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


  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)

  2. Hal Brown



    they won’t gain control of us until they pry our hot flying fingers off of our keyboards.

  3. ianwest

    America has always been scrupulous about not recognising or signing up for the ICJ – precisely because they always knew they might get hauled before it sooner or later if they did.

    However the UK _does_ recognise it and is a signatory to it – and I hope one day to see Tony Blair in the dock to answer for his war crimes over Iraq…

    Ian Westbrook
    Apocalypse Times
    “The man who laughs has not yet been told the news”

  4. Hal Brown


    You are referring to the International Criminal Court, which while based in The Hague, isn’t part of the United Nations or a part of the ICJ. The ICJ deals with disputes between nations related to international law and has been part of the UN since 1945.

    The ICC is able to try individuals from another nation for commiting crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It is relatively knew having been formed in 2002.

    When then-Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton nullified the U.S. signature on the International Criminal Court treaty one month into President Bush’s first term, he declared it the happiest moment in his years of service. Bolton referred to the court as a “product of fuzzy-minded romanticism . . . not just naive, but dangerous.”


    Officially, the United States does not support the court and has no communication with it. “U.S. policy towards the International Criminal Court has not changed,” a Defense Department spokesman, who asked not to be identified by name under rules set by the department, said Monday. “While we respect the right of other governments to join and support the ICC, we ask that governments respect the right of the United States not to join the ICC.”from a 2006 Washington Post article.

    This is yet another example of how this law breaking administration tries to avoid accountability. The latest example comes in headlines today with the CIA trying to undermine its own watchdog division.

  5. Helen Rainier


    The “excerpt” you provided is interesting and brings this comment to mind: From the wording, it appears that the US (under President Clinton) had, indeed, signed on to the ICJ, but that Bushies backed off. Is my interpretation correct?

    I vaguely remember when this initially came up and remembered thinking at the time that it seemed odd that we would not sign on to the International Court. I also wondered at the time WHY we would refuse to sign on.

    Knowing what has happened since that time, I’m wondering if the reason for withdrawing was because at that time the Bushies already had decided to invade Iraq — whether sanctioned by the UN or not.

    I don’t have a tinfoil beanie on as I ask this, but perhaps I should?

    Would appreciate knowing your thoughts about this.

    From Hal

    See my respone to Ian above. Note that the ICJ (World Court) and ICC are two different entities. Currently there is no proof, only speculation, as to whether or not there were actual plans in place to invade Iraq prior to Bush’s election or 9-11. What we do see however is the implementation of what Rove and others intended to be a creation of an imperial executive branch.

  6. SEAL

    In the United States the free press was always the “court” that brought polititions to justice. That was before the neocons consolidated and controlled the media. The only free press left is the internet and they are working on gaining control of that.

  7. Arlo J. Thudpucker

    As I recall, the American Servicemen’s Protection Act of 2002 excludes the possibility of the vermin being tried by the ICJ.


    Arlo J. Thudpucker

  8. mchicago

    My goodness! I didn’t realize that all I had to do to avoid a court case was deny the court had juristiction over me! This is going to change my life!

    I think the appropriate courts should drag the offenders in and let it all be decided by a world vote where the criminal doesn’t get to sit on the jury.