Skip to main content

View Diary: CONFIRMED: #OWS Surrounded Goldman Sachs HQ Chanting "Arrest George Bush" w/ GW Inside (292 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  memof - The Hague has no jurisdiction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic

    The Hague cannot try GWB, any of his cabinet, or any other American. We are not members of the ICC and to bring a non-member to trial would require the expenditure of more political capital than any of our European allies are willing to spend.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 06:25:54 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You're probably right as a practical matter, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      labwitchy

      but I think you're too glib. There is more than one way to bring a war criminal to justice, and it has been done against persons from states that are not members of the tribunal.

      "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." -- last words of Steve Jobs.

      by Timaeus on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 09:30:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Timaeus - it's just not going to happen (0+ / 0-)

        We are talking about the top executives of the United States and members of his Cabinet. No ally of the US is going to attempt to bring these people to trial for war crimes. And if some country starts to get serious one of three things will happen:

        The sitting US President at the time will put immense pressure on that country to stop the process. The former POTUS club is the world's most exclusive and they watch each others back.

        The target will be informed of whatever is happening and told which countries they cannot travel to while the effort is in progress.

        In any case the venue will not be The Hague. To bring an American to trial at The Hague requires an immense amount of process that would be profoundly embarrassing to the US. Any country who tried this would in effect, if not formally, sever their diplomatic ties with the US. Who would do that?

        GWB, Cheney, all the cabinet, and other close members of the cabal, will never be present at a trial for war crimes, nor spend a minute in jail for them.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 09:51:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read this. Thanks. (0+ / 0-)

          As I said above, you're very likely right as a practical matter. But things can change. The king of France lost his head. Gaddafi was pulled like a rat from a sewer drain.  I'm not so sure that GWB won't make some dumbass mistake that ends up with him in chains in an unexpected country.

          "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." -- last words of Steve Jobs.

          by Timaeus on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 09:56:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Timaeus - left to his own devices he might (0+ / 0-)

            but he has Secret Service protection for the rest of his life and they would never let him be in such a vulnerable position. Whenever he travels, and particularly if he travels outside the US, the Secret Service makes sure that they have the full cooperation of the the law enforcement agencies in the country he will visit. There is a lot of preparation and protocol that precedes any visit by a former POTUS to a foreign country. There will be no surprises for GWB.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 10:04:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no, the SS is limited to 10 years (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wasatch, OleHippieChick, Timaeus

              From the Secret Service Site:

              How long do former presidents receive Secret Service protection after they leave office?

              In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection.

              Republicans ARE cooties!

              by labwitchy on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 10:23:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  labwichy - thanks for the update (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                labwitchy, wasatch

                My guess is that W will hire a few of the retired Secret Service people from his detail to manage his security after his ten years are up. I had thought that W was the last life time beneficiary. Thanks for the facts.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 10:34:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  i heard canada wasn't very (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wasatch

            happy with bushbaby last week.  they were exploring a way to prosecute him through the hague.  not going to happen, i know, but, still, there are countries out there that aren't real happy knowing he's still running around loose like some demented yell leader.

            Republicans ARE cooties!

            by labwitchy on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 10:26:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The U.S. may still have enough power today (0+ / 0-)

            to prevent this from happening.  But our power is in rapid decline.

            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

            by lysias on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:13:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  War crimes committed on the territory (0+ / 0-)

      of a signatory nation can also give the ICC jurisdiction.  Was W not complicit in any war crimes committed in signatory countries?

      What about the torture in secret CIA and military prisons in Poland, Romania, Thailand, Afghanistan, Iraq?  What about the renditions from Germany, Italy, and Spain?

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:11:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  lysias - you have to look at the process (0+ / 0-)

        This is a political, not legal issue. Could the ICC establish jurisdiction, probably. The dominant members of the ICC are all NATO allies. To pursue a war crimes case against the former President of the US would require an ICC member with enough political clout within the ICC, and squeaky clean hands, to be willing to fracture its diplomatic relationship with the US. Who is that? And even if there was an indictment and trial the ICC has no right to extradite any American citizen, compel them to appear, or serve any sentence.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 09:40:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site