Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

damnedifIknow

(3,183 posts)
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:09 PM Jun 2014

UN Could Prosecute Bush for War Crimes, Says Ex-U.S. Terror Czar

Former U.S. terror czar Richard Clarke (shown), who resigned in 2003, dropped two bombshell statements about the Bush administration he served during a recent TV interview. First, he said, former President George W. Bush and then-Vice President Dick Cheney probably perpetrated what amounts to “war crimes” surrounding the unconstitutional attack on Iraq. While plenty of Americans on all sides of the political spectrum might be inclined to agree, Clarke went even further. He suggested the duo could be prosecuted by the dictator-dominated United Nations at the global body’s self-styled “International Criminal Court” (ICC) in The Hague.

Clarke was fairly blunt when asked whether he thought war-crimes charges should be brought against Bush, Cheney, and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes,” the former U.S. terrorism czar for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said in an interview with Amy Goodman of the “progressive” Democracy Now TV program."

http://independentfilmnewsandmedia.com/un-could-prosecute-bush-for-war-crimes-says-ex-u-s-terror-czar/

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
UN Could Prosecute Bush for War Crimes, Says Ex-U.S. Terror Czar (Original Post) damnedifIknow Jun 2014 OP
If only... Marie Marie Jun 2014 #1
Vast chasm between Could and Would. nt valerief Jun 2014 #2
Recommend. n/t Jefferson23 Jun 2014 #3
Yeah we on a long dark road OverseaVisitor Jun 2014 #4
Members or not, I've always wondered why the ICC has not done it. nt Mnemosyne Jun 2014 #5
It doesn't MATTER if the United States is a member... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2014 #16
And the non-member nations are... Mnemosyne Jun 2014 #20
It's also why he had to get an authorization of force agreement to make murder legal. Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2014 #21
Just sickens and enrages me, as it has since 2003. nt Mnemosyne Jun 2014 #30
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Jun 2014 #6
The use of quotes around International Criminal Court and progressive OnyxCollie Jun 2014 #7
The ICJ itself is not dictator-dominated, it is headed by a former Canadian Supreme Court judge and Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #8
Neither the US nor Iraq are parties to the Rome Statute, the ICC has no jurisdiction. tritsofme Jun 2014 #9
President O will pardon them all, mark my words. For the good of The People. nm rhett o rick Jun 2014 #10
He cant issue a pardon for the Hague. eom TransitJohn Jun 2014 #11
So, what's your point. Do you think the "Hague" will come and get them? Do you support rhett o rick Jun 2014 #13
the op is about the hague JI7 Jun 2014 #17
He has no power over international law. nt stevenleser Jun 2014 #12
And they cant come here to arrest them. So what good is a trial and conviction without them? rhett o rick Jun 2014 #14
No. He won't pardon them as far as the US is concerned, and cannot pardon them from international stevenleser Jun 2014 #24
Even in this theoretical situation, you are incorrect. tritsofme Jun 2014 #15
No, I'm not incorrect. These folks have already been found guilty in one international court. stevenleser Jun 2014 #23
Found guilty by a symbolic panel, not the ICC tritsofme Jun 2014 #25
I might not actually have a problem with that; here's why.... Volaris Jun 2014 #31
IMO they will all treat a pardon as vindication. If I was the President and B613 allowed it, I rhett o rick Jun 2014 #32
or, is it possible to convict a Deadman of warcrimes, post humously? Volaris Jun 2014 #33
Don't know much... ReRe Jun 2014 #18
While I don't think the invasion and subsequent war in Iraq was a good idea, Jenoch Jun 2014 #19
Since the establishment would never allow the prosecution of any Republican war criminal, may all indepat Jun 2014 #22
I should like to be able to love my country and still love justice. Albert Camus Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #26
Sadly... Mike Nelson Jun 2014 #27
Dictator-dominated United Nations? Fawke Em Jun 2014 #28
Oh no that won't do, got to stick with the narrative General. Rex Jun 2014 #29
 

OverseaVisitor

(296 posts)
4. Yeah we on a long dark road
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:44 PM
Jun 2014

Bar get lower and never got fix.

Bad example. Bad direction. Bad result.

Where do we go from here?

Being a straight downward path to the bottom since then.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
16. It doesn't MATTER if the United States is a member...
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:06 AM
Jun 2014

According to the ICC charter after a threshold of member nations signed on than ALL NATIONS fell under it's jurisdiction.

That happened just after the invasion of Iraq and Bush's lawyers told him that since courts can't prosecute for lawbreaking prior to a law going into effect...(but fuck Bush's lawyers)

This is why they were in such a panic about the torture.

Mnemosyne

(21,363 posts)
20. And the non-member nations are...
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 02:39 AM
Jun 2014

Israel, Sudan, Iraq and the US, as best I can recall, probably missing a few. I was appalled when GW Bush, the war criminal, 'unsigned' the US from the treaty.

Agree, fuck the bush's lawyers.

Response to damnedifIknow (Original post)

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
7. The use of quotes around International Criminal Court and progressive
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:52 PM
Jun 2014

jumped out at me.

"Independentfilmnewsandmedia.com." Hmmm...

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
8. The ICJ itself is not dictator-dominated, it is headed by a former Canadian Supreme Court judge and
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:21 PM
Jun 2014

is the best justice gets in terms of its independence.

tritsofme

(17,377 posts)
9. Neither the US nor Iraq are parties to the Rome Statute, the ICC has no jurisdiction.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:25 PM
Jun 2014

Absent a Security Council recommendation, which could be vetoed by the US. So this is generally not correct.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
13. So, what's your point. Do you think the "Hague" will come and get them? Do you support
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:52 PM
Jun 2014

pardons by Pres O???

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
14. And they cant come here to arrest them. So what good is a trial and conviction without them?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:55 PM
Jun 2014

Dont you agree that Pres O will pardon the bastards?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
24. No. He won't pardon them as far as the US is concerned, and cannot pardon them from international
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 02:25 PM
Jun 2014

prosecution. They have already been found guilty in one court, although the jurisdiction in that court is in question.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/kuala-lumpur-war-crimes-tribunal-bush-convicted-in-absentia-it-s-official-george-w-bush-is-a-war-criminal/30839

tritsofme

(17,377 posts)
15. Even in this theoretical situation, you are incorrect.
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:01 AM
Jun 2014

The US and Iraq are not members of the International Criminal Court, so it does not have ordinary jurisdiction, the case would have to be referred by the Security Council, where the US holds a veto. So your statement that he has no power in the situation is not correct, the US president has quite a bit of power over international law and institutions.

tritsofme

(17,377 posts)
25. Found guilty by a symbolic panel, not the ICC
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:03 PM
Jun 2014

As I explained above, the president has an effective veto over Americans being sent to the ICC.

Volaris

(10,270 posts)
31. I might not actually have a problem with that; here's why....
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 07:31 PM
Jun 2014

The issuance of a presidential pardon is sort of like the Forgiveness of Sins lol, inherent to the ACCEPTING of the pardon is the acknowledgement of the pardoned persons that INDEED, crimes were comitted. It would be fun to see if any of them are smart enough to say "well I didn't accept the President's Pardon, why would I need to I did nothing wrong."..
I bet only Tricky Deck Cheney would be slippery enough to try it. The rest are just too dumb.
And that's something that can get printed in every history textbook until the end of time.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
32. IMO they will all treat a pardon as vindication. If I was the President and B613 allowed it, I
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 08:25 PM
Jun 2014

would condemn the war criminals and ask Iraq and the world to forgive us.

Volaris

(10,270 posts)
33. or, is it possible to convict a Deadman of warcrimes, post humously?
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 08:33 PM
Jun 2014

Cause Cheney will be the first one to keel over, and the outright screaming tantrum of the rest would reveal a good deal lol...

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
18. Don't know much...
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:25 AM
Jun 2014

... about the ICC. But I do know that GWB did not sign on as a signatory of it when he was in office (I think it was just before GWB Adm invaded Iraq.) I distinctly remember a press conference where he pooh-poohed International Law & the ICC. I knew right then why he didn't want nothing to do with International Law or International Criminal Court. Because the USA is above the "Law." And he was getting ready to go on a world-law-breaking tirade.

This article is not keen on the ICC, International Law, the United Nations, Richard Clarke or Amy Goodman and Democracy Now. Alex Newman, the author (as well as the benign sounding "Independent Film News and Media" and "The New American&quot is a vehement right winger, or at least someone who is gung-ho for the military industrial complex (probably a chicken-hawk, himself, as they all are.) If anyone wants to know the truth of what Richard Clarke said, go to http://www.DemocracyNow and check last week's shows for the transcript of the interview.

Ha! The dude calls the ICC a "Kangaroo Court"! The only grandaddy of Kangaroo Courts is the USG. It investigates itself and finds itself innocent every time!

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
19. While I don't think the invasion and subsequent war in Iraq was a good idea,
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:33 AM
Jun 2014

it was a multi-national effort. I don't see the UN doing any prosecution.

indepat

(20,899 posts)
22. Since the establishment would never allow the prosecution of any Republican war criminal, may all
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 01:31 PM
Jun 2014

such war criminals quiver at the thought of going before the ICC even if in absentia.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»UN Could Prosecute Bush f...