But you know, it would be interesting to see what would happen
if the Canadian authorities actually attempted to forcibly take
our President into their custody. Our US Military would go to
Defcon 1 in a heartbeat, and all Americans currently in Canada
would be ordered to flee Canada *IMMEDIATELY* pending imminent
nuclear strikes on Toronto, Montreal and other key targets all
across Canada if the President isn't released unharmed within
one hour's time. Yes indeed, that would be *VERY* interesting.

Made in America,
Daniel Joseph Min

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I've got a much better and more practical idea. Let's have the
men in the white coats track this "Walkom" kook down and buckle
him up in a straightjacket, then drive him safely over to the
asylum and lock him in his very own rubber room--nice and quiet.

But you know, it would be interesting to see what would happen
if the Canadian authorities actually attempted to forcibly take
our President into their custody. Our US Military would go to
Defcon 1 in a heartbeat, and all Americans currently in Canada
would be ordered to flee Canada *IMMEDIATELY* pending imminent
nuclear strikes on Toronto, Montreal and other key targets all
across Canada if the President isn't released unharmed within
one hour's time. Yes indeed, that would be *VERY* interesting.

Made in America,
Daniel Joseph Min

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQaAAG5ljD7YrHM/nEQK9GACg6YbITpZPB1TQh37ZUws3cZwk36IAnjkB
xACbWJ1/3ydCgYPZ77ZDHXEL
=u15q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, "MonsieurStat" <Monsieustat@yahoo.com> wrote:

Toronto Star
November 16, 2004

Should Canada indict Bush?

By Thomas Walkom
twalkom@thestar.ca

When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa - probably later this
year - should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?

It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect
candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War
Crimes Act.

This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada's ineffectual laws in line with
the rules of the new International Criminal Court. While never tested, it
lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign leader like Bush could
face arrest.

In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime, even outside
Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war crime? According to
the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by "customary international
law" or by conventions that Canada has adopted.

War crimes also specifically include any breach of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions, such as torture, degradation, wilfully depriving prisoners of
war of their rights "to a fair and regular trial," launching attacks "in the
knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury to
civilians" and deportation of persons from an area under occupation.

Outside of one well-publicized (and quickly squelched) attempt in Belgium,
no one has tried to formally indict Bush. But both Oxfam International and
the U.S. group Human Rights Watch have warned that some of the actions
undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, particularly in Iraq, may fall under
the war crime rubric.

The case for the prosecution looks quite promising. First, there is the fact
of the Iraq war itself. After 1945, Allied tribunals in Nuremberg and
Tokyo - in an astonishing precedent - ruled that states no longer had the
unfettered right to invade other countries and that leaders who started such
conflicts could be tried for waging illegal war.

Concurrently, the new United Nations outlawed all aggressive wars except
those authorized by its Security Council.

Today, a strong case could be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg
principles by invading Iraq. Indeed, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has
already labelled that war illegal in terms of the U.N. Charter.

Second, there is the manner in which the U.S. conducted this war.

The mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison is a clear
contravention of the Geneva Accord. The U.S. is also deporting selected
prisoners to camps outside of Iraq (another contravention). U.S. press
reports also talk of shadowy prisons in Jordan run by the CIA, where
suspects are routinely tortured. And the estimated civilian death toll of
100,000 may well contravene the Geneva Accords prohibition against the use
of excessive force.

Canada's war crimes law specifically permits prosecution not only of those
who carry out such crimes but of the military and political superiors who
allow them to happen.

What has emerged since Abu Ghraib shows that officials at the highest levels
of the Bush administration permitted and even encouraged the use of torture.

Given that Bush, as he likes to remind everyone, is the U.S. military's
commander-in-chief, it is hard to argue he bears no responsibility.

Then there is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. says detainees there do not fall
under the Geneva accords. That's an old argument.

In 1946, Japanese defendants explained their mistreatment of prisoners of
war by noting that their country had never signed any of the Geneva
Conventions. The Japanese were convicted anyway.

Oddly enough, Canada may be one of the few places where someone like Bush
could be brought to justice. Impeachment in the U.S. is most unlikely. And,
at Bush's insistence, the new international criminal court has no
jurisdiction over any American.

But a Canadian war crimes charge, too, would face many hurdles. Bush was
furious last year when Belgians launched a war crimes suit in their country
against him - so furious that Belgium not only backed down under U.S.
threats but changed its law to prevent further recurrences.

As well, according to a foreign affairs spokesperson, visiting heads of
state are immune from prosecution when in Canada on official business. If
Ottawa wanted to act, it would have to wait until Bush was out of office -
or hope to catch him when he comes up here to fish.

And, of course, Canada's government would have to want to act. War crimes
prosecutions are political decisions that must be authorized by the federal
attorney-general.

Still, Prime Minister Paul Martin has staked out his strong opposition to
war crimes. This was his focus in a September address to the U.N. General
Assembly.

There, Martin was talking specifically about war crimes committed by
militiamen in far-off Sudan. But as my friends on the Star's editorial board
noted in one of their strong defences of concerted international action
against war crimes, the rule must be, "One law for all."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_
Type1&c=Article&cid=1100517502971&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist9699076
26796&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes%20%20http://www.rabble.ca

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I've got a much better and more practical idea. Let's have the
men in the white coats track this "Walkom" kook down and buckle
him up in a straightjacket, then drive him safely over to the
asylum and lock him in his very own rubber room--nice and quiet.

But you know, it would be interesting to see what would happen
if the Canadian authorities actually attempted to forcibly take
our President into their custody. Our US Military would go to
Defcon 1 in a heartbeat, and all Americans currently in Canada
would be ordered to flee Canada *IMMEDIATELY* pending imminent
nuclear strikes on Toronto, Montreal and other key targets all
across Canada if the President isn't released unharmed within
one hour's time. Yes indeed, that would be *VERY* interesting.

Made in America,
Daniel Joseph Min

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQaAAG5ljD7YrHM/nEQK9GACg6YbITpZPB1TQh37ZUws3cZwk36IAnjkB
xACbWJ1/3ydCgYPZ77ZDHXEL
=u15q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, "MonsieurStat" <Monsieustat@yahoo.com> wrote:

Toronto Star
November 16, 2004

Should Canada indict Bush?

By Thomas Walkom
twalkom@thestar.ca

When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa - probably later this
year - should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?

It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect
candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War
Crimes Act.

This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada's ineffectual laws in line
with
the rules of the new International Criminal Court. While never tested, it
lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign leader like Bush could
face arrest.

In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime, even outside
Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war crime? According to
the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by "customary international
law" or by conventions that Canada has adopted.

War crimes also specifically include any breach of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions, such as torture, degradation, wilfully depriving prisoners of
war of their rights "to a fair and regular trial," launching attacks "in
the
knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury
to
civilians" and deportation of persons from an area under occupation.

Outside of one well-publicized (and quickly squelched) attempt in Belgium,
no one has tried to formally indict Bush. But both Oxfam International and
the U.S. group Human Rights Watch have warned that some of the actions
undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, particularly in Iraq, may fall
under
the war crime rubric.

The case for the prosecution looks quite promising. First, there is the
fact
of the Iraq war itself. After 1945, Allied tribunals in Nuremberg and
Tokyo - in an astonishing precedent - ruled that states no longer had the
unfettered right to invade other countries and that leaders who started
such
conflicts could be tried for waging illegal war.

Concurrently, the new United Nations outlawed all aggressive wars except
those authorized by its Security Council.

Today, a strong case could be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg
principles by invading Iraq. Indeed, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has
already labelled that war illegal in terms of the U.N. Charter.

Second, there is the manner in which the U.S. conducted this war.

The mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison is a clear
contravention of the Geneva Accord. The U.S. is also deporting selected
prisoners to camps outside of Iraq (another contravention). U.S. press
reports also talk of shadowy prisons in Jordan run by the CIA, where
suspects are routinely tortured. And the estimated civilian death toll of
100,000 may well contravene the Geneva Accords prohibition against the use
of excessive force.

Canada's war crimes law specifically permits prosecution not only of those
who carry out such crimes but of the military and political superiors who
allow them to happen.

What has emerged since Abu Ghraib shows that officials at the highest
levels
of the Bush administration permitted and even encouraged the use of
torture.

Given that Bush, as he likes to remind everyone, is the U.S. military's
commander-in-chief, it is hard to argue he bears no responsibility.

Then there is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. says detainees there do not fall
under the Geneva accords. That's an old argument.

In 1946, Japanese defendants explained their mistreatment of prisoners of
war by noting that their country had never signed any of the Geneva
Conventions. The Japanese were convicted anyway.

Oddly enough, Canada may be one of the few places where someone like Bush
could be brought to justice. Impeachment in the U.S. is most unlikely.
And,
at Bush's insistence, the new international criminal court has no
jurisdiction over any American.

But a Canadian war crimes charge, too, would face many hurdles. Bush was
furious last year when Belgians launched a war crimes suit in their
country
against him - so furious that Belgium not only backed down under U.S.
threats but changed its law to prevent further recurrences.

As well, according to a foreign affairs spokesperson, visiting heads of
state are immune from prosecution when in Canada on official business. If
Ottawa wanted to act, it would have to wait until Bush was out of office -
or hope to catch him when he comes up here to fish.

And, of course, Canada's government would have to want to act. War crimes
prosecutions are political decisions that must be authorized by the
federal
attorney-general.

Still, Prime Minister Paul Martin has staked out his strong opposition to
war crimes. This was his focus in a September address to the U.N. General
Assembly.

There, Martin was talking specifically about war crimes committed by
militiamen in far-off Sudan. But as my friends on the Star's editorial
board
noted in one of their strong defences of concerted international action
against war crimes, the rule must be, "One law for all."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_
Type1&c=Article&cid=1100517502971&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist9699076
26796&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes%20%20http://www.rabble.ca

A completely asinine idea from an often-asinine columnist!

Jane

"MonsieurStat" <Monsieustat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ojQnd.58269$Ho4.1983221@news20.bellglobal.com...

Toronto Star
November 16, 2004

Should Canada indict Bush?

By Thomas Walkom
twalkom@thestar.ca

When U.S. President George W. Bush arrives in Ottawa - probably later this
year - should he be welcomed? Or should he be charged with war crimes?

It's an interesting question. On the face of it, Bush seems a perfect
candidate for prosecution under Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War
Crimes Act.

This act was passed in 2000 to bring Canada's ineffectual laws in line

with

the rules of the new International Criminal Court. While never tested, it
lays out sweeping categories under which a foreign leader like Bush could
face arrest.

In particular, it holds that anyone who commits a war crime, even outside
Canada, may be prosecuted by our courts. What is a war crime? According to
the statute, it is any conduct defined as such by "customary international
law" or by conventions that Canada has adopted.

War crimes also specifically include any breach of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions, such as torture, degradation, wilfully depriving prisoners of
war of their rights "to a fair and regular trial," launching attacks "in

the

knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life or injury

to

civilians" and deportation of persons from an area under occupation.

Outside of one well-publicized (and quickly squelched) attempt in Belgium,
no one has tried to formally indict Bush. But both Oxfam International and
the U.S. group Human Rights Watch have warned that some of the actions
undertaken by the U.S. and its allies, particularly in Iraq, may fall

under

the war crime rubric.

The case for the prosecution looks quite promising. First, there is the

fact

of the Iraq war itself. After 1945, Allied tribunals in Nuremberg and
Tokyo - in an astonishing precedent - ruled that states no longer had the
unfettered right to invade other countries and that leaders who started

such

conflicts could be tried for waging illegal war.

Concurrently, the new United Nations outlawed all aggressive wars except
those authorized by its Security Council.

Today, a strong case could be made that Bush violated the Nuremberg
principles by invading Iraq. Indeed, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has
already labelled that war illegal in terms of the U.N. Charter.

Second, there is the manner in which the U.S. conducted this war.

The mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison is a clear
contravention of the Geneva Accord. The U.S. is also deporting selected
prisoners to camps outside of Iraq (another contravention). U.S. press
reports also talk of shadowy prisons in Jordan run by the CIA, where
suspects are routinely tortured. And the estimated civilian death toll of
100,000 may well contravene the Geneva Accords prohibition against the use
of excessive force.

Canada's war crimes law specifically permits prosecution not only of those
who carry out such crimes but of the military and political superiors who
allow them to happen.

What has emerged since Abu Ghraib shows that officials at the highest

levels

of the Bush administration permitted and even encouraged the use of

torture.

Given that Bush, as he likes to remind everyone, is the U.S. military's
commander-in-chief, it is hard to argue he bears no responsibility.

Then there is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. says detainees there do not fall
under the Geneva accords. That's an old argument.

In 1946, Japanese defendants explained their mistreatment of prisoners of
war by noting that their country had never signed any of the Geneva
Conventions. The Japanese were convicted anyway.

Oddly enough, Canada may be one of the few places where someone like Bush
could be brought to justice. Impeachment in the U.S. is most unlikely.

And,

at Bush's insistence, the new international criminal court has no
jurisdiction over any American.

But a Canadian war crimes charge, too, would face many hurdles. Bush was
furious last year when Belgians launched a war crimes suit in their

country

against him - so furious that Belgium not only backed down under U.S.
threats but changed its law to prevent further recurrences.

As well, according to a foreign affairs spokesperson, visiting heads of
state are immune from prosecution when in Canada on official business. If
Ottawa wanted to act, it would have to wait until Bush was out of office -
or hope to catch him when he comes up here to fish.

And, of course, Canada's government would have to want to act. War crimes
prosecutions are political decisions that must be authorized by the

federal

attorney-general.

Still, Prime Minister Paul Martin has staked out his strong opposition to
war crimes. This was his focus in a September address to the U.N. General
Assembly.

There, Martin was talking specifically about war crimes committed by
militiamen in far-off Sudan. But as my friends on the Star's editorial

board

noted in one of their strong defences of concerted international action
against war crimes, the rule must be, "One law for all."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic
le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1100517502971&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist9
69907626796&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes%20%20http://www.rabble.ca