Will Bush stand trial..... Most likely never

The Useless UN is guilty of so many crimes against humanity they have no place to try anyone.

I won't come in on the specifics of this discussion, although I would tend to support your specific stand on Bush and his administration. However, what I will comment on is the principle behind your suggestion, that outgoing administrations, in any country, be subjected to independent review, and if evidence of wrongdoing, and not just in so far as crimes against humanity go, but crimes of corruption and abuse of power comes to light, that the guilty parties are brought to justice. I doubt very much that any such thing could be done, because, cynical as it may sound, I don't believe that politicians in general, of whatever colour, are immune from temptation, whatever rare exceptions to the rule there may be. I suspect that some, indeed, have criminality in their minds from the start, although it is probably hard to prove that assertion. But that being so, no party is ever going to be the first to suggest a process that may well come back and bite them. I think of someone like Idi Amin, or Robert Mugabe. In non-democratic regimes the abuse of power often approaches, or surpasses, the boundary of what can only be called crimes against humanity, and I find it abhorrent that such men are allowed to retire in peace. They should be hunted down and put to trial in the Hague. Whether or not Bush fits that company is moot; I think, for all his obvious failings and poor policies, probably not. Yet it is certain that things have been done by his administration which should not be allowed to go without serious scrutiny. The lies told about the invasion of Iraq, for instance, Guantanamo Bay and the issue of state-sanctioned torture, for another. I believe our own past prime minister should be brought to account for the lies he told about boat people before the 2004 election, and his administration's draconic treatment of boat people, to name just a few. Justice has had nothing to do with law or governance for a long time. It is all form now, no substance, and lawyers get fat on arguing abstract points of law, often allowing clearly guilty people to walk free. To hope that justice could be applied to political representatives is overly idealistic. Lash

eh. i dont know why but anything that dips in the political pool makes my brain hurt.. literally..

So does this mean when Obama launches attacks in to pakistan he is eligable for the same war crimes trials? Or perhaps when Martin sent troops to Afganistan, he too should be tried for war crimes? Sorry, I don't recognized the U.N. as having any authority over this nation whatsoever. If you guys wish to up there, have right at it, but I would go as far as saying anyone in this country willing to aquies to the united nations over this nation is guilty of sentimental sedition and treason.

Bush will not stand trial for taking away civil and human rights through the USA PATRIOT act and the extraordinary rendition and torture of immigrants that happened as a result of the USA PATRIOT act. For him to be tried, everyone in his administration and everyone who voted for his policies would also have to take responsibility. In order for US Presidents to stand trial they have to do things behind people's backs, and Bush was out in the open about his intent to abuse human rights.