If the court can prosecute the President of Sudan, a nonsignatory to the statute of the ICC, why couldn't it prosecute Bush? When you need them, the experts are not to be found.
Time and time again, experts and commentators have told us the International Criminal Court in the Hague could not prosecute Bush because the U.S. had not joined the treaty creating the court. So they said, the court might prosecute Tony Blair, because the U.K. had joined.
This issue has remained silent for several years now.
Yet today comes news that the court seeks to prosecute Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for crimes committed in Darfur. "Sudan president to be charged by ICC of war crimes" http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article27817
Sudan had not joined the court for the same the reason the U.S. hadn't, it might find it guilty of something.
According to the article linked above, the treaty creating the court authorizes prosecution of non-signatories in some situations.
If the court can prosecute al-Bashir, why not Bush?
Why hasn't some expert told us about this before?
Where are the experts when you need them?
Original: Int'l Criminal Court Jurisdiction over Bush: Where are the experts when we need them?