Forget impeachment, lets pressure the ICC to bring

[clydefrand]

formal charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against "*'
Going international bypassess the republican congress. The democrats should present a case with all the available documentation to the ICC.

[serryjw]

1. NOW you are talking my language

Impeachment is a joke. I want them all to be tried at THE HAGUE

[Kenergy]

2. I agree...skip the formalities and just

send Bush, Cheney, Rumsfailed and Rice to the Hague.
They're murderers.

[Donnachaidh]

3. Yes! All of them!

Bush, Rove Cheny, Rumsfeld and Rice. That's the starting line-up.

[Sam Odom]

4. and ALL the Senators

giving * the go ahead

[Totally Committed]

5. Updated: Great article on the subject:

The jury is is out on whether an American President can be brought to The Hague and charged with War Crimes or Crimes Against Humanity.

Edited to add this information:

Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted July 10, 2006.

U.K. military leaders had been calling for clear assurances that the war was legal under international law. They were very mindful that the treaty creating a new International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague had entered into force on July 1, 2002, with full support of the British government. Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the defense staff, was quoted as saying "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in The Hague."

Ferencz quotes the British deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry who, in the lead-up to the invasion, quit abruptly and wrote in her resignation letter: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution … n unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."

While the United Kingdom is a signatory of the ICC, and therefore under jurisdiction of that court, the United States is not, thanks to a Republican majority in Congress that has "attacks on America's sovereignty" and "manipulation by the United Nations" in its pantheon of knee-jerk neuroses. Ferencz concedes that even though Britain and its leadership could be prosecuted, the international legal climate isn't at a place where justice is blind enough to try it -- or as Ferencz put it, humanity isn't yet "civilized enough to prevent this type of illegal behavior." And Ferencz said that while he believes the United States is guilty of war crimes, "the international community is not sufficiently organized to prosecute such a case. … There is no court at the moment that is competent to try that crime."

As Ferencz said, the world is still a long way away from establishing norms that put all nations under the rule of law, but the battle to do so is a worthy one: "There's no such thing as a war without atrocities, but war-making is the biggest atrocity of all."

The suggestion that the Bush administration's conduct in the "war on terror" amounts to a string of war crimes and human rights abuses is gaining credence in even the most ossified establishment circles of Washington. Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling by the Supreme Court suggests that Bush's attempt to ignore the Geneva Conventions in his approved treatment of terror suspects may leave him open to prosecution for war crimes. As Sidney Blumenthal points out, the court rejected Bush's attempt to ignore Common Article 3, which bans "cruel treatment and torture outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

And since Congress enacted the Geneva Conventions, making them the law of the United States, any violations that Bush or any other American commits "are considered 'war crimes' punishable as federal offenses," as Justice Kennedy wrote.

Entire Article:

http://www.alternet.org/story/38604/

TC

[Totallybushed]

6. Excellent idea from

a moral authority perspective.

But the ICC will never be able to obtain jurisdiction of their persons. If they did, do you think Belgium could protect the Hague from an all-out assault by the United States Marines, Delta Force, and the 101st Airborne to rescue them?

I sincerely doubt that even a President Gore, Kerry, or Clinton would be anxious to set a President of American Presidents answering to international authorities for using American military might.

Yea, I know the devil is in the details. There would be a lot of difference between the way they would use such power and the way Bush has been using it. But still, I think I am correct here.

However, if anybody has a reasonable scenario where they would, I'd be interested in hearing it.