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

[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...

[whypikonme]

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

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...

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.