Does Canada Have The Balls?
 

Link

Nov. 16, 2004. 01:00 AM
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. twalkom@thestar.ca.

Does Canada Have The Balls? No.
Should Canada indict Bush? No.
Should he be welcomed? Yes.
Should he be charged with war crimes? No.

Next.

Bush will definately face some opposition from the Canadian people - but he is coming to Canada on November 30 to talk to Martin about North American defence and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; and we are going to talk about Mad Cow and Softwood Lumber - leave the war crime stuff to the UN.

Just for the record, Canada sucks. They're the fat, tag-along little brother to the U.S., always trying to get some attention and be involved.

In defense of Canada, at least it isn't Arkansas.

...

I was going to say something...but it's not even worth it.

It's an opinion piece...move on.

Legally speaking could Canada? Yes
Practically spealing would Canada? No

I believe that Bush will be "welcomed" to Canada in the hopes that Canada's, and to a lesser extent the world's concerns can be dicussed... however will that opinion be given weight? One can only hope...


PS> Interesting to note that some of the leading experts in Canadian law advised against charges for political reasons... but sugested perhaps declaring Bush "persona no grata" and denying him entry to Canada (much like had been done for Arafat, Sharon, Qadafi, Saddam, Kim Il Song, Castro, etc).

Uncalled for. Seldom does any good come from that kind of comment.

This is exaclty why the US never signed on to the UN's court system.

Actually it wouldn't be handled through the ICC anyways (hypothetically speaking of course)... the editoral was pointing out that Bush qualifies under the new War Criminal Laws that Canada passed to bring our laws up to the standards of the ICC - before the laws were pretty much ineffectual in pursuing legal action. The ICC legal standards regarding war crimes are based upon the Nuremburg Trials, the first international criminal preceedings procecuting war crimes.

I think we should charge Canada with war crimes over what they did in Somalia to prisoners.

-Rudey

:eek: :rolleyes: :eek: :rolleyes:

Actually the soldiers directly involved as well as the superiors were charged under the Canadian Military code and convicted ... some invovled are still in prison. Regardless, if it happened now the soldiers would be charged under the ICC; and barring that then by the Candian courts.

we should be like canada...i mean seariously think about it have you ever heard them go to war? i can't really say i have. (this is where i would insert a dorky face but do there not being any dorky faces to pick from pretend you see one ;) )

You're not serious, are you?

People from uneducated, poor states shouldn't talk about other countries' shortcomings.

Yeah...

Taken from the "Canadian Apology" Thread:
http://www.greeksource.com/gcforums/...nadian+apology
Other than World War 2 there has only been:
the American Rebellion (Benidict Arnold attacked Lower Canada)
the War of 1812 (nice to see you've fixed the White House)
the Crimean War (yes Canada sent troops)
the Fenian Raids (Irish American Civil War Veterans attacking Canada)
the Boer War (South Africa for those that don't know)
the Great War (well for us it was - 1914 to 1918)
the Second World War (already mentioned)
the Korean War
the War on Terror/Afghanistan
other than that it has been peace-keeping everywhere.

Oh, so Canada is wrong? That is interesting for sure.

I beleive there were times that America decided to just be its self and screw the rest! Sorry, been to long to remember the Proper wording of Isolationism, oops, guess that was it.

Well, We of America as a World Power maybe should start thinking of that again.

Just sit back and watch the world go to Hell. Or maybe when it gets so bad, just blow the hell out of it and leave it uninhabital for years. Make the area substance for Mason Jars for Canning, The new table tops in the old Danish motif.

Close off the Borders, do away with NAFTA, keep unto ourselves, dont worry about Oil, do wind and solar power. Try getting that through Legislation?:rolleyes: Forget shoes, clothing, electronic items or anything else that is said "Made In America"!

Venting done. :)

Yeah, Canada has gone to war, only we spin-doctor it and call it "peace-keeping".

Is this pro-Isolationist or anti-Isolationist? My TE to English isn't working.

i'm not much into politics so ya know anything to be stupid and make stupid comments like i did is fun. got an interesting response to my comment didn't it :cool:

PRO, DAH!;)

Hell, how can anyone be in isolation anymore unless in the Hospital?

This little old world of ours just gets smaller and must depend on each other!

Some argue that Canada played a role in the peace keeping/war crimes that happened in Yugoslavia.

And Cooper I don't care that your country charged them, I think we should charge people in your country for it and perhaps declare members of your military persona non-grata for that incident as well as many other actions.

-Rudey

That won't happen. And neither will that situation occur in reverse, i.e. Canada charging Bush. The U.S. and Canadian Militaries share damn near everything. I even heard from one of my teachers that one president during the cold war (forget) traded the codes with PM of Cannada, in case North America was attacked and one was injured, the other could come to defence. I don't if this was true or just a rumor, but there is website jointly run by both gov'ts explaining the nature of the relationship better than I have.

If your going to toss out an accustation like that please at least go through the steps of trying to back it up... at least name some of these "incidents".

As for charging them well you could... but they have already been charged, and sentanced - all through the Canadian military criminal system, the civilian criminal system, and finally through the then proto-ICC (well all those competent enough to stand trial). As for declaring them persona non-grata... no need, because of the charges leveled against the people in question they are forbiden from leaving Canada and are on probation for the rest of their lives.

Yes the Canadian & US militaries do share alot... at a tactical level:
Joint Training and Exchanges
Joint Exercises
Weapon Systems (LAV 25 & M16A3 are Canadian designs)

and at a strategic level:
NATO (next commander will be the former Chief of Defense from Canada)
NORAD... just to name the two biggies

(Slight hijack)
Interestingly enough, the modern idea of concentration camp was first used during the Anglo-Boer war. The Brits, in their civilized notion, rounded up all the women and childrens of the Boers and put them into camps. Giving them little to no food and forcing them to do hardship labours. Thousand died and this experience was one of the major reasons for the rise of the Nationalist attitude by the Boer, which gave rise to apartheid in the 50s.

Yep the "concentration camp" was literally designed to concentrate the civilian or non-combatant population into controlled areas that the Biritsh could easily cordon off... all of this design to ulitmately deny aid and comfort to the Boer Kommandos operating in the veldte. The British were then able to effectively deny mobility and support to the guerrila forces, robbing the guerrilas of their primary advantage.

To this day, there are still hostilities toward the British for their actions during the anglo-boer war. There is a simmering hostility by the Afrikans speaking whites against the English speaking white. They estimated 27,000 children and women were killed due to the poor hygene, lack of food and basic materials of the camps.

The UK government has never apologized for their acts during the Anglo-Boer War.

I can understand and empathize with this hostile feeling, from everything I've read about the conflict. It is a shame that with all the effort Britain put into the continuance of the Commonwealth that more efforts were not made to heal old wounds.

Blah blah blah. We should just charge you persona non-grata and then start going through your population, especially the military and charging them with war crimes.

Of course this is all ridiculous but I'm sure an extremist like you does follow the "do as I say and not as I do" philosophy.

-Rudey

I'm an extremist now? When did this happen?

As for the rest I'm actually a big fan of the "Lead by example and precept" concept...

Okay, while Pike1483 shouldn't have said what he said...how does slandering Arkansas make it right? The whole STATE isn't uneducated. In fact there are some very good education programs here. Yeah, we do lack in the elementary and secondary education department, but there are still some very good schools in the state, and colleges as well.

Damn, thats cold.

*sigh*

A question for our Canadian friends
 

My local newspaper says

1 - the age of consent (for sex) in Canada is 14. True?

2 - all kinds of abortions (incl. partial-birth) are legal. True?

Just curious.

Re: A question for our Canadian friends
 

1 - Yes. Between the ages of 14 and 18 though, there are limitations, and having sex with a minor is still risky business.

2 - Yes. There is no abortion law in Canada. Abortion is a surgical procedure and is usually treated as such by the medical profession.

Re: Re: A question for our Canadian friends
 

Does your natl. health plan pay?

Re: Re: Re: A question for our Canadian friends
 

Actually, health care is a provincial responsibility, and I'm not certain if abortion is covered. Anyone else know?

14 years?!?

-Rudey