Aurielius Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 diplomatic immunity only applies while in office.And since the alledged action took place while he was in office, diplomatic immunity would have protected it. Nevermind that no "torture" ever took place. The definition of the term seems to have lost its meaning mysteriously after Bush took office. If you're referring to the International Criminal Court at the Hague, the U.S. never ratified the Rome Statute. That means the court has no legal standing to try any U.S. citizen.As it should be. The US is a sovereign nation that has no obligation to answer to a non-existent "world authority". Neither does any other sovereign nation.When Canada wants to abridge it's bilateral treaties and agreements with the US and bow to the non existent authority of the World Court, then I hope that they are prepared for the consequences of such an action. Which is why Ottawa will never make such a precipitous move against an ex president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 diplomatic immunity only applies while in office.And since the alledged action took place while he was in office, diplomatic immunity would have protected it. Nevermind that no "torture" ever took place. The definition of the term seems to have lost its meaning mysteriously after Bush took office.That's not my understanding of it. That protected him on visits while on official diplomatic business from being arrested in foreign countries, it does not totally exempt one from war crimes. What does throw the wrench into the proceedings is that the US unsigned it self from the Rome Statute, he would simply be tried in the ICC. However, since this is actually Canada, Bush can be legally prosecuted by them if he enters their country under their own Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. they have jurisdiction and diplomatic immunity does not apply, and there is precedent of a trial of foreign nationals committing crimes in other countries not Canada http://www.international.gc.ca/court-cour/war-crimes-guerres.aspx?lang=eng&view=d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizardOfAtlantis Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 It would certainly be a more interesting world if there was actual accountability for certain groups of people. Would have preferred this post if you had simply said ALL peopleTrue, true, but that's what you always hear, isn't it? "All" equal under the law? I think that maybe that detracts from the real truth, and that is that there are certain groups who aren't held accountable. "All" widens the vista, whereas I think it might be more useful/productive on a wide scale to specifically start looking in certain directions, instead. Most of us "all" are already easily held accountable whereas the tiny few who really screw things up are simply looking down from Mt. Olympus whilst having a tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 There seems to be a divergence between theory and pragmatism here, the theorists state that it's possible and the pragmatists say it won't ever happen. OK, in theory time travel is possible but in practice it not happening this year, so for the theorists have fun speculating but it's (Bush's arrest in the Great White North) not happening this year. So in essence this debate is just a gerbil running on it's wheel with no hope of going anywhere. Knock yourself out guys. :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Actually "time" travel is not possible. That is for another topic though. It won't ever happen, but there is no harm in discussing if it would be possible or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 The topic is not will Bush be arrested, it is about should he. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 That's not my understanding of it. That protected him on visits while on official diplomatic business from being arrested in foreign countries, it does not totally exempt one from war crimes.Canada has no jurisdiction in this matter regardless. There was no torture, let alone torture of a Canadian citizen. Therefore there isn't even legal standing for such an arrest. Nevermind the fact that if Canada did so, it would open the door for other not so nice nations to abuse this to no end. Like, oh, I dunno, the Iranians? Imagine if they decided to start arresting foreign dignitaries on trumped up charges of war crimes. What does throw the wrench into the proceedings is that the US unsigned it self from the Rome Statute, he would simply be tried in the ICC. Again, I would hope for nothing less. No foreign power should have any jurisdiction over the criminal fate of another nation's citizens unelss those crimes are committed on that nation's soil, or against that nation's citizens. In accordance with treaties we have with Canada, Bush is exempt from prosecution of actions taken while in office short of those that would violate our own Constitution. Believe me, the Democrats tried very hard and made a lot of noise about filing impeachment charges and having him removed from office to then be prosecuted for war crimes. There wasn't even enough evidence to get an Impeachment proceeding started. Now, if Canada supports arresting someone on bogus charges without evidence, how would that make them any better than Iran or North Korea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Bush has admitted on tape that he did torture, and Cheney has said he would do it again and defended his actions. There is not a lack of evidence. Edited October 17, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 That's not my understanding of it. That protected him on visits while on official diplomatic business from being arrested in foreign countries, it does not totally exempt one from war crimes.Canada has no jurisdiction in this matter regardless. There was no torture, let alone torture of a Canadian citizen. Therefore there isn't even legal standing for such an arrest. Nevermind the fact that if Canada did so, it would open the door for other not so nice nations to abuse this to no end. Like, oh, I dunno, the Iranians? Imagine if they decided to start arresting foreign dignitaries on trumped up charges of war crimes. What does throw the wrench into the proceedings is that the US unsigned it self from the Rome Statute, he would simply be tried in the ICC. Again, I would hope for nothing less. No foreign power should have any jurisdiction over the criminal fate of another nation's citizens unelss those crimes are committed on that nation's soil, or against that nation's citizens. In accordance with treaties we have with Canada, Bush is exempt from prosecution of actions taken while in office short of those that would violate our own Constitution. Believe me, the Democrats tried very hard and made a lot of noise about filing impeachment charges and having him removed from office to then be prosecuted for war crimes. There wasn't even enough evidence to get an Impeachment proceeding started. Now, if Canada supports arresting someone on bogus charges without evidence, how would that make them any better than Iran or North Korea?Putting aside the torture claims being false, I assume this is because you think that water boarding is not classified as torture, Canada does apparently have jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes committed by nationals of other countries, commuted in other countries, there is precedent in a recent court case of the doing so to a Rwandan guy, for crimes in Rwanda under their war crimes legislation. What are these treaties that the US has with Canada that null there own law on the matter? As for water boarding and disappearing of people, I think there is evidence enough for a trial to take place. As for waterboarding being torture, the US supreme court actually listed that specific act in a list of charges under torture when it charged a Japanese general. However it is moot because the only country that has tried to not classify it as a human rights violation is the US, elsewhere it is. Unless new information that would come to my intention that would exempt Bush from Canadian war crime law comes to light, it does look legal for the Canadian gov to arrest him. and further more following the official enquiry by the Attorney General came to the conclusion it is torture, President Obama stated - "I believe waterboarding was torture, and it was a mistake." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flintlockecole Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) http://www.international.gc.ca/court-cour/war-crimes-guerres.aspx?lang=eng&view=d#juris P.S. Sorry bout that bit earlier in the week, drinking and debating don't mix. Edited October 17, 2011 by Flintlockecole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts