Toronto Star: Should Canada Indict Bush?

[SharpLS-96]

I'm sure the liberals would love to see this but it will never happen!!!!
Come to think of it, shouldn't Canada have contributed something to the world before attempting to indict anyone for anything? Oh wait, allowing the liberals to move there scores a point with me!!!



Should Canada indict Bush?
THOMAS WALKOM

When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa — probably later this year — should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?

It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada's ineffectual laws in line with the rules of the new International Criminal Court. While never tested, it lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign leader like Bush could face arrest.

In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime, even outside Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war crime? According to the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by "customary international law" or by conventions that Canada has adopted.

War crimes also specifically include any breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, such as torture, degradation, wilfully depriving prisoners of war of their rights "to a fair and regular trial," launching attacks "in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians" and deportation of persons from an area under occupation.

Outside of one well-publicized (and quickly squelched) attempt in Belgium, no one has tried to formally indict Bush. But both Oxfam International and the U.S. group Human Rights Watch have warned that some of the actions undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, particularly in Iraq, may fall under the war crime rubric.

The case for the prosecution looks quite promising. First, there is the fact of the Iraq war itself. After 1945, Allied tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo — in an astonishing precedent — ruled that states no longer had the unfettered right to invade other countries and that leaders who started such conflicts could be tried for waging illegal war.

Concurrently, the new United Nations outlawed all aggressive wars except those authorized by its Security Council.

Today, a strong case could be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg principles by invading Iraq. Indeed, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has already labelled that war illegal in terms of the U.N. Charter.

Second, there is the manner in which the U.S. conducted this war.

The mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison is a clear contravention of the Geneva Accord. The U.S. is also deporting selected prisoners to camps outside of Iraq (another contravention). U.S. press reports also talk of shadowy prisons in Jordan run by the CIA, where suspects are routinely tortured. And the estimated civilian death toll of 100,000 may well contravene the Geneva Accords prohibition against the use of excessive force.

Canada's war crimes law specifically permits prosecution not only of those who carry out such crimes but of the military and political superiors who allow them to happen.

What has emerged since Abu Ghraib shows that officials at the highest levels of the Bush administration permitted and even encouraged the use of torture.

Given that Bush, as he likes to remind everyone, is the U.S. military's commander-in-chief, it is hard to argue he bears no responsibility.

Then there is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. says detainees there do not fall under the Geneva accords. That's an old argument.

In 1946, Japanese defendants explained their mistreatment of prisoners of war by noting that their country had never signed any of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese were convicted anyway.

Oddly enough, Canada may be one of the few places where someone like Bush could be brought to justice. Impeachment in the U.S. is most unlikely. And, at Bush's insistence, the new international criminal court has no jurisdiction over any American.

But a Canadian war crimes charge, too, would face many hurdles. Bush was furious last year when Belgians launched a war crimes suit in their country against him — so furious that Belgium not only backed down under U.S. threats but changed its law to prevent further recurrences.

As well, according to a foreign affairs spokesperson, visiting heads of state are immune from prosecution when in Canada on official business. If Ottawa wanted to act, it would have to wait until Bush was out of office — or hope to catch him when he comes up here to fish.

And, of course, Canada's government would have to want to act. War crimes prosecutions are political decisions that must be authorized by the federal attorney-general.

Still, Prime Minister Paul Martin has staked out his strong opposition to war crimes. This was his focus in a September address to the U.N. General Assembly.

There, Martin was talking specifically about war crimes committed by militiamen in far-off Sudan. But as my friends on the Star's editorial board noted in one of their strong defences of concerted international action against war crimes, the rule must be, "One law for all."


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con.../www.rabble.ca

[The_Hitman]

Haha...

[Vegassc400]

This is rediculous. I don't agree with the Iraq war either but charging Bush with war crimes is beyond stupid.

[mmarshall]

Originally posted by Vegassc400
This is rediculous. charging Bush with war crimes is beyond stupid.

Of course it is............why do you think it is coming from CANADA?

[Stage3]

they can do that all they want, but you know that the Canadian enconomy will be completely shut down. borders on lock down, trade embargos, nothing coming in or going out. so go ahead and indict him, but they are messing with a hornets nest.

[mmarshall]

Originally posted by Stage3
they can do that all they want, but you know that the Canadian enconomy will be completely shut down. borders on lock down, trade embargos, nothing coming in or going out. so go ahead and indict him, but they are messing with a hornets nest.

I agree with you in spirit, Stage3, but if we take your comments literally, that would mean a blockade of both Canadian coasts by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, placing our military in conflict with theirs, not to mention the possibility of us having to sink ships of other nations trying to carry on trade with the Canadians.That would not only end up a hornet's nest.....that would be den of poisonous snakes. And...with Canada being nominally united with the British Commonwealth...it would also cause a crisis between us and Tony Blair, one of our closest allies.

[bizzy928]

Originally posted by mmarshall
Of course it is............why do you think it is coming from CANADA?

Ohhh, thats a good one!

[braheem]

It's not going to happen, as long as he's president he has diplomatic immunity.

[jmecbr900]

What's comical is how a writer, sitting in his comfy chair in a loft somewhere, has the gall to play armchair quarterback about things that he obviously is both ill informed about and totally unable to comprehend.

I'm so tired of the bleeding hearts whinning and complaining about "torture" of prisoners at the Iraqi prison. Putting underwear on someone's head and taking pics is far from "torture", as a matter of fact that happens on college campuses during hazing week every freaking year. It is something that is was not in good taste or very politically correct, but certainly not something that deems soooo much infamy (sp?).

People want to stick their head in the sand and believe that WAR is something that is happening wayyyy over there in a far away land where they are shooting each other with slingshots full of cotton balls. Well, people need to wake up and look at the situation as it is in REALITY.

REALITY is that Americans are being KILLED and their corpses are being dragged down the street like in mediaval (sp?) times. REALITY is that if ANY of us simply walked down an Iraqi street selling bibles door to door we'd meet the same fate as any soldier stationed there. REALITY is that they are beheading people over there just to get their way. REALITY is that our soldiers are living in very difficult and bad conditions in order to give someone else a chance at living a life where they don't fear death is coming any day for them. REALITY is that thousands of INNOCENT and BRAVE soldiers are fighting every single day to keep terrorism at bay. REALITY is that people are so quickly forgetting that more than 3000 INNOCENT, BLACK, WHITE, GREEN, BLUE, AND YELLOW PEOPLE DIED ON 9/11. REALITY is that Iraq directly HELPED those same people successfully reach their 9/11 goal. REALITY is that there are true barbarians living among us to this very day. REALITY is that they are willing to KILL me and you and our children simply because we were born here. NO OTHER REASON. REALITY is that in a war, people die. REALITY is that people dying in a war is not pretty or humane by definition. IT is brutal. IT has to be.

I have friends that are soldiers fighting in the thick of it in Iraq. If I had half their courage and half their training, I'd volunteer to take their place and give them a break. I'd do that because that is what they are doing for ME and MY family right now. Without complaining. Without air conditioning in a desert. Without seeing their loved ones for MONTHS at a time. Sleeping in sand trench a million miles from home. NOT scared to defend YOU and ME even at the cost of their lives. THAT to me is what we should be talking about and putting out in media. Instead, the whinning bleeding hearts are still talking about underwear on the head of PRISONERS (not innocent civilians mind you) and allegedly fighting for oil.

I tell you what.....I will be proud to offer ANY serviceman/woman MY soft bed and share MY warm food with them because they weren't scared to stand up and protect MY family.

Some people don't agree with the decision to wage a war against EVERYONE involved in the active support of terrorism. I don't understand that view, but it is their perrogative to have that view.

Ironic how people condemn their country which happens to be the same country that has for years fought valiantly to GIVE them that right to complain without fear of retribution. Poetic irony indeed.

If this guy Walkom wants to bring up anyone on charges of war crimes, why isn't he writing about Ossamah? If he really cared about justice, why isn't he bringing to light the REAL torturuous regime of Saddam? If this guy had an ounce of unbiased journalism left in his pathetic body, why doesn't he remotely attempt to look at things from both sides of the field? The media will always be the same, commercial. They will print and show us all what THEY feel will sell whatever it is they're selling. Yet again another example of taking advantage of a freedom afforded them. How ironic.

[bitkahuna]

Nice post Jaime.

This smug Liberal reporter desperately seeking a relevant role for Canada beyond Ice Hockey has got some freaking nerve, eh? [sic]

I'd like to see Canada do what he said. Then I'd like to see Cheney and Rumsfeld's response! Hooo Aaaahhh!

[videcormeum]

Originally posted by bitkahuna
Nice post Jaime.

This smug Liberal reporter desperately seeking a relevant role for Canada beyond Ice Hockey has got some freaking nerve, eh? [sic]

I'd like to see Canada do what he said. Then I'd like to see Cheney and Rumsfeld's response! Hooo Aaaahhh!

As the question I'd like to pose to you is a bit off topic - I'm going to send you a PM shortly ...

M.

[jmecbr900]

Originally posted by whipimpin
As the question I'd like to pose to you is a bit off topic - I'm going to send you a PM shortly ...

M.

Don't be talking about me in private now......

[bitkahuna]

Originally posted by jmecbr900
Don't be talking about me in private now......

Yeah he asked me how I came to know such a great guy as you.

[jmecbr900]

Originally posted by bitkahuna
Yeah he asked me how I came to know such a great guy as you.

Shucks......you say the sweetest things poopsy......

[JAC JZS]

Originally posted by jmecbr900
Shucks......you say the sweetest things poopsy......

poopsy http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif