War Crimes Tribunal

Hmmmm. As more reports come out regularly of abuse of "detainees" in US custody, I'm wondering if perhaps the nomination of John Bolton is a calculated one by the administration, and not merely a poor choice they aren't willing to admit to. Perhaps this is a continuation of a policy if separatism began with the repudiation of the World Court treaty by President Bush two years ago. Forgetting for a moment the bad precedent set by telling treaty partners that treaties with us are only good until the next administration takes office, could this be part of a larger plan?

Suppose we send Mr. Bolton to the U.N. and during his tenure there, the U.S. decides to part ways with the U.N. Mr. Bolton has clearly stated his views with regard to U.S. participation in the United Nations. Perhaps his job is to extricate us from participation.

What effect would this have on U.S. responsibility to a U.N. created War Crimes Tribunal? We've already told the International Criminal Court (World Court) that we reserve the right not to be bound by its decisions, and now we are aiming to have an ambassador to the U.N. who believes we should be similarly free from any influence of the U.N., which would include War Crimes tribunals.

As the details come out of the attrocious things perpetrated in our name by this administration in pursuit of the "war on terror", it would not surprise me at all if at some point our leaders are called to answer for these attrocities. I'm just wondering if this policy of separatism may not be entirely separate from the war in Iraq.

Just some musings on a Sunday morning.

Liam.