2006-09-16 08:13:37 · 30 answers · asked by Informed Liberal 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Zero. The US has not signed to the convention that gives the International Criminal Court any jurisdiction over US personnel.
2006-09-16 08:15:44 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why should he? I am tired of all the whiners out there. You better grow up. It is NOT a perfect world out there, and if we do not take whatever measures necessary to deal with it, then we will pay the price in blood. You think this is new? Actually read your history books. We have used Gunboat policy since the revolutionary war. Give peace a chance? Wish we could, but with people hating us for being westerners or Christian's, it will never happen. Do you think they will take Osama to the Hague and give him a fair chance? I hope not. What about the people beheaded, you wanna tell their family's it's wrong? I have lived outside of the USA In Germany, our alie, and let me tell you, even they are against us, they just fear us and our military. We as a nation can never back down.
2006-09-16 15:22:07 · answer #2 · answered by Common Sense 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
there are 5 questions that i ask of the person that posted the question
1 Did President Bush get his troops to BEHEAD ANY PERSON in public and say this is done in the name of JESUS CHRIST
2 Did President Bush tell the troops to hide out in a school full of children if they come under attack
3 Did President Bush tell the troops to carry out etnic cleansing
4 Did President Bush order the troops to become suicide bombers and walk into a public area full of women and children and blow themselves and the innocents up
The answer to all 4 is no ,Ask this, how come 12 million people in IRAQ can now vote how come millions more (especialy WOMEN) can vote in AFGHANISTAN.
One must remember the type of fighter that an American soldier is been asked to fight against and also what a agonising death that soldier faces if he is captured by these terrorists as giving those terrorists his NAME.RANK AND SERIAL NUMBER would not be enough when the world has seen video footage of what those terrorists do to cilillians never mind uniformed troops.
How many attempted attacks on the worlds free nations have been foiled as a result of getting information from captured terrorists .Sometimes the gloves DO have to be taken off and fire met with fire...its not pretty but its has to be done to do otherwise would be a severe disadvantage
the last thing i say is this.
How come there has been no terrorist attack (like 9/11) carried out in the USA in the last 5 years.I think GB is doing a great job in preventing such .and the next PRESIDENT is going to be faced with the same job
2006-09-16 16:55:16 · answer #3 · answered by SPEAK UP WAKE UP 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What crimes against humanity have there been. There are no direct targeting of civilians. It a war some civilians will die by accident. Thus far no humanitarian laws or international laws have been broken. Everything has been ok by the UN. Even the invasion of Iraq, before the war UN did vote a say that some means of action were needed to stop Saddam and his WMD. you can look than one up with the UN resolutions.
2006-09-16 15:17:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely none. Everything he has done up to this point, and most likely for the rest of this term in office, has been absolutely legal, no crimes against humanity have happened, and no conventional crimes have happened, that have been directly linked to him. And any that are indirectly linked to him, are either conspiracy theory, or are also linked to all politicians due to some technicality. (I wouldn't have a clue what though)
2006-09-16 15:34:32 · answer #5 · answered by The Crow 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None. Because he has done nothing wrong.
Stop reading propaganda.
Be glad we don`t recognize the Hague otherwise they could come and get you for anything they wanted to regardless of what our law says.
2006-09-16 15:29:28 · answer #6 · answered by Gone Rogue 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Impeachment Elsewhere:
None, the U.S. funds the Hague, UN, Etc... People like Bolton would have the Hagues nuts in a vice. We would have to start the impeachment process here first...
Impeachment Here:
None, because you have to have 2/3 Senate majority in order to move ahead with the impeachment process. At this point 2/3 of the Senate are Republicans who do not feel the need to impeach thier savior. This is why it is important for people to take Senate elections, like the one coming up, VERY SERIOUSLY! Vote Vote Vote!!!
2006-09-16 15:18:53 · answer #7 · answered by ragajungle 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
What are the chances the leaders of the muslim nations being put on trial for starting this whole mess to be begin with? Not.
2006-09-16 15:23:40 · answer #8 · answered by White Knight 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Two chances----Slim and none. No one has brought any evidence forward to support that claim. It is just a left-wing ploy of throwing the BS against the wall in hopes some of it will stick and hurt GW and his administration.
2006-09-16 16:19:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If, in November, a new Democratic Congress is elected, you can bet there will be impeachment talks. There is a good chance they will succeed, maybe not for Hague, but there are many other avenues they could take. 2007 will be interesting if the Democrats win.
2006-09-16 15:19:38 · answer #10 · answered by DallasGuy 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He does not have a passport. And never traveled abroad before he became dictator.
So the chances of him getting arrested by international police is slim.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-16 15:41:06 · answer #11 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋