn't know what to do(think).

So what should be done now about the U.S. occupation of Iraq, now that the rat's nest has been disrupted? Just get up and leave?

People didn't just start to get bombed after the U.S. invaded Iraq.

Seems like to me that the groups responsible for these bombings are just really pissed that the U.S. fucked with their program and now just want to retaliate on everyone.

So just sit there and let these people keep doing what their doing and their crimes against humanity, or maybe the world should do something about them.

George Bush is a fucking idiot, Americans are fucking idiots.

We don't seem to be doing the job, so who the fuck else will stand up and do it?

The fact remains that something needs to be done about these people.

That's right, let's just leave it alone and the problem will go away. Besides that bumbling idiot George Bush needs to be tried and convicted, let's do that instead. Come on now, please.

[lynx]

So let's just say for arguements sack that these two things miraculously happen; do you really think that Dick Chaney would be a better president?
For that matter, is Dick Chaney an innocent in this matter?It shouldn't be done because Cheney would be a worse president, or he may not be innocent? That's the worst possible argument I've ever heard.

It's because you continually let your administration off the hook that they get ever more powerful, and ever more distant from the public. Start making them answerable for their actions and you might just get someone stepping forward who is worthy of the position, rather than someone just interested in feathering their own and their cronies' nests.

[JunkBarMan]

So lets go from the the corrupt to the corruptor? How is that a better argument is all I am asking.

Lynx, or whoever, if you think fixing America just means replacing one idiot with the next one in line, then you are no different then the American public, because I think this is exactly what most Americans buy into. It called job security for those at the top. They have the good life and they do everything to protect it by feeding that type of BULLSHIT to the general public.

Changing how things run at the top won't be fixed over night, i.e. impeaching Bush, it must change in who we elect on the basic city and state levels. That way when those *better* people work their way up, the country will be better as a whole.

So take what you want from my post, your perspective is however you want it to be. But, that isn't what I was saying at all, not the heart of the matter at least.

Americans don't control who gets impeached, the House and Senate do. Last time I checked, Bush/Chaney has both of those chocked full of their cronies. So if you want a bad agrument, well then, there's one for you.

[j2k4]

So lets go from the the corrupt to the corruptor? How is that a better argument is all I am asking.

Lynx, or whoever, if you think fixing America just means replacing one idiot with the next one in line, then you are no different then the American public, because I think this is exactly what most Americans buy into. It called job security for those at the top. They have the good life and they do everything to protect it by feeding that type of BULLSHIT to the general public.

Changing how things run at the top won't be fixed over night, i.e. impeaching Bush, it must change in who we elect on the basic city and state levels. That way when those *better* people work their way up, the country will be better as a whole.

So take what you want from my post, your perspective is however you want it to be. But, that isn't what I was saying at all, not the heart of the matter at least.

Americans don't control who gets impeached, the House and Senate do. Last time I checked, Bush/Chaney has both of those chocked full of their cronies. So if you want a bad agrument, well then, there's one for you.

Astoundingly lucid post.

Don't see much of that in here.

You wouldn't by any chance be (other-than-American)?

It sure would help. :huh:

[Rat Faced]

The hypocrisy in your remarks is breathtaking, you ridicule the notion that your precious president could be held to account for the atrocities he has ordered, whilst calling for the opposite for others, you must truly believe that some god or the other blesses the USA.

Or rather your own idiocy is displayed in it's rawest form for failing to note that where Saddam wasn't really even pestered by your beloved U.N., you now wish to start a war in order to stand on "principle".

Whatta putz you are, Why...me.

J2...

Why did Bush Snr feel the requirement to hire a PR firm to 'sex up' the evidence against Saddam to Congress prior to Desert Storm?

[Rat Faced]

@ Junkbarman..

Cheney isnt protected by the "Head of State" rules, go for him 1st.

THEN go after Bush after the Congresional elections (unless they use the same rigged voting machines for these, in which case your stuffed for the forseable future) :lol:

[DrBeerMan]

w/ out reading anything but the thread topic. i say WHat do you think! And If the answer is yes, then do you really think that would ever happen?
Bush is = to OJ simpson X10000

[j2k4]

Or rather your own idiocy is displayed in it's rawest form for failing to note that where Saddam wasn't really even pestered by your beloved U.N., you now wish to start a war in order to stand on "principle".

Whatta putz you are, Why...me.

J2...

Why did Bush Snr feel the requirement to hire a PR firm to 'sex up' the evidence against Saddam to Congress prior to Desert Storm?


Are you sure you're not thinking of Blair?

Why would G.H.W. Bush have needed to "sex-up" Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? :huh:

[JPaul]

I have to say I thought it a strange point.

Is there some doubt as to whether he (via his military obviously) actually invaded Kuwait.