Should Canada indict Bush?

[The Stigenator]

yes somebody please indict bush for his warcrimes.. he thinks he is above the law... would someone get him.

No one / country should be barred from the ICC or any sort of legal procedure that can bring them trouble.. by the fact that the US has made it legal for them to do criminal things without getting into trouble is enough to get bush indicted.. since all this started under this term.

 

[shiner]

Careful Canada....you really don't want to piss us off and make us send the North Dakota Girl Scouts after you

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Please Canada, the world will praise you as the cradle of Modern Civilization!

Nah. They'll still have Nickelback and Celine Dion. That disqualifies them from being considered civilized.

You're right. All we have is Britney and Janet.

Are you, BBond, claiming the US is civilized?

Well knock me over with a feather. 😉

I am in now way claiming a society which produces the likes of Britney and Janet is civilized.

I was merely pointing out that, if Nickelback and Celine Dion disqualify Canada, then surely Britney and Janet disqualify the USA.

 

[LunarRay]

Patboy X,

hey!
i got my degree in poetry!
(no, im just kidding. it was real literature

Good... then maybe you can tell me something regarding what I read earlier in this thread. Is 'thats' the plural of 'that'? Can 'that' be a plural? Or.... should one write it as 'that's' when one is trying to say 'that is'. Perhaps it is possible for 'that' to be a possessive 'that' ('that's) or maybe the 'thats' is really a possessive 'that'.... Such a language... this Americanish. I'm trying to understand what folks are meaning on these threads and I ain't got enough vocabulary ingredients...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

So Winston is right. It is all about power. We arrested Saddam cuz we could. Canada can't arrest Bush cuz we won't let them. Even if a proper indictment is drawn up referencing appropriate evidence that a crime has been committed we won't let them.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

So Winston is right. It is all about power. We arrested Saddam cuz we could. Canada can't arrest Bush cuz we won't let them. Even if a proper indictment is drawn up referencing appropriate evidence that a crime has been committed we won't let them.

Sure, everything is about power. Don't get me wrong - this would be hilarious and a great way to get Bush out, but bottom line is that there would be tremendous outrage against what is basically a 'weakling' nation is doing to arrest the US president.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

So Winston is right. It is all about power. We arrested Saddam cuz we could. Canada can't arrest Bush cuz we won't let them. Even if a proper indictment is drawn up referencing appropriate evidence that a crime has been committed we won't let them.

Sure, everything is about power. Don't get me wrong - this would be hilarious and a great way to get Bush out, but bottom line is that there would be tremendous outrage against what is basically a 'weakling' nation is doing to arrest the US president.

So the strong rule regardless of right or wrong.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

So Winston is right. It is all about power. We arrested Saddam cuz we could. Canada can't arrest Bush cuz we won't let them. Even if a proper indictment is drawn up referencing appropriate evidence that a crime has been committed we won't let them.

Sure, everything is about power. Don't get me wrong - this would be hilarious and a great way to get Bush out, but bottom line is that there would be tremendous outrage against what is basically a 'weakling' nation is doing to arrest the US president.

So the strong rule regardless of right or wrong.

That's what I would say...

But anyways, does Canada have some sort of inherent right to arrest Bush?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

So Winston is right. It is all about power. We arrested Saddam cuz we could. Canada can't arrest Bush cuz we won't let them. Even if a proper indictment is drawn up referencing appropriate evidence that a crime has been committed we won't let them.

Sure, everything is about power. Don't get me wrong - this would be hilarious and a great way to get Bush out, but bottom line is that there would be tremendous outrage against what is basically a 'weakling' nation is doing to arrest the US president.

So the strong rule regardless of right or wrong.

That's what I would say...

But anyways, does Canada have some sort of inherent right to arrest Bush?

From the OP:

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.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

So Winston is right. It is all about power. We arrested Saddam cuz we could. Canada can't arrest Bush cuz we won't let them. Even if a proper indictment is drawn up referencing appropriate evidence that a crime has been committed we won't let them.

Sure, everything is about power. Don't get me wrong - this would be hilarious and a great way to get Bush out, but bottom line is that there would be tremendous outrage against what is basically a 'weakling' nation is doing to arrest the US president.

So the strong rule regardless of right or wrong.

That's what I would say...

But anyways, does Canada have some sort of inherent right to arrest Bush?

From the OP:

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.

Yes, I read that post. So you are saying that if the US passes a law that could arrest the leader of another country (say Canada) then that would be fine?

 

[CanOWorms]

Having a Queen is a crime against humanity.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't' care if it's Canada, the UN, or the International Court, or even the US Congress. Bush needs to be tried for his crimes. There would be a huge world celebration if that happened.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't' care if it's Canada, the UN, or the International Court, or even the US Congress. Bush needs to be tried for his crimes. There would be a huge world celebration if that happened.

If Canada is dumb enough to try to imprison Bush, I'm moving south as soon as I get the news.

- M4H

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't' care if it's Canada, the UN, or the International Court, or even the US Congress. Bush needs to be tried for his crimes. There would be a huge world celebration if that happened.

If Canada is dumb enough to try to imprison Bush, I'm moving south as soon as I get the news.

- M4H

Bon Voyage, eh?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't' care if it's Canada, the UN, or the International Court, or even the US Congress. Bush needs to be tried for his crimes. There would be a huge world celebration if that happened.

If Canada is dumb enough to try to imprison Bush, I'm moving south as soon as I get the news.

- M4H

Bon Voyage, eh?

Damn straight. Patriotic I may be, but it's just stupid to invite a Biblical-branded wrath from the US.

- M4H

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't' care if it's Canada, the UN, or the International Court, or even the US Congress. Bush needs to be tried for his crimes. There would be a huge world celebration if that happened.

If Canada is dumb enough to try to imprison Bush, I'm moving south as soon as I get the news.

- M4H

Bon Voyage, eh?

Damn straight. Patriotic I may be, but it's just stupid to invite a Biblical-branded wrath from the US.

- M4H

Got something against Bible-thumpin', gun-rack havin', fanatics?



🙂

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I don't' care if it's Canada, the UN, or the International Court, or even the US Congress. Bush needs to be tried for his crimes. There would be a huge world celebration if that happened.

If Canada is dumb enough to try to imprison Bush, I'm moving south as soon as I get the news.

- M4H

Bon Voyage, eh?

Damn straight. Patriotic I may be, but it's just stupid to invite a Biblical-branded wrath from the US.

- M4H

Got something against Bible-thumpin', gun-rack havin', fanatics?



🙂

Yes, No, and Yes, in that order. 😀

- M4H

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

So Winston is right. It is all about power. We arrested Saddam cuz we could. Canada can't arrest Bush cuz we won't let them. Even if a proper indictment is drawn up referencing appropriate evidence that a crime has been committed we won't let them.

Sure, everything is about power. Don't get me wrong - this would be hilarious and a great way to get Bush out, but bottom line is that there would be tremendous outrage against what is basically a 'weakling' nation is doing to arrest the US president.

So the strong rule regardless of right or wrong.

That's what I would say...

But anyways, does Canada have some sort of inherent right to arrest Bush?

From the OP:

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.

Yes, I read that post. So you are saying that if the US passes a law that could arrest the leader of another country (say Canada) then that would be fine?

That's a fair statement and to answer your question yes. The US has some loose laws allowing this. (Patriot Act) but the real one with clear wording on this is (Patriot Act II). It's actually not only meant for leaders, obviously, but anyone. It's also not really meant to be used in that context although it's sold in that context of brigning terrorists and criminals to justice. It's a bunch of hogwash that eviscerates civil rights.

However I think you are probably looking for some specific law that is meant exclusively for indicting a leader. I don't know enough to say there is or isn't one in the US.

I also wanted to make 2 points.

1. There are specific laws in most nations allowing foriegn dignitaries to have complete immunity while abroad. Stories about them are burried deep in newspapers but there are plenty of them who use that regularly after killing and maiming people. Diplomatic Immunity.

EDIT: If the RCMP tried to serve a court order and arrest Bush they would likely be shot and the President and his staff would play this card first. However I doubt we would allow his plane off the ground if word got out before he could take off. Government officials would allow him to leave but if there was widespread outrage in Canada over such an incident you can bet that immediate political survival will be more important than the fallout of what the US might do afterwards. In this scenario the 2nd group serving a court order wouldn't be cherry faced Mounties (RCMP officers) but probably JTF2.

Having said that you just never know. Politicians are spineless and might very well help get the Pres out of Canada ASAP before the news even breaks. In fact I think that's more likely. After that they can talk about it all they want in Parliament without any real effect at that point. PM and his staff would be replaced inside of a month I can tell you that.


2. Bush is coming to Canada so that the Prime Minister can shoomse around with him for the benefit of trade for big business as well as try to settle outstanding issues with cattle exports as well as softwood lumber. Interestingly the US gets very serious and starts trade embargoes when someone doesn't follow what the WTO decides. That's probably because it usually decides in favor of the US. However on softwood lumber the WTO decided against the US. More than once I belieave and they owe Canada fines to the tune of billions.

However I doubt our PM has the backbone to even bring that up and the US is promptly ignorting the WTO and refusing to pay any fines. heh

Freaking hypocrites.

EDIT: Added to 1st point.

 

[sandorski]

Though I'd like to see Bush tried for his Crimes, it's not going to happen. Might makes Fright, not Right.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

So Winston is right. It is all about power. We arrested Saddam cuz we could. Canada can't arrest Bush cuz we won't let them. Even if a proper indictment is drawn up referencing appropriate evidence that a crime has been committed we won't let them.

Sure, everything is about power. Don't get me wrong - this would be hilarious and a great way to get Bush out, but bottom line is that there would be tremendous outrage against what is basically a 'weakling' nation is doing to arrest the US president.

So the strong rule regardless of right or wrong.

That's what I would say...

But anyways, does Canada have some sort of inherent right to arrest Bush?

From the OP:

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.

Yes, I read that post. So you are saying that if the US passes a law that could arrest the leader of another country (say Canada) then that would be fine?

'The U.S. not only arrested the leader of another country, they attacked the country, took the leader back to the U.S., then tried and jailed him. His name was Noriega.

Even more amazing, the U.S. invaded a nation unprovoked and deposed the leader.

You know, if a nation takes such actions in the international community they can hardly complain when the tables are turned.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: BBond
'The U.S. not only arrested the leader of another country, they attacked the country, took the leader back to the U.S., then tried and jailed him. His name was Noriega.

Even more amazing, the U.S. invaded a nation unprovoked and deposed the leader.

You know, if a nation takes such actions in the international community they can hardly complain when the tables are turned.

Seriously, I would love to see Canada attempt a Noriega on Bush.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sure, Canada should indict and arrest Bush if they want to be conquered by the United States in about 10 minutes.

So Winston is right. It is all about power. We arrested Saddam cuz we could. Canada can't arrest Bush cuz we won't let them. Even if a proper indictment is drawn up referencing appropriate evidence that a crime has been committed we won't let them.

Sure, everything is about power. Don't get me wrong - this would be hilarious and a great way to get Bush out, but bottom line is that there would be tremendous outrage against what is basically a 'weakling' nation is doing to arrest the US president.

That is the business of the World Court but I'm sure Canada can bring an action against Bush and the United States if they were so inclined as could Somalia, I suppose. Since the 'Crime' alleged did not occur in Canada nor within its criminal jurisdiction I know they can't indict him.. eheheheheheh.. but, it would be interesting to read the charges brought..

 

[slyedog]

arrest bush? keep dreaming lib's. one day you will make yourself happy again.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: slyedog
arrest bush? keep dreaming lib's. one day you will make yourself happy again.

I'm sorry but I'm not a liberal. I highly doubt you, or anyone else, can stick a label on me that would fit within your narrow minded thinking. Oh I forgot anyone who doesn't belong to one group or the other is a crackpot. I guess that will suffice.