Dutch court refuses to throw President Bush in jail

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by cslewis, May 4, 2005.

  1. cslewis macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #1
    Dutch court refuses to throw President Bush in jail

    THE HAGUE: A court in The Hague turned down a demand by a dozen plaintiffs who wanted to force the Dutch government to arrest US President George W Bush when he visits the Netherlands on Saturday, the judgement made public Wednesday said.

    Bush will be in the south of the Netherlands this weekend to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. The plaintiffs, mostly left-wing organisations and activists, accused Bush of "numerous grave violations of the Geneva Conventions".

    They also said the president is responsible for the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and Washington's refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world's first permanent war crimes court.

    In the judgement, dated on Tuesday, the court said that the case was political and that the demands "could have far-reaching consequences for US-Dutch relations".

    Some 31 percent of Dutch people are opposed to Bush visiting the country with 66 percent in favour, according to a poll by the Maurice de Hond Institute cited Wednesday in the Dutch media.

    Some 46 percent of those surveyed felt that the expected protests against Bush im Amsterdam Saturday and Maastricht Sunday are "inappropriate" with 30 percent in support and 24 percent undecided. afp

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-5-2005_pg7_46

    Holy Crap! Who knows what problems that would have caused...
     
  2. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
  3. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #3
    See, this is the problem with a lot of these extranational courts... some people are constantly trying to use them to try people who most people would not consider war criminals. If someone tries to arrest George Bush, Tony Blair, or any other major leader of a democracy, things will get real ugly, REAL fast. (It would be considered an act of war by the US Congress.)

    I predict that this thread will be moved to the Political forum soon. :)
     
  4. cslewis thread starter macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #4
    It's interesting to see some people think of our president as a war criminal...
    Could they really arrest him?
     
  5. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #5
    Heads of state have immunity in foreign countries. Its a rule that goes back hundreds of years.

    They can try to have him indicted when he leaves office and arrested if he comes back, but I doubt even President Hillary Clinton would allow Bush to be arrested in a foreign country especially for official acts.
     
  6. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #6
    I dislike bush as much of the next guy (well, to a certain extent, not like some total wackos [haven't always disliked him but lately ive realized]) but if anyone arrests him they'll start ****ing world war three. and that's BAD.
     
  7. snkTab macrumors 6502a

    snkTab

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #7
    I bet they would..... *cough*


    and I agree about moving it
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    Well, it's just too bad we won't impeach him. He should have been impeached for the lies about why we went to war-WMD.
     
  9. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #9
    Oy! Far worse than Bush!
     
  10. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #10
    Nah, it would be a "police action", just like Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan....

    We don't declare wars anymore - but we still fight 'em.
     
  11. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #11
    Consider it done :)
     
  12. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #12
    I read a magazine article about this once. The charges that could be reasonably possible are the one's concerning personer abuse, and bush being the commander in chief. The article further stated even if they could charge a US president no one could enforce the ruling. The diplomatic, econominic, and military impact would be horrific. This is similar to when a Belgium court wanted to charge General Franks which similar charges. I remember a news caster saying something to the effect of, "I'd to see them try [to arrest him]". Personally though, the US constitution provides american's the right to trail by our peers, among other important rights which I don't feel a court outside the US would provide.
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    there's a very cynical way of reading that.
     
  14. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #14
    Excluding political figures, maybe i do not feel that american particularly soldiers should be brought before any world court because of political pressure. However, that doesn't exclude from an investigation from where ever they are from. It something like the UN inspectors that are accused of sexual abuse, they are being charged in their countries of origin not in a world court.
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    by cynical, i meant that the world at large might have trouble scrounging up a group of people as clueless and megalomaniacal as bush.
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    under what circumstances do you feel americans (soldiers or civilians) could be brought before a world court?
     
  17. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #17
    The only reason other countries might want to arrest and charge US soldiers or officials is precisely because the US authorities are not doing the job of policing their own. Of course it's primarily the fault of the US sustem if it permits war crimes and/or international banditry to be carried out by its own representatives with impunity.
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    Case in Point

    For example:
    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=635756
     
  19. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #19
    AFAIK there are similar cases in germany (i think in cologne) but towards rumsfeld
    with the smal ldiference that untill now it hasn't been refused yet ;)

    personally i don't see why US soldiers shouldn't be charged by an international court when the US themselves won't do it
    after all the US first came up with the idea of a international tribunal/court ;)
    why should be the US "more equal" than others ? (to quote animal farm)

    is there a list online somewhere of those countries which didn't accept the international court ? i'm pretty sure it's similar to the list of those countries which didn't ban anti personal landmines

    (other example: i doubt the thing with the italian journalist will lead to consequences as well..were somehow evidences disapeard and results from the US investigation were quite different :rolleyes: )
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  21. StarbucksSam macrumors 65816

    StarbucksSam

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    #21
    Yeah... but Cheney would fix things "The American Way" - they'd have nukes so far up their asses they wouldn't be able to breathe. Imagine that, the U.S. bombing Western Europe even though they have an interesting and argueable point.

    Yet again, it would be quite an embarrassment to our country if our leader was arrested. I'm already embarrassed enough to be an American these days.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    AFAIK, there are countries that if Henry Kissinger visits, he will be arrested. I could see Bush being indicted (after his term is over of course) and unable to go to a handful of countries. Of course, since Bush didn't travel much before he became president I don't see any reason he'd travel much after leaving the office...
     
  23. StealthRider macrumors 65816

    StealthRider

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    Yokosuka, Japan
    #23
    *Snort*...it'd be kind of funny if they tried to arrest him...considering that arresting a head of state could easily be considered an act of war.
     
  24. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #24
    Only the winners get to prosecute war criminals. That's why Milosovic was prosecuted but Stalin wasn't.
     

Share This Page