No, I don’t think this is at all likely. This is hypothetical.
Here’s some scenarios:
Mr. Bush, on a trip to a country he reasonably but mistakently assumes to be friendly–Great Britain, say–finds that a change in Prime Minister results in his arrest. He’s sitting in a very gilded cage while the matter of his extradition to the Hague is debated.
Mr. Bush, while visiting a country where he should have known better than to show his face–Venezuela, say–is arrested and sent to the Hague.
Mr. Bush is is out working on his ranchwhen a group of highly trained mercs drug him and and abduct him to an overseas location. His secret service detail is so incompetent because he hand-picked them.
If the International Criminal Court requests his extradition, I would fully support U.S. law enforcement doing so. Should they fail to do so, I would fully support the appropriate authorities coming in and getting him.
I do not, of course, anticipate that this will happen.
Nor I. But I was wondering how many American Dopers would be willing to let their personal antipathy towards Mr. Bush override concerns for the well-being of the nation as a whole Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not a fan of our current president; I think he’s an odious, self-deluding, incompetent zealot. But I think Americans still have an interest in protecting our sovereignty.
No offense, Skald, but you’re awfully impressed by the unilateral might of the Hague. The World Court has yet to effectively convict (or even indict) a sitting (or, for that matter, former) First-World official. Am I forgetting somebody?
I’d be happy with either of the first two scenarios, but not with the last. Much as I’d like to see the asshole held accountable. (Which isn’t likely to happen on this plane of existence. But, once he’s in front of that 400-foot high faceless Jesus in the Jack Chick comics – watch out.)
There is a fourth, and perfectly legal and even possible way to get Bush for international war crimes.
The rules of the International Criminal Court says they can only prosecute member nations and the US is not a member nation.
BUT…
They do allow prosecution of people from non-member states on an ok from the UN Security Council.
The US has a permanent seat on the Security Council and a veto. So on the face of it this would seem a non-starter.
However, suppose Obama becomes president. He could direct our UN Ambassador (or whoever it is that sits on the security council) to not block a Security Council resolution to send Bush to the ICC. Our guy can abstain or whatever.
I think it is safe to bet everyone else on the security council would probably go for it. Maybe the UK would block it on their own but if our President was down with it I expect they’d let it go.
And voila! Bush in International Criminal Court!
Thing is, would any US President ever contemplate such a thing no matter what he thought of the previous president? Starts a dangerous precedent. I frankly doubt Obama would let this happen and I think if any politician would consider it it would be Obama.
I don’t think you are. I believe I wrote above that this is entirely hypothetical, and that my true interest is how my fellow American liberals would react to the violation of our sovereignty. I don’t mean to dismiss those on the other side of the aisle; it’s just that their reaction is fairly predictable.
I’d be quite happy with any of the three scenarios. Even better would be the Iraqis grabbing him, trying him for mass murder and executing him.
As others have said, no; we do it all the time.
America is the same country that elected him twice; he is simply the figurehead of the greed and malice that is America. After watching America elect him twice, I feel no concern at all for the well being of America.
But I would like to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and perhaps others arrested (at the appropriate time) by agents of the US government first and charged with any crimes they may have committed. I see no reason why we can not choose to cooperate with the ICC even though we are not members. We can also choose to cooperate with Germany. Do they still want Cheney for war crimes?
I just want them to have a good chance to clear their names, of course. Don’t they want to do that? I’m sure they have nothing to hide.
As I noted in Post #9 the ICC could, legally and within its rules, prosecute Bush if the US let it happen.
I have issue with your laundry list though. Make no mistake I have no love for Bush & Co. but I wonder how far down the line you can go with this. Frankly Congress dropped the ball big time as well. You could make an argument, I think, that many in Congress by capitulating to Bush on this are guilty too (republicans and democrats). Where do you stop?
As much as I would like to see Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice and Rove (to name a few) held to account I think we need to start and stop with Bush. Although I think he is a spineless patsy utterly controlled by his keepers ultimately he is the one who bears responsibility.
I would no more want to see George Bush illegally abducted to face criminal charges in some foreign country than I would want to see it happen to his father or Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.
I’ll admit however that it would be much more ironic if George Bush was illegal abducted.
I think my position is pretty clear. That said, if you feel Mr. Bush needs to prosecuted, and that he is the puppet of his “handlers”–by which I presume you mean VP Cheney in particular–how can you justify not prosecuting both of them?
Has there actually been a sitting president in recent years that has not been threatened war-crimes charges? I recall Cambodia was threatening to bring them against Nixon and even Carter for facilitating that whole Khmer Rouge episode.
My answer to the OP’s question is that my reaction would be: “Oh great, a bunch of money is about to be spent on a lengthy proceeding that won’t result in a conviction.”
Savour the irony.