Will the UN bring former President Bush to trial for torture?

the odds here have be set as per the admins desire (ryan) my personal feeling is he will not we will see if this gets overroad as a previous one was ,on the drug bust in australa

The UN should mind there own buisness. What we do with our prisoners is up to us and we dont need them trying to tell us how to handle things. Besides, the UN has no jurisdiction over the US. They have no way of making sure bush comes.

The US is a member nation of the UN and therefore does fall within its jurisdiction. However, their prosecutor judiciously offers that the US should prosecute Bush ourselves. I think Nowak's only stating that IF the US does not prosecute Bush, then Bush could simply be an extraordinary rendition flight away from being prosecuted elsewhere. But it would be far more likely that they'd issue an arrest warrant (some time after giving Obama sufficient time to act, maybe 2011?) and then never serve it. So, what will happen to this question if the new AG does prosecute any Bush administration officials for torture? I suspect that would satisfy the UN somewhat. Cheney confessed on ABC News to authorizing waterboarding, and Holder has already said that waterboarding is torture. I know, I know, that dragofang thinks waterboarding is what us progressives do for kicks and that it doesn't matter that the US prosecuted American soldiers for waterboarding in Vietnam nor that we prosecuted Japanese for waterboarding in WW2. But let's think about what will actually happen.

THANKS all the original was set at 50% as it should have been. thank you so very much Ryan for your personal help to have this site as a gaming one.salaam

please void this question desrty as a favour.
so as to set the question as was

To quote richard nixon "If the president does it, its not illegal"

the US waterboards their own soldiers. i guess they better arrest the generals that allow it to happen. to my knowledge the UN has never tried and convicted anybody. they might wanna start in-house before going after anybody else.

curios, i was not questioning the odds at all. I still say that the article you cite suggests that the UN wants the US to prosecute instead of the UN. Therefore, it seems pretty unlikely that the UN will wind up prosecuting.

dragonfangxl, Isn't that quote a part of why Nixon resigned?

dieseldog, Context means everything sometimes. The US has already court-martialed its own soldiers for waterboarding enemy combatants in past conflicts. Were the soldiers who prosecuted those offenders doing meaningless duty?

in past conflicts was they told it was ok? its my understanding bush consulted with members from BOTH parties on what he was doing. does that make it leagal? i have no idea. to lay all the blame at bush's feet is wrong. these "people" who was waterboarded wouldn't think twice about killing american civilians. i have no sympathy for them. i could see going after bush if he tortured 100's of people just to be mean. i don't know the exact number of people who we're waterboarded and doubt i ever will. until somebody shows me proof it was on a large scale i don't see any reason to go after him. others might see it differntly.

@capecod No i think your thinking of FDR.

I second that diesel. The UN should clean its own house before prosecuting or recommending anyone else for prosecution. As such a "prestigious" international organization, to be so rife with corruption and sexual predators is shameful.

To make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass, I just did a Google search for "UN sex scandal", and got almost 17 million results. They are constantly victimizing the defenseless children and women they are charged to protect. It doesn't get more corrupt than that.

Yes, the UN has faults, but--by any reasonably objective measure--that organization has done far more good than bad overall; sadly, the same cannot be said of the happily-gone Bush administration. That being said, the UN should bring Bush to trial, but only if the US doesn't.

@dieseldog: I doubt many of the regimes that have tortured over the centuries would admit to doing so "just to be mean"; nearly every one would, I'm sure, be able to present clear (to them), lucid (to them), and logical (to them) reasons for doing the things they do...just as Bush and his cronies have. The thing is, though, torture doesn't work; even if it weren't wrong, illegal, unethical, an un-American--all of which it is--empirical evidence suggests that it simply never achieves the desired result(s). (In the words of Reservoir Dogs' Nice Guy Eddie: "If you...beat [someone] long enough, he'll tell you he started the...Chicago fire, but that don't necessarily make it...so.")

Just two days into his administration, Obama has dismantled the CIA's torture programs, which highlights the importance of doing so. Civilized people the world over don't and won't condone torture; thank God it'll be gone from the American playbook...at least until the next over-zealous, misguided, wrong-headed, ethically-challenged POTUS comes along. :|

@squlman "by any reasonably objective measure--that organization has done far more good than bad overall".
Now that's talking out of your ass. In your humble opinion maybe. To state that as "fact" is a clear contradiction of reality. Try backing that fantasy up with something.

Well, then, kindly allow my rear end to talk a little more. In no particular order:

--The World Health Organization--an agency of the UN--coordinated the eradication of smallpox in 1979;
--That same WHO has worked to eradicate or lessen the ravages of other diseases, such as polio and malaria;
--The UN has still leads a massive effort to remove old landmines from war-scarred nations;
--The World Food Program and UNICEF have fed and educated millions;
--The UN defused tensions between the USA and the USSR over the Cuban missile crisis in 1962;
--The UN succeeded in averting the Arab/Israel War in 1967;
--It averted war between England and Egypt over the Suez Canal in 1956;
--It played a pivotal part in helping Indonesia secure its independence from the Dutch;

...and so on, and so forth. Yeah, there have been some horrible acts committed by various members--truly horrible acts--but before you throw the baby out with the bathwater, keep in mind that America's annual monetary contribution to the UN amounts to less than one percent of the hundreds and hundreds of billions Bush's falsely-pretensed invasion of Iraq has. So I'll say it again: the UN has done more harm than good--and that can't be said of Bush.

Cheers!

sqlman (comment #12): I deeply agree

For every success, there are many more failures staring us in the face. First of all, as far as I can remember, there was a major Arab-Israeli war in 1967, so I don't see how that was a success. Here are some of the greater failures.

Genocide in Darfur (300-400,000 killed and 2.5 million displaced, and still growing)
aids in Africa (just under 24 million infected with HIV and 1.6 million dead),
the Rwandan Genocide (800,000-1,000,000 killed),
the rise of Islamic terrorism,
the plight of women in Islamic and Arabic countries
Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons and threats to wipe Israel off the map.
Congo genocide
Bosnia genocide
Tibetan Human rights abuse
Sex for food scandal
Child sexual abuse
Sexual abuse and rape of those they are protecting

Though according to U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto, the "single greatest failure" of the U.N. - is the failure to create a Palestinian state. This despite the hundreds of thousands victims of genocide in recent times. Due to the strong Arab influence, and oil diplomacy, a disproportionate emphasis has been placed upon the ME, with a strong bias against Israel. In fact, practically all resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council have been against Israel, in an area where women and men are still stoned for adultery, non-Muslims are converted or ethnically cleansed, and women have no rights. This so called "human rights" council, has been blind to the Darfur genocide and Tibetan, North Korean, and Zimbabwe human rights abuses. For them, human rights abuse only seems to reside in Israel. Certainly anyone who has examined this situation would have to agree that this commission exemplifies the impotence and bias of this useless organization.

The World Health Organization officially certified that smallpox had been eradicated on December 9, 1979, 2 years after the last case in Somalia. In 1980 the World Health Assembly recommended that all countries cease routine vaccination.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/SmallpoxEradication/

yea the WHO did alot to eradicate smallpox..they annouced the end of it after other people-govts did the work.

Castro, feeling betrayed by his Soviet patron, refused to allow United Nations inspectors on Cuban soil to verify the withdrawal. But satisfied by aerial photography that the Soviets had withdrawn the weapons the United States considered offensive, Kennedy issued a proclamation terminating the quarantine on 21 November.
http://www.answers.com/topic/cuban-missile-crisis

yea the UN solved that crisis also. did the UN tell kennedy to start the blockcade? in both cases the UN is briefly mentioned at the end of the articles. did the UN stop north korea from getting the bomb? are they stopping iran from getting the bomb? as drzinternet aleady pointed out there was a Arab-Israeli war in 1967. so thats 3 of your UN accomplishments down the drain. don't wanna research the others. how bout we move the UN out of the USA and the USA no longer pays any dues? UN = glorified red cross (no offense to the red cross). its a leftie organization that don't do much but take tax dollars from the USA people and waste them.

Hi all,
Just putting in my 2c. I think if we only look at the + contributions, then I agree with sqlman. If we look at the negatives going on in the world, then we might feel as a number of the others do. Sure, the UN is ineffective in a lot of cases.. But the failures tend to be those of the individual countries (with the UN just not stepping in), and the fact that the UN has little muscle behind its generally good intentions, and that the security council can be vetoed, etc. etc.Plus, as you mention dieseld, they cannot deal with powerful armies, like N Korea, etc. etc. and the bomb, etc. So, there is a lot of inertia and blockading within the organization by member countries who want to stifle progress in certain areas... Nevertheless, the good is still there...

by the way, what is this stuff, dieseld about the red cross being a "leftie" organization? Sure they waste lots of us $, but what about leftie?

bigken - i didn't mean the redcross was a leftie organization. the "leftie" was only describing the UN imho. my bad on the way i wrote that. the UN is like the redcross in that they distribute goods to people in need. after that they don't do much. as you said they can't deal with any major conflict with any kind of force. its more or less a meeting place for countries to express their opinons. i would think that could be done a whole lot cheaper than the UN does it. another example..what has the UN done to stop human rights abuse in china? they put china on the security council with veto power. now thats really helping. at the very least reduce their size by 50%. when theres food and meds that need distributed call the UN to jump in with other groups to help.

Here's some more of the "good" work the UN is doing

http://www.mediaforfreedom.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=14007
UN Chief Urged to Denounce Durban 2 Holocaust Denial

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Geneva, January 23, 2009 — UN Watch, an independent non-govermental organization headquartered in Geneva, today called on UN chief Ban Ki-moon and human rights high commissioner Navi Pillay to condemn Iran's "shocking endorsement of Holocaust denial" during a U.N. meeting on racism that concluded this week. (See text below, or click here for recording of Iran defending Holocaust denial at Durban 2 session.)



In addition, UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said many of this week's speeches on the draft declaration called to restrict free speech -- to prohibit expression deemed offensive to Islamic sensitivies -- and portrayed counter-terrorism efforts by the U.S., Western states and Israel as esentially "racist."


"Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay -- the most vocal defender of the Durban 2 process -- have a moral obligation to condemn this ugly display of anti-Semitism within a conference supposedly opposed to racism," said Neuer.



"So far, High Commissioner Pillay has for some reason reserved all of her criticism for Western states that expressed concerns about the conference's direction. We trust that she will not give a free pass to Libya, Iran, Cuba, and other anti-democratic regimes who this week attacked free speech and misused human rights principles. She must end her silence and resist the campaign by the world's most intolerant regimes to hijack the anti-racism cause for dangerous political ends," said Neuer.



A summary of objecitonable comments by Iran, Syria and other states follow below.



___________________________________________________________________________



Highlights from Durban II Drafting Committee Meeting, Jan. 19-23, 2009

(Intersessional open-ended intergovernmental working group to continue and finalize the process of negotiations on and drafting of the outcome document, first session)

A Russian-chaired U.N. committee met this week to revise the Draft Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, the upcoming sequel to the 2001 World Conference Against Racism. With countries commenting on each proposed article, the session was dominated by a vehemently anti-Western agenda, with Islamic and Third World countries equating counter-terrorism with racism, calling to restrict free speech in the name of Islamic sensitivities—the so-called “defamation of Islam”—and focusing on the practice of slavery in the West but barring mention of the slave trade in the Arab world and elsewhere. Worst of all, Iran and Syria used the forum to engage in Holocaust denial, while many countries demanded new provisions to condemn Israel as a racist and criminal state. The EU, a minority voice, played defense. Following are highlights.

Iran Defends Holocaust Denial:

* Discussing proposed Paragraph 29 which provides that the Holocaust must never be forgotten and mentions that it resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people, South Africa for the African Group asked that the paragraph be minimized, conforming to the Durban I declaration, to simply say, “Recalls that the Holocaust never be forgotten,” without mentioning that it resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people. South Africa’s proposal was supported by Jamaica and Iran. Syria also supported the proposal, saying, “I don't think we should get into a kind of statistical debate. As far as I know that there is no agreement on the consensus on the percentage of those who perished in the Holocaust.”

* When the EU proposed adding that “remembrance of the Holocaust is critical to prevent further acts of genocide,” Iran said, “There is a notion inside this paragraph where there is talk about condemning without reservation any denial of Holocaust. This entails with it implicit restriction on elaboration and review, or critical examination and review and study of Holocaust—which is a very clear example of a violation of freedom of expression, a fundamental principle right for a democratic society. We suggest deletion of this paragraph.”


Singling Out Israel as Racist, Referring to Gaza:

* After the EU said that it wants the paragraphs on the Middle East deleted, Syria replied that such paragraphs are very important saying, “We are giving all attention to the Palestinian people…in light of the massacres from a few weeks ago.” Sudan also supported the inclusion of the paragraphs, as did Indonesia, stating “This is bloody colonialism…deletion of this paragraph is unacceptable to us.” Libya claimed that it is “astonished” at the request to delete these paragraphs, considering that “the question of Palestine is the most important question on the international scene.” Cuba asked for additional language to address the Gaza situation.

* Pakistan asked why a specific issue like the Holocaust can be in the document, but the Palestinian issue is not allowed. Likewise, Iran said that if there can be a paragraph singling out the Holocaust, there should be a paragraph singling out the Palestinian victims. It added that the “racism” in the occupied Palestinian territories is the worst of “crimes against humanity and contemporary forms of apartheid, and a serious threat of international security.”

* South Africa said that the Palestinian issue was an important issue of the 2001 DDPA, and thus should be an important issue of the Review Conference. China agreed.

* Switzerland expressed its desire to reach "a consensus" on these paragraphs, stating, “We would like to endorse the Palestinian comment [which initially expressed hope to work constructively to reach an agreement on the paragraphs] and not have this conference hijacked by this paragraph.” Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Egypt and Algeria praised the constructive approaches of Palestine and Switzerland. Algeria asked that this issue not be made one that “would block the review conference.”

* Iran proposed an amendment to add more harsh language against Israel: Israeli actions “totally contradict the purposes and principles of the charter of UN and constitutes a serious violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, a crime against humanity, contemporary form of apartheid, and serious threat to international peace and security.”

African Group:

* The African Group advocated deletion of a reference to the trans-Saharan (Arab) slave-trade, and instead urged emphasis of provisions on the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the need for reparations.

* South Africa and Nigeria advocated deletion of a paragraph that “deplores militias to oppress ethnic populations” because this could be seen as condemning African countries.

Islamic Agenda:

“Defamation of Religion”

* The Islamic Group (Pakistan) stated, “Defamation is not about freedom of expression, but the abuse of this freedom.”

* Iran was very active throughout the week, taking the floor more than any other country on this issue. It consistently advocated “elaborating” legislation to fight racism, proposing further, “Model legislation on the necessity of upholding respect for…reputation, public morals as well as incitement to racial and religious hatred [code for defamation].”

* As the debate on defamation was getting underway, the chair asked two journalists to leave the room, explaining that members of two regional groups had requested that the cameras be removed from the room in that they have had adequate time for filming. The journalists were from the French-German cultural channel ARTE and were making a documentary about the human rights debate at the UN. Pakistan, South Africa, and Egypt expressed their concerns that these journalists would engage in “selective interpretation” of the discussion.

Counter-terrorism, Islamophobia

* Pakistan wanted to include even more language to equate counter-terrorism with racism. Pakistan, Algeria, and Iran also wanted the words, “Islamophobia” and “anti-Arabism” to remain in the document.

@curios:
The word "torture", like other English words, has a meaning. The left likes to contort words to mean anything they want in a systematic subversion of the English language. Look at this link here, and see if you can sense any difference in how the coalition treat people they capture, in comparison to those on the other side:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1139505/Horrifying-video-militants-beheading-Polish-engineer-released-Pakistani-Taliban.html

No - but it should.