Canadian Asks: Should Pres. Bush Be Arrested For War Crimes?

[NATO AIR]

hope there aren't any canadians planning on trying this... why don't you guys arrest kissenger instead?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...S/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes http://www.rabble.ca

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."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Walkom writes every Tuesday. [email protected].

Additional articles by Thomas Walkom

 

[Isaac Brock]

I'm quite sure he won't be tried for war crimes in Canada. To my recollection, nobody has as of yet. In addition, though most of Canada did not and does not agree with what Bush did in Iraq, I don't think there is even popular support or belief that they are war crimes.

It's going to be a shaky meeting since relations have been at an all time low since the LBJ years. I hope Canadians at or near the meeting behave (including a certain MP), but I hope Martin does not simply bow to the wishes of the president to gain favour. I'd like to see a dialogue, not demands on both sides as there are some very serious bones of contentions that need to be resolved.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm quite sure he won't be tried for war crimes in Canada. To my recollection, nobody has as of yet. In addition, though most of Canada did not and does not agree with what Bush did in Iraq, I don't think there is even popular support or belief that they are war crimes.

It's going to be a shaky meeting since relations have been at an all time low since the LBJ years. I hope Canadians at or near the meeting behave (including a certain MP), but I hope Martin does not simply bow to the wishes of the president to gain favour. I'd like to see a dialogue, not demands on both sides as there are some very serious bones of contentions that need to be resolved.

What are they again?

drilling in anwar? Your refusal to have sensible immigration policy? The idiocy of your unwillingess to recognize the threat to freedom inherent in the spread of radical islam?

 

[Isaac Brock]

What are they again?

drilling in anwar? Your refusal to have sensible immigration policy? The idiocy of your unwillingess to recognize the threat to freedom inherent in the spread of radical islam?

You can read, I'll let you go look them up yourself.

 

[freeandfun1]

Should the Canadian PM be arrested then for those actions of the Canadian military in Africa a few years ago? I can't recall all the details, but some Canadian soldiers killed a couple of African "insurgents" they had in their custody by beating them to death and sodomizing them with, I believe, the barrel of an M16. I will have to go find the story and post it.....

 

[Said1]

Should the Canadian PM be arrested then for those actions of the Canadian military in Africa a few years ago? I can't recall all the details, but some Canadian soldiers killed a couple of African "insurgents" they had in their custody by beating them to death and sodomizing them with, I believe, the barrel of an M16. I will have to go find the story and post it.....

Actually, it wasn't even an insurgent. It was a kid who hopped the fence at one of the Canadian forces compounds in Somalia.

Of course the PM should not be held responsible for that, and neither should Bush. Another stupid article from and equally stupid paper.

 

[freeandfun1]

Actually, it wasn't even an insurgent. It was a kid who hopped the fence at one of the Canadian forces compounds in Somalia.

Of course the PM should not be held responsible for that, and neither should Bush. Another stupid article from and equally stupid paper.

I figured as much. Thanks for the clarification. I knew it was in Africa, I just couldn't remember if it was in Somalia or Rawanda.

 

[Isaac Brock]

The point boils down to this:

The majority of Canadians didn't and still don't agree with Bush on Iraq.
The vast majority do not believe Bush is committing war crimes. Perhaps a few in Abu Graib, but not vast majority of US troops

It really is a non-issue.

As for Somolia. That WAS a war crime perpetrated by several members of the airborn, IMHO. They were court marshalled sentenced and had their entire airborne batallion disbanded. Honestly, I think we should have sent them to jail in Somolia for what they did.

 

[MrMarbles]

Glad you said so said, I didn't want to be the one to point that out!

MrMarbles wouldn't by any chane write this column?

Bush tried for war crimes.... thats a stretch. I hope Canadians behave themselves when he is here. Peacful protests are all right. But no booing if he speaks to pariliament. You don't have to like, but treat him with respect.

 

[Merlin1047]

hope there aren't any canadians planning on trying this... why don't you guys arrest kissenger instead?

Well this article certainly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we Americans do not have a monopoly on morons. What an idiotic premise. This guy would fit right in with the Hollyweird crowd.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Bush tried for war crimes.... thats a stretch. I hope Canadians behave themselves when he is here. Peacful protests are all right. But no booing if he speaks to pariliament. You don't have to like, but treat him with respect.

Agreed!

 

[Hobbit]

I dunno what he's thinking. If Canada even considered trying prosecute an American citizen under its laws for 'crimes' not committed in Canada, especially if that citizen happened to be the president, they might as well consider themselves states 51-60...after a little common sense set in (wouldn't want their electoral votes to count right after something like that). No offense, Canada, but you need to shut this guy up before somebody actually pulls something.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You can read, I'll let you go look them up yourself.

I know, stating your problems clearly and concisely reveals their utter derth of merit.

1. Drilling in Anwar is a miniscule environmental threat.
2. Your borders are your responsibility too.
3. Your cancerous attitudes towards socialism and acceptance of terrorists will be your downfall.

 

[Isaac Brock]

I know, stating your problems clearly and concisely reveals their utter derth of merit.

1. Drilling in Anwar is a miniscule environmental threat.
2. Your borders are your responsibility too.
3. Your cancerous attitudes towards socialism and acceptance of terrorists will be your downfall.

...and if you read the last thread. I answered all your questions. Sometimes it's like I'm listening to an old skipping record. Liberal, socialist euro weenie, traitor to democracy. Yeah, I got it RWA, don't worry, I got that you don't like Canada's system.

 

[Isaac Brock]

I dunno what he's thinking. If Canada even considered trying prosecute an American citizen under its laws for 'crimes' not committed in Canada, especially if that citizen happened to be the president, they might as well consider themselves states 51-60...after a little common sense set in (wouldn't want their electoral votes to count right after something like that). No offense, Canada, but you need to shut this guy up before somebody actually pulls something.

Thomas Walkom just a writer and for the Star, no less. I wouldn't worry that is attitude is indicative of a greater sentiment. Bush isn't going to be tried in Canada, nor does anyone wish that.

He probably won't receive the warmest reception from some of the ordinary citizens, but demonstrations in Canada are most always peaceful. I think there is a greater understanding what is at stake with our relations and no one would like to permanently screw them up.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

...and if you read the last thread. I answered all your questions. Sometimes it's like I'm listening to an old skipping record. Liberal, socialist euro weenie, traitor to democracy. Yeah, I got it RWA, don't worry, I got that you don't like Canada's system.

And you have your schtick as well. " We cannot enhance security cuz it's just not the canadian way? Extra scrutiny of terrorists? Hell no, just cuz it's not our way!"

And your paper written by a bunch of left wingers that "proves socialized medicine works", does nothing of the sort. More evidence shows that socialized medicine inevitablely leads to a decline in quality and timeliness.

 

[Isaac Brock]

And you have your schtick as well. " We cannot enhance security cuz it's just not the canadian way? Extra scrutiny of terrorists? Hell no, just cuz it's not our way!"

And your paper written by a bunch of left wingers that "proves socialized medicine works", does nothing of the sort. More evidence shows that socialized medicine inevitablely leads to a decline in quality and timeliness.

Yeah, but the difference between you and I, is that I don't keep bringing it up on completely unrelated threads.

So do you think RWA, that Canada will try to prosecute Bush when he comes to Canada?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah, but the difference between you and I, is that I don't keep bringing it up on completely unrelated threads.

So do you think RWA, that Canada will try to prosecute Bush when he comes to Canada?

Yes. Use the off topic argument to shut down discussions you can't win.

No. They won't try it. Let them try it.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Yes. Use the off topic argument to shut down discussions you can't win.

No. They won't try it. Let them try it.

No, it's called not hijacking Nato's thread.

There are plenty of other threads in the Canada section that you can reopen to satisfy your fixation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, it's called not hijacking Nato's thread.

There are plenty of other threads in the Canada section that you can reopen to satisfy your fixation.

yeah. Sorry. I just get riled up when I think about all your "problems" with america.

Sorry Nato.