Why isn't G W Bush being tried at the Hague as a war criminal?

Answer 1

No one has filed charges against him (yet)

Answer 2

Well, despite the fact that he should be, he hasn't actually declared war (yeah, the other branches no longer have to check and balance the executive, or so it seems; stupid, eh?), nor has he committed what the U.N. would consider a war crime. I don't know the rules for the Hague, as to whether one would have to be a part of the U.N. or not to be tried as a war criminal, so I can't say anything on that topic. Honestly, I had never heard of the Hague before this question (lol, I'm a typical teenager, what can I say?). That, and the U.N. actually supported the war. Oil for them all around! It's only a shame that soon the oil will run out, and we won't have any other alternative fuel. So much for those huge SUVs.

susi, you do have a poing, but I never said he did. How could he, when he nominates who is in the Supreme Court?

I suggest looking up what the Supremem Court originally was intended for.

And by the way, can people please not bash the democrats or republicans? We're all mature here, so no need to act like children. We can speak eloquently to express our dismay. Besides, we're all fighting on the same side: the American people. Thank you.

Answer 3

particular, he ought to. besides, if he has not something to hide why ought to he difficulty approximately status trial? the main suitable wingers on right here have been somewhat chuffed to work out the shoe thrower get 2 years reformatory so as that they of course have faith interior the Iraqi judicial equipment. by the style, right here interior the united kingdom the only people who believed in WMD's have been the pro-conflict politicians. each physique else who had observed the project knew that Saddam had none left. they had the two been used against the Kurds, (with the tacit help of the US and uk), or they had grow to be degraded over the years. besides, the place did they arrive from initially? america of a! all the scientists, all the weapons inspectors, all the newshounds knew there have been no WMD's, yet Bush and Blair needed their conflict so the 'large lie' grow to be unfold. human beings ignore that Saddam grow to be the darling of the West...and a chum of the US, in basic terms before the 1st Gulf conflict.

Answer 4

1) He isn't a war criminal.

2) The Hague does not have jurisdiction over the United States.

Answer 5

Because he isn't. If he was, he would be on trial. Why are you wasting 5 points on this question, when you already know the answer? To be political pain in the ****?

UPDATE: Greetings from Iraq!! After reading a lot of the responses I must add unless you've been to, or served in Iraq you have no right to speak like you have first hand experience....YOU DO NOT!

You can only gather your 'professional military intellegence' information from a news agency! You have no other source, except the media!

I won't get into detail because I cannot, and should not - but trust me - seeing what I see here, it's a DAMN good thing we came here. There is evidence of so much wrong doing it's putting the CORRECT WAR CRIMINALS to justice....everyday. We found more people guilty of war crimes based on blatant evidence against them, and they will swing!

So unless you think these jokers are in the right, or innocent in your narrow ultra liberal anti-American view....I suggest grabbing a rifle and walk the wall with me! C'mon down! I bet you won't because it means a chance you might die for your beliefs! Tell ya what....I and others like me will continue to do it for you. Just stay home. We got it!

Answer 6

Nowadays, it is claimed that the development of warfare enhanced the notion of self-defence. For instance, the Israeli attack in 1981 against the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq has been portrayed by Israel as preventive action. U.S. President George W. Bush's doctrine on preemption refers to potential threat over time caused by 'rogue states' with weapons of mass destruction. However, the problem of determination of the imminent and extreme threat remains the subject of disputes. Many states do not support the idea of preemption since it theoretically could apply to any alleged threat years on the future.

Answer 7

Last time I checked, the United States is not a party to the international war crimes tribunal, meaning they have no jurisdiction over any US official. Also, you must be charged with war crimes before being tried. President Bush has not been charged with war crimes, so there is no need for a trial.

Answer 8

It's all technical

He thinks if he doesn't declare war he can't be a war criminal.

He brings this up when he tosses stick for me to chase. Little does he know I'm writing a tell all book to be out Jan 20 2009

Grrrr

Answer 9

He just may be, I hope so, Bush , Cheney, Rice, Rumsfield just the whole caboodle have done war crimes. Republicans say on Answers they haven't done any war crimes, what more can they do to become war crimes. They have gone committed and broke all the rules but yet the Republicans say they haven't done anything. I'd hate for them to do anymore , WHEW.

Answer 10

Because Clinton never got charged with Treason for selling Nuclear Secrets for campaign money from China.

Answer 11

The US would never allow for one of its leaders to get ponied around the Hague, not in a million years.