Should American leaders be held to the same standard as

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Actually, the U.N. was the party, not the U.S.
And itt was U.N. resolutions which were violated by Saddam, not U.S. resolutions.
Of course, the U.S. has the right to defend itself under the U.N. charter, but Iraq wasn't threatening the U.S.

Actually, the US insisted on acting as its own entity beside the UN during and after Gulf War 1. The US would not accept having its forces under UN command. And yes, Virginia, the failure of Saddam to abide by cease fire terms was an argument for resuming war.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Has the International Court even begun the preliminary process towards bringing charges against Bush?

They can't Bush demanded an exemption for the US as the price for not vetoing the formation of the court. In any invent the "International" court of justice is in fact nothing more then the European court of justice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They can't Bush demanded an exemption for the US as the price for not vetoing the formation of the court. In any invent the "International" court of justice is in fact nothing more then the European court of justice.

Err... no. The Rome Statute, which created the ICC, was never under Security Council vote. It is not a part of the United Nations. But there is a "relationship agreement" between the two that determines how they interact with each other. There is a reason why the US has signed so many bilateral immunity agreements with countries around the globe. Now the Security Council can ask for a suspension of a case for one year. And US nationals had been exempt for a few years (because the US threatened to block funding for peacekeeping missions), but after Abu Ghraib, the one year exemption has not been renewed or retaken up since.

However, in the point of whether Bush can be prosecuted, he most likely cannot. As jurisdiction is not universal, but restricted to if the person is a citizen of a state party (and the US is not), if the act was committed in a state party (and I don't believe Iraq is), or if referred by the UN Security Council (and I doubt that'll ever happen).


And secondly, you are incorrect as it is nothing more than the "European Court of Justice". There are a number of signatories all over the world. Currently, the ICC has cases dealing with Uganda (a state party), DRC, and Dafur, Sudan, as that situation was referred to it by the Security Council allowing it jurisdiction under the relationship agreement they have with the UN.