When he's out of office he can no longer try to claim immunity as a head of state or government official. Nor can he claim immunity as former state official, as international law does not recognize such immunity in the case of international crimes including the crime of torture.
Does this apply only outside the United States?
2007-11-14 13:40:54 · 20 answers · asked by Enigma 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not martial law, but that ranch in Paraguay might come in handy... Paraguay does not have an extradition treaty.
2007-11-14 14:18:53 · answer #1 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, Bush has not committed any war crimes so I don't think he will do anything.
However, the immunity normally attaches to acts AS HEAD OF STATE.
For example, Ahmadinejad, current President of Iran, participated in the invasion of the US Embassy of Iran in 1979, commiting robbery of US property and kidnapping, holding US citizens hostage for 444 days. Because the US Embassy is considered US territory (LIKE ALL embassies anywhere are their own country), Ahmadinejad committed crimes under US law on US territory, and could be prosecuted in the United States if anyone had any guts.
He would NOT be immune, because he was NOT a government leader THEN when he committed those acts.
However, if Bush (or Ahmadinejad) committed an act AS THE HEAD OF STATE that fell within the scope of the immunity, he would CONTNUE to be immune for the rest of his life.
That is, the ACTIONS are immune because they are actions running the government.
War crimes are considered NOT immune EVER. So if Bush had committed any war crimes, he would not be immune now or ever, because a head of government is considered to NEVER have the right to exceed his authority by committing war crimes.
However, note that all of this is very controversial and relatively new. Even though the Nuremberg Trials were 60 years ago, these are STILL novel ideas that have not been fully shaken out in every detail.
2007-11-14 14:16:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You present an intriguing scenario but if the UN really felt GW Bush was a war criminal UN troops would be fighting us on the ground in Iraq. The fact that the US contributes the most UN troops might preclude a fair assessment of the situation.
Bush isn't in the category of a Mussolini or Hitler although he certainly has pushed the goodwill the world has felt towards us to the limit. And while we are now in the unique position of actually being chastised by a few world leaders nevertheless they will not interfere at this stage in the game. Should we start looking at Iran that might be a different story. Iran does have a few allies in the world.
2007-11-14 23:58:15 · answer #3 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Declaring martial law would do absolutely nothing for him IF he was brought up on war crimes. Martial law is implemented in times of extreme crisis, and it gives overriding power to the POTUS within America.
And if GWB was accused of war crimes, he would have to voluntarily give himself over to the UN for prosecution, or he would have to be forced to appear. That would involve the US government arresting him and handing him over (which i think is unheard of in history) or another government coming in and taking him (highly doubtful that will ever take place either).
2007-11-14 14:12:41 · answer #4 · answered by timothystrain 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Martial law, very possible. Though perhaps not for the reason you state. More likely it would be implemented in reaction to a "terrorist" attack or maybe a natural disaster. We could even see a "postponement" of the presidential elections in conjunction with martial law.
2007-11-15 02:22:40 · answer #5 · answered by mazeman25 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
along with his ineffective pursuits for powers, Bush might desire to do exactly that! with the intention to make valuable that he might desire to extend his ineffective lead over u . s .. Or the subsequent president might could try this, besides. while they're going to locate that the rustic which would be after his partition, will locate itself in a deep down, to the floor like and riddled with the inflation and deficit he will bypass away at the back of.
2016-09-29 06:31:19 · answer #6 · answered by roberds 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow look at these morons talking about u being a top-contributer and stuff.
this man is dangerous so if he really feels that he might get triad, he would do anything to escape or even if it means harm to cheney and his oil buddies.So we just have to wait and see even if we try him he is a big fish it would be really hard to get a conviction.
We just hope this man gets what he deserve
2007-11-14 16:13:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I don't believe so because your forgetting there are more powerful people in the US and if they have to have Mr. Bush serve time - so be it . Just look at Nixon the man was set up , plain and simple .
2007-11-14 15:48:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
he may but it will on the orders of his NWO controllers , martial law can only be introduced in the aftermath of an emergency so the real question might be will the NWO stage another false flag attack or induce say a bird flu scare or something similar ? that would get the sheeple to run willingly their own slaughter chute?
2007-11-14 13:51:56 · answer #9 · answered by celvin 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Bush is not guilty of war crimes and he will not be declaring Martial Law, now Hillary Clinton on the other hand would declare Martial Law if she had the chance.
The only chance Bush ever had of becoming a Dictator was on September 11th, 2001 and he never did that at all.
2007-11-14 13:55:22 · answer #10 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 1⤊ 6⤋