Should Canadian Authority arrest George Bush?

[lukertin]

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

They do not have jurisdiction. Clauses of a lawful treaty are not precedent, nor are they absolute law. The alleged acts did not occur on Canadian soil, the decision was not made on Canadian soil, and the alleged acts were not targeted at Canadian citizens. The problem is when a court tries an individual who has committed acts not within, relating to, or affecting persons of that court's jurisdiction, that court has violated due process by every meaning of the term as understood by the international community.

 

Things like the Rome Treaty would naturally be subservient to something such as the Canadian Charter which protects rights of due process and thus that particular clause of the Rome Treaty allowing Canada to try whoever it wants is likely invalid and a grossly inimical to the provisions of Canada's supreme laws. So, no.

 

Edit: It's ironic that Amnesty International is willing to 'avenge' violations of human rights by violating human rights. Really goes to show what kind of people they are, namely: they're no better than the 'monsters' they vilify.

Edited October 17, 2011 by lukertin

[Ghogiel]

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

They do not have jurisdiction. Clauses of a lawful treaty are not precedent, nor are they absolute law. The alleged acts did not occur on Canadian soil, the decision was not made on Canadian soil, and the alleged acts were not targeted at Canadian citizens. The problem is when a court tries an individual who has committed acts not within, relating to, or affecting persons of that court's jurisdiction, that court has violated due process by every meaning of the term as understood by the international community.

 

Things like the Rome Treaty would naturally be subservient to something such as the Canadian Charter which protects rights of due process and thus that particular clause of the Rome Treaty allowing Canada to try whoever it wants is likely invalid and a grossly inimical to the provisions of Canada's supreme laws. So, no.

There is at least 1 Canadian that was subject to Guantanamo.

 

Due process for Maher Arar, a Canadian turned over and subjected to torture

Edited October 17, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Arthmoor]

There is at least 1 Canadian that was subject to Guantanamo.

 

Due process for Maher Arar, a Canadian turned over and subjected to torture

Nice try, but he was deported to Syria legitimately. Not held at Guantanamo and certainly not subjected to torture by our hand.

 

Though even Amnesty International was forced to call it "presumed torture". So there's not even evidence enough to convince them? They certainly don't use the same burden of proof standards the civilized world does, so that seems awfully telling to me.

[Ghogiel]

How about Omar Khadr?

[Aurielius]

How about Omar Khadr?

 

Excerpt from released State Dept correspondence with Canadian Consular affairs.

"Canada confirms the specific understanding of the United States that following such transfer, Canadian law would determine whether Mr. Khadr serves the full remainder of his sentence~ or some lesser portion of his sentence. Canada further confirms to United States' specific understanding that such transfer would result m:Mr. Khadr being subject to Canadian law pertaining to detention and in Mr. Khadr being able to apply to the :-National Parole Board (an independent administrative tribunal operating autonomously from the Gov Dnf Dept of Canada) for full parole following the completion of one-third of his sentence. Canada confirms the United States' understanding that eligibility for parole does not mean that release will be granted, only that it will be considered, and that public safety is the paramount consideration in all decisions."

 

It sure seems that the Canadian government accepts the legitimacy of Khadr's guilty plea at Gitmo , so scratch that one too. By the way, no where in the exchange of correspondence between the State Dept and the Canadian government is there a objection to his treatment in Gitmo. Anymore Canadians you want to trot out?

Edited October 17, 2011 by Aurielius

[Ghogiel]

Not sure where that comes into the recent ruling in the Canadian supreme court that found that his constitutional rights had been violated.

[Aurielius]

Not sure where that comes into the recent ruling in the Canadian supreme court that found that his constitutional rights had been violated.

He was not tortured hence no objections to his treatment, your example is moot.

[marharth]

He was held in gitmo and was considered to be extremely valuable for intelligence. He was obviously tortured, and there has been multiple reports that he was.

 

http://www.crin.org/resources/infodetail.asp?id=15360

 

Also this, mainly the part about his lawyers

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20060108/khadr_hearing_060108/

 

Here is the wiki article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr#Time_at_Guantanamo

[Ghogiel]

http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/2010/2009fc405.html

 

There are objections to his treatment, which is why both the US and Canadian supreme courts ruled that his human rights had been violated.

[Aurielius]

http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/2010/2009fc405.html

 

There are objections to his treatment, which is why both the US and Canadian supreme courts ruled that his human rights had been violated.

 

'In general, they found that he appeared to be healthy and well-fed. When he complained that his gunshot wounds were bothering him and still bleeding, Canadian officials requested medical treatment for him, and it was provided"

 

 

Your link, no allegation of torture...so still moot for an example. Are you going to go for Bush's unpaid parking tickets next? You don't like Bush, OK I get it. If you presented with what you have it still would be ' fundamento sine' even in the World Court as a basis for arrest warrant. Case dismissed.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Aurielius