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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%

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

---

Show me the UN law.

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/

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. :)

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

?

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!

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?

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.