In January next George W. Bush, one of the worst criminals in the world, will again become almost a normal citizen, apart from the pension and the physical protection which the USA will give him. This should, in theory, allow him to be charged with a whole series of his crimes, but he is unlikely to be so charged if he stays within the frontiers of the USA.
If one asks why this should be so, the answer is political in that (whoever he might be) his successor may well feel uncomfortable to have the sorry tale of the Bush administration examined too closely within the USA, since it might even incite some to call for a thorough investigation of the crimes committed by the Mr Clinton and his administration. I am not making any silly sniggering reference to Mr Clinton's well-known philandering, which is reported not even to have been kept in check while he was accompanying his wife on her campaigning tours, but to his cruel decisions to cause starvation and disease in Iraq and his other hostile meddling in other nations' affairs, mainly in other parts of America, in Asia and in Africa, but also less openly in Europe.
However, there is a brighter side to this in that he might well find himself at risk of arrest and imprisonment anywhere else in the world, and we ordinary citizens, especially those of us coming from aggrieved nations, should be prepared to arrange that such an arrest might take place wherever this terrible man might wish to wander. This could mean that his only hope of refuge outside the USA might then be with his Zionist 'allies', but even they might find it politic to hand him over in exchange for other benefits.
The other interesting leading criminal, who is currently no longer an official 'leader' (if that is not a ridiculous word to use for Mr Bush's former favourite 'poodle'), is Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, the Scottish emissary of the infamous 'Quartet". He very probably thereby now has the benefit of the protection afforded by diplomatic status as a quasi-employee of the United Nations. When his present pointless post comes to an end, he also should, again in theory, become subject to the ordinary rules of law and therefore be chargeable before the courts of any state which he might dare to visit.
Even if we could by means of such threats to their own liberty of movement do no more that persuade these evil men to stay at home we would have done some good, since it is a frightening form of injustice that either of them should be free to roam the world when the blood of their huge number of victims cries out for each of them to be brought before a court to answer for his crimes.
As a life-long opponent of the death penalty, I do not suggest that they should be judicially murdered as were Saddam Hussein Takriti and other Iraqis, but it would bring some sense of justice to those who have suffered so much from their crimes if they could be brought to trial and punished. A good start would be to charge them only with the crimes which they not only admit but proclaim when they are boasting of their being 'strong' in facing what they, in the Orwellian tradition of "1984", call "terrorism", but the rest of the world knows as resistance to unsupportable murderous oppression.
I humbly submit as my preliminary and very simple answer to the question of "what should we do with our worst criminals".
© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!
