Political Crossfire Forums

[Boondoggle]

I'm sure Bush will receive a nice big protest er... I mean welcome.

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."

Should Canada indict Bush?

[Golddave]

Good luck, canada will get invaded if they arrest the Pres of the US. As if they would. Common sense is not so common.

[timmtc]

Sorry, that will never happen, Canadians do not want that to happen. Our economy is dependent on the Americans, and vice versa. Some people make the most absurd remarks.

[Saviz]

Ye, we can't charge him... however some protestor could blow his brains all over his wifes new blouse...

[timmtc]

Wow I can't believe you just said that.

[Golddave]

Saviz wrote: Ye, we can't charge him... however some protestor could blow his brains all over his wifes new blouse...

I'd like to see some dumb s**t try, the secret service will kill that F**K**.

[eXploiTeD]

He should be indicted. He IS a war criminal. It's never gonna happen, of course, because nobody holds the US to the same moral standards that are applied to the rest of the world.

[Golddave]

eXploiTeD wrote: He should be indicted. He IS a war criminal. It's never gonna happen, of course, because nobody holds the US to the same moral standards that are applied to the rest of the world.

Mate, he isn't a war criminal, I went to Iraq, I know. End of story.

[timmtc]

eXploiTeD wrote: He should be indicted. He IS a war criminal. It's never gonna happen, of course, because nobody holds the US to the same moral standards that are applied to the rest of the world.

Why hasnt Jaque Chirac and Putin been indited for scamming the UN with the food for oil program?

[angry leftist]

The reason that Bush, Chirac, and Putin have not, and will not be indicted is simple. International Law does not apply to powerful countries. Why is America allowed to build nuclear weapons, but Iran isn't? They are just as dangerous no matter who has them. The sad fact is that the name of the game in international relations these days is realpolitik. Everyone is looking out for number one and it will be quite a while before international cooperation gets back on its feet.

[D@N]

I don't think(much to my disappointment) that Bush could be indicted without something blowing up. But if he fell over on his accord, or maybe an encore performance of choking on a pretzel, then the government could tell him the same thing the Americans told Castro "no, we do not which for him to recover. some things, like his regime, should fall with him".

That would be classy to read in the newspapers. :-D

[timmtc]

angry leftist wrote: The reason that Bush, Chirac, and Putin have not, and will not be indicted is simple. International Law does not apply to powerful countries. Why is America allowed to build nuclear weapons, but Iran isn't? They are just as dangerous no matter who has them. The sad fact is that the name of the game in international relations these days is realpolitik. Everyone is looking out for number one and it will be quite a while before international cooperation gets back on its feet.


Lots of countries have WMD's. Its not illegal, however in order to be internationally recognized and allowed to have them you need to fit some requirements. I don't know about those requirements, but I do know they are there.

[URallIgnorant]

timmtc wrote: eXploiTeD wrote: He should be indicted. He IS a war criminal. It's never gonna happen, of course, because nobody holds the US to the same moral standards that are applied to the rest of the world.

Why hasnt Jaque Chirac and Putin been indited for scamming the UN with the food for oil program?

Because it isn't a war crime.

Trying to shift the blame on to other nations doesn't make the US administration any less guilty.

As this article points out there are numerous violations. Of course the US isn't a party to the International Criminal Court and don't recognise it, hmmm...I wonder why?

[URallIgnorant]

Quote: Lots of countries have WMD's. Its not illegal, however in order to be internationally recognized and allowed to have them you need to fit some requirements. I don't know about those requirements, but I do know they are there.

Yeah, here is the requirement to have nuclear weapons and other WMD's...know how to make them.

To be internationally recognised...say you have them (or have someone rat you out like in the case of Israel).

Allowed...well, try and take them away and see what happens.

Why don't you quit speculating and find out some facts before you come here spewing your erroneous views.

[Locke_]

The question is COULD Canada indict Bush without a U.S military response?

[ChaseNorth]

Bush would have to be charged with a crime FIRST
Then, the US would have to make a formal response to that charge THEN Canada could issue a warrant and THEN they could arrest him.

Of course, Bush will not be arrested because of the stipulations of the 1991 cease fire: complete disarmament with verification which Hussein refused to do for 12 years. In addition to this he fired on coalition forces (and weapons inspectors) and in 1998, kicked the UN out of the country.

So validity of the war cannot be measure in terms of it meeting the standards of a war crime; it merely failed to garner international public support.

If Canada were to arrest Bush without charge under the ICC and without due process to that charge (ie the US either says it prosecute Bush on US soil or not) then Canada would be the committing an act of war and the US would react in kind. Considering the pathetic state of Canada's forces, the rout would be quicker than Iraq's. I also doubt we'd be in any hurry to leave.

[angry leftist]

A military leader is supposed to take responsibility for everything that happens under his command. Now as Bush is fond of reminding everyone that he is the US commander-in-chief that would make him responsible for the attrocities committed at Abu-Ghraib. Thus Bush = War Criminal.

But everyone already knows that Americans don't play by their own rules.

[ChaseNorth]

He takes responsibility for his decisions, not those of lunatic privates who have ALREADY been charged and are currently being prosecuted.
The US is therefore addressing any potential war crimes associated with those troops at Abu Ghraib.

[Boondoggle]

ChaseNorth wrote: Of course, Bush will not be arrested because of the stipulations of the 1991 cease fire: complete disarmament with verification which Hussein refused to do for 12 years.

That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that by international law, you either have to be acting in self-defense or with a UN resolution that clearly authorizes the use of force to go to war. The US had neither for the second war, and it's a widely shared view among lawyers, law professors, the UN, and other countries that the war is illegal. Further, you also have US violations of the Geneva Convention outside of Iraq.

Quote: In addition to this he fired on coalition forces (and weapons inspectors) and in 1998, kicked the UN out of the country.

That is completely wrong. The US, and they admitted to this, used the weapons inspectors to spy on Saddam to try and gather information to overthrow him in violation of the UN mandate, which was to disarm not regime change. This undermined the inspections process because you cannot expect someone to be very cooperative with inspections of security sites when your objective is regime change.

The US provoked a confrontation with the Iraqis by refusing to work within an agreement that they made called the modalities for sensitive site inspections. The agreement limited the inspection team to 4 people for sensitive (ie security) sites, and if they found something they could bring the rest of the people in. The US sent the inspectors to the ministry of defense, and the Iraqis said they could inspect it with the modality rules (ie 4 people) but the inspection team were under orders to have all the people enter so the Iraqis said no. Richard Butler called this Iraqi obstruction. RICHARD BUTLER THEN ORDERED THE UN INSPECTORS OUT UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE UNITED STATES. Once the inspectors were out, the US and Britain began operation Desert Fox, which did not have UN authorization, and used information gathered from the weapon inspections to target Saddam's personal security. The result was four years without inspectors because Saddam said they were nothing more than US spies.

Quote: So validity of the war cannot be measure in terms of it meeting the standards of a war crime; it merely failed to garner international public support.

Validity of war is determined by treaties that are entered. Once a treaty is signed and ratified by the US it is the supreme law of the land according to article 6 of the US constitution. As stated above, the war is in violation of such treaties.

Quote: If Canada were to arrest Bush without charge under the ICC and without due process to that charge (ie the US either says it prosecute Bush on US soil or not) then Canada would be the committing an act of war and the US would react in kind. Considering the pathetic state of Canada's forces, the rout would be quicker than Iraq's. I also doubt we'd be in any hurry to leave.

First I think some people fail to see the point that the article points out a double standard; it does not state that Canada will do it. I'd be happy if Canada just said: sorry, but we don't want your kind here. I'm sure the protestors will deliver that message.

Military supremacy...blah blah blah... The US spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, and has a hard time fighting wars in developing countries. Not to mention Canada is far bigger than Iraq. Good luck trying to occupy that much land with the troops you don't have enough of for Iraq.

[timmtc]

Quote: If Canada were to arrest Bush without charge under the ICC and without due process to that charge (ie the US either says it prosecute Bush on US soil or not) then Canada would be the committing an act of war and the US would react in kind. Considering the pathetic state of Canada's forces, the rout would be quicker than Iraq's. I also doubt we'd be in any hurry to leave.

Do you even know anything about the Canadian military? We spend more money on our military than Israel does. Stop making assumptions, every time you wrongly assume you look like an idiot.