I realize that I did not elaborate deeply enough on “bring the invasion of Iraq to the United Nations”. The previous commenters have expanded on that. Their points are well-taken and I agree with many of them.

My point was that, unlike a Karadzvic, who operated completely outside international bodies, Bush did go to the U.N and received some support for his actions. Plus, he did persuade a number of nations to join him, although most did with limited support. Although he choose to twist international law and sanctions into whatever he wanted it to mean and ignored whatever restraints the weak and tepid U.N. placed over his actions, the thought of bringing Bush to The Hague only developed after the Iraq War went badly. Those who said this was a violation of international law were few in 2003. When the world has dealt with other war criminals, their acts have been opposed from the beginning, not years later.

Let us also keep in mind that Bush had widespread support from the American people and Congress to invade Iraq. If Bush is put on trial, the stain of guilt will spread wide. Ignorance is not usually considered a defense for a crime and Congressional support included Democrats and Republicans.

Putting Bush on trial for the Afghanistan invasion will go no where. It can be presented as an act of self-defense by the U.S. Then it had widespread international support and still does. However, he should have stopped there and gone after Bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein.

Now, torture is an entirely different matter. The Bush administration is in complete violation of every international agreement and covenant on human rights that the U.S. is party too. He can face the proper reprimand inside the United States and hopefully will someday.

Remember, even though we’re moving away from this principle in America, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and a trial is not an outright demonstrator of guilt. What his administration has done deserves to be reviewed in international court to determine if he is guilty of what he appears to be guilty of – war crimes; waging a war of aggression, torture, and other crimes identified as war crimes by international treaty and convention.

This is not to presume his guilt! But he has been accused of such and appears, by all obvious signs, to have engaged in war crimes! Put him on trial! If he is not guilty, he will not be found guilty. If he is found guilty, he is deserving of whatever sentence he may receive.

Stop presuming that being put on trial is an immediate sign of guilt! Remember our founding principles, innocent until proven guilty. And to determine that guilt, we need a trial.

The Afghanistan operation was initiated by Bush and was continued after the Taliban offered both to put bin Laden on trial as well as hand him over to a third country if given proof of his guilt. Bush’s words regarding this offer when he rejected it make an interesting footnote when applied similarly to the accusations of war-crimes against him.

“There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”