Bush trial at Hague?

[Il Medico]

I think the evidence of Bush committing war crimes is abundant and he should be tried at the Hague. Agree?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Of course he should, but is he going to be charged with anything? I don't think so.

[Il Medico]

Of course he should, but is he going to be charged with anything? I don't think so.
Sadly I think your right.

[Cymru]

Something we have to accept I think.:(

[Sam_b]

The one bad thing about charging him with war crimes is that it could on some levels show some support or legitimisation for another bourgeois institution. Yet many of our parties still contest elections so that is a question several parties and tendencies, including my own, must answer.

But anyways, I agree that yes of course: but it will never ever happen.

[Il Medico]

Who actually said "no"? I wish I had made votes public. I mean even some democratic bourgeois liberals are calling for this to happen!

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

The one bad thing about charging him with war crimes is that it could on some levels show some support or legitimisation for another bourgeois institution.

I'm against the very existence of the State, but I think if something like international law actually being enforced would be an example of a power structure being pressured, like any other reform.

I mean, I hear this argument from my own anarchist comrades (grant it a minority) who think that any reform increases the power of the State, the "iron fist with a velvet glove." I think it's immature, and shows a lack of concern for, ironically, the poor proletariat. I think if you believe in class struggle, then you would support bourgeois democractic reform, for the humanitarian reason. Besides, social welfare is never a gift from above; they always come from popular struggle. This argument usually comes from individualist anarchists, though.

I digress, but I think that enforcing international law is a response to an obvious point: the majority of the public favors international law, from poll-to-poll. Hence, like social spending, it's something that a power structure feels pressured to do. It's not like Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi give a shit, or are actually coming up with these ideas. Trust me: the American liberal commisars don't want to open up the international law can of worms, either (see every liberal president's foreign policy records).

So, I don't think it strengthens or legitimizes he bourgeois nation-state; if anything, I think following international law would actually be a hinderance on the State. It's certainly an example of reform, and the left is divided on whether to fight for reforms. I mean, I'm not suggestiing that we can piecemeal reform our way to the society that we want; I'm firmly grounded in the need of revolution (otherwise I wouldn't be an anarchist). But reforms, i.e., change that can lead to less-worse conditions for working-class people or poor people in Iraq, can also be benificial. I think denying that is denying people who are suffering a chance to better their situation.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Of course Bush should be tried for War Crimes although I doubt it'll happen. For one, he definitely had wit to defy the UN in his invasion of Iraq. There wasn't even any evidence found that they had WMD's!

[Pogue]

should happen, wont ever happen

it'd be on the list of things to do after the revolution though

[hugsandmarxism]

Well, since Kissenger's still around and able to travel abroad, so I'm not holding my breath for Bush. :(

[Red Saxon]

Should it happen? yes
Will it happen? no
:cursing:

[RHIZOMES]

To be tried for war crimes at the Hague, you need a 100% bourgeoisie consensus that they were "war crimes". The idea that Bush is a war criminal is really only on the far left and the left liberals. So most of the bourgeois class do not want to try him. Plus the fact he is the former leader of the most powerful imperialist superpower in the world.

[redSHARP]

well, on what charges? we need to present a good case.

so, can a prosecutor please step forward and give the opening statement:laugh:

[Yazman]

I didn't think it was even possibly, legally speaking. I thought they could only prosecute citizens of member states, and the US is not a party to the international crimes court.

[Bandito]

Should he be tried? Yes.
In bourgeoise court in Hague? No.

[Guerrilla22]

Seeing as the US refuses to allow any of its citizens to be tried at the ICJ (who's going to enforce an inditement against a former US prez) I'm going to say it won't happen. Someone should just take justice into their own hands.

[Dimentio]

Bush would never be tried at the Hague. The reason why is that the Hague is made to publicly punish those who are the enemies of the glorious American Empire. The American president could do whatever he wants in foreign policy as long as it is in line with the interests of the capitalists.

[Dimentio]

As said, Hague is created with the purpose of legitimising western wars against some small nations because these nations have not yielded in to interests. And it is'nt something new.

The Romans used to judge conquered heads of state for religious or humanitarian crimes, and then strangle them to death before the Roman people.

[brigadista]

he should be extradited to an iraqi court after the US troops et al have left and tried there along with his droogs cheyne, rice and rumsfield --- that is a nice fantasy.... :D

[EqualityandFreedom]

I voted don't care because the Hague war crimes court is a bourgeois farce, however considering he is out of office I don't see prosecuting him would be anything more than symbolic rather than preventing future war crimes by another president, revolution is the only way to stop this from occurring again, so still probably not.

[Yazman]

As said, Hague is created with the purpose of legitimising western wars against some small nations because these nations have not yielded in to interests. And it is'nt something new.

The Romans used to judge conquered heads of state for religious or humanitarian crimes, and then strangle them to death before the Roman people.


I really think your characterisation of the ICC shows a lack of real knowledge of who they prosecute. To date they have only prosecuted those responsible for genocides in Africa, who really did commit crimes against humanity.

[Dimentio]

I really think your characterisation of the ICC shows a lack of real knowledge of who they prosecute. To date they have only prosecuted those responsible for genocides in Africa, who really did commit crimes against humanity.

I have noted your points.

I do not think the ICC will be able to prosecute those who are powerbrokers in western countries. The reason why is that they control all the resources.

Leaders are judged for two things:

1. They have committed crimes.

2. They are no longer in power.

I have not said that anti-western dictators never commit crimes. Anti-western dictators are often as brutal and genocidal as pro-western dictators. To be anti-USA is in itself not a merit for adulation.

In the case of Africa, the genocide in Rwanda is not implicating so much western involvement, other than that the governments of Belgium and France, or factions within those governments supported the Rwandian government. But otherwise, that part of Africa has not been a crucial battleground for natural resources - yet.

The only reason for French chauvinists to give a damn was that they feared that a Tutsi victory would mean a transformation of Rwanda from a French-associated, French-speaking country to an Anglo-American-associated, English-speaking country.

As far as I'll know, those who have been tried for those crimes are people from the lower echelons of command in that genocide.

[Yazman]

I have noted your points.

I do not think the ICC will be able to prosecute those who are powerbrokers in western countries. The reason why is that they control all the resources.

Leaders are judged for two things:

1. They have committed crimes.

2. They are no longer in power.

I have not said that anti-western dictators never commit crimes. Anti-western dictators are often as brutal and genocidal as pro-western dictators. To be anti-USA is in itself not a merit for adulation.

In the case of Africa, the genocide in Rwanda is not implicating so much western involvement, other than that the governments of Belgium and France, or factions within those governments supported the Rwandian government. But otherwise, that part of Africa has not been a crucial battleground for natural resources - yet.

The only reason for French chauvinists to give a damn was that they feared that a Tutsi victory would mean a transformation of Rwanda from a French-associated, French-speaking country to an Anglo-American-associated, English-speaking country.

As far as I'll know, those who have been tried for those crimes are people from the lower echelons of command in that genocide.

Your points here are fair and I agree with you. However the ICC has not been used to justify western wars, to date it has only been used to prosecute those who are legitimately war criminals and deserve prosecution.

I completely agree that they will not be able to prosecute those who are powerbrokers, but they have not been used for the purposes that you initially described.

The biggest problem is that they can't/won't prosecute those who aren't parties to the ICC, hence the US will never be able to be prosecuted in any way.

The other major problem is that they don't have a "police force" so to speak so they can't really arrest foreign politicians in the first place - the Sudanese president has a warrant for his arrest but they don't have any power to "go and get him" - they essentially just deliver the warrant to the Sudanese government and hope he gives himself up.

[Bandito]

We should feel sorry for the people who were prosecuted or are being prosecuted in Hague.
Not for them, but for the fact that their people never gave them a chance to hang on the town square after a people's trial. Sending former imperialist servants to bourgeoise court is simply an oxymoron.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

Should he be tried? Yes.
In bourgeoise court in Hague? No.

I'm not being rhetorical here, but what's the alternative? Yeah, the ideal solution is to "Smash the State;" I think as a Marxist you'd agree with me. But we're a long ways away from having a radicalized majority, a majority of working-class people who want to liberate themselves. So, we cannot seriously consider this option at present time. We should plan for it, and should attempt to spread propaganda and talk to people about it, and participate and accompany in worker's struggles wherever we can.

But I think that the only realistic alternative to Bush being tried in an international court is Bush being tried in an American court (obviously,as someone else mentioned, the likelihood of Bush being tried for his obvious war crimes are slim-to-none). I think that this would be worse than Bush being tried internationally. Bush being tried in the U.S. would suggest that he did something that the Empire didn't approve of. This wouldn't impinge upon U.S. hegemony.

However, Bush being tried in an international court would be a huge blow to American hegemony. Hence, I think the symbolic importance of this would be huge. It would say that the U.S. cannot act outside of international law, or other "hyperpower" nations. The U.S. considers itself the owner of the planet; it doesn't need to follow its own orders. It's analogous to a belligerent parent who beats their child and drinks, while telling them not to drink and get in fights. So, obviously, it would be extremely significant, and a huge blow to the U.S., if Bush was prosecuted under international law. I think that people who do not acknowledge this, and think that it legitimizes the bourgeoisie and its institutions, are being disingenuous. It's like being anti-union because (most) unions are shit. Everyone acknowledges this. But it is the best defence that the proletariat has against the capitalist. Fighting unions or international law, in my opinion, actually strengthens the bourgeoisie and their institutions, i.e., capital and state.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Of course he should be brought to court.
Only Tha Hague has no punishments that are severe enough for him, actually he should just be killed.