Posted on 11/21/2004 6:20:35 PM PST by quidnunc
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.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at thestar.com ...
The Diplomad had read without much interest a November 16 piece in the Toronto Star by Canadian columnist Thomas Walkom titled, "Should Canada Indict Bush?" The Diplomad, not very familiar with Walkom, dismissed it as just another easily "fiskable" piece of nonsense from the loony fringe and hardly worth noting. The Diplomad subsequently read the LGF (Little Green Footballs) commentary on the same article, and read with appreciation comments from common-sense Canadians ridiculing this idea, and figured, "OK, that's done with."
Wrong.
Turning on the cable news, the Diplomad ran across some Canadian law professor being interviewed on FOX by John Kasich's "Heartland" show. This professor, too, was making the case for Bush's indictment.
Coincidentally, Diplomad HQS received a report from one of our Diplomads on a Sunday (today) brunch conversation with a Canadian diplomat who seemed absolutely smitten with the idea. This Canadian relished the thought of having Bush "served" a bill of indictment or arrest warrant during the President's visit to Ottawa o/a November 30. He thought this an incredibly clever idea, and spit out the reasons for indicting Bush for "crimes against humanity" — basically the ones contained in the Walkom column and the Kasich interview, e.g., aggressive war, no UNSC approval, mistreatment of POWs and civilian populations, etc. Fortunately our Diplomad had the presence of mind — which neither Kasich nor Walkom showed — of asking, "What do you think the US reaction would be?" Our northern "friend" seemed taken aback by the thought, and confused, said that, well perhaps, we would protest and file something or another in Canadian court, or invoke Bush's sovereign immunity, but that in the end we would have to deal with the issue in court, presumably in a Canadian court. Oh, really?
-snip-
(Unattributed in The Diplomad, November 21, 2004)
To Read This Article Click Here
Quote:
Diplomad
A Blog by career US Foreign Service officers. They are Republican (most of the time) in an institution (State Department) in which being a Republican can be bad for your career — even with a Republican President! Join the State Department Republican Underground. FSOs (and others) Send us your suggested posts to diplomad-at-hotmail-dot-com
Gosh, I really didn't think we'd end up declaring war on Canada...THIS soon...
Try it; we'll nuke your sorry Cana-duh asses!
More reasons why we don't support the International Kangaroo Court.
I thought it would take an attack from their Muslim population on the US for us to invade Canada. Now we may have an earlier excuse, and the great part is that eastern Canadians are all French.
Well, its too bad it will only take a couple hours to take Canada!
I believe the Toronto Star is the Canadian equivalent to the NY Times: Liberal BS.
Send the Marines? Close the border? Surrender to Quebec (like the rest of Canada has already)?
If Canada is suffering over a lack of beef exports, I wonder how they would like us to REALLY get angry? They might find that they have had it easy all of these years.
You bet. I would love to see Bush charged....so he could turn around and say "Who gives a phuck what Canada thinks! They exist because America ALLOWS it to exist!"
Try it honey bun. I want some revenge for those quarters you keep shipping down here.
The Mississippi National Guard could take Canada in a flat-bedded wagon in 20 minutes...
Mississippi National Guard? I was thinking the Barrow, Alaska PD could do it!
I'll go up and capture Vancouver. Do I have any volunteers to go capture some of their other cities?
If they want to commit an act of war against us after 150 years of peace along that border, let them. I thought we got a raw deal on the border skirmishes anyway. US troops would easily overwhelm Canadian defenses.
Sounds to me like Canada is itching to get its collective butt pounded flat.
NOTE TO CANADA: You don't want us to start cracking touques, eh?
I got dibs on Toronto and Vancouver.
Do the Canadians not realise that Ron Artest,Stephen Jackson
and Jermaine O'Neal do not have gig for a few weeks.
All we have to do is convince them that Detroit fans wave Maple Leaf flags and that the season is open.
twalkom@thestar.ca. This is the email address of the author of this piece.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.