It's newsworthy, but nine pieces of evidence aren't enough to prosecute a case. What is the
international response supposed to be. Is the ICC supposed to indict Bush for aiding and abetting terrorists, being a material witness after the fact, obstructing justice, betraying his oath to protect and defend the Constitution?? That would make him a traitor. I thought that's the Dept. of Justice's job, but it has utterly failed to do its job because presidents club allows immunity for previous presidents' crimes.
The Hague is only used when people of a country show that their own judicial system fails to provide justice. I'm not sure that we've tried to do that. But if we succeed, and take both Bush and the Saudis to The Hague, their religious satellites will take the US there for terrorist attacks on their countries.
Even if these prosecutions might help heal international wounds, I believe that elites and their legal teams are too lazy to do this much work.
Knowing all these facts won't make the adjudication process dependable, trustworthy or committed.
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.