UN to prosecute Bush?

[JackLuis]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Official_UN_may_prosecute_Bush_administration_0122.html

"The UN's special torture rapporteur called on the US Tuesday to pursue former president George W. Bush and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners."

What ?

 

[cloudy]

Yep, heard about this one night this past week...maybe Wednesday.

 

[Huckleman2000]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Official_UN_may_prosecute_Bush_administration_0122.html

"The UN's special torture rapporteur called on the US Tuesday to pursue former president George W. Bush and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners."

What ?

Yes. Other civilized nations in the world take torture and prisoner abuse pretty seriously. Older nations preserved the horrific torture chambers of their past, and people are reminded how easily it could be themselves.

 

[Liar]

What ?

Surprised?

 

[JackLuis]

Surprised?

Why yes, I am, surprised that the UN has the balls to even consider it. They are usually gutless wonders todying up to who ever pays thier bills.

It will be interesting to see if they follow through with the inditement.

My guess is it will be debated in the backrooms and then the Secty Gen, will quash it.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Why yes, I am, surprised that the UN has the balls to even consider it. They are usually gutless wonders todying up to who ever pays thier bills.

It will be interesting to see if they follow through with the inditement.

My guess is it will be debated in the backrooms and then the Secty Gen, will quash it.

There will be much sound and fury that will signify nothing because the UN has no jurisdiction and no power. The international court has yet to send down an indictment even in the cases of genocide in Africa. Quit giving the UN credit for what it isn't.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Get back to us in, say, 4 years, and let us know how it fares.

 

[JackLuis]

There will be much sound and fury that will signify nothing because the UN has no jurisdiction and no power. The international court has yet to send down an indictment even in the cases of genocide in Africa. Quit giving the UN credit for what it isn't.

VM, I don't think it will come to anything. And the UN is based on credit they just don't have the moral power to do anything without the subsidy of the major members.

I put this up to see what you all thought about the questions raised.

Could a World Body actually procecute Bush for war crimes?
What woud be the response of the US Governement?
What would be the response of the EU governments?

And last but not least, In the 21st Century, is there a new world order that can effect change across international boundries?

If the UN could indite Bush, why not Mugabe?

 

[Huckleman2000]

VM, I don't think it will come to anything. And the UN is based on credit they just don't have the moral power to do anything without the subsidy of the major members.

I put this up to see what you all thought about the questions raised.

Could a World Body actually procecute Bush for war crimes?
What woud be the response of the US Governement?
What would be the response of the EU governments?

And last but not least, In the 21st Century, is there a new world order that can effect change across international boundries?

If the UN could indite Bush, why not Mugabe?

I don't know that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest will ever wind up in The Hague. But I wouldn't be surprised at all if some nations, even some allies, indicted them in absentia, severely restricting their international travel. I think the chances of this go up exponentially if the US doesn't do something itself.

 

[oggbashan]

Amnesty International has criticised the UK for some of its actions as part of the War on Terror, for example by allowing CIA flights of Extraordinary Rendition to use UK possessions and air space.

They have also criticised some of the UK troops' actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Amnesty's criticisms of the UK are mild compared with their condemnation of what the US did under President Bush.

But they are still very mild compared with their criticisms of many African and Asian countries.

Og

 

[Liar]

If the UN could indite Bush, why not Mugabe?

Speaking of which, did anyone ever manage to convict or indite Pinochet of anything before he croaked? From what I remember, that proved to be a legal sinkhole.

I think the best and only plausible action to convict Bush and ilks of anything woud be civil suits in American courts, by former Gitmo detainees or torture and rendition victims.

if that went through and produced a sentence or two, the current administration could claim "Hey look, the Rule of Law works", without having been directly involved in the political quagmire of it all.

 

[JackLuis]

Speaking of which, did anyone ever manage to convict or indite Pinochet of anything before he croaked? From what I remember, that proved to be a legal sinkhole.

I think the best and only plausible action to convict Bush and ilks of anything woud be civil suits in American courts, by former Gitmo detainees or torture and rendition victims.

if that went through and produced a sentence or two, the current administration could claim "Hey look, the Rule of Law works", without having been directly involved in the political quagmire of it all.

I posted a thread about this.
[I]Dave Lindorff: The Way Forward on Holding the Bush/Cheney Administration Accountable for its Crimes [/I]
"That said, I would argue that there can be a good case made, both legally and politically, for the convening of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission, which could put all key people in the last administration on the stand and under oath and klieg lights to explain just what they did and why.

 

[trysail]

"Elie Wiesel, writer, survivor of Auschwitz and Nobel Peace Prize winner, came to see [ Condoleeza ] Rice on February 27 [ 2003 ] and the president dropped by her office. Rice moved to the couch so the president could take the chair closest to Wiesel.

Wiesel told the president that Iraq was a terrorist state and that the moral imperative was for intervention. If the West had intervened in Europe in 1938, he said, World War II and the Holocaust could have been prevented. 'It's a moral issue. In the name of morality how can we not intervene?...'

... In the face of such evils, neutrality is impossible, Wiesel said."


-Bob Woodward
Plan of Attack
New York, New York 2004.

 

[JackLuis]

"Elie Wiesel, writer, survivor of Auschwitz and Nobel Peace Prize winner, ---
... In the face of such evils, neutrality is impossible, Wiesel said."


-Bob Woodward
Plan of Attack
New York, New York 2004.

It depends on which grassy knoll you pick to defend I guess. That Bush belived him is the issue.

 

[DesertPirate]

VM, I don't think it will come to anything. And the UN is based on credit they just don't have the moral power to do anything without the subsidy of the major members.

I put this up to see what you all thought about the questions raised.

Could a World Body actually procecute Bush for war crimes?
What woud be the response of the US Governement?
What would be the response of the EU governments?

And last but not least, In the 21st Century, is there a new world order that can effect change across international boundries?

If the UN could indite Bush, why not Mugabe?

Other than disease prevention by the World Health Organization, an anyone point out to something the UN has rver done that saved a life, anywhere? This is the same bunch of corrupt useless clowns that let millions be murdered in Rwanda.

THE UN can be defined like to a boat.
A boat is a hole in the water into which one throws money.