Do you think it should be legal for a criminal to decide to not go to court and remain free?

Question

Bush unilaterally pulled out of the International Courts, proclaiming them to have no jurisdiction in the US, right when they had started investigating him for 31 charges of war crimes.

You can read the tribunal decision in it's entirety at:

http://www.mindfully.org/reform/2004/afg...

Just for the record, the Constitution explicitly states that all international law and any treaties that are signed by the President and approved by a 2/3 majority of the House and the Senate is to be considered the highest law of the land, equal in power to the Constitution. The US were intrumental in founding the International Courts, and have brought charges against many countries in International Court.

The International Court is there to protect everyone from rogue nations that act in ways that anyone with a conscience would day is wrong. That is why Bush was found GUILTY on 33 charges of War Crimes and Crimes against humanity.

oops sorry...that link died. hold on, I'll get another one

here you go. Sorry for the inconvenience

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm

It amazes me how some people in this country hate democracy so much! And how ignorant they can be! Bush pulled out of the International Court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21981-2005Mar9.html

That's a right wing newspaper.

Also, Bush was served twice, as detailed on the site I put up earlier. First time through the Embassy, second time in person at the White House.

It's not little countries that make international law. It's everyone together, and if you ever bothered to find out what the International Courts are about, you will see that the laws are self-explanatory stuff that anyone with a conscience would agree with...like not going into an innocent country and killing off the civilians. If you bothered to read the post, you would see that all of the charges make sense. Do you think that Hitler should not have been tried for war crimes? do you think that the leaders of all countries should be able to do whatever they feel like without consequences?

Don't forget that our own Supreme Court (the majority of which is Republican) has ruled that several of Bush's actions are uncostitutional and are war crimes by US law. I love the US, therefore, I don't want to see an unelected "president" turn it into the rogue nation that it has become...unilaterally attacking soveriegn nations that were no threat to us, while repeatedly allowing the one person that did attack us to go free, use of illegal WMD on civilian populations, etc. And yes, DU has been illegal under US law since 1996.

Answer 1

The Washington Post Article you cite addresses the Bush Administration's decision to withdraw from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In pertinent part, this protocal addresses the rights of criminals--accused of crimes in countries to which they are not citizens--to access diplomats from their own countries. Defense attorneys cite this protocal in death-row appeals fairly extensively when, e.g., a Mexican national is convicted of a capital crime in the United States.

The Bush Administration never actually signed onto the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague (Holland). This treaty entered into force in July 2002. And the ICC in the Hague is the first permanent international body established to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Bush Administration refused to sign onto the Rome Statute citing concerns that U.S. military personnel and others working for the government in foreign countries could be unjustly turned over to the court by politically motivated parties. It tried to negotiate bilateral agreements with member nations to exempt U.S. personnel in their countries from court jurisdiction. This story was hot toward the end of 2004. Again, the Bush Administration did not withdraw from this Court, the United States simply never signed the treaty.

This actually became an issue when the United States sought to prosecute Saddam Hussein for War Crimes. I believe the ICC wanted jurisdiction. The UN refused to accept the trials in Iraq due to concerns that Iraq permits the death penalty.

The International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo was a citizen's tribunal. It is unconnected with the International Court system instituted as a result of treaty. This two year project was initiated by Akira Maeda, a professor of international law at Tokyo Zokei University, and a broad group of people in Japan from labor unionists to members of the parliament. They took it very seriously and appointed amicus curaie personal to respresent George Bush's treaty. But Bush's failure to appear and defend himself at this Court is not analogous to a criminal electing not to appear at a State Superior Court or federal district court when charged with a crime. It's more akin to a group of citizens setting up a "kangaroo court" for lack of a better term to try "criminals" who they feel the regular court system has failed to prosecute.

No country recognizes the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal at Tokyo for anything. The "draft statue" was put together in 2003 and modified in 2004, but no country has signed onto this "statute." If the world wants to try George Walker Bush for war crimes, it's going to do it in the ICC at The Hague (over 100 countries have signed onto the Rome Statute, so a judgement by the ICC is going to be widely recognized internationally as valid).

The Tokyo tribunal is a really cool project a bunch of very bright people put together. And they took it really seriously when they did it. I guess you're pretending its an actual court judgment to make a point, but I think you're being a bit misleading when you fail to let people know the background behind this "judgment."

Answer 2

Hello, I am a retired Police Officer here in the US and I can confirm to you that these types of records, for the most part, are not available to the general public. You won't be able to obtain them for free. That's the reality of it. Even if you came into the station for a particular police report to which you have a right to possess, you are often required to pay a small fee at the clerk's counter for the paperwork. There are however, to my knowledge, just a couple LEGITIMATE services that have full access to these types of records, and OFFICIAL approval/certification to provide them. The one which comes to mind is http://www.echeck.pcti-system.com - and if I recall correctly, They do provide these records at a relatively small cost.. especially considering the highly personal, confidential, or otherwise sensitive nature of the information within. Here you will find things such as:

Reverse Phone Search
Criminal Records
Inmate Records
Sex Offenders
DUI/DWI Records
Court Records
Arrest Records
Warrant Records
Police Records
Address History
Death Index
Marital Status
Relatives and Associates
Property Records
Felonies and Convictions
Alias and Date of Birth
Business Search

http://www.echeck.pcti-system.com

The only other way to obtain this type of information is to be working in certain areas of the public sector, such as Police work. Please do not use this any information you may discover for malicious purpose, as many States do provide criminal penalties under statutory law for certain acts regarding invasion of privacy. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

I never saw Bush at the international court .I never heard of someone going to the White House & serving him with a warrent like most people , How come no one arrested him & a judge set bail like they do with most criminals.Are you saying the United States is a rogue nation?We are the only nation that would allow you to speak such garbage about a public figure.In anyother country YOU would be arrested & either spend the rest of your life in jail or be put to death. Either love this country or leave. I WILL not miss you.

Answer 4

Laws are funny, depending on who makes 'em. I surely don't want to be accountable to some Arab nation laws that make it a crime for me to show my arms or face in public. This International Court you refer to ain't made up of like minded people I would be friends with, so NO, I don't think any of our citizens should be held accountable to the whims of a foreign court's decisions. Hey, I bet I'll have an Iranian Fatwa on my head if they find out about me.

The United States withdrew from International Court's jurisdiction in 1986, by the way.

Answer 5

Criminal Record Search Database : http://www.SearchVerifyInfos.com/Official

Answer 6

Bush makes his own laws

Answer 7

a person who broke the law should be punished. enough said.