If what the US and Britain have done is illegal should the UN file official

[Toots]

Charges against the two countries? Since the US is cutting it's funding to the UN to try and intimidate it into acquiescing toward American interests should the UN retaliate by officially charging the US with International Crimes or what world body does that sort of thing? It is becoming more apparent every single day that what the US did and is doing is against International Law. Who will stand up and officially charge the USA?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. The administration and the repukes...

Don't like to recognize international law. Remember: the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court.

[spanone]

2. Why do you think the US is so vigorously going after the UN

in the food for oil scandal? Bushco HATES the UN. They actually have some oversight on this vile administration.

[jamesinca]

3. The U.S. pulled out of the ICC

They also asked to have a special period of time when they would not be charged with crimes during the "war on terror" and it was granted. That crime free time zone has since expired and was not renewed if I remember correctly. It came up for renewal right after the stories of Abu Gharaib prison made the news, the U.S. did not ask for an extension. Personally I think removing the U.S. as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and replacing them with another country such as Japan would do more to remind the US of what their place is in this world. If anybody presses charges it needs to be based on principle and the law. Otherwise they would be acting like John Bolton and George Bush.

I think Tony Blair is the most vulnerable to a hearing at the ICC. Britain did not pull out of the international treaties, he is not excused nor has he asked for one.

[Toots]

4. I am not suggesting that charges not be based on principles of law

Because of the US's unique role in the world it is largely given a pass on most of it's activities. Sometimes it takes a little jogging to get the world to act in accordance with law. Sometimes it takes a lot of jogging such as in Rowanda or Iraq. All I am suggesting is that by behaving like we are against the UN we may just incite them to act where they might not have done so without the US becoming the bully. I believe International Laws have been broken and am just wondering who might the DA be.

[kittenpants]

6. that is such crap

why do we have to be a part of that agreement in order to be charged. our gov't is still guilty. Punish us!:spank:

[Spazito]

5. As a charter member of the UN, the US is subject to the UN charter

and that is re-stated in:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441

§ 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

Link:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

The US did not sign on to the ICC but that does not mean that bush cannot be charged under it. If the United States does not hold bush responsible for war crimes under it's own laws as per Title 18,and the ICC charges bush, he would, then, be unable to visit any country that is a signator to the ICC as he would be subject to extradition to the Hague, conditions that currently exist for Henry Kissinger under the previous ICJ, I believe.

blair, on the other hand, would be subject, directly, to the ICC as the UK is a signatory to the ICC.

[rustydog]

7. Fuck Britan, sorry brits, but we need to take care of our own

Every American outraged by Bush's illegal killing Field of Dreams
need to write and call our legislators and demand formal hearings investigating Bush, Cheny, Rice, Rumsfeld et al for high crimes and misdemeanors and begin impeachment procedings.

This Administration is a disease and it has weakened the host body: America.

we need to remove the disease surgically. legally but surgically remove these bastards from power.

[DFLer4edu]

8. The UN would look ridiculous in the US if it did

As much as I would like to send Bush to jail for war crimes, it isn't going to happen while he's in office. If the UN tries to try the US with war crimes it would be seen as foreign interference in American politics. The "logic" would go: They couldn't stop the war so now they're going to call it illegal? If it was illegal why wouldn't they have stood up and said it was illegal before/when the war started? So what does the UN really do? Apparently nothing.

They should let a 2006 electoral backlash take care of the republican party.