NationStates Jolt Archive

"lawyers against the war" (an organization) in canada have petitioned the canadian government to turn mr bush away at the border when he tries to go to canada to give a speech to a private group.

according to canadian law anyone who is suspected of war crimes (like the torture at guantanamo bay) may not legally enter canada. if they ARE allowed to enter canada they must be detained and investigated and potentially tried for these war crimes. if they cant be tried in canada they must be deported so a country where they can be tried.

when this group tried to prevent mr bush from entering canada in the past they were denied because he was a sitting president. he is no longer a sitting president so the law should apply to him as much as it does to anyone else who commits war crimes.

a woman from this group was just interviewed on countdown with keith olbermann and this is where i got all the above info.

what do y'all think? should mr bush be turned away?

Heh. If the law says it, by the letter of the law (and the spirit Id imagine) they legally cant let him in.

Probably wont turn him away, but it would be hilarious if they did.

A more prudent question: SHould he be allowed to come back again? ;)

it boggles my mind really.

they shouldnt let him into canada. but that is a bit of a slap in the face of the united states. so they should let him in. but if they let him in they have to KEEP him because there are quite credible claims that he is a war criminal.

so he really ought to cancel his speech and stay home eating pretzels by the fire in dallas.

Heh. If the law says it, by the letter of the law (and the spirit Id imagine) they legally cant let him in.

Probably wont turn him away, but it would be hilarious if they did.

As hilarious as it would be, it would be even more awesome.

they shouldnt let him into canada. but that is a bit of a slap in the face of the united states. so they should let him in. but if they let him in they have to KEEP him because there are quite credible claims that he is a war criminal.

I say you should let him in.

I say you should let him in.

Why? Whats your reasoning? The law seems quite clear based on the OP.

Why? Whats your reasoning? The law seems quite clear based on the OP.

Because then you'll have to keep him. :wink:

I say you should let him in.
he aint comin' to MY house. the husband dun like war criminals.

If I were to see on the news that Bush had been arrested at the Canadian border by Mounties it would make my day. My week if there were pictures of the mounties dragging him off, with that stupid expression on his face. I would laugh so hard it would cause damage to the fabric of reality itself.

Because then you'll have to keep him. :wink:

If we're gonna send him somewhere, lets not send him to a first world country that respects human rights.

Id rather send him somewhere so he can get the same treatment he made sure others got.

I guess it depends on what "suspected" means, according to the law. If they have to be under investigation currently, or some random people think he did something and that is enough.

I guess it depends on what "suspected" means, according to the law. If they have to be under investigation currently, or some random people think he did something and that is enough.

What if he and his cronies admitted it?

At this point, its more then "some random people", no matter how much those on the right try to pretend like its limited to a few lefty crazies.

I guess it depends on what "suspected" means, according to the law. If they have to be under investigation currently, or some random people think he did something and that is enough.
according to the woman on countdown it means that it has to be more than an unprovable suspicion but less than a proven-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of thing.

i take that to be the sort of thing that would cause a grand jury to indict him.

bush pretty much qualifies.

Meh. If they don't want him, I guess that is their choice.

As LG said, they have to keep him. :D

No, they should not let him in -- if not because of war crimes, then at least because he's miserable bastard and a jackass.

Also, and however:

Probably wont turn him away, but it would be hilarious if they did.

As well as this:
A more prudent question: SHould he be allowed to come back again? ;)
The Ransom of Red Chief. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ransom_of_Red_Chief

Wouldn't this be up to the Candian courts to decide if he is suspected of war crimes.

Or to put it another way has he been tried for war crimes by courts of another country?

Wouldn't this be up to the Candian courts to decide if he is suspected of war crimes.

Thats the crux of the issue and what the lawyers seem to be trying to accomplish.

Or to put it another way has he been tried for war crimes by courts of another country?

I dont think that matters.

Wouldn't this be up to the Candian courts to decide if he is suspected of war crimes.

Or to put it another way has he been tried for war crimes by courts of another country?
yes it is up to the canadian court. i think.

the government has to decide whether or not to let him in. what part of the government "lawyers against war" petitioned i didnt catch.

he does not have to have been charged in another country. its a law designed to keep people like nazi war criminals and agosto pinochet out of the country.

Detain & question him, that would be beautiful.

according to the woman on countdown it means that it has to be more than an unprovable suspicion but less than a proven-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of thing.

i take that to be the sort of thing that would cause a grand jury to indict him.

bush pretty much qualifies.

I guess, I really wouldn't know. I honestly don't think it matters much, unless they try to detain him, then it may damage US-Canada relations. I don't think the 'nadians have the balls for that though, or reason enough beyond some whiners. There's no benefit to doing anything, and no consequence to not doing anything, at least that's how I see it. I don't know enough Canadians to guess if there are strong, wide spread, anti-bush feelings or a vocal minority.

I guess, I really wouldn't know. I honestly don't think it matters much, unless they try to detain him, then it may damage US-Canada relations. I don't think the 'nadians have the balls for that though, or reason enough beyond some whiners. There's no benefit to doing anything, and no consequence to not doing anything, at least that's how I see it. I don't know enough Canadians to guess if there are strong, wide spread, anti-bush feelings or a vocal minority.
i dont know who makes the decision--a politician or a judge. a politician would be unlikely to keep bush out of canada. a judge might just decide that the law is the law.

i dont know who makes the decision--a politician or a judge. a politician would be unlikely to keep bush out of canada. a judge might just decide that the law is the law.

indeed.

"lawyers against the war" (an organization) in canada have petitioned the canadian government to turn mr bush away at the border when he tries to go to canada to give a speech to a private group.

according to canadian law anyone who is suspected of war crimes (like the torture at guantanamo bay) may not legally enter canada. if they ARE allowed to enter canada they must be detained and investigated and potentially tried for these war crimes. if they cant be tried in canada they must be deported so a country where they can be tried.

when this group tried to prevent mr bush from entering canada in the past they were denied because he was a sitting president. he is no longer a sitting president so the law should apply to him as much as it does to anyone else who commits war crimes.

a woman from this group was just interviewed on countdown with keith olbermann and this is where i got all the above info.

what do y'all think? should mr bush be turned away?

sounds like the best way to get him investigated for war crimes (can we get Chaney up there as well?) but what would happen if President Obama tries to intercede?

I don't think the 'nadians have the balls for that though,

:rolleyes:

or reason enough beyond some whiners.

Some whiners? Did you miss the whole "Bush, Cheney, and their cronies have admitted they comitted war crimes" bit?

The rights willful ignorance is getting really fuckin old.

There's no benefit to doing anything

Following ones own laws isnt a benefit?

Oh, right, conservative thought working here. Of course its not.:rolleyes:

I don't know enough Canadians to guess if there are strong, wide spread, anti-bush feelings or a vocal minority.

The majority of the world hates him. Only in America is he defended. And even then only by 25%(ish).

A more prudent question: SHould he be allowed to come back again? ;)

Once again, LG cuts to the heart of the matter.

Henry Kissinger faces arrest in some countries.

Thats the crux of the issue and what the lawyers seem to be trying to accomplish.

Fair enough

I dont think that matters.

So this law only applies if the canadian government suspects him of war crimes?

So this law only applies if the canadian government suspects him of war crimes?

One would imagine.

Henry Kissinger faces arrest in some countries.

And trust me, when he dies, I'm making a thread about it.

And trust me, when he dies, I'm making a thread about it.
too bad he wont die in prison.

geeez he's 85. cant be too too much longer.

too bad he wont die in prison.

geeez he's 85. cant be too too much longer.

Well, when he gets sick. I wonder if it'll be something long-lasting and painful. :D

And trust me, when he dies, I'm making a thread about it.

oh.. I got a song to post in that thread... :p

oh.. I got a song to post in that thread... :p

Go on! :D

Henry Kissinger faces arrest in some countries.

why do you hate the crazy old jew ?

why do you hate the crazy old jew ?

I can't speak for him, but I'm from Brazil, and I would love to see the ruin of the man who saw fit to use us as pawns by making my country into a dictatorship.

I can't speak for him, but I'm from Brazil, and I would love to see the ruin of the man who saw fit to use us as pawns by making my country into a dictatorship.

but that's always been American policy toward Latin America. well that and make money.

but that's always been American policy toward Latin America. well that and make money.

Then, whoever enacts it deserves to suffer and die.

Then, whoever enacts it deserves to suffer and die.

Teddy Roosevelt ?

Teddy Roosevelt ?

He's dead.

Wouldn't this be up to the Candian courts to decide if he is suspected of war crimes.

Or to put it another way has he been tried for war crimes by courts of another country?

Canadian, not Candian. Candian sounds like the nationality of people from Candy Land.

He's dead.

we can found a fraternity and dig up his bones and use them for frat rituals.

Canadian, not Candian. Candian sounds like the nationality of people from Candy Land.

i loved that game

A more prudent question: SHould he be allowed to come back again? ;)

Canada could legally invade us for that.

Canada could legally invade us for that.

like we fear the Canadian military. just for that Obama is evoke his executive privilege over Canada and appointing bush as their PM.

Canada could legally invade us for that.

Well we all saw what happened in a US/Canada war on South Park. It didn't end well for Canada. However will you please bomb the Baldwins house.... :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPLzB18Vq6c

like we fear the Canadian military. just for that Obama is evoke his executive privilege over Canada and appointing bush as their PM.

Last President who tried that got his Capital burned down.

Canadian, not Candian. Candian sounds like the nationality of people from Candy Land.

What you guys aren't? I thought only Maple Syrup that sweet could come from Candy Land.

Last President who tried that got his Capital burned down.

Only reason Canada became a country is to stop being annexed by the US.

One would imagine.

But then would that not mean he would have to commit war crimes while on Canadian shores?

I have a feeling that if a person was suspected for war crimes by a friendly nation entering Canada this law wold also apply. I am only basing that on other laws by other nations that I have heard.

Last President who tried that got his Capital burned down.

By the British not the Canadians. Brown would like help bush invade.

What you guys aren't? I thought only Maple Syrup that sweet could come from Candy Land.

That's why we invaded Candy Land and enslaved it's populace. They now toil in our underground labour camps. No one heard about it cause you guys don't care what Canada does.

Let my pickle go!

"lawyers against the war" (an organization) in canada have petitioned the canadian government to turn mr bush away at the border when he tries to go to canada to give a speech to a private group.

according to canadian law anyone who is suspected of war crimes (like the torture at guantanamo bay) may not legally enter canada. if they ARE allowed to enter canada they must be detained and investigated and potentially tried for these war crimes. if they cant be tried in canada they must be deported so a country where they can be tried.

By all means, Canucks, let him enter... AND THEN ARREST HIM!

Canadian, not Candian. Candian sounds like the nationality of people from Candy Land.

Or also:

Candia Canavese, Italy
Candia Lomellina, Italy
Candia, Savoy, former city, now a district in Chambéry, Savoie, France
Candia, New Hampshire, United States

Canada could legally invade us for that.

:eek: Oh no! They might send in their Air Force!!!

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/canairforce.jpg

:D

I don't understand this 'legal' thing

It's never stopped him entering a country in the past.....Iraq....Afghanistan....

:eek: Oh no! They might send in their Air Force!!!

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/canairforce.jpg

:D

What are you doing with pictures of the New Zealand defence force? :D

:eek: Oh no! They might send in their Air Force!!!

Don't laugh. The Canadian funding for their military is light, but they make up for it with very high standards. You know Superman? Guy in tights, flies around? He was rejected. That's right, he didn't make the cut for the Canadian air force. That's how hard core they are.

:tongue:

according to canadian law anyone who is suspected of war crimes (like the torture at guantanamo bay) may not legally enter canada.
...

what do y'all think? should mr bush be turned away?

It the Canadian government's official position is that they suspect him of war crimes, then yes, turn him away.

If they don't suspect him - arguments of internet forum users and talk show types notwithstanding - they can let him in.

Oh, so simple.

Don't laugh. The Canadian funding for their military is light, but they make up for it with very high standards. You know Superman? Guy in tights, flies around? He was rejected. That's right, he didn't make the cut for the Canadian air force. That's how hard core they are.

:tongue:

:eek:

It the Canadian government's official position is that they suspect him of war crimes, then yes, turn him away.

If they don't suspect him - arguments of internet forum users and talk show types notwithstanding - they can let him in.

Oh, so simple.
aye very simple

the group bringing the suit to keep him out does suspect such a thing and (i suppose) will present evidence in the hearing that is being held today.

Yes. If his passport is in order,he is now like any other US citzen seaking entery into Canada..

Yes. If his passport is in order,he is now like any other US citzen seaking entery into Canada..
so he should be turned away?

so he should be turned away?

Yes.

Here's why: The Canadian government didn't go in Irak and deemed the war illegal according to UN rules. So to official governmental position is that Bush invaded illegally Irak, thus a war criminal.


Now, the government has changed since then so Bush will have no problem getting in and out even if a judge wants to arrst him. Fucking Harper and his disgracious conservative government.

Yes.

Here's why: The Canadian government didn't go in Irak and deemed the war illegal according to UN rules. So to official governmental position is that Bush invaded illegally Irak, thus a war criminal.


Now, the government has changed since then so Bush will have no problem getting in and out even if a judge wants to arrst him. Fucking Harper and his disgracious conservative government.
can mr harper overrule a judge's decision?

can mr harper overrule a judge's decision?

No but he can instruct the RCMP to let mr Bush in and out unharmed.

can mr harper overrule a judge's decision?

he can pull an Andrew Jackson and tell the court to enforce tis ruling with out the police.

No but he can instruct the RCMP to let mr Bush in and out unharmed.
and there would be no reprocussions for him doing that? no way for the courts to enforce their rulings with the PM?

Who has pardon authority in Canada anyways ?

Minor nitpick. It's President Bush, not Mr. Bush, unless you're referring to Jeb, which I doubt. The title of President is retained after you leave office.

and there would be no reprocussions for him doing that? no way for the courts to enforce their rulings with the PM?

Yes. But someone has to take the government to court, the court has to rule, then the government will appeal and the whole mess will end up with the government being told he shouldn't have done that while Bush his slowly sipping his drink back in texas.

And the whole mess will take 5 to 10 years to go through the court so it's a moot point.

Minor nitpick. It's President Bush, not Mr. Bush, unless you're referring to Jeb, which I doubt. The title of President is retained after you leave office.
if i can call him mr bush while he is in office i can call him mr bush while he is out of office.

Minor nitpick. It's President Bush, not Mr. Bush, unless you're referring to Jeb, which I doubt. The title of President is retained after you leave office.

Point taken.

But then, he's not my president and I can call him moron if I feel like it with no repercussion whatsoever so I'll leave Mr. Bush in my comments.

I'll try to remember your point for future posts.

Who has pardon authority in Canada anyways ?

IIRC, the Justice Minister and the PM.

IIRC, the Justice Minister and the PM.

so even if the courts rule against the PM can just pardon and be done.

so even if the courts rule against the PM can just pardon and be done.

Yes.

However, it would be a bigger political shitstorm than either denying him entry or arresting him. So that won't happen either.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that Canada has their human rights comission in order...

http://europenews.dk/en/node/21152

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a stunning ruling today, calling the conduct of Richard Warman, Canada’s most prolific human rights complainant, “disappointing and disturbing”.

Tribunal Chair Edward Lustig condemned Warman – who holds himself out as a human rights activist – for his membership in neo-Nazi organizations and ripped into him for his frequent anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rants. The Tribunal effectively accused Warman himself of breaking the law – pointing out that Warman’s online anti-Semitism could quite possibly expose Jews to even more hatred and contempt. That just happens to be the offence Warman claimed he was trying to enforce. And, in perhaps the most damaging finding, the Tribunal pointed out that Warman at first did not answer questions truthfully – effectively calling him an attempted perjurer.

It is the most incredible ruling I have ever read from a human rights tribunal, and it discredits Warman, his enablers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the censorship provision).

There have been dark days for the censors and bullies at the CHRC over the past year –like Bell Canada’s uncontradicted testimony that CHRC staff hacked a private citizen’s Internet account or Richard Moon’s surprise recommendation to scrap section 13.

But those were merely political developments. This is a quasi-judicial Tribunal ruling. It is not a consultant’s view or a pundit’s opinion or a mere PR blunder. It is the law. Richard Warman is a discredited man who promotes anti-Semitic filth online with no good excuse. Warman’s own favourite Tribunal says so.

Warman is done.

After this ruling, I would be surprised if he ever files a section 13 complaint again. Scratch that: of course he will. But the CHRC will never accept his complaints again – Jennifer Lynch, their chief commissar, is a censor too but she has a sense of political survival. She’s in enough trouble already with a Justice Department review and a Parliamentary Committee investigation getting under way, not to mention the Prime Minister’s Office breathing down her neck. The days of Lynch running with Warman’s cases – and paying his expenses, which she continued to do even after he left the CHRC – are over.

I wonder if even Bernie “Burny” Farber, Official Jewry’s censor-in-chief, will put some distance between him and Warman. You’d think Burny would have given a damn about Warman’s anti-Semitic filth – the secular Tribunal did, but not Burny, even though fighting anti-Semitism is supposed to be his beat. But Burny’s moral compass has been off for a long time – he denounces Jew-loving Christian Zionists like Kathy Shaidle, but defends Jew-bashing radicals like Haroon Siddiqui.

But what now for Warman? How does this poor assessment of his integrity affect his job as “Director of Special Grievances – Enquiries and Investigations” at the Department of National Defence? Every single criticism the Tribunal Chair makes in this ruling touches on Warman’s job at the mini-human rights commission that he runs in the bosom of DND. If I were a soldier hauled before Warman, the first thing I would do is file a special grievance against the special grievance director – and all I’d need was a photocopy of the Tribunal’s ruling.

All of Warman’s showy pretenses of being a human rights crusader have been reduced to rubble. The Tribunal specifically took on Warman’s thin excuses for why he joined neo-Nazi groups and engaged in vicious anti-Semitism himself. The Tribunal listened to Warman’s smug rationalizations – the excuses that Jennifer Lynch and Warman’s other enablers at the CHRC have bought for years – and threw them in the garbage. At paragraph 63:

I do not see any acceptable reason for Mr. Warman to have participated on the Stormfront or Vanguard sites, since there appears to be ample easily obtained messages on these sites available without his involvement. Moreover, it is possible that his activity in this regard, could have precipitated further hate messages in response. His explanation for including other hate messages in his postings by mistake seems very weak to me.

I’ve been writing about Warman’s online bigotry for about a year now, but with few exceptions that explosive story has been reported only by bloggers, not the mainstream media. To see his filth reprinted at great length in a Tribunal ruiling – as it was in this case – is startling to me. And, mirabile dictu, the National Post reprinted Warman’s anti-Semitic rant for the entire nation to see, too. I’m stunned by how far Warman’s reputation has crumbled in the past year.

The Tribunal was clearly upset with Warman’s entrapment and impersonation. But it also mentioned his difficulty telling the truth. Here’s an example, at paragraph 57:

Contrary to Mr. Warman’s Statement of Particulars, there is no evidence that the impugned conduct by the Respondents has continued to the present time. Instead it appears to have been discontinued well before the complaints were instituted. To a certain extent, there would not appear to be anything to remediate.

Warman claimed that the people he was going after had been continuously publishing their anti-Semitic comments, when in fact the Tribunal ruled that they had stopped doing so before Warman even filed his complaints. Normal people would say “what a liar!”. The Tribunal simply said that the truth was “contrary to Mr. Warman’s Statement of Particulars.”

But that’s just a trifle compared to this, at paragraph 59:

During his cross-examination, Mr. Warman admitted (after initially denying) that he had participated in communicating messages on Internet Websites similar to the Northern Alliance Website utilizing pseudonyms such as “Pogue Mahone” and “Axetogrind”.

Cross-examination is under oath, of course. Lying under oath is called perjury. The Tribunal noted that, at first, Warman didn’t tell the truth. The Tribunal didn’t use the word “lie”; it just pointed out that Warman’s original answers under oath weren’t true. Again, regular people would say “what a liar!” It’s not the first time for Warman.

This hearing was supposed to be about Jason Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance. It’s no surprise that they were convicted, maintaining the CHRT’s 100% conviction rate for section 13 offences. And, also unsurprising, was the fact that neither defendant had a lawyer – more than 90% of section 13 targets are too poor to afford one and, unlike real courts, legal aid is not provided.

But look at paragraph 56 in the ruling. Warman made three demands: that Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance be ordered not to publish “hate speech” on the Internet anymore; that they be ordered to pay a fine of $7,500 and “compensation” to Warman of $6,000.

The first demand was granted – the Tribunal gave a cease and desist order, telling Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance to stop doing what they used to do. But as the Tribunal pointed out, they had stopped doing so years ago. So it was meaningless.

Warman’s demands for cash were refused by the Chair – no fines, and no bounty to Warman.

So what’s the net result of all this?

Warman filed his complaint in January, 2006 – so this has been grinding through the human rights industry for more than three years. Countless hundreds of thousands of tax dollars have been spent, first by the CHRC to investigate the case, and then by the Tribunal to hear the case.

And in the end a website that hasn’t even been on the Internet in years is “banned”.

I guess this is part of the “stimulus package” to make work for busy-bodies, lawyers and bureaucrats.

There are a lot of losers in all of this – the taxpayer; common sense; freedom of speech, including freedom of speech to say offensive things; natural justice and rule of law.

But Warman is clearly the biggest loser. Before this ruling came out, we already knew that Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance were racist. Nothing’s changed for them at all, other than their time was wasted for three years.

But Warman’s reputation has been devastated.

That’s of concern to him as I’ve outlined above. But it’s also of concern to him for his countless defamation nuisance suits, including against me, Kathy, Kate, the National Post and others.

We all have our defences – truth, fair comment, etc.

But now we have something much more powerful. We have a legal finding that the man who claims we hurt his reputation, doesn’t have a good reputation in the first place.

He “diminishe[d]” it. His conduct is “disturbing”. As a so-called human rights activist, he’s “disappointing.” His reasons for writing anti-Semitic filth are not “acceptable”. His excuse for reprinting other people’s filth is “very weak”.

Try taking that to a defamation court.

***

P.S. Who is this Edward Lustig who – despite continuing the CHRT’s 100% conviction rate – spoke such common sense about Warman’s discreditable conduct? He was appointed by the Conservatives a year ago. But looking at his brief resume, there’s something different: he didn’t come from the grievance industry. He spent 27 years as lawyer for the City of Niagara Falls. In other words, doing normal legal work, not radical politics masquerading as the law. Lustig actually sits on the CHRT part-time – he still practices law – not “human rights law” or “critical Marxist theory” law, but real estate law, commercial and municipal planning law. No wonder he was appalled by Warman’s filthy mouth – he hasn’t had the politically correct training to get the nuances when Warman said that Irwin Cotler was Jewish “scum”.

I’m not saying that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act can be workable in the hands of reasonable men – it can’t be. It’s an unfair law that violates our constitutional rights. And, despite the laughable impotence of the order against the respondents here, it’s still unconstitutional. But it’s refreshing that someone in the entire human rights industry had the independence and common sense to finally blow the whistle on one of Canada’s most abusive legal and political bullies, Richard Warman. Or as he is now legally known: the disgraced Richard Warman.

Any "human rights" commission that Canada has appears to be a small clique of anti-Semitic jerks who are using that commission to their own ends.

"lawyers against the war" (an organization) in canada have petitioned the canadian government to turn mr bush away at the border when he tries to go to canada to give a speech to a private group.

according to canadian law anyone who is suspected of war crimes (like the torture at guantanamo bay) may not legally enter canada. if they ARE allowed to enter canada they must be detained and investigated and potentially tried for these war crimes. if they cant be tried in canada they must be deported so a country where they can be tried.

when this group tried to prevent mr bush from entering canada in the past they were denied because he was a sitting president. he is no longer a sitting president so the law should apply to him as much as it does to anyone else who commits war crimes.

a woman from this group was just interviewed on countdown with keith olbermann and this is where i got all the above info.

what do y'all think? should mr bush be turned away?


I think thats bullshit.

I think thats bullshit.
in what way?

Yes.

However, it would be a bigger political shitstorm than either denying him entry or arresting him. So that won't happen either.

or just de facto it and order the police not to arrest him

Personally, I don't think they should detain him, or deny him entrance. For the first matter, as much as we'd like to think otherwise, most judges are political creatures at their best. To deny a very recently retired President from entering the country, or detaining him upon entry, would cause irreparable damage to US/Canadian foreign relations. Who among us, despite how Clinton makes herself out to be, would believe she wouldn't throw a shit-storm at Canada for detaining an ex-President, Bush or not. Secondly, regardless of Obama's liberal standing, should such a thing come to fruition, as the President of the US, he would be required to an extent to defend Bush, and move for potential American sanctions against Canada till they released Bush. Finally, despite all this crap talk by the bleeding heart liberals, Bush is in no way a war criminal, regardless of how you artfully try to position the situation. He was a sitting President, for the most part, that gives him legal immunity from most laws, perhaps not human rights violations, but from a huge majority. We don't like to think about it, but in a real sense, a sitting President is above the law. Thirdly, he did not legally break from the Geneva Conventions. In a real sense, the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other prisons abroad, can not be awarded the status of Prisoner's of War. Thus they are not legally subject to the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention. In closing, I would bring up the US Patriot Act, which labeled those prisoners to be Enemy Combatants. In doing such it created a new legal category of prisoners, subject to distinctly different rules. As I have yet to hear another country put up a formal protest to the Patriot Act, as a blatent human rights violation, it's an internationally accepted law. Thus how can he be considered a war criminal, when he never held a single Prisoner of War, and the world at large considered his edicts to be internationally legal? You may all disagree with my assessment, but there it is.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that Canada has their human rights comission in order...


Any "human rights" commission that Canada has appears to be a small clique of anti-Semitic jerks who are using that commission to their own ends.

1- I don't see what that has got to do with the thread.

2- Your article is nowhere near proving your assertion.

3- The human rights commision has done more against anti-semitic jerks than for so your point is false too.

1- I don't see what that has got to do with the thread.


Canadians are pretentions about human rights.

2- Your article is nowhere near proving your assertion.


The chief complainant to the human rights commission (and friend of most of the people on the commission) is a proven anti-Semite who regularly posted anti-Semitic screeds on Stormfront.

3- The human rights commision has done more against anti-semitic jerks than for so your point is false too.
Obviously, they felt compelled to ignore their own anti-semitic screeds posted on Stormfront.

Canadians are pretentions about human rights.
And you aren't? (whatever your nationality is)


The chief complainant to the human rights commission (and friend of most of the people on the commission) is a proven anti-Semite who regularly posted anti-Semitic screeds on Stormfront.
His reputation is now dubious. He's nowhere near convicted.
He is one complainant to the commission. One of many.
Proove your "friend" assertion.


Obviously, they felt compelled to ignore their own anti-semitic screeds posted on Stormfront.
So now the commision is posting regularly on stormfront? Is that what you're saying?

Anyways, this has nothing to do with Bush so kindly stop to derail the thread.

I don't understand this 'legal' thing

It's never stopped him entering a country in the past.....Iraq....Afghanistan....

Well done.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that Canada has their human rights comission in order...

http://europenews.dk/en/node/21152

Any "human rights" commission that Canada has appears to be a small clique of anti-Semitic jerks who are using that commission to their own ends.

Nice unrelated blog. Wait. Scratch that. It wasn't nice, actually.

according to canadian law anyone who is suspected of war crimes (like the torture at guantanamo bay)

Not a "war crime." The only crime here is the fact that numerous terrorists released from Gitmo have turned up :eek: back in Afghanistan committing further terrorist acts.

may not legally enter canada. if they ARE allowed to enter canada they must be detained and investigated and potentially tried for these war crimes. if they cant be tried in canada they must be deported so a country where they can be tried.

Lefties and Americaphobes can masturbate to this fantasy until Osama bin Laden converts to Christianity. It ain't happening :rolleyes:

when this group tried to prevent mr bush from entering canada in the past they were denied because he was a sitting president. he is no longer a sitting president so the law should apply to him as much as it does to anyone else who commits war crimes.

See above.

a woman from this group was just interviewed on countdown with keith olbermann and this is where i got all the above info.

TWO of the "Worst People in the World" in one convenient package.

what do y'all think? should mr bush be turned away?

No. As in "NO". N-to-the-O NO!

Just a blog? No, the human rights commission themselves, caught having to destroy their number one complainant and close associate.

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=964&lg=_e&isruling=0#1002062

...

The chief complainant to the human rights commission (and friend of most of the people on the commission) is a proven anti-Semite who regularly posted anti-Semitic screeds on Stormfront.....

That is simply a dishonest portrayal of his actions.

In his own defence, Mr. Warman had argued that his postings were intended to roust out information about individuals who were promoting hatred - and that they did not cross the line into hate messaging.

...

Mr. Warman said that the postings Mr. Lustig objected to were written 10 years ago "when there was no road map, so trial and error was inevitable. Constructive criticism about how to improve human-rights work is always welcome, and I read Mr. Lustig's suggestions with interest."

Link to an actual news article instead of some blog. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090314.WARMAN14/TPStory/National)

You may all disagree with my assessment

Good, because it's completely wrong.

Obama is in no way morally obligated to defend Bush. Bush invaded a country illegally, that alone is a war crime. "Enemy combatant" is not a category, no matter how much the Right wishes it; those people ARE protected under the Geneva Conventions. And calling "bleeding heart" anyone who would consider Bush a war criminal is like calling "bleeding heart" anyone who would consider Stalin a war criminal. They ARE war criminals, and Bush deserves to suffer, a LOT, for what he did.

Just a blog? No, the human rights commission themselves, caught having to destroy their number one complainant and close associate.

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=964&lg=_e&isruling=0#1002062

That does not, in any way, do anything more than suggest that this tactic may have tarnished his credibility as a prosecutor of human rights abuses. It does not suggest that he is anti-semitic.

Not a "war crime." The only crime here is the fact that numerous terrorists released from Gitmo have turned up :eek: back in Afghanistan committing further terrorist acts.



Lefties and Americaphobes can masturbate to this fantasy until Osama bin Laden converts to Christianity. It ain't happening :rolleyes:

1- Because I'm SURE you'd not seek revenge against a state that illegally kidnapped and tortured you. Right?

2- Of course, ANYONE who disagrees with you must be an Americaphobe. Right? The Right kept using fearmongering like it was an argument, it kept using ad hominem like it were points. It pushed through an illegal war and illegal actions, which were also immoral. The American people said no more, and now, Obama, who WILL close Gitmo whether the Right likes it or not, is sitting at the White House. And the Right is relegated to the condition of a joke.

Without a warrant for his arrest, issued by a Canadian court, I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed in. Until then, it's just a load of bluster.

Without a warrant for his arrest, issued by a Canadian court, I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed in. Until then, it's just a load of bluster.

Then allow him in and minutes after issue such a warrant. Granted, I'd like to see that happen in a place with worse prisons than Canada (Brazil itself, for example), but...

Then allow him in and minutes after issue such a warrant. Granted, I'd like to see that happen in a place with worse prisons than Canada (Brazil itself, for example), but...

Ah, so when Bush abuses prisoners its wrong, but when its done to him its fine?

Heikoku's absurd hipocrisy aside, as long as he meets the conditions under the law, I don't think they should let him in, or they should and arrest him. The law should apply to everyone. Of course, that would completely screw up relations with the US, since one of Obama's faults is that he's apparently not willing to go down the road of prosecuting Bush at this time. Probably lead to violent hate crimes against Canadians in some far right wing areas too. But we'd be the heros of the rest of the world. Seriously, we could coast on the reputation boost for quite some time.

I can't speak for him, but I'm from Brazil, and I would love to see the ruin of the man who saw fit to use us as pawns by making my country into a dictatorship.

Kissinger didn't help make Brazil a dictatorship. That was Lyndon Johnson and the U.S. ambassador at the time, Lincoln Gordon. Kissinger may have (and probably did) support the military dictatorship in Brazil, and he certainly meddled in many other countries for the worse (Chile immediately comes to mind), but he had no role in the 1964 coup. This is not to say, of course, that Kissinger is not a douchebag; he very clearly is.

according to canadian law anyone who is suspected of war crimes (like the torture at guantanamo bay) may not legally enter canada. if they ARE allowed to enter canada they must be detained and investigated and potentially tried for these war crimes. if they cant be tried in canada they must be deported so a country where they can be tried.

How would you define a war crime? Depending on your definition, almost every American President in the last century could be (and should be) classified as a war criminal.

Ah, so when Bush abuses prisoners its wrong, but when its done to him its fine?

Karma.

Karma.

And when the terrorists killed a bunch of American civilians, and Bush went and killed a bunch of their's that was Karma too, right?:rolleyes:

And when the terrorists killed a bunch of American civilians, and Bush went and killed a bunch of their's that was Karma too, right?:rolleyes:

No, because Bush was killing civilians that were in no way related to the terrorist attacks.

Kissinger didn't help make Brazil a dictatorship. That was Lyndon Johnson and the U.S. ambassador at the time, Lincoln Gordon. Kissinger may have (and probably did) support the military dictatorship in Brazil, and he certainly meddled in many other countries for the worse (Chile immediately comes to mind), but he had no role in the 1964 coup. This is not to say, of course, that Kissinger is not a douchebag; he very clearly is.

Why I said "saw fit to" - meaning supported, agreed with. ;)

And when the terrorists killed a bunch of American civilians, and Bush went and killed a bunch of their's that was Karma too, right?:rolleyes:

No. Because BUSH killed a bunch of civilians, NOT the other civilians.

That is simply a dishonest portrayal of his actions.

What do you think? Any DK vibes off this one?

Karma.

Doesn't work that way Heikoku. Didn't I tell you to stop this kind of thing? You're just perpetuating the cycle.

Karma.

You again demonstrate why you are no better a person than New Mitanni. In fact, it's odd you two aren't better friends, considering how shockingly similar you two are.

You again demonstrate why you are no better a person than New Mitanni. In fact, it's odd you two aren't better friends, considering how shockingly similar you two are.

Consider for one moment the sheer scale of what Bush did.

Also consider that nowhere did I say Brazilian prisons had torture. I said they're worse than Canadian ones.

Why I said "saw fit to" - meaning supported, agreed with. ;)

Ah, I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying.

How would you define a war crime? Depending on your definition, almost every American President in the last century could be (and should be) classified as a war criminal.
in this case its not so much how *I* would define a war crime but how canada would. i assume that they use international standards that might include grabbing people from the battlefield (or battlefield area) and keeping them in indefinite detention in torturous conditions.

No, because Bush was killing civilians that were in no way related to the terrorist attacks.

Meaning that Iraq was not behind 911? Fair enough I suppose. Doesn't change the fact that Heikoku's attitude of meeting injustice with injustice is sickening and hipocritical.

Meaning that Iraq was not behind 911? Fair enough I suppose. Doesn't change the fact that Heikoku's attitude of meeting injustice with injustice is sickening and hipocritical.

Would Bush LIVE long enough to receive what he has coming to him in a Canadian prison?

Consider for one moment the sheer scale of what Bush did.

Also consider that nowhere did I say Brazilian prisons had torture. I said they're worse than Canadian ones.

I've considered it for 8 years. That still does not mean it is okay to harm or kill Mr. Bush. You are just some random nobody on an internet forum. You are not important. You do not get to decide who is and is not worthy of basic human respect.

Assuming that there is some sort of lega standing and he becomes legally indictable under this law, I doubt the Canadian government will do anything legal against Bush should he come to Canada. A loophole will be found for politically expedient reasons.

Though having Bush on the Kissinger travel plan would also be fun.

I've considered it for 8 years. That still does not mean it is okay to harm or kill Mr. Bush. You are just some random nobody on an internet forum. You are not important. You do not get to decide who is and is not worthy of basic human respect.

Again: Brazilian prisons wouldn't (necessarily) harm or kill Bush.

What do you think? Any DK vibes off this one?

I could just ask DK, if you want.

Assuming that there is some sort of lega standing and he becomes legally indictable under this law, I doubt the Canadian government will do anything legal against Bush should he come to Canada. A loophole will be found for politically expedient reasons.

Though having Bush on the Kissinger travel plan would also be fun.
i would be happy if mr bush ended up having to avoid countries that will arrest him for war crimes if he shows up in them. for canada i will be happy if he just has to face the embarrassment of having the PM make an exception for him after the court declares that he should not be allowed in.

Again: Brazilian prisons wouldn't (necessarily) harm or kill Bush.

Now you're going to play dumb and pretend you didn't mean what we all know you meant? You really are just like NM.

(Necessarily) indeed. You are transparent.

in this case its not so much how *I* would define a war crime but how canada would. i assume that they use international standards that might include grabbing people from the battlefield (or battlefield area) and keeping them in indefinite detention in torturous conditions.

If Canada wanted to be consistent, they would declare all U.S. Presidents persona non grata.

Would Bush LIVE long enough to receive what he has coming to him in a Canadian prison?

Would he in a Brazilian Prison?

I doubt they'd just chuck him in with the general populace.

Would Bush LIVE long enough to receive what he has coming to him in a Canadian prison?

Yes he would. Canadians prisoners are treated quite well. Our Prisons are practically country clubs...

If Canada wanted to be consistent, they would declare all U.S. Presidents persona non grata.
hmmm lets see...how many presidents are still alive

carter, bush1, clinton, bush2, obama gets an exception as a sittng president....

i dont see that anyone but bush2 has legit war crimes accusations....

Would he in a Brazilian Prison?

I doubt they'd just chuck him in with the general populace.

A good point.

Yes he would. Canadians prisoners are treated quite well. Our Prisons are practically country clubs...

That's the thing, he doesn't DESERVE a country club. He deserves Gitmo.

That's the thing, he doesn't DESERVE a country club. He deserves Gitmo.

Don't try to weasel your way out of this one. "He deserves Gitmo," given the allegations of treatment their, sounds rather like "he deserves torture." In which case, might I ask, why does he and not the terrorists he treated in such a manner, who also committed heinous acts?

Good, because it's completely wrong.

Obama is in no way morally obligated to defend Bush. Bush invaded a country illegally, that alone is a war crime. "Enemy combatant" is not a category, no matter how much the Right wishes it; those people ARE protected under the Geneva Conventions. And calling "bleeding heart" anyone who would consider Bush a war criminal is like calling "bleeding heart" anyone who would consider Stalin a war criminal. They ARE war criminals, and Bush deserves to suffer, a LOT, for what he did.

Very well said.

Though having Bush on the Kissinger travel plan would also be fun.

Is Kissinger barred from entering Canada?

In which case, might I ask, why does he and not the terrorists he treated in such a manner, who also committed heinous acts?

Because HE ordered an unwarranted invasion. The "terrorists" at Gitmo may well be innocent. Also, HE set up Gitmo. Good for the gander, good for the goose.

Not a "war crime." The only crime here is the fact that numerous terrorists released from Gitmo have turned up :eek: back in Afghanistan committing further terrorist acts.

Everyone deserves a fair and impartial trial, even terrorists and suspected terrorists.

And the abuses and torture meted out to Gitmo detainees mostly certainly constitutes a war crime.

Because HE ordered an unwarranted invasion. The "terrorists" at Gitmo may well be innocent. Also, HE set up Gitmo. Good for the gander, good for the goose.

In other words, you're no better than the people you cry out against. You're just as willing to use torture on your political enemies as they are.

In other words, you're no better than the people you cry out against. You're just as willing to use torture on your political enemies as they are.

You DO realize I only said "worse prisons". *Shrugs*

That's the thing, he doesn't DESERVE a country club. He deserves Gitmo.

Well, it's a good thing people don't get what the masses think they "deserve" they get what's fair.

I think they should detain Bush, question him, and try him for his crimes. I think he should go to prison and that not once should his civil rights be violated, just to prove that you CAN get things done when you do it the right way.

No, they should not let him in -- if not because of war crimes, then at least because he's miserable bastard and a jackass.

Also, and however:


As well as this:

The Ransom of Red Chief. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ransom_of_Red_Chief
you're a little harsh on him. he's bad, but not to that degree. he's a bumbling idiot shrub, not what you called him.

Well, it's a good thing people don't get what the masses think they "deserve" they get what's fair.

I think they should detain Bush, question him, and try him for his crimes. I think he should go to prison and that not once should his civil rights be violated, just to prove that you CAN get things done when you do it the right way.

You DO realize America has the Death Penalty in most states, right? Would you be OK with killing him under such?

You DO realize I only said "worse prisons". *Shrugs*

You DO realize that saying "You DO realize" doesn't change anything about what you said, specifically that you want Bush subjected to the same illegal detention practices that you want him arrested for using?

If that's Canadian law, then he should respect it. Not like he'd want to go to Canada, anyway.

Seeing as he and Cheney are clearly War Criminals, they should just go ahead and stay out.

You DO realize that saying "You DO realize" doesn't change anything about what you said, specifically that you want Bush subjected to the same illegal detention practices that you want him arrested for using?

He claims they're legal, doesn't he? So, he won't mind. ^_^

He claims they're legal, doesn't he? So, he won't mind. ^_^

But you claim they're grounds for war crimes charges, so clearly you don't think they are. You can't have it both ways. To even attempt to argue what you are arguing is extraordinarily hypocritical.

But you claim they're grounds for war crimes charges, so clearly you don't think they are. You can't have it both ways. To even attempt to argue what you are arguing is extraordinarily hypocritical.

Actually, the BIG crime there is the war in Iraq.

If that's Canadian law, then he should respect it. Not like he'd want to go to Canada, anyway.

Seeing as he and Cheney are clearly War Criminals, they should just go ahead and stay out.
he is going to canada to give a speech to a private group sometime very soon.

Actually, the BIG crime there is the war in Iraq.

Then you're fine with the detention of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay?

Then you're fine with the detention of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay?

Not really, but Bush argues it's legal. If it's not legal, then he should be tried for it ALSO. If it's legal, he should get that legal treatment.

Point taken.

But then, he's not my president and I can call him moron if I feel like it with no repercussion whatsoever so I'll leave Mr. Bush in my comments.

I'll try to remember your point for future posts.
my country has people who called him idiot and nothing much happened

Actually, the BIG crime there is the war in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#International_Criminal_Court

Do tell under which category Mr. Bush should be charged for Iraq.

Not really, but Bush argues it's legal. If it's not legal, then he should be tried for it ALSO. If it's legal, he should get that legal treatment.

Bush also argues that the war in Iraq is legal. If we're using his definitions of legal for Guantanamo Bay, then he never committed any war crimes in Iraq and should not be punished for those either.

Again, you can't have this both ways. Either you're in favor of stooping down to his level, in which case you are just as despicable a person as everyone you've ever gone on one of your little rants at, or you're in favor of treating him like decent human beings treat one another, even criminals.

Again, you can't have this both ways. Either you're in favor of stooping down to his level, in which case you are just as despicable a person as everyone you've ever gone on one of your little rants at, or you're in favor of treating him like decent human beings treat one another, even criminals.

*Sighs*

Fine.

I wouldn't ACTUALLY see him tortured, but I AM furious at him. So, please, be kind enough to at least let me have the fantasy of watching him suffer for what he did, because we both know that he'll evade the law.

Okay, here’s a bit of background, so people can stop talking about irrelevant things like Human Rights Commissions (which are constituted to deal with domestic violations to specific legislation, NOT to deal with international issues such as war crimes etc).

First of all, Bush is due today in Calgary. He will not be stopped...for all I know he’s already here getting a back massage and a happy ending.

The argument, however, goes like this:

LAW (Lawyers against the War) is arguing he should be prevented from entering the country under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (IRPA ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/)), specifically s.35(1)(a) ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-ga:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codese:35) which states:

“that a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights or for committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. “

Also inadmissiable under s.35 (1)(b) “ are persons who are, or were, senior officials “in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in gross human rights violation...”

The Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-45.9///en?page=1) defines crimes against humanity as:

murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

The standard of proof is ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ in order to deny someone admittance into Canada.

Alright, so if he is let in (as will happen), the argument continues saying that under the Criminal Code of Canada ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/), s.469(c.1), we would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for crimes against humanity (an offence under sections 4 – 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act discussed above).

The first person to ever be charged under this section (which was passed in 2000) is Desire Munyaneze ( http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profil/db/facts/desire_munyaneza_423.html), a Rwandan accused of committing rape and murder of civilians. He applied for asylum in Canada and was denied, then arrested (since he was already here) in 2005.

So is any of this possible? Legally, yes. Is any of it going to happen? Of course not.

As was mentioned before, assuming a lawsuit is brought against the Canadian government for failing to keep Bush out of Canada, it will simply result in a ruling of ‘should have done’. He would have to be arrested and charged for proceedings under the Criminal Code to begin, and prosecutors have extreme powers of discretion when it comes to laying such charges. Others CAN lay an information (charge), but forcing the court to proceed would be difficult if there was political will not to. By that time, Bush would be long gone and beyond Canadian jurisdiction.

Okay, here’s a bit of background, so people can stop talking about irrelevant things like Human Rights Commissions (which are constituted to deal with domestic violations to specific legislation, NOT to deal with international issues such as war crimes etc).

First of all, Bush is due today in Calgary. He will not be stopped...for all I know he’s already here getting a back massage and a happy ending.

The argument, however, goes like this:

LAW (Lawyers against the War) is arguing he should be prevented from entering the country under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, (IRPA ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/)), specifically s.35(1)(a) ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/I-2.5/bo-ga:s_7::bo-ga:l_1//en?page=3&isPrinting=false#codese:35) which states:



Also inadmissiable under s.35 (1)(b) “ are persons who are, or were, senior officials “in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in gross human rights violation...”

The Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-45.9///en?page=1) defines crimes against humanity as:



The standard of proof is ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ in order to deny someone admittance into Canada.

Alright, so if he is let in (as will happen), the argument continues saying that under the Criminal Code of Canada ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/), s.469(c.1), we would have jurisdiction to prosecute him for crimes against humanity (an offence under sections 4 – 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act discussed above).

The first person to ever be charged under this section (which was passed in 2000) is Desire Munyaneze ( http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profil/db/facts/desire_munyaneza_423.html), a Rwandan accused of committing rape and murder of civilians. He applied for asylum in Canada and was denied, then arrested (since he was already here) in 2005.

So is any of this possible? Legally, yes. Is any of it going to happen? Of course not.

As was mentioned before, assuming a lawsuit is brought against the Canadian government for failing to keep Bush out of Canada, it will simply result in a ruling of ‘should have done’. He would have to be arrested and charged for proceedings under the Criminal Code to begin, and prosecutors have extreme powers of discretion when it comes to laying such charges. Others CAN lay an information (charge), but forcing the court to proceed would be difficult if there was political will not to. By that time, Bush would be long gone and beyond Canadian jurisdiction.
thanks

i was going by what i had just heard on tv. i was hoping that some canadian would come in and elaborate on what i remembered.

so do you think that mr bush SHOULD be allowed into canada?

Detain & question him, that would be beautiful.

You say beautiful, I say international incident... tomato tomahto, really.

I say you should let him in.

Why? Whats your reasoning? The law seems quite clear based on the OP.

Because then you'll have to keep him. :wink:

Don't throw your shit in my backyard, please!

thanks

i was going by what i had just heard on tv. i was hoping that some canadian would come in and elaborate on what i remembered.

so do you think that mr bush SHOULD be allowed into canada?

So, ignoring political realities for a moment, I think that Canada needs to take a firmer stand on issues like crimes against humanity. There is a strong movement in international law to condemn heads of state, present or former for their participation or oversite of atrocities, and I think Canada could be a frontrunner in terms of giving that movement teeth. That would mean we would stop welcoming, with open arms, people like Suharto, Bush et al.

So no, I don't think he should be allowed into Canada.

*reality floods back*

Not really, but Bush argues it's legal. If it's not legal, then he should be tried for it ALSO. If it's legal, he should get that legal treatment.

The invasion of Iraq is far more legal then Gitmo and torture. He technically had the power to invade Iraq. Congress gave it to him.

Where as he had now power to do what he did in Gitmo, nor would he legally ever, despite all the masterbitory fantasies held by certian delusional Neocons. I know your personal peeve is Iraq, but like it or not, it wasnt illegal.

The invasion of Iraq is far more legal then Gitmo and torture. He technically had the power to invade Iraq. Congress gave it to him.

Where as he had now power to do what he did in Gitmo, nor would he legally ever, despite all the masterbitory fantasies held by certian delusional Neocons. I know your personal peeve is Iraq, but like it or not, it wasnt illegal.

Judged by the UN as unwarranted.

Plus it's about 500 people in Gitmo vs. about 100,000 in Iraq, and those are only the dead ones.

Judged by the UN as unwarranted.

But not illegal. They voted not to join. They never voted not to allow it. They wouldnt ever do such a thing. It would violate sovereignty and the howling would be deftening.

Plus it's about 500 people in Gitmo vs. about 100,000 in Iraq, and those are only the dead ones.

Youre confusing morality with law. The two do not always go together.

Judged by the UN as unwarranted.

As soon as the UN becomes a supranational body which supersedes US law when it comes to US action, we'll talk.

Canada is wise, but lacks the skill. Yes, the cricket is not the master yet.

Don't worry, nothing will happen. We don't like making a fuss.

Don't worry, nothing will happen. We don't like making a fuss.

Shit, with Harper in charge? There's more chance to stop President Obama from coming here than to stop former President Bush.

A more prudent question: SHould he be allowed to come back again? ;)

/Thread

Judged by the UN as unwarranted.

Plus it's about 500 people in Gitmo vs. about 100,000 in Iraq, and those are only the dead ones.

Dude, where did you get your 100,000 figure from? Most estimates I've seen give a figure of 600,000+ or, in some cases, over 1,000,000.

The invasion of Iraq is far more legal then Gitmo and torture. He technically had the power to invade Iraq. Congress gave it to him.

Congress can't "give" the President the power to invade other countries. Only Congress can declare war.

Congress can't "give" the President the power to invade other countries. Only Congress can declare war.

The President has the ability to send troops into battle indefinitely without the consent of Congress, and until Congress slaps the hand of a President who does it, the Executive will continue having that power.

Dude, where did you get your 100,000 figure from? Most estimates I've seen give a figure of 600,000+ or, in some cases, over 1,000,000.

I don't know where you got 1,000,000 from, but the range I have seen is between 100,000 and 600,000, with 100,000 being the more legitimate because it counts deaths strickly pertaining to the war, and not peripheral effects. However, all death tolls are circumstantial because we can't rely on the Iraqis to keep count properly.

However, all death tolls are circumstantial because we can't rely on the Iraqis to keep count properly.

Why?

By that thought, is the WTC death toll a mystery as well?

Why?

By that thought, is the WTC death toll a mystery as well?

Because brown people cant count. Dur.

Congress can't "give" the President the power to invade other countries. Only Congress can declare war.

Congress basically authorized their approval. As CoC, Bush could basically bomb whatever he wanted.

I don't know where you got 1,000,000 from, but the range I have seen is between 100,000 and 600,000, with 100,000 being the more legitimate because it counts deaths strickly pertaining to the war, and not peripheral effects.

Most estimates I've seen give 600,000 as a figure; only a few claim over 1,000,000.

And most deaths by peripheral effects do strictly pertain to the war.

However, all death tolls are circumstantial because we can't rely on the Iraqis to keep count properly.

Why is that?

Because brown people cant count. Dur.

Yeah, I'm waiting for his answer to see if it'll be something among those lines or something more justifiable.

And most deaths by peripheral effects do strictly pertain to the war.

Well, by their definition they don't, since they are peripheral. But I won't argue the point.

Why?

By that thought, is the WTC death toll a mystery as well?

Because brown people cant count. Dur.

What does the WTC have to do with anything? The exact number is a mystery, but we basically know how many people were in the towers when they collapsed, we know how many we rescued, ergo we know how many died.

If a nation like the US, with advanced technology helping out, can't even keep track of the number of murders committed each year, then how could a nation like Iraq possibly hope to to any effective degree? There are no reliable record keeping systems in place.

"lawyers against the war" (an organization) in canada have petitioned the canadian government to turn mr bush away at the border when he tries to go to canada to give a speech to a private group.

according to canadian law anyone who is suspected of war crimes (like the torture at guantanamo bay) may not legally enter canada. if they ARE allowed to enter canada they must be detained and investigated and potentially tried for these war crimes. if they cant be tried in canada they must be deported so a country where they can be tried.

If I didn't think he should be allowed in before the bold and underlined would have convinced me.

so he really ought to cancel his speech and stay home eating pretzels by the fire in dallas.

Yes, I strongly encourage him to eat more pretzels.

Why?

By that thought, is the WTC death toll a mystery as well?

The exact figure? Yes. We can reasonably estimate what it was based on the number of people known to be in the towers that day and the number of people unaccounted for, but we do not have a strict body count. We don't know how many people survived but used the attack as a way to escape their lives or whatever.

Similarly, while we can make reasonable estimations on the number of deaths in Iraq since the US invasion, we do not have a strict body count. And since Iraqi census methods and figures are nowhere near as accurate or reliable as US census methods and figures, the discrepancy is likely to be greater.

Since we cannot know for sure the number of deaths on the ground in Iraq, and since there are wildly conflicting numbers out there, we have to view them as circumstantial.

Well, it's a good thing people don't get what the masses think they "deserve" they get what's fair.

I think they should detain Bush, question him, and try him for his crimes. I think he should go to prison and that not once should his civil rights be violated, just to prove that you CAN get things done when you do it the right way.

To be more accurate people SHOULD (but too often don't) get what is JUST. It would technically be FAIR for Bush to receive the treatment that he ordered others to be given, but it would be a miscarriage of JUSTICE to do so.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that Canada has their human rights comission in order...

http://europenews.dk/en/node/21152



Any "human rights" commission that Canada has appears to be a small clique of anti-Semitic jerks who are using that commission to their own ends.

While I'm no expert, I don't believe Warman is an anti-semite. Rather, he trolls anti-semite sites to find stuff to file complaints about. Believe me I have no love for the man, and its possible he's a complete liar and actually is an anti-semite, but I thought I'd mention this.

Nonetheless, he's still an asshole. At least if you ask a libertarian.

Yes. But someone has to take the government to court, the court has to rule, then the government will appeal and the whole mess will end up with the government being told he shouldn't have done that while Bush his slowly sipping his drink back in texas.

And the whole mess will take 5 to 10 years to go through the court so it's a moot point.

I dare say Canada has an extradition treaty with America. Now, unless I'm mistaken, if Bush is found to be under suspicion of committing war crimes, and is on record as entering Canada, then he's a criminal under Canadian law. So Canada can have him extradited him for trial. Or try, at least. The chances of any American government sending a former president abroad to face war crimes charges are slim.

To be more accurate people SHOULD (but too often don't) get what is JUST. It would technically be FAIR for Bush to receive the treatment that he ordered others to be given, but it would be a miscarriage of JUSTICE to do so.
Potato potato.

I dare say Canada has an extradition treaty with America. Now, unless I'm mistaken, if Bush is found to be under suspicion of committing war crimes, and is on record as entering Canada, then he's a criminal under Canadian law. So Canada can have him extradited him for trial. Or try, at least. The chances of any American government sending a former president abroad to face war crimes charges are slim.

I say do it. Time to remind the world, and ourselves, that Canada has balls too. I think people have forgotten that in the years since WW2.

Well, it's 24 hours later and Bush has come and gone.

Well, it's 24 hours later and Bush has come and gone.

Missed their chance.

Missed their chance.

I hear someone tried to make a citizen's arrest and had to be thrown out of the conference room. :tongue:

A more prudent question: SHould he be allowed to come back again? ;)

I'm sure President Norris would let him back in Texas.

I'm sure President Norris would let him back in Texas.
who is president norris? what is s/he president of? never heard of the person.

who is president norris? what is s/he president of? never heard of the person.

look out there is a round house kick to your head.

look out there is a round house kick to your head.
kick me and MEOW! (nasty meow) scratch.

president Norris did it not me

president Norris did it not me
then he deserves the scratch, not you

then he deserves the scratch, not you

good luck on that
he is tough
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLO1YIWQuXE

Well, it's 24 hours later and Bush has come and gone.

Just as I predicted. Dream on, Bushophobes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#International_Criminal_Court

Do tell under which category Mr. Bush should be charged for Iraq.

Here's a few of the real charges motivating the Bushophobes:

1) being President in 2003 instead of Algore.

2) taking action against one of the world's worst dictators instead of just talking about how bad he is while secretly making deals with him

3) liberating a nation

4) killing Islamo-Nazis

5) preventing further terrorist attacks in the US

6) dealing with illegal enemy combatants from a position of strength instead of weakness

7) not giving Geneva Convention protections to illegal enemy combatants who aren't entitled to them

8) not being a whining, effete, decadent Euro-wimp

That ought to keep 'em busy at least until we're attacked again, the current President takes some/any kind of action in response, and the whiners and crybabies then go after him.

Here's a few of the real charges motivating the Bushophobes:

1) being President in 2003 instead of Algore.

2) taking action against one of the world's worst dictators instead of just talking about how bad he is while secretly making deals with him

3) liberating a nation

4) killing Islamo-Nazis

5) preventing further terrorist attacks in the US

6) dealing with illegal enemy combatants from a position of strength instead of weakness

7) not giving Geneva Convention protections to illegal enemy combatants who aren't entitled to them

8) not being a whining, effete, decadent Euro-wimp

That ought to keep 'em busy at least until we're attacked again, the current President takes some/any kind of action in response, and the whiners and crybabies then go after him.

1- Attacking a country unwarranted.

2- Attacking a country unwarranted.

3- Attacking a country unwarranted.

4- You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. I do not think it exists like you think it exists either, but baby steps.

5- Bush was a rock that kept away tigers, then? I see.

6- Attacking a country unwarranted. Torturing people for no reason. Useless, ineffective cowboy diplomacy.

7- Enemy combatants are not a category. All categories exist under the Geneva Convention.

8- Flamebaiting. Reporting it.

And given your repeated calls for secession, the group most likely to target America illegally is made up of people like YOU.

*snip*

And I was just about to tell NM to give up because his usual opponents aren't on at the moment.

Don't really see how number 8 is a flamebait, he isn't calling anyone on here a whining, effete, decadent Euro-wimp

Here's a few of the real charges motivating the Bushophobes:

1) being President in 2003 instead of Algore.

2) taking action against one of the world's worst dictators instead of just talking about how bad he is while secretly making deals with him

3) liberating a nation

4) killing Islamo-Nazis

5) preventing further terrorist attacks in the US

6) dealing with illegal enemy combatants from a position of strength instead of weakness

7) not giving Geneva Convention protections to illegal enemy combatants who aren't entitled to them

8) not being a whining, effete, decadent Euro-wimp

That ought to keep 'em busy at least until we're attacked again, the current President takes some/any kind of action in response, and the whiners and crybabies then go after him.

Well, I don't know about you but I'm sure convinced with this piece of revisionist history.

All hail Bush!!!

The Aftermath (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1398586)

CALGARY - A crowd of roughly 400 noisy protestors gathered outside the Telus Convention Centre in downtown Calgary on Tuesday to demonstrate against a noon address by former U.S. president George W. Bush.

Blowing whistles and chanting "war criminal," demonstrators carried signs and shouted "shame on you" at people attending the event at a cost of $400 each.

At the protest pinnacle, four people were arrested. One man tried to enter the convention centre and was turned back by police. After a second person was arrested, two more protesters were taken into custody. One kicked the side of a police van.

Another was taken to the ground in the middle of Centre Street as a crowd gathered around shouting for police to let him go.

I think this is interesting too:

Protecting foreign dignitaries visiting Canada falls under the mandate of the RCMP, which provided security for Bush on top of the Calgary Police Service presence on the street.

Bush also travelled with his own detail of U.S. Secret Service agents, which is permitted by RCMP policies governing foreign security officers.

The cost of the security operation during Bush's visit will come out of the RCMP's budget.

Well, I don't know about you but I'm sure convinced with this piece of revisionist history.

All hail Bush!!!

Well number 1 is correct, he was President in 2003 not Al Gore.

8- Flamebaiting. Reporting it.

I'm no mod, but I really, really doubt that's flame bating, any more than a lot of other things that are considered acceptable political discourse.

Also, I personally find it ethically questionable to go running to the mods in a debate except in the most extreme circumstances. I'd rather crush someone in a fair debate, than get them in trouble with the authorities.

And given your repeated calls for secession, the group most likely to target America illegally is made up of people like YOU.

Fanatics are fanatics. Regardless of weather they are Muslim or American far right wing, they are dangerous to a free, peaceful, and prosperous society.

Well number 1 is correct, he was President in 2003 not Al Gore.

That's not the reason for our dislike of him.

I'm no mod, but I really, really doubt that's flame bating, any more than a lot of other things that are considered acceptable political discourse.

Also, I personally find it ethically questionable to go running to the mods in a debate except in the most extreme circumstances. I'd rather crush someone in a fair debate, than get them in trouble with the authorities.



Fanatics are fanatics. Regardless of weather they are Muslim or American far right wing, they are dangerous to a free, peaceful, and prosperous society.

*Shrugs*

Not only NM has a pattern, but also the "whiners and crybabies" part in the last paragraph is quite baitish as well.

That's not the reason for our dislike of him.

I dare say it was one of the reasons back then. There was quite a lot of anger towards bush and the rest of the system because he managed to win.

I dare say it was one of the reasons back then. There was quite a lot of anger towards bush and the rest of the system because he managed to win.

The man invaded a country for no reason.

What Bush had to say in Calgary (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090318.BUSH18/TPStory/National)

Just in case anyone was interested.

Anyway, its some justice at least that people continue to draw attention to Bush's misdeeds, and do everything in their power to limit his movements.

The man invaded a country for no reason.

My mistake I had my dates mixed up. I was thinking Bush was made President in 2003 not 2001 as is the correct year.

My mistake I had my dates mixed up. I was thinking Bush was made President in 2003 not 2001 as is the correct year.

I forgive you, mah brutha.

Anyway, its some justice at least that people continue to draw attention to Bush's misdeeds, and do everything in their power to limit his movements.

I think he'll gladly put up with the negative attention for the financial gain (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090318.BUSH18/TPStory/National):

He joked about suddenly having a mortgage at a home in Dallas, but that he's "going to get used to this paid speech business."

He has a dozen or so lined up this year, and got in the neighbourhood of $200,000 to speak in Calgary, although organizers demurred when pressed for details about their coup.

Here's a few of the real charges motivating the Bushophobes:

4) killing Islamo-Nazis

8) not being a whining, effete, decadent Euro-wimp

That ought to keep 'em busy at least until we're attacked again, the current President takes some/any kind of action in response, and the whiners and crybabies then go after him.

Firstly, on #4, that is a step up from the "Islamofascist" label. That is a new one I must admit.

Onward, note the bolded. This was the questionable content and contrary to what some posters here would like to believe, I do not see it as mild, or non-offensive. Quite the contrary. Though the remark is indirect, it is still there. You are implying certain characteristics about Europeans that they would take to be a flamebait, and that does go against the rules.

While "crybabies" and "whiners" are mild terms, in the current context, it is my belief that the placement of these words are placed to inflame. As you've been relatively civil as of late, I will only yellow-card you for now.

as an american, i know what a texas redneck bush is. i bet he is so happy there. and that village he lives in is happy to have an idiot. even if his nephew George P. Bush runs, i will not vote for him. shrub almost ruined 8 years of my life. ages 11-19 to be exact. i am very happy:D when i think about NO MORE BUSH. it's sweet:)
i don't really know about obama:confused:

What?

What?

i likes to type likes real fast and not capitalize anything and periods are bad mkay?