Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chill on 2004-11-25 at 21:45:38
11/15/04 "Toronto Star" -- 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."
Thomas Walkom writes every Tuesday. twalkom@thestar.ca.
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
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."
Thomas Walkom writes every Tuesday. twalkom@thestar.ca.
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-11-25 at 22:41:50
If anyone charges President Bush for war crimes, then you will have to take every award from every soldier. (They are getting awards for injustices?)
Then you might as well discredit every American war leader president in the past for their 'war crimes' for killing Germans in World War I and II.
If anyone thinks President Bush is committing war crimes, then they must believe above. ^
Truth of the matter is, you see more, the media is there for every 'disaster' or 'bad news'' They hardly ever report good news, like that soldiers are building schools in IRAQ and providing food. People can actually leave their houses safely and go shopping without risk of going to jail. I've heard multiple soldier's testimonials on the radio about how the media is bending the war in Iraq.
Then you might as well discredit every American war leader president in the past for their 'war crimes' for killing Germans in World War I and II.
If anyone thinks President Bush is committing war crimes, then they must believe above. ^
Truth of the matter is, you see more, the media is there for every 'disaster' or 'bad news'' They hardly ever report good news, like that soldiers are building schools in IRAQ and providing food. People can actually leave their houses safely and go shopping without risk of going to jail. I've heard multiple soldier's testimonials on the radio about how the media is bending the war in Iraq.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-11-25 at 23:30:30
The problem with what you say is, you assume the War on Iraq is justified. Clearly, it is not.
WWII and WWI had their reasons when USA was attacked. What was the threat this time? Osama Bin Laden? What happened to him?
Awards? Who cares about the awards? Why should we care about the awards if Bush doesn't even care about the funerals?
WWII and WWI had their reasons when USA was attacked. What was the threat this time? Osama Bin Laden? What happened to him?
Awards? Who cares about the awards? Why should we care about the awards if Bush doesn't even care about the funerals?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-11-25 at 23:36:42
The war on Iraq is justified, we are setting people free from bondage and securing safety from a dictator with intentions to use the threat of nuclear weapons to get his way.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-11-26 at 00:15:04
QUOTE
Truth of the matter is, you see more, the media is there for every 'disaster' or 'bad news'' They hardly ever report good news, like that soldiers are building schools in IRAQ and providing food. People can actually leave their houses safely and go shopping without risk of going to jail. I've heard multiple soldier's testimonials on the radio about how the media is bending the war in Iraq.
...blah blah. Don't forget in the process of invading Iraq, we killed a lot of civillians. WHat you don't realize is although a thousand-odd U.S. troops have died, the Iraqui civillian death toll is over 100,000.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-11-26 at 00:34:27
Collateral damage, a lot of civilians died in all wars, but these days the media can report the very second something happens. And the death toll of civilians is not over 10,000 btw
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-11-26 at 01:19:29
I don't remeber Americans killing very many civillians in WWII (excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2004-11-26 at 01:21:52
QUOTE
f anyone charges President Bush for war crimes, then you will have to take every award from every soldier. (They are getting awards for injustices?)
Actually its referring to the fact that we broke international law and our own constitution.
QUOTE
Then you might as well discredit every American war leader president in the past for their 'war crimes' for killing Germans in World War I and II.
Those were world wars. And International laws were made after both of them.
QUOTE
If anyone thinks President Bush is committing war crimes, then they must believe above.
Wrong.
QUOTE
The war on Iraq is justified, we are setting people free from bondage and securing safety from a dictator with intentions to use the threat of nuclear weapons to get his way.
First, Saddam was nowhere near achieving nuclear weapons. Second, Osama himself said that they were more free without us there. Third, we're killing too many Iraqi civilians to call this "safety."
QUOTE
Collateral damage, a lot of civilians died in all wars, but these days the media can report the very second something happens. And the death toll of civilians is not over 10,000 btw
Collateral damage? Our missiles missing targets and bombing innocent neighborhoods is not collateral damage. And what about civilians dying in other wars - especially when we dropped the A-bomb in Japan. We later found that there were no real military encampments in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Was that collateral damage as well or a show of force (as McNamara stated)?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-11-26 at 01:26:15
THe bombs in Japan were not trying to blow up military establishments. Japan was totally screwed, but we had to prove it. Yes it was a show of force, but to quote Trumen "it prevented thougsand more military casualties [on both sides]" and force and end to WWII.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2004-11-26 at 01:29:37
My point was that at the time we said it was to destory army establishments to justify it, so we ddin't come off as immoral and inhumane 
s.
s.Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-11-26 at 01:31:58
LOL, yeah exclude those, those civilians don't count.
BTW: You wouldn't hear about civilians dying because the media was few.
ADDITION: What war crimes did President Bush committ anyways.
BTW: You wouldn't hear about civilians dying because the media was few.
ADDITION: What war crimes did President Bush committ anyways.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2004-11-26 at 01:37:34
Well going against our constitution, the President does not have any power whatsoever to declare war. He went ahead and did it anyway.
He went against the U.N. (which we started I might add).
He went against Washington's isolation principles which have been in effect for over two centuries.
He invaded a nation who posed no immediate threat at all.
And the list goes on and on...
He went against the U.N. (which we started I might add).
He went against Washington's isolation principles which have been in effect for over two centuries.
He invaded a nation who posed no immediate threat at all.
And the list goes on and on...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-11-26 at 01:55:50
A president can declare war up to 30 days then if the congress passes the war, then it can continue (which this did happen)
The countries that were opposing us from attacking Iraq were getting money from saddam.. yeah ok. the U.N is a mistake
Washington's isolation princples no longer exist considering how fast people can travel these days.
I read an article about Saddam, he said IN THE ARTICLE.. IN A LIBERAL MAGAZINE..."TIME" he said he was using the threat of nuclear missiles to get his own way. Thats dangerous.
The countries that were opposing us from attacking Iraq were getting money from saddam.. yeah ok. the U.N is a mistake
Washington's isolation princples no longer exist considering how fast people can travel these days.
I read an article about Saddam, he said IN THE ARTICLE.. IN A LIBERAL MAGAZINE..."TIME" he said he was using the threat of nuclear missiles to get his own way. Thats dangerous.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2004-11-26 at 05:51:34
Oh? The war on iraq was justified? Then why aren't we attacking North Korea? They proved they have the technology to make atomic bombs. So... why didn't we do war with them first?
There was no wmd in Iraq. Any country where you can take over their capital city in a few days poses very little threat. This is a stupid war that my taxxes go to. As if the, what, 140+ billion couldn't have been used more efficently. that.
There was no wmd in Iraq. Any country where you can take over their capital city in a few days poses very little threat. This is a stupid war that my taxxes go to. As if the, what, 140+ billion couldn't have been used more efficently.
that.Report, edit, etc...Posted by High on 2004-11-26 at 06:00:21
DTBK: Hiroshima was a command base for all the southern japanese military forces and Nagasaki was a major port used for serving the Japanese Navy.
They both also happened to be large cities
On Topic: If bush was arrested, America would see it was an act of hostility and attack Canada, therefore screwimg Canada over beacuse we all know that Canadians cant fight to save their asses
ADDITION: Agreed isolated, why havnt we (We being America, Australia cause our PM is Bush Ass Kisser and Britian) attack North Korea, we know they have nukes, they admit they have nukes, the have a leader crazy enough to use them, why dont we declare war on them?
They both also happened to be large cities
On Topic: If bush was arrested, America would see it was an act of hostility and attack Canada, therefore screwimg Canada over beacuse we all know that Canadians cant fight to save their asses
ADDITION: Agreed isolated, why havnt we (We being America, Australia cause our PM is Bush Ass Kisser and Britian) attack North Korea, we know they have nukes, they admit they have nukes, the have a leader crazy enough to use them, why dont we declare war on them?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2004-11-26 at 09:39:35
QUOTE(CheeZe(U) @ Nov 25 2004, 11:30 PM)
The problem with what you say is, you assume the War on Iraq is justified. Clearly, it is not.
Obviously you never lived/went to iraq. People there live like crap, most of them dont have enough money to send their children to school, they never have "true" elections and not to mention the fact that if you go hungry and steel something you would get executed in the middle of the street. Yes that is a fact because i know someone who was in Iraq before and saw all this. This was also the case in Afghanistan.
QUOTE
Should Canada indict Bush
I'd love to see them try.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-11-26 at 10:45:02
QUOTE(@:@ @ Nov 26 2004, 01:55 AM)
A president can declare war up to 30 days then if the congress passes the war, then it can continue (which this did happen)
The countries that were opposing us from attacking Iraq were getting money from saddam.. yeah ok. the U.N is a mistake
Washington's isolation princples no longer exist considering how fast people can travel these days.
I read an article about Saddam, he said IN THE ARTICLE.. IN A LIBERAL MAGAZINE..."TIME" he said he was using the threat of nuclear missiles to get his own way. Thats dangerous.
[right][snapback]103518[/snapback][/right]
The countries that were opposing us from attacking Iraq were getting money from saddam.. yeah ok. the U.N is a mistake
Washington's isolation princples no longer exist considering how fast people can travel these days.
I read an article about Saddam, he said IN THE ARTICLE.. IN A LIBERAL MAGAZINE..."TIME" he said he was using the threat of nuclear missiles to get his own way. Thats dangerous.
[right][snapback]103518[/snapback][/right]
The U.N. isn't a mistake, America is just too stupid to know how to use it.
@:@, one thing that has always puzzled me is what does Liberal mean?
I looked it up in the dictionary, it sounds exactly like what America should be doing. Changing views if new facts arrive. So, what's your definition of a Liberal?
QUOTE
Obviously you never lived/went to iraq. People there live like crap, most of them dont have enough money to send their children to school, they never have "true" elections and not to mention the fact that if you go hungry and steel something you would get executed in the middle of the street. Yes that is a fact because i know someone who was in Iraq before and saw all this. This was also the case in Afghanistan.
Sure, the people in Iraq are living in crap. But, so are the people in America who are homeless. They have nothing, why not help them? You wouldn't need to start a war to help them; in fact, if Bush had used his 600billion dollars to help them instead, he could have helped every single homeless person in America to have a house, have their kids be able to go to the best schools and food for life.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by High on 2004-11-26 at 10:59:53
doubt it cheeze, there are alot of homeless
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-11-26 at 11:03:29
If 6 billion dollars could give a bread to every person on the world, I'm pretty sure 600billion+ dollars could give that to all the homeless people just in America.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-11-26 at 12:20:31
Food yes, but not homes and schools. THey cost a crapload of money.
Not to mention because of Bush's incompetence (pulling the cameras and inspectors OUT of North Korea), it has been comfirmed they DO have nuclear bombs.
And the European world would think we are a bunch of selfish es, attacking a country with little army, because it tried to to the right thing. THey would declare war on US, and all the big U.S. hating nations (middle eastern ones, North Korea, perhaps China) would join them, and we would be screwed.
QUOTE
Oh? The war on iraq was justified? Then why aren't we attacking North Korea? They proved they have the technology to make atomic bombs. So... why didn't we do war with them first?
Not to mention because of Bush's incompetence (pulling the cameras and inspectors OUT of North Korea), it has been comfirmed they DO have nuclear bombs.
QUOTE
On Topic: If bush was arrested, America would see it was an act of hostility and attack Canada, therefore screwimg Canada over beacuse we all know that Canadians cant fight to save their asses
And the European world would think we are a bunch of selfish
es, attacking a country with little army, because it tried to to the right thing. THey would declare war on US, and all the big U.S. hating nations (middle eastern ones, North Korea, perhaps China) would join them, and we would be screwed.Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2004-11-26 at 13:43:58
QUOTE
A president can declare war up to 30 days then if the congress passes the war, then it can continue (which this did happen)
Then what was all the controversy about the Supreme Court giving Bush the power to declare war? The congress declares war, not the president.
QUOTE
The countries that were opposing us from attacking Iraq were getting money from saddam.. yeah ok. the U.N is a mistake
Says who? I don't think Iraq had enough money to give to all of those nations...
QUOTE
Washington's isolation princples no longer exist considering how fast people can travel these days.
Umm do you even know what his isolation principles mean? It has nothing to do with travel... He told us to stay out of foreign affairs completely. A bunch of other presidents said the same later on.
QUOTE
I read an article about Saddam, he said IN THE ARTICLE.. IN A LIBERAL MAGAZINE..."TIME" he said he was using the threat of nuclear missiles to get his own way. Thats dangerous.
Actually I've always known Time to be pretty conservative. But nonetheless, watch out. Someone used that funny little "L" word.
QUOTE
If bush was arrested, America would see it was an act of hostility and attack Canada, therefore screwimg Canada over beacuse we all know that Canadians cant fight to save their asses
Wrong. If we did, we'd break the neutrality proclamation. Remember the last time that happened? I believe it was called World War II...
QUOTE
Agreed isolated, why havnt we (We being America, Australia cause our PM is Bush Ass Kisser and Britian) attack North Korea, we know they have nukes, they admit they have nukes, the have a leader crazy enough to use them, why dont we declare war on them?
Because America is afraid of North Korea. We have never attacked anyone alone that posed a real threat against us. We know North Korea could take out a few of our cities, and frankly we don't have the manpower to take them if we were to invade.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2004-11-26 at 13:58:14
QUOTE(CheeZe(U) @ Nov 26 2004, 10:45 AM)
Sure, the people in Iraq are living in crap. But, so are the people in America who are homeless. They have nothing, why not help them? You wouldn't need to start a war to help them; in fact, if Bush had used his 600billion dollars to help them instead, he could have helped every single homeless person in America to have a house, have their kids be able to go to the best schools and food for life.
[right][snapback]103564[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]103564[/snapback][/right]
If you gave money to most of the homeless people here they would use it on drugs/beer/hookers. Most homeless people are homeless because of their own faults and there are plenty of charitys that will help them turn their life around if they want to. Besides that doesnt compare to people getting executed and women getting beat all the time.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2004-11-26 at 14:57:07
I believe his point was that we should use this money on the problems we have in America as opposed to immediately spending it on Iraqis. Our schools are poorly funded, our social security is being cut back, and we do have a homeless problem. And how do we deal with tis, we invade Iraq.
Go ask every single homeless person in the world how they became homeless and if they want to change their lives around. Once you do that, then you can make a completely opiniated statement like this.
QUOTE
If you gave money to most of the homeless people here they would use it on drugs/beer/hookers.
Go ask every single homeless person in the world how they became homeless and if they want to change their lives around. Once you do that, then you can make a completely opiniated statement like this.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-11-26 at 17:28:58
Actually, a lot of homeless people are because of losing jobs and by random chance, such as a death of a family member.
Besides, drug dealers are usually the rich people
Yup. Fix your own problem, then help others, that way, you'll be in the best condition to do something. Example can be taken in video games: people always try to get full health before fighting a major boss.
Besides, drug dealers are usually the rich people
QUOTE
I believe his point was that we should use this money on the problems we have in America as opposed to immediately spending it on Iraqis. Our schools are poorly funded, our social security is being cut back, and we do have a homeless problem. And how do we deal with tis, we invade Iraq.
Yup. Fix your own problem, then help others, that way, you'll be in the best condition to do something. Example can be taken in video games: people always try to get full health before fighting a major boss.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2004-11-27 at 03:16:34
Nerd!
But really I think Bush should be spending billions on Americans who ask for it rather than Iraqis who don't.
But really I think Bush should be spending billions on Americans who ask for it rather than Iraqis who don't.