It's relevant (as a story) if... and only if... they...
Oh, who am I kidding? It's not relevant. At All.
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
The prosecution of Bush sets a useful precedent for the prosecution of Barack Obama for war crimes involving the murder of innocent civilians through his drone war. Thousands of innocent civilians have died at President Obama's direction in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. President Obama should be tried at the Hague.
It is fun to think about, but it won’t happen. We’re the bully on the block and there is nothing little countries like Malaysia can do about it, even when they are in the right.
But you do make a funny point. See, if those that screamed about Bush being a war criminal said the same about Obama for what he did, they might not get laughed at as soon as they open their mouths. Oh, the laughing would come, just not as quick.
Sarcogito is correct. There is neither the stated intention, nor the ability, to enter sovereign US territory, and take those mentioned to Geneva to face the ICC. The point that it is necessary to draw the world's attention to the war crimes which are alleged to have been committed, not only by those people, but also by people such as ex-Prime Ministers Blair and Howard, is a valid one, assuming evidence thereof is in existence.
The invasion of Iraq, and the fact that it was not conducted by legal force of an UN Security Council Resolution, are indisputable facts, for which a veritable mountain of evidence exists, and the justification given by the Bush administration (that of WMD stockpiles) has proven to be baseless.
Ex-President George Bush has stated that he authorised water-boarding (regarded internationally as torture), and both detention without trial, and extraordinary rendition, (for which evidence exists) are internationally regarded as crimes. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the invasion, so deeds which may be regarded as crimes against humanity have certainly been committed. It is proper that exactly who was responsible for these crimes be established, even if the power of the US can prevent any punishment being externally imposed.
As a Brit, I am more than happy for ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair to hauled off to the ICC, to answer for his role in what was done. What puzzles me is the crudely aggressive responses of posters here, against the proposition that something similar be the case with suspected American perpetrators. Why is this so? Are not Americans concerned about their reputation as a just people?
I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster