"Even though then-President Clinton signed the treaty, the United States has refused to ratify it, fearing its citizens would be subject to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions."
"Washington has campaigned unsuccessfully to exempt U.S. soldiers and officials, and two weeks ago the Bush administration said it was considering "unsigning" the treaty to stress that it won't be bound by its provisions. It is the only vocal opponent of the court."
Guess we know why Bushie won't sign the treaty -- he'd be the on the top of the list!
posted on April 12, 2002 09:54:22 PM new
Don't you think that the arguement could be made that since Bush entered Afganistan illegally and conducted an illegal war against the taliban, that other members of the World Tribunal could easily point out that Bush was a War Criminal, don'tcha think?
posted on April 12, 2002 09:59:42 PM new
Well.....I suppose that arguement could be made. They would have to include Tony Blair as a war criminal too. Probably a few others.
posted on April 12, 2002 10:49:52 PM new
They could argue that there is a specific mechanism for declaring war in our political system and that it was completely bypassed and it is all just a personal whim - not a legal war.
That could apply to every military operation since WWII.
I just read a paperback with a story based on this idea - Head Wind or Headwinds in which a airline pilot takes it upon himself to take his aircraft to a different destination because he is carrying an ex-President and they are trying to arrest him as a war criminal.
posted on April 13, 2002 08:35:40 AM new
Well, rawbunzel, if Bush himself isn't afraid of being arrested for War Crimes, then why isn't he signing this Law & Order treaty? Hmm?
