Try Bush and his criminal gang in the International Court of Justice

All it takes for a case to go before the ICJ, sometimes called The World Court, is for one member of this United Nations body to accuse another of breaking international law. I was wondering which country’s leader among many would have the cohones to present the case. I read that spokespersons for Condi Rice called ballsy German Chancellor Angela Merkel a liar in regard to the case of Khaled el-Masri:

“German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged privately to her that Mr. Masri’s abduction was a mistake, an admission that an admission that aides to Ms. Rice have denied.” (LINK) Masri is the German citizen who American agents kidnapped in Macedonia, and then tortured in a secret Afghan prison.

In another example of how the Supreme Court has become an enabler for Bush’s unconstitutional power grab, the Court refused to hear the el-Marsi case appeal. Although el-Marsi was eventually released because he was innocent, lower courts refused to hear his civil suit based on the Bush administration claim that trying the case would reveal government secrets. (Read a New York Times editorial about this here.)

Balderdash. Trying the case would reveal government lies about not using torture. President Jimmy Carter’s current statements about Bush breaking international law should not be taken lightly.

The International Court of Justice is a branch of the United Nations. While the United Nations does not have a good modern day track record of defying the United States when they are in the wrong, trying this case there would send a message that the civilized world is not about to turn a blind eye to all of the international crimes of this president.

Since our elected representatives in the House have no stomach for initiating impeachment proceedings, this represents another way to subject Bush to a trial for being a criminal where evidence on both sides would be brought to light.

According to Wikipedia: “The United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and so accepts the court’s jurisdiction only on a case-to-case basis. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but this is subject to the veto of the Permanent Five.”

I dare not delude myself into thinking that the United States government, aka, Emperior Bush would end up having to defend itself, but this is an exercise in fantasy and wishful thinking. If even an attempt was made, it would be a formal international repudiation of his immorality.

Of course, I don’t hold out much hope that we’ll see Germany, or any other nations, attempting to take Bush and the United States to the International Court. But Germany has a clear-cut case. My hunch is that Chancellor Merkel doesn’t appreciate being called a liar by the State Department. You recall she was the victim of demeaning and impromptu Bush massage. (Here’s her reaction on YouTube.)

I think taking this rather audacious action against Bush would make her a folk hero not only in Germany but in much of the world. She certainly would get my person of the year award.

Related web site: The International Court of Justice

Comments

  1. Hal Brown

    Again, the common confusion between the International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) and the International Criminal Court, the later to which the U.S. does not subscribe.

    The American Servicemen’s Protection Act of 2002 :

    US Senator Jesse Helms as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act and passed in August 2002 by Congress. The stated purpose of the amendment was “to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party”.

    The amendment is intended to weaken the position of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. It authorizes the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any [US or allied personnel] being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. This has led opponents of the act to call it The Hague Invasion Act. (Wikipedia)