“Once he he leaves office, it’s difficult to think of any country Bush will be able to set foot on the tarmac (apart from Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait) where a posse won’t be waiting to haul him in for crimes against humanity. As president, his security apparatus can depopulate the streets of London or the Irish countryside to keep protesters unseen and unheard; as ex-president, his imperial desires will be less indulged, his protective bubble considerably shrunken.”
The always pithy James Wolcott raises the prospect that retribution for his war crimes may await G-dub,( a la General Pinochet), courtesy of the *grab’em where you can and try’em here jurisdiction enshrined in the European Union’s Charter of Human Rights.
Speaking as his attorney, do you warn former president Bush of potential war crimes exposure from his 8 years in office.?
Does **Balthazar Garzon have a growing dossier filed under Bush? Besides the easy conviction (waging an illegal war of aggression) we have variety of well documented Geneva Convention violations, the illegal establishment of the Transitional Government in Iraq, and several murders committed with sanction from the highest level of US Government.
It is widely recognized that Henry Kissinger avoids certain jurisdictions, out of a prudent concern for his personal freedom.
What would your advice be to ex Pres. Bush, in the ***unlikely event he wanted to nip over to Pamplona for the running of the bulls?
Should he be apprehensive about apprehension? If Kissinger is fair game, why not Bush?
One was consigliere to a war criminal, the latter caporegime for a criminal enterprise. (Let’s be fair, the Godfather is Cheney…)
My advice, speaking as his attorney, would be to stay home and watch the action on TV. Is this merely lawyerly hyper-sensitivity, or sound legal advice?
***given his proud 40 years without a passport