Any reason why Bush WOULDN'T be liable for war crimes after he leaves office?

Question

I wouldn't go to Europe without a good lawyer if I were him. Or to Iraq without an armored division.

Actually, glen b, he violated the UN charter. That's the definition of a war crime.

jlas - LMAO!!! "Bush liking places of the world"? There aren't any!

Answer 1

The reason he wouldn't be liable is because he hasn't committed any. Plain and simple.

Answer 2

Give this a rest already!! Yes!! there are many reasons why President Bush will not be tried for war crimes after he leaves office. BECAUSE HE NEVER COMMITTED ANY!! Top criminal and political lawyers have already examined this inside and out and have found no wrong doing!! Give it up!! Hillary Clinton voted for this war, do you want to bring her up on war crime charges!? Plus with as much as you liberals are foaming at the mouth for this, I am sure that if there was any true basis for this, then you would have already done so. So please just support our troops the way they deserve, let them fight this war without UN control so they can win and come home!
Just a thought Longhaired Freak, after reading the majority of the answers here, are you starting to sweat? Looks like there are more true Americans than there are socialist liberals. No chance in a liberal getting in the white house in 2008 and we plan to change the control on congress and the senate as well! Your peace, make love not war era is about over. All of your liberal agenda is being exposed and we do not want a New World Order and the UN can go control some other weak country!

Answer 3

There are several reasons. First, I surmise you are referring to Bush being tried at the Hague. The problem being that the U.S. doesn't recognize the authority of this court, so that's a moot point.

As for him violating the UN charter, that doesn't really mean anything. Virtually every nation on earth has violated the UN charter at some point. Secondly, the UN charter also recognizes a nations right to sovereignty and to do whatever it wants within its own borders, as long as it doesn't violate international law.

Moreover, according to the UN charter, a nation has the right to defend itself militarily if attacked. Obviously, Bush's attorney's will argue that terrorism follows different guidelines so the rules of the UN don't apply. Lastly, the UN can't enforce its rules on its own members, how can you expect the UN to be effective at resolving any world issue. Sadly, this organization has outlived its usefulness.

Read the UN charter www.unitednations.org and then look at history you'll see how full of crap the UN is. Oh BTW after Bush leaves office he would be a private citizen and did not commit any crimes as a private citizen.

Answer 4

It is impossible for most liberals to understand no war crimes were committed. They are so negative about reality that looking at facts is beyond them. Perhaps He should have followed the liberal lead and just sat back and done nothing like Clinton did. Notice how the great new leadership in congress has done nothing since taking office?? That is how it will be if the libs get any other control. Talk for hours and get nothing done but make impressions on the Media and the corporations that send those big donations. Forget the protection for the people. That's the Lib way.

Answer 5

Greetings Princess! President Bush and the United States are not subjects of the UN. Just because a bunch of overseas airheads think that a nation defending itself is some kind of war crime, does not make the elected leader of a democracy under attack a war criminal. Wake up!

Answer 6

Although you can certainly disagree with his foreign policies...in this instance the war in Iraq he has not committed any war crimes.

Edit; what article was violated of the UN charter?

Edit; I assume you mean this one? Article II, Section IV: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

I still don't see how he could be held liable for war crimes. I'm sure the purpose/mission was clearly defined when he decided to attack Iraq and I would bet the dice and roll the farm that he had all these angles covered before declaring war.

Answer 7

Violating a UN charter is now a war crime? Wow, liberals have officially gone nuts.

Answer 8

Pot Head, FIRST HE NEEDS to commit a crime or a violation as president of the United States and he has not. You through out a U.N. Charter blast, but again just like everyone of your left wing NUT Anti-American Bush Hatred comments, you fail to realize that Saddam Broke 17 U.N. Laws for 17 Years, IT INCLUDE MUSTARD GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE and brutally killing those who oppose him, and the U.N. sat by and did nothing about it, U.N. Charter you Left wing nuts are getting desperate. I have told you it's your right as an American to disagree with the president but your flat out Hatred for Bush is really Un-American, Disagree is ok, Hatred Bad

Answer 9

Powerful Corporate Media.

Answer 10

He would only be liable for war crimes if he were stupid enough to visit a nation that does not have a cooperation agreement or treaty with the U.S. There are many parts of Europe that he can safely visit without any threat of arrest or charges being made.

Answer 11

Is there any reason he should be? There are no war crimes, that I'm aware of, that he was involved with.

Actually Saddam violated the cease fire agreement he signed after the Persian Gulf War and after 10 years of negotiating and an embargo President Bush took what he thought was appropriate action.