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

[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

[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

I actually misspelled my misppelling incorekly. I mint to say autrosities.

[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.