Thursday, November 18, 2004

Toronto Star - Indict Bush?

In Tuesday's Star columnist Thomas Walkom asks whether Bush should be welcomed to Ottawa or banned, citing Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Would Canada, or any country, risk indiciting an ex-American president for war crimes, especially after Belgium's weak attempt to that?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1100517502971

Dawn

25 Comments:

At 1:26 PM, Blogger Sami said...

as an iraqi i dont think he should be indicted for anything, the Iraqis in Toronto will be more than glad to thank him, to rid us of tyranny and of these scum who kill my brothers and sisters in the name of resistance. Bush leaves iraq leads to the entire country being under the hand of the beheaders etc..

just an iraqi opinion

 
At 8:42 PM, Blogger From deep in enemy territory... said...

Right, indict him for war crimes. That would probably be slightly suicidal. Approximately one week later after the dust settles, we could rename it North Wisconsin, eh?

 
At 11:16 PM, Blogger EbilGnome said...

I like gnomes :D

 
At 6:05 AM, Blogger Silver Halcyon said...

Bush coming to Ottawa...great...

...no such stand will be made...Canada will roll over and let Bush rub our tummies like a good lap dog. Ugh.

 
At 8:53 AM, Blogger Russ said...

If the citizens of so many countries out there despise the US governement, I wonder why the leaders of these other nations in Europe and elsewhere are not more outspoken against the Bush administration. Are they afraid of him or are they spineless? Just wondering...

 
At 3:30 AM, Blogger stella_maris said...

You're probably right, Russ. They're afraid. Not of Bush himself, of course, because as dumb as they are, they will always have at least half a brain cell more than Bush does. The problem is, they are well informed. They know how much economic, diplomatic and military power America has and they know that it's better not to alienate it completely. Only the countries with enough power of their own (France, Germany etc.) dare to disagree every now and then. Why is Blair acting like a first-class a**-climber, however, is beyond me.

 
At 12:38 PM, Blogger wanda said...

I don't blame Canada for not wanting to take on Dubya. After all look what happened to those of us here IN the US that took him on. It is not Canada's place to fight our battles for us. Until more of the American people wake up and see him and his cronies for the people they are, we are doomed to a repeat of 2000, & 2004.

 
At 1:18 PM, Blogger founding fathers said...

Ramsey Clark has a petition for individuals to sign to impeach Bush for war crimes. I have signed it and encourage you to visit my site. Please forward it to any interested parties. I am looking for intellectully valid advice and contributions on political reform and web expertise for cyber candidates for local, state and national political offices. Such candidates will collectively agree on a platform focusing entirely on political reform.

 
At 11:04 AM, Blogger Russ said...

The British people are much smarter than their leadership.

Cathexis, to answer your question about why Tony Blair is the way he is.... You ever see two dogs walking along and the one walking behind has his nose up the other dog's rear? That one in the back is Tony Blair......

But speaking realistically, the British government has always supported the United States. Maybe they like us because we speak english here.... I don't know - I'll have to ponder that one.

 
At 2:06 PM, Blogger Prajwal said...

Bush would have diplomatic immunity if he travels to Canada. It would be interesting legal dispute to see whether this law or the immunity law takes precedent. Of course, the Canadian PM could probably retract immunity by some fashion of an executive order and have Bush apprehended. This would, of course, be a fiasco that would never occur.

Moreover, even if Canada wanted to commit the most idiotic foreign policy mistake in the last century, it couldn't follow through. Any writ must be backed up by might in order to be enforced. I highly doubt that Canada could overwhelm America's considerable Presidential security...And if it did, it could not successfully combat the full force of the American military...Well, considering how thin the military is spread, maybe...Naaaaah.

 
At 9:05 AM, Blogger InspectorCliche said...

Normally, I would agree that war is not the answer. However, in this instance terrorist around the globe have declared war against US and our way of life. For them, this war has been waging without retribution for decades.

9/11 changed things. We are no longer comfortable to sit back and push sanctions through the UN when a terrorist organization successfully implements an attack. What we have been forced to do/accept is that we are at war against terrorism - like it or not.

9/11 proved to us that we can no longer sit back and allow terrorist organizations to plot and scheme large scale attacks against us. Instead, we must take the offensive and keep them busy in their own back yard. Instead of sanctions or impromptu/strategic "bombings", we have declared a full-scale war on terrorism. We are a country at war - like it or not - and we have been for decades. The only difference today is that we have been forced to admit it and to take offensive action.

A war on terrorism is not conventional - which probably explains why it has taken us so long to react. Exit strategies are nebulous at best - our best offense is perseverance. Terrorist organizations have enjoyed a distinct advantage against us for decades - our lack of perseverance. All they have had to do is prolong the conflict long enough for the American public to become frustrated/dis-illusioned. Once outlasting our resolve, the political pressure has always led us back to burying our heads in the sand and pretending that terrorism will go away.

That approach has not and will never work. Today we must take the war to those organizations that would plot against us. This is a multi-pronged opponent.

Did Iraq attack us on 9/11? No.

Did Iraq support multiple terrorist organizations by offering resource/refuge? Yes.

Should we be at war with terrorism? Yes - we have no choice.

As Bush indicated after 9/11, we have declared war not against a particular country/culture/religion etc, but against any organization that supports terrorism in any way. Iraq was a prime candidate in this war on terrorism because of the power structure in place. Saddam ruled Iraq with terror and openly supported terrorist organizations. Iraq was truly a breeding ground for terrorism - if it were not so, why would so many "insurgents" be filing into Iraq to prevent free and democratic elections?

Many of these "insurgents" are not even Iraqi citizens. They are members of terrorists organizations who realize that democracy in Iraq would be a major blow to their respective organizations. They have crossed the border into Iraq to protect their breeding grounds.

Make no mistake; this is not a war that can be won without resolve. Putting down the rebellion in Fallujah is just the tip of the iceberg. Unless or until neighboring country's agree to work with Iraq to secure Iraq's borders, every insurrection that is defeated will be followed by yet another.

This is a war that cannot be won in the short-term without collaboration/assistance from neighboring countries. The success of democracy in Iraq will depend equally upon the American resolve, the Iraqi citizens resolve, and the cooperation of neighboring countries to assist Iraq in securing her borders.

A weakness in any one of these links will prolong the conflict indefinitely. However, this is not a war we can afford to lose. Future generations of peace-loving people around the globe will be the beneficiaries of this struggle if/when we are successful. We cannot afford to lose our resolve in this conflict.

 
At 4:09 PM, Blogger Carter King said...

yeah,go ahead and indict our president-we'd immediately slap a trade embargo on you,and your economy might even hold out for a week or two....

 
At 10:05 PM, Blogger sexy_momma said...

i dont think canada should indict on war crimes but we do need to keep or strong stance that we had againist this war when it fisrt started and we refused to going. in other word paul martin must not afford the usa our help in this war he should stand strong againist bush

 
At 8:33 PM, Blogger learning outside said...

canada stay out of the coalition of idiots.
I love this concept of fighting the terrorists in their "backyard" Where exactly does this backyard end and what does it take to win? Sounds like endless war is the answer for US. Oh well at least it will help keep the unemployment levels down and the under eduacted and poor children busy.

 
At 5:36 PM, Blogger chad said...

This question is pointless. The fact is charging him with war crimes would result in virtually every leader in the world getting charged. Bush, maybe dumb, misguided, etc., but it is impossible to consider what he has done criminal. Good arguments for and against the Iraqi war can be made...most of the good ones you have not heard, because Bush/his stooges are poor communiators (by the way I did not vote for Bush).

The prison scandal at Abu Gharib is the only real abuse that has happened in this war. Yes, it was bad, but far worse has happened. Truman dropping the bomb, Churchill fire bombing Dresden, Castro, every Soviet, Chinese, N.Korean leader. Take a look at all the countries the supposedly 'moral' countries (France, Germany) do business with. Many do far far worse things than what happened in Abu Gharib.

You may disagree with Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq, but it is not criminal.

 
At 8:39 AM, Blogger wilhelm said...

I tend to look at things from a logical standpoint.Example,with billions of stars throuhout the universe I believe it is only logical to believe that there are other life forms somewhere out there. With regard to the 2004 presidential election logic tells me this. If the 2000 election was decided based on deceit and corruption then 2004 would be no better. Logic tells me that if more people registered to vote in 2004 than ever before it would be to remove from office the man who unquestionably had the worst record of any president in history. No logic here. It appears to me that one of two things happened. Either the republican party was able to really gain that much support from their dedicated followers or they were able to somehow fabricate the 5.5 million votes. In 2000 we were dissappointed with the way some voting machines punched holes in the wrong spaces. This year some of us were dissappointed with machines in key states that were incapable of a recount. There was no paper trail. The machines were manufactured and installed by friends of the republican party.Last but not least. these machines could have been programed with votes allready registered at any time prior to the actual elections. One final bit of logic. If the people most concerned with the outcome of this election really wanted to hide their deeds from the general public, they wouldn't have made things so obvious. In my logical way of thinking there was a two part mission here in 2004. First was to secure the election results by whatever means available. Second, was to show the American people that they could.

 
At 4:59 AM, Blogger Stupid Country said...

Practically speaking, the President of the United States is untouchable by any law other than US law. So far, THIS President of the US has been untouchable even by US law, and apparently the same applies to his stablemates (e.g., Tom DeLay).

We fought Gulf War I for the legitimate reason that Iraq had invaded another sovereign country without provocation and deposed its leaders. This behavior could not be tolerated in a tense, violent world. The US is now guilty of the same act, and whatever mandate for it that Bush now smugly claims is based on a collection of transparent lies.

So...yes, Mr. Walkom, it is a seductive fantasy, to imagine George Bush sharing a cell with Slobodan Milosevic. Isn't it?

 
At 3:40 PM, Blogger Democrat King said...

I agree with all the Ant-Bush people out there. We have to take a stand. The French are too afraid, the British are our lap dogs, the Russians have internal problems, and I don't know why Germany won't help France. Thus, the only people that can take down Bush is the American people. No one else can do it(stupid French...afraid of everything)It has to be America who stops America. I strongly urge that the Germans and the French become comrades in stopping Bush(politically)

 
At 10:40 AM, Blogger bara bseiso said...

To answer the question directly. No No NOOOOOOO and No once again. No country in the world would risk indicting any former American President, Not even an American soldier or any important American person.

The poltical status quo does not permit any country to charge an American Official or certainly not an Amirican President with war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Even if the status quo changes (maybe in a few centuries...lol) and the USA are not the world Hegemon anymore,then maybe countries like China (who would probably be the next superpower) or other European countries like France could maybe take an American President to court but not Canada which is dependant on the USA for its economy and Security.

The fact is that a lot of American Presidents (if not all) are responsable for war crimes committed in the third world( in places like Latin-America, and the Middle-east ). They are no different from Bin Laden. He kills innocent civilians in the US. They kill innocent civilians in Irak and Ahghanistan.

The key word here is VICTORS JUSTICE. Most of the cases in the history of international law are cases o victors justice.Indicted or convicted war criminals are all citizens of small, poor countries such as Yugoslavia and Ruwanda (with very few exceptions).

 
At 8:07 AM, Blogger Roy Naka said...

Keep it up. I enjoy your nice blog. check out my black dog site. It pretty much covers black dog related stuff.

 
At 1:34 AM, Blogger job opportunitya said...

Suitable blog, its very good. I liked the site its
from so much I have to visit it again! I surf the web
for blogs like yours in my spare time.
I will give you access to jump to my beverly hills plastic surgery blog.

 
At 1:43 AM, Blogger job opportunitya said...

Suitable blog, its very good. I liked the site its
from so much I have to visit it again! I surf the web
for blogs like yours in my spare time.
Jump into my plastic surgery seattle blog.

 
At 8:03 PM, Blogger job opportunitya said...

Delightful blog. I devote my spare time just
looking for great blogs such as yours. I treasure this
site and will go back!
Go and find my plastic surgery thailand blog.

 
At 6:42 AM, Blogger job opportunitya said...

Unusual blog. I liked the site its from so much I
have to visit it again! I surf the web for blogs like
yours in my spare time.
I want you to stop and compare with my penis plastic surgery blog.

 
At 1:56 PM, Blogger Davenz said...

So amazing blog

Regards
used cars phoenix

 

Post a Comment

<< Home