posted November 17, 2004 11:03 AM              

FROM THE TORONTO STAR

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 fam 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.

posted November 17, 2004 12:18 PM            

Whenever I read tripe like this story, I wonder if it's the product of:

10,000 monkeys randomly striking typewriter keys....theorized to be capable of reproducing the collected works of Shakespeare.

Or

1 idiot leftist with his head so far up his $ss he will never see the light.

posted November 17, 2004 01:14 PM            

Sure his OPINION can be used to say that he believes that the warcrimes act applies to removing an evil dictator and freeing people from brutal oppression, SURE he can say that detaining suspected terrorists is "depriving POW's"..except they are NOT POW's....see he can apply all of his opinions to Bush and make a case..

BUT they are only opinions. One has to actually review the actions by the standards of the law.

For Example:

Betty Boop is going to be considered charged for multiple murders if she steps into Libby County. See in Libby County even animals have their rights. Ms Boops owns a slaughterhouse and since her company slaughters over 500,000 cows, well we think that the law of murder should be applied to her.

Okay, that example is pretty rediculous and we KNOW that the allegation will not hold water when tested against the standard of law - BUT it is NOT illegal to make that assertion.

A better application of the WAR CRIMES law would be applied to the UN / Saddam's regime for the Oil for FOOD (Blood) program.How many people died as a direct result of buy-offs so that the French, Germans and Russians could get rich? What about the insiders at the UN ----should Annan be charged for turning a blind eye to the genocide and slavery that is still taking place in Africa?

posted November 17, 2004 01:39 PM            

So, let's discuss the factual or non factual account this scribbler poses, hereinafter referred to as the idiot.

The idiot postulates the US was not authorized by the UN Security Council to invade Iraq.

Factually wrong, in other words, BS.

Security Council Resolution 687 called on all member states to go to the aid of Kuwait to remove Iraqi military forces.

A cease fire was signed between Saddam and the UN in which a "temporary" cessation of hostilities existed to give Saddam time to get certain things done. 16 Resolutions later, Saddam still had not complied with the terms and conditions of the cease fire agreement.

Resolution 1441 gave Saddam one last opportunity to comply with the ceasefire agreement and threatened "serious consequences" if he did not.

He did not.

A charge of an illegal war in Iraq cannot be sustained in law or fact. Further, in law and fact, Saddam assumed all the liability for whatever happens in Iraq as a result of his own unlawful actions...i.e., disregarding the articles of the ceasefire agreement he signed.

George Bush is going to be President for four more years and nothing is going to change that.

On the other hand, the idiot has an unknown number of years to continue his idiocy and nothing is likely to deflect him from the path he's chosen.

posted November 18, 2004 03:03 AM              

"You guys didn't really "hear" what Thomas Walkom had to say, because it did not fit into your mental tapes of what you "believe" is truth"

(thanks for giving me that one, Pid. It's the PERFECT explanation for the response from both you and jwhop to Mr. Walkom's thoughts)

Rainbow

posted November 18, 2004 12:30 PM            

Now....my application to you was in reference to your innane post that automatically tied the Bush administration to killing soldier. That was your inference.

Now THIS thread is based on an EDITORIAL - not legitimate facts nor real law -not in the US or Canada.

Jwhop posted the actual facts and ended his post with an opinion -see that is a difference.

If I was to grade your use of copy and paste I would give you a B- but to grade you on the ability to apply the phrase correctly, I would have to give you D-..keep trying.

posted November 18, 2004 01:10 PM              

While we haven't behaved as honorably in Iraq as I would have liked, I think Kofi Annan has a hell of a lot of nerve pointing it out. Screw him and the Socialists he walked in with.

As for Oh Canada! The day the have their own military* protecting their own shores instead of relying on us is the day they've maybe earned the right to criticize.**

posted November 18, 2004 01:23 PM              

You are so shallow...

Mental tapes?

Wasn't it was an "intellectual concoction" coming from your brilliant mind???(which you proudly and unabashedly take egotistic delight in trying to exhibit here, from time to time)

I know about "old tapes," Pid. Old tapes that have been ingrained in our minds for a long time and can be difficult to erase......

So please don't try and bully me, with stupid stuff like this...

quote:

---

By the way, do you even understand the context of that sentance and what the reference "Mental Tape" means?

---

I took your quote and threw it back at you....because it couldn't have been a more perfect reply, had I made it up myself...

posted November 18, 2004 02:06 PM            

Rainbow,

No..it is not something I made up. We have what is termed "social", 'Family' and "mental" tapes.

They are the norms that have been influenced by the three basic entities that I just described. In the case of "social tapes" people are brought up in environments where those tapes demonstrate what is accepted and not accepted by society. In an astrological sense, Uranus is what compels us to "break" those social tapes / rules/ norm.

As far as "mental" tapes- that is our own personal cognitive norms. What we "mentally" are safe accepting. A person builds up that "wall" to insolate themselves from what they may not like - some people are more prone to do this than others.

Living in a dream world is an example of a mental tape.

Providing someone with documented facts that "yersnia pestis causes plague" but their belief that it is caused by angering the gods is an example of a mental tape.

A woman that knows she is abused and her kids are being abused, but she creates a fantasy world in which all is well and ignores the signs - that is a mental tape.

I wish I could take credit for making it up. But it is a sociological / psychological fact that I just applied (correctly) to your posts.

Even though I have my opinions, I do base most of what I believe in on facts- excluding spirituality-. So when I see just an editorial being used as "fact", yes I have to question it's validity.

You believe Bush is responsible for all this evil, yet you cannot assign any blame to France, Germany or Russia for being bought off with money and oil to change their votes at the UN. You won't accept the truth that Saddam used oil for food money to pay off the family of terrorists to kill innocent people here and abroad.

There is a smoking gun and it is not being held by Bush- it is heing held by those very countries that opposed us going in and removing an evil dictator and threat.

posted November 18, 2004 03:30 PM              

hmmmm

posted November 18, 2004 05:18 PM            

Truth be told, I respect your opinion and I enjoy your posts. I may not agree with everything you say, but that is what I like. I think we NEED dissention and differences of opinion - it keeps people sharp.

On the other hand, I just can't stand people passing off opinion or malicious statements as fact - ALA Ozone.

Speaking of you Ozone,

posted November 18, 2004 10:34 PM              

quote:

---

jwhop....LOL...I almost just spit my coffee out over the screen hee hee...you are so right ON!!!

---

Spoken like a true twit, pidua.

Pidua you wouldn't know "right on" if it jumped up in your face and bit you.

Pidua is just a wannabe bully imitator, Rainbow. She hasn't got the brains to be to an "intellectual bully." Proof is that she thinks jwhop is smart and "right on." That is an example of a idiot praising another idiot.

Jwhop present some kind of source outside of Newsmax to support all that you stated. Going into Kuwait to remove the Iraqi troops? Wasn't that the Gulf War which was supported by UN sanction? The Iraq war did not have UN sanction. Speaking of BS and idiots.

Pidua, Bush is the Commander in Chief. That makes him responsible for what all his soldiers do. HELLO!! Now if you can learn to copy and paste like you say Rainbow does you might actually know something.

posted January 20, 2005 04:22 PM              

ANYONE WHO IS A BABY KILLER SHOULD BE CHARGED. I PRETTY MUCH AGREE.

------------------
~*~ Cusp: Gemini/Cancer, Cancer rising, Taurus moon ~*~

Let's go...