It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Canada Arrest George W. Bush on War Crimes on October 20th?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Id love for it to happen and for him to be sent to the Hague for trial but its never going to happen in a million years.

War criminals only get arrested if they are on the other side.




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
War criminals only get arrested if they are on the other side.


Which valid court found Bush etc. guilty?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What legal grounds does Canada have to arrest and try Bush? The US is not a signatory to the ICC, and any attempt to use the ICC in that manner is actually a violation of their own charter.

Canada claims universal jurisdiction over war crimes. I don't think they've indicted Bush, though, and I don't think they would arrest him on sight unless they actually caught him in flagrante delicto.

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Which valid court found Bush etc. guilty?


They will never even get the chance to take him to trial, how is any court going to find him guilty if there isnt a trial?

The US has repeatedly said war criminal trials dont apply to them, they even have a plan to attack the Netherlands if anyone is ever put on trial there.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignoranceisnotbliss2011
As much as I hate George bush and what he's done in the past, I agree that if the Canadian government were to arrest him it would create a serious rift between Canada and the US. I do think that he should be held accountable, so you're definitely right that its a very stick situation.

But I don't think there's anything to worry about because Stephen Harper is pretty much an American puppet, in my opinion...



Are you kidding? They would be dong what Americans have been wanting. If anything, they'd be idolized by Americans for years to come if they did this.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
they even have a plan to attack the Netherlands if anyone is ever put on trial there.


I have searched the googlenet and have found no information concerning this. Could you provide details about this, I find this thought very interesting but would like to learn more.

Thanks.
edit on 11-10-2011 by DorianSoran because: Formatting issue



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


What legal grounds does Canada have to arrest and try Bush? The US is not a signatory to the ICC, and any attempt to use the ICC in that manner is actually a violation of their own charter.

Secondly, people like to bitch about the US meddeling in other countries affairs, so how is this action not the same (hypocrisy for the win). Do you really think the US would allow a former president to be arrested amd not extend that same courtesy to other leaders?

Canada participated by allowing use of their bases and support personell. Maybe the Canadian government at the time should also be rounded up and charged with war crimes?

While I understand the sentiment behind it, they have not thought it out.

Anything else in the box pandora?


It isn't going to happen. I see no reason for it to happen.

If the World Court wants him, then put out a warrant.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I told the world that Bush would never be able to travel to any other countries. I was right.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


You pretty much nailed it. Obama is doing many of the same things - so is he going to be arrested as well if he ever goes to Canada?

A couple of other things to consider,

One, there is a pretty good chance arresting a former President would be considered an act of war. Regardless of the country the former president is from and the arresting country.

Two, I hinted at this in my answer above. Like him, hate him or don't give a flip about him - GW Bush is far from the only former or current leader in the world today with blood on his hands. Maybe they should arrest Hu Jintao the next time the Chinese leader visits? Maybe that guy from Iran too? There is no shortage of current and former leaders with bloody hands.

The point being - I'm not sure any country wants to really start the habit of arresting another country's leaders (either current or former). One, because its a good way to start a war. Two, because you really can't stop with just and doing so would throw the world into even more chaos than it is now.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


If George Bush or Barack Obama would be arrested by Canada BEFORE the U.S. would arrest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it would be a tragic day for the state of the planet. As long as that hateful bastard can come to New York and spew his hatred after all he's done to his own people, I think that Bush shouldn't have much to worry about. Personally, I'd support killing Canadians if they ever arrested an former U.S. President (regardless of political party).



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What legal grounds does Canada have to arrest and try Bush? The US is not a signatory to the ICC, and any attempt to use the ICC in that manner is actually a violation of their own charter.

Canada claims universal jurisdiction over war crimes. I don't think they've indicted Bush, though, and I don't think they would arrest him on sight unless they actually caught him in flagrante delicto.

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...


Universal jurisdiction is a term introduced in the Rome aaccords for the International Criminal Court, which the US is not a member of. The ICC court specifically holds they have no jurisdiction over any country who is not a member. They make allowances when a country who is not a signatory requests their involvement (as has been done in a couple African Nations), or when something occurs where one country is a member.

The proper procedure for the ICC is to notify the "offending" nation of the charges / accusations leveled, and allow up to a year for that country to investigate the charges using domestic law.

Universal jurisdiction can only be invoked when its clear the allegations are not being investigated by the offending country.

The charges of war crimes people level at the Us Adminiatration have been reviewed by the US Supreme Court, and a result of those rulings have cleared the administration of violating any laws. One concept people tend to ignore is International Treaties do not and can not ursurp US Domestic Law. They cannot grant authority to the US Government that they do not already have.

Several Supreme Court rulings have further clarified the treaty clause of the constitution, making any treaty the US signs a part of the US body of Federal Law. This means any international treaty can be challeneged by a Us citizen affected by the treaty, can be reviewed and modifided by the US Congress and can be reviewed and ruled on by US Courts.

Specifically the charge of war crimes - violation of CAT (convention against torture) revolves around the use of water boarding / rendtition / enhanced techniques etc. The US Supreme court have reviewed cases brought before them and qualified immunity has been granted or the actions have been ruled as lawful.

That aside, you are looking at a violation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity for the US President as well as other foreign sovereign leaders (Diplomatic Immunity is present as well).

Article 7 of the UN charter allows a nation to act in defense if attacked, or if facing the threat of an attack. Actions in Afghanistan were justified and qualified using Article 7 as well as invoking the NATO treaty after 9/11.

The issues in Iraq were validated by wikileaks releasing information that a WMD program was present, contrary to UN resolutions. Going all the way back to the first gulf war and coming back to the present, you have multiple UN resolutions that spell out the conditions and consequences if those conditions are not met.

While I agree leaders / military should be held accountible for war crimes or crimes against humanity, the simple fact the cowards want to square off against the US while ignoring Iran, Syria, North Korea, China etc etc etc just reinforces the belief that their crusade is personal and politically vindictive instead of being a genuine concern.

Going after the US for "war crimes" will be an interesting journey, but people should keep in mind that if they are going to ignore the ICC Charter as well as UN charters, then turn about is fair play.

One would think Canada would be more intrested in going after true criminals like Hamas, Iran, North Korea, China, Sudan, Syria, Hezzbullah etc etc etc. Apparently that is to difficult, and even more so when you have no military to back up those threats. Whats easier than claiming the moral highground and going after an ally insteaad of doing whats right, and hard, and going after real criminals?

I see Canada is still waiting on that spine donor. Not worries though, the starch in their shirt will hold them up for some time. Eventually though they will be forced to make a stand, especially when any country could file war crimes against canada for knowing that genocide / crimes against humanity are taking place in other countries and refusing to raise a finger to stop it.

Tell me, where does it end?

The term of Universal jurisidiction is a complete violation of UN charter as it is, which is why the ICC is not part of the UN.

Funny how people are quick to point fingers at countries who "violate" the law, while violating the laws themselves with their 100 meter rush to judgement.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Universal jurisdiction is a term introduced in the Rome aaccords for the International Criminal Court, which the US is not a member of.

The concept of universal jurisdiction predates the Rome Statute by at least a few years.


The ICC court specifically holds they have no jurisdiction over any country who is not a member.

Sure. But Canada makes no such exception. Their law allows them to try anyone for war crimes, committed anywhere in the world, at any time, "whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission." Rwanda is not a party to the Rome Statute, and Canada happily convicted Desire Munyaneza for crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Uhm.... ok

So countries who want to arrest and try Bush for illegal actions are ok with violating the laws themselves to do it? That doesnt sound hypocritical to you?

Also, if Canada has a law that lets them charge, arrest and try foreign people, regardless of whether any Canadians at all were present or involved, and they expect other countries to honor that law, then Canada is required to honor US Supreme Court rulings and legislation that allowed the issues at hand.

If Canada is ok with trampeling over another nations sovereignty, then exactly how are they able to claim a moral high ground?

The major flaw with the oncept of universal jurisdiction is its ripe for abuse and personal revenge. Say Canada decides they dont like France because of fishing issues in the North Atlantic. The term "war crimes" and its intended meaning will vary from country to country. If Canada uses their interpretation of a crime they could issue an arrest warrant and send people to bring sarkozy to justice.

See the problem?

Thats one of the main reasons the US withdrew from the ICC (specifically when the Rome accords were in its final stages of becoming active). There is absolutely no checks and balances in addition to the ICC Prosecuter being the one to initiate their own investigations into countries actions and prosecute from there.

If Bush is arrested, my personal opinion would be to secure his freedom, even if it means going to war. As I pointed out in this thread, in addition to many many other threads, if people are so up in arms about war crimes and holding leaders accountable, then why are there no attempts to arrest the leaders of N. Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Sudan, etc etc etc.

The simple fact that people are directing these actions at the US leadership alone tells me its not because of war crimes, but because of a personal bias IE politicaly motivated prosecution.

The US does not answer to the UN or any other country. Our leadership is accountable to the American people and no one else.

If people really want to go down this road they are more than welcome to take a roll of the dice, but they should consider that they are opening up Pandoras Box.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I think some of you are confused about the ICC.

If Bush was arrested in Canada per an ICC warrant, it would be valid as Canada is a member of ICC.

Canada could not, however, go inside the US to enact an ICC warrant as the US is not a member.

It is not the persons country of birth that is relevant it is where they are arrested that is relevant. Similar to how I am liable to US laws when I travel inside the US, etc.

All of this is really moot though, as the ICC has issued no such warrant and Canada has issued no such warrant.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


First the people of Canada have no say so in this, this is not an arab only issue its a world issue, in who's name are these actions being taken for, no canadians were ever torture or held, and you can not blame him, what about congress, or the Brits, or the Aussies



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Nicely writen, clears the air the this issue



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
As a Canadian citizen, it sickens me that there is even a debate about this right now. They should just be waiting for the plane to land with a truck to drive him to another terminal to fly him to the Hague.

As for the US invading us, I agree that the rest of the world would be behind us, especially China, who have a vested interest in our disgusting oil sands right now (link below), and the UK would be forced to come in too, with the rest of the "Commonwealth."

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bone13
 


The story points out a Canadian citizen that is being held in Guantanamo Bay right now, and hasn't been able to get assistance through Amnesty International.

"At the present time one Canadian citizen serving time at Guantanamo prison in Cuba for killing a U.S. soldier finds himself right at the centre of the clash between the U.S. and Canada. Omar Khadr was “renditioned” – shipped overseas to a third world country for torture – by the U.S. and is now working with Amnesty International to try to get home to Canada. Progress has been non-existent for Khadr. The Americans show no inclination to repatriate a prisoner taken under the auspices of the War on Terror. "



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Canada who?

2nd line



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
It would be an extremely stupid thing for Canada to do. Of course most Canadians I've known have been extremely stupid so you never know. Bush does have a Secret Service detail and I'm guessing they wouldn't be to pleased at having their charge arrested for something he didn't do. If he wanted to resist it could get messy. Canada has been relying on the US military to protect them for at least the last 100 years. Would be kind of awkward if that very same miltary were now intent on returning Canada to the pristine state it was in before European settlers got to it, don't you think? Of course the current Commie-in-Chief would probably applaud them secretly but he might have to do something else publicly to retain any chance at all of getting reelected.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join