2006-09-15 13:38:57 · 12 answers · asked by yoster 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes and no...
I will explain:
The International Criminal Court, ICC, is designed to complement existing national judicial systems... meaning the court can only exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.
For example, Bush was recently cited for war crimes and he appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court informed him that yes indeed he needed to alter his handling of the prisoners at G.Bay... they have a right to be charged and a trial.
Bush just last week, finally conformed BECAUSE if our judicial system had not corrected him, Bush would have then been charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court.
Get it?
In layman's terms, if a country fails to stop its leader, the ICC steps in and charges them. That is why you are seeing all the fuss about this issue right now between Bush and a few Senators.
You see, Bush is still fighting having to conform to International war crime rules. He recently has been trying to alter or create new legislation in an attempt to get around their rules.
So back to the original question where my answer was yes and no:
Yes in literal terms that criminal war actions have been committed
No in technical terms by the ICC rules which will only charge him if we, the USA, fail to prevent him from further war criminal behavior.
2006-09-15 17:52:34 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As defined by US federal law (18 USC 2441):
(a) Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(c) Definition. - As used in this section the term "war crime" means any conduct - (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; ... or (3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict;"
2006-09-15 13:40:48 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes to his own admission the CIA has secret prisons.Secret prisons were the red cross has no access are forbidden by the convention of Geneva so he admitted it himself.All the rest is baloney.
Possibility is this is not his only crime but this one is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2006-09-15 13:50:41 · answer #3 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The people that are leaving innocent people,s bodies littering the streets of Iraq are far worse in my opinion.
2006-09-15 14:42:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Boy, this one's original. No, he isn't. No, he shouldn't be impeached. No, there isn't anything he could be impeached on. No, he didn't steal the elections. Yes, I still like him. Yes, I voted for him twice. That should cover it for a day or two. See, seeing the same questions over and over again DOES irritate you!
2006-09-15 13:49:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
ys, but he could never be removed from power because the freemason and illuminati protects him.
2006-09-15 13:52:19 · answer #6 · answered by tony 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, no. If he were, maybe someone would stop the little imp.
2006-09-15 13:48:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, but you possibly are.
2006-09-15 13:47:00 · answer #8 · answered by Colorado 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes,,,, he has condoned war crimes publicly,,,,,, he needs a permanent vacation,,,,
2006-09-15 13:45:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why? did he shoot someone?
2006-09-15 13:40:52 · answer #10 · answered by Life after 45 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋