Can someone explain why Bush can't be charged with War crimes?

[Imagevision]

sensible replies would be greatly appreciated...

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

[shraby]

1. Republican congress.

[Spazito]

2. He can be but, because the U.S. didn't sign on to the International

Criminal Court, he would not be extradited to face any charges as long as he stays in the United States or countries that have been bribed to not extradite anyone indicted by the ICC.

In essence, he can be charged 'in absentia' by the ICC ala Milosevic was prior to the institution of the ICC.

[longship]

3. US opted out of the int'l court.

Of course, that doesn't stop them from acting. But it does mean that as long as the neocons are in power there will be no accountability as the US government will insulate the neocons from any action. Of course, if The Hague acts, Chimpy and Company better not travel to any country that is still a signatory.

[Imagevision]

4. But what about the Constitution - Treasonous crimes and all that?

[mike_c]

5. treason is a whole other matter...

...and simply not in the realm of possility. Use findlaw.com if you'd like a nice discussion of the constitutional limits of treason and the history of court interpretations.

[firefox]

6. War Crimes Act of 1996

Chomsky wrote about the possibility of a death penalty for the war criminals under the War Crimes Act and I think the year was 1996. Congress is a collection of puppets to go along with the dummy in Residence. The system has a design to it crafted by the uber wealthy. That system is made to hold us in our place and keep the money evaporating up.

Under the new definition of conspiracy the drug warriors brought with them, it would be easy to assert that every last member of Congress is a war criminal too. As we storm the castle, you can be assured that all fascist troops have been summoned to defend the outer wall.

[Imagevision]

7. Firefox, thanx for info, I guess I can only hope for FITZ to indict him

for obstruction in Plame outing.

[Meeker Morgan]

8. Realistically?

The only time people have ever been charged with "war crimes" is when they are on the losing side of a war.

This war isn't over yet, and won't be for a while.

Get it?

[wli]

9. there are several salient points to make here

1. Heads of state are actually immune from prosecution by the ICC, but can be prosecuted internationally in other ways.
2. The withdrawal from the ICC was fake; Bushler erased Clinton's signature on a signed physical copy of a treaty, which has no legal force.
3. Domestic legislation can be used to prosecute him for war crimes also, not only in the US, but also abroad by various countries claiming universal jurisdiction on war crimes (e.g. most of Europe).

[Rex]

10. Because we no longer live in a free and fair society.

nt

[Orsino]

11. Because that would be accountability...

...and Bush never takes responsibility. Someone always bails him out, and he's off to ruin something else.

[OneBlueSky]

12. he can and should be . . . all it will take is a prosecutor . . .

with moral integrity and courage . . . does such an animal exist in our system? . . .