The hope is that other countries will hold trials of their own and the guilty verdicts will mount up. This is not that outlandish an idea as Bush and Cheney have not only brazenly admitted they authorized torture in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention, but bragged about it. Nothing more helpful than having a criminal do all the heavy lifting for the prosecution. If enough of these verdicts are passed on to the international courts, they will have no choice but to hold a trial of their own. While Bush won’t be arrested on American soil, he’ll have a very difficult time leaving the country. Already he’s canceled a trip to Switzerland, due to possible charges of war crimes.
Malarkey!
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2011/02/bush_not_at_risk_of_arrest_in.html
Under "INTERNATIONAL INDICTMENT RULES", an arrest warrant for Bush can ONLY be issued if there is "DANGER".... Belief, provable, that the individual/people in question could/would repeat the crime (s).......
There are three (3) circumstances under International Law of which 1 or more "must" be present....
1. DANGER that the crime could/would be repeated...
2. DANGER the person/people in question could/would become fugitives (s)...
3. DANGER The person/people would/could destroy or tamper with evidence...
You think Bush is not aware of this...he just doesn't want to get tangles up in the muck...especially just to give a speech in another country..the man is retired for Gods sake....
CONSTITUTIONALLY, Bush cannot hold office again......whats the problem?
Immunity from prosecution is a doctrine of international law that allows an accused to avoid prosecution for criminal offences. Immunities are of two types. The first is functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae. This is an immunity granted to people who perform certain functions of state. The second is personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae. This is an immunity granted to certain officials because of the office they hold, rather than in relation to the act they have committed.
This type of immunity arises from customary international law and treaty law and confers immunities on those performing acts of state (usually a foreign official). Any person who in performing an act of state commits a criminal offence is immune from prosecution. This is so even after the person ceases to perform acts of state. Thus it is a type of immunity limited in the acts to which it attaches (acts of state) but will only end if the state itself ceases to exist. This type of immunity is based on respect for sovereign equality and state dignity.
The offices usually recognised as attracting this immunity are Head of State or Head of Government, senior cabinet members, Foreign Minister, and Minister for Defence: see the Arrest Warrant Case, Pinochet Case (R v Bow Street Magistrates; ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) 1 AC 147, House of Lords). Such officers are immune from prosecution for everything they do during their time in office. For example, an English court held that a warrant could not be issued for the arrest of Robert Mugabe on charges of international crimes on the basis that he was a presently serving Head of State at the time the proceedings were brought: Mugabe, reported at (2004) 53 ICLQ 789. Other examples are the attempts to prosecute Fidel Castro in Spain and Jiang Zemin in the USA.
OOps looks like they can't touch him even under international Law.
The US has not ceased to be the US. Under this treaty he cannot be touched unless the US ceases to exist. Period.Just time for a little reminder!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution_(international_law)
