The USA refuse to recognise the International Criminal Court obviously through fear of facing prosecution.
International law clearly states that it is illegal to invade a country with the aim of deposing a soveriegn govt.
The USA have done this twice in recent years with both Afghanistan and Iraq.Both countries had terrible regimes but there are many countries throughout the world with leaders just as bad.
Should the International Criminal Court prosecute Gerorge Bush anyway? whether he chooses to appear or not.
2006-09-25 05:01:26 · 31 answers · asked by rosbif 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
To Turboweeg
It is estimated that up to 48000 INNOCENT Iraqis not INSURGENTS or military have been killed since the invasion.That's a lot of "self-interest"
2006-09-25 05:34:37 · update #1
Turboweeg.
There would not be an insurgency or suicide bombings if the invasion had not taken place.
How's that for a fact?
2006-09-26 02:55:54 · update #2
he shuold at least be investigated,let the courts decide if he should be prosecuted
2006-09-25 05:04:48 · answer #1 · answered by sasuke 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The US does not recognize the ICC not because of fear but because of self interest. The US is a superpower, what is the point of being one if you cannot do as you please?
That said it would be better if Bush were tried in the US. Although technically he didn't break any laws. He lied or "stretched the truth" as some would argue, but that was in public conversation not under oath. That is the main difference between Clinton and Bush. While Bush's lie was much more consequential it was not in a formal arena.
2006-09-25 12:47:35 · answer #2 · answered by sbcalif 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
suggest pay increase for troops and vets
contact sens levin - 202-224-6221
& warner - 202-224-2023
agree that freedom to consent
to sex at age 14 legally in canada,
missouri, iowa, and s. carolina is an
abomination that must be abolished.
call extremists terrorists instead of islamic...
investigate and prosecute the communists
who say they're jews, but are not... who
sodomize, pimp and abort children of israel.
reduce aids. allow gay marriage and outlaw
promiscuous sodomy.
child molesters should be ,`,`,arked
on the face, tethered, castrated and
given phrikken labotomies.
condemn and abolish legal minor sex abuse,
prostitution, child abortion, mandatory idf
service in israel. dissolve the federal reserve
and return to gold standard.
president bush - 202-456-1111
sen specter - 202-224-4254
sen santorum - 202-224-6324
sen kennedy - 202-224-4543
sen kerry - 202-224-2724
rep ron paul - 202-225-2831
sen lugar - 202-224-4814
sen mccain - 202-224-2235
next spkr of the house rep pelosi - 202-225-4965
2006-09-25 12:26:03 · answer #3 · answered by redreverser 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if there is a straight answer to your question but one thing we should all consider before we answer it is - Do we live in the 'Free World' and the answer to that is Yes we do! We can go where we want and more importantly say what we want. The loss of all those lives is terrible but maybe (who knows- we can only hope) will not have been in vain. So as long as I remain living in the 'Free World' then there are a lot of people who can be indicted long before George W.
2006-09-25 13:57:05 · answer #4 · answered by Drummer 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I always found the idea of the ICC to be humorous and childish. I suppose there's some international sheriff, with an international posse and international district attorneys?
We refuse to grant any power on the ICC to be able to sit in judgement of the actions we take in the self-interest of our sovereign nation.
So, where's all the clamoring for bringing Clinton to this court for his unprovoked attack upon Serbian civilian targets in order to overthrow their government? Or his unprovoked bombing of Iraq in 1998? How about his overthrow of Aristide in Haiti?
Just curious about how deep your delusions go.
-------------
Most of those dead Iraqis have been killed by the insurgents and foreign terrorists, dude, not US forces. The insurgent and terrorist bombings have been killing around 1,000 people a month for the past 3 years. Facts, dude, facts.
2006-09-25 12:17:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I think the very least that should happen is an Independent Counsel. Let the republicans get a taste of their very own Ken Starr.
2006-09-25 12:09:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Screw the "International Court" Why are so many willing to give up being their own boss to the 1 world government. Hell, most of them like the uN is just a crooked bunch of theives.
And if that law says that, who wrote the law and who said we were going to obey it.
2006-09-25 12:31:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes. he is the worst President ever. Invading countrys and killing innocent people, that's what he does the best. In what right does he have to do those things?
2006-09-25 12:13:20 · answer #8 · answered by CaNTFiNDmeLOVE 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes! Along with all others in the house of congress that gave him the green light to proceed!
2006-09-25 12:14:08 · answer #9 · answered by bulabate 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-09-25 12:29:59 · answer #10 · answered by brian2412 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think that he should. He's not special - he should face up to the same laws everyone else would have to. If Saddam invaded the US to depose Bush, he'd have been straight to Quantanimo!
2006-09-25 12:04:57 · answer #11 · answered by babyeddieuk 3 · 6⤊ 2⤋