Canadian Activists Vow to Arrest George W. Bush in October

reply to post by amazed


It was preemptive in nature.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


I understand the difference between the 2 words.
I stand by what I said. Think about it.

UBL is not what we are discussing.

reply to post by macman


you did didn't you ?

it's OK to admit it. it wouldn't be turning a blind eye to the issue

reply to post by jude11


Here's what happened to another activist who attempted to arrest a head of state for crimes against humanity;

Tuesday, 6 March, 2001
Mr Tatchell was beaten by Mr Mugabe's bodyguards after he approached the president outside his Brussels hotel room on Monday to arrest him for breaking international human rights.

Mr Tatchell told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he would attempt a further citizen's arrest if the opportunity arose, but felt it was the duty of foreign governments to arrest the Zimbabwean leader under international agreements.

He said: "The Belgian government should have met its responsibility to arrest the Zimbabwean leader as set out in international agreements against torture.
"It is in their law they should have applied it," he said.

"I will have another go if the opportunity arises, but I do think it is incumbent on governments like Britain, Belgium and the French government to implement the law they have pledged to up-hold."

news.bbc.co.uk...

I had President Mugabe of Zimbabwe under arrest in October 1999. As his limousine left his central London hotel, my three OutRage! colleagues ran into the road, forcing his motorcade to halt. I ran from behind, opened Mugabe's car door, grabbed him, read the charge of torture, and summoned the police. Despite presenting evidence for his arrest under Britain's anti-torture laws, we were arrested and Mugabe was set free. The government had a chance to put the Zimbabwean leader on trial. But instead of prosecuting him, it gave Mugabe full legal and diplomatic protection.

newhumanist.org.uk...

Charges under the UN Convention Against Torture (1984) could be based on any of the hundreds of instances of state-sanctioned torture documented by Zimbabwe's human rights watchdog, the Amani Trust. The UN Convention has been ratified by over 120 countries, including Britain. These countries have incorporated the Convention into their own domestic legislation, such as Section 134 of the UK's Criminal Justice Act 1988. It requires signatory states to arrest any person present on their territory, where there is evidence they have committed or authorised torture, regardless of where in the world this torture occurred.

newhumanist.org.uk...

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment


The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

www.hrweb.org...

Canada has signed and ratified under Article 22 (see link above for full text of the Convention), United States of America have signed but not ratified under Article 22 (declaration, that they agree to allow individual complaints to the Committee against Torture)

www.hrweb.org...

You don't have to arrest Bush. Eventually, his epic failed legacy will redefine incompetence in a Commander-In-Chief and forever taint his soul. In historic terms, hopefully, he turns out to be the bottom of the barrel.

...I discovered that my castle stands upon pillars of sand...

It simply will not happen for many reason but the main reason is the Canada has no authority in THE USA AT ALL and to arrest a former USA PREZ is just out of this world what have they got on Bush to be able to arrest him. And how will they arrest him that is the main question here. Maybe will the USA will go and arrest one of their former prez nope I am not taking up for bush at all I did like him at first till he took our boys to war when he was saying it was only because of the 9-11 attach but really it was over the OIL and the fact the Saddam tried to kill his daddy it was nothing more then that. I do believe that the 9-11 was known about in the white house among others The french even tried to warn us when and what and where was going to happen but he wanted a war and this was his perfect chance to get what he wanted

Originally posted by Queenicess
It simply will not happen for many reason but the main reason is the Canada has no authority in THE USA AT ALL and to arrest a former USA PREZ is just out of this world what have they got on Bush to be able to arrest him. And how will they arrest him that is the main question here. Maybe will the USA will go and arrest one of their former prez nope I am not taking up for bush at all I did like him at first till he took our boys to war when he was saying it was only because of the 9-11 attach but really it was over the OIL and the fact the Saddam tried to kill his daddy it was nothing more then that. I do believe that the 9-11 was known about in the white house among others The french even tried to warn us when and what and where was going to happen but he wanted a war and this was his perfect chance to get what he wanted

You're right. Canada has no authority in the US. BUT, they do have authority in Canada and once he steps over the border...

We can't go into the US and arrest him (although the US does that Globally) but for a suspected War Criminal to enter Canada and not be arrested would be the real crime.

If it was a case of a suspected War Criminal entering the US, they would arrest him immediately.

If he'll arrest him, I will do the honors of anything else he deserves....

so what happens when he hears whats planned then goes # it im not going to canada just like he did with Switzerland ?

Originally posted by CitizenSnips
Seriously enough with the whole "Blame Bush" "Bush is evil" crap. Yes he was a terrible POTUS, but Obama isn't any different. There is no Republican or Democrat foreign policy and policy on torturing, it's just one American Foreign Policy and yes, it's a terrible policy.

Yes Bush took us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and opened Gitmo, but guess what, after 2 1/2 years of Obama being in office were still in Iraq, we're expanded in Afghanistan, Gitmo (which he promised to close) is still open because he wouldn't close it. So what exactly is the difference?

Not to mention how in hell would Canadian Activists arrest a former POTUS? Good lord, the ignorance of people astounds me, it really does.

WHO ARE YOU! THE ENTIRE BUSH FAMILY NEEDS TO GO. NOW!

reply to post by macman


Might as well get them all while they are getting one Royal Pawn. Barry Soetoro, Hillary, Bill, and all the other relatives of the Royal family. I believe it will be very hard to remove any of them because of their bloodline. You will never find an average Joe in the White House.

Hopefully, his Secret Service detail will have enough ammo to keep the crazies away from him and if they do take him hopefully Obama will send the military to retrieve him because he might be next if he lets it go. The very idea that another country would have the gall to arrest an American ex President or any other official/ex official. That convention crap and world court crap is for everyone else anyway. Do as we say not as we do seems like a pretty good rule unless you have the strength to challenge the Alpha.

Not to mention how in hell would Canadian Activists arrest a former POTUS? Good lord, the ignorance of people astounds me, it really does.

It could be simply a symbolic thing to say " Hey you were a crook and a murderer, we know it, we're calling you on it" There's not a chance in hell they could get away with it....but at least they're not just sitting around thinking up conspiracy theories.

Bramble when you realize you are not actually part of the Alpha you might change your mind.