QUESTION: Can Any Country Begin Criminal Inquiry Upon Bush/Blair..

[Blaze Diem]

with the DSM news in their hands? Does it have to be a UN member, or can any foreign country ask for such an inquiry...does it then play out at the Hague?
What is the procedure?
Could the seriousness of the DSM contents be enough for any country to prepare an inquiry?
What Country would likely be the one to ask Bush/Blair for an accounting of their actions?

Just wondering. Bush thinks he's protected from accountability here in the USA, but is he protected outside our borders?

Thanks
Blaze

[punpirate]

1. Any signatory country to the ICC...

... could begin proceedings, if there were evidence leading to a determination of war crimes and that the United States would not begin proceedings against Bush himself. But, Bush would have to set foot in the country beginning the proceedings, and the country's officials would have to have the moxie to detain him.

Not likely, in any case. If we don't do it, it's not likely that another country would do it.

What's the saying? "If it is to be, it's up to me." We have to clean our own house.

[lenidog]

2. Any country that was a member of the ICC could indite them and send to

the Hague. The problem is that their no country that is going to attempt it.

[Pryderi]

3. What about the UN?

[Pryderi]

4. I didn't see this earlier...sorry

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1394137.ht...

Broadcast: 16/06/2005
PM may be targeted by criminal indictment: lawyer

Reporter: Tony Jones

snip

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, let's take the case of Donald Rumsfeld. In a sense, his is the clearest case because in December 2002 he signed a memorandum, one of the infamous torture memorandums, which I describe in the book Lawless World, in which he authorises various techniques of interrogation which in the views of basically every international lawyer around amounts to torture. Those techniques were used for several weeks before the order was rescinded. They were used, for example, in Afghanistan, which is a party to the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over torture and that means in principle that court has jurisdiction to investigate the involvement of Donald Rumsfeld for authorising activities which amount to torture. You mentioned Prime Minister Tony Blair and Prime Minister John Howard, the issue there is slightly more complex and turns really on the legality of the war in Iraq. No-one is suggesting that either the British or Australian prime ministers have been involved in torturing anybody, but most people now recognise that the war in Iraq was illegal and under international law, an illegal war amounts to a crime of aggression and in some countries around the world a crime of aggression is one where they exercise jurisdiction. So the possibility really can't be excluded if Messrs Blair and Howard at some point in the future travel after they've left office to a country which, for example, has an extradition agreement with another country where you have an independent prosecutor like the independent prosecutor in Spain who initiated the investigation of Senator Pinochet, a request for extradition or for investigation or questioning has happened in the case of Mr Kissinger could happen. There's precedent for it."

Interesting...

[Blaze Diem]

5. Thanks for the info:

Guess its up to us afterall.

Just wondering if some other country sees the danger of Bush's corrupt policies as we do.

Has anyone heard how other Nations are reacting to the latest proof of Bush corruption via the DSM?