Canada to indict Bush for war crimes?


Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
Beyond Canada's laws, there are many like myself that feel he should be held for war crimes.

I am too young to remember Truman, but I am sure there are some of us given the time might feel that he was a war criminal.
 

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,206
0
San Destin Florida
Yea, that would work. I could see the folks there trying to apprehend the President, and then all of them getting smoked by the Secret Service.

Never will happen, never would happen. The Canadian government doesn't have the ball to try something this stupid.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
It would be more symbolic than anything else. Like a bench warrant or something. If GWB starts drinking again after his term is up and wanders into Canada by mistake they might pick him up on it.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,997
Republic of Ukistan
Backtothemac said:
Yea, that would work. I could see the folks there trying to apprehend the President, and then all of them getting smoked by the Secret Service.

Never will happen, never would happen. The Canadian government doesn't have the ball to try something this stupid.
So might continues to be right? Doing the right thing is "stupid"? The Law belongs to the victor? Bush is above the law? The US is above the law? Which of the above?
 

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,206
0
San Destin Florida
skunk said:
So might continues to be right? Doing the right thing is "stupid"? The Law belongs to the victor? Bush is above the law? The US is above the law? Which of the above?

Um, no to all of the above. You cannot hold the President responsible for isolated events in the field of battle. That is just crazy. To claim that he violated international law by invading Iraq. Nope. Saddam had violated the cease fire of the 1st gulf war, and thus, this could be argued was a reactivation of actions.

Or as it was once said, "the president reserves the right to act unilaterally if need be to defend this country against a tyrant like Sadam Hussain." -- John Kerry.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
Xtremehkr said:
It would be more symbolic than anything else. Like a bench warrant or something. If GWB starts drinking again after his term is up and wanders into Canada by mistake they might pick him up on it.
Everybody says somebody should be prosecuted for war crimes, as they sit back and watch the bodies stack up in the mass graves, because they are unwilling to send their troops into an area and bring them to justice without the UN behind them.

It's sit back and wait for the UN to act, and we all know how quick they are.

Of course detaining the US President for trial would bring about some interesting military action that would probably end up with the US capturing more oil fields :p and leave Cheney in charge. :eek:

It's all probably a rumor made up by Halliburton in their effort to take over North America. :eek:
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,997
Republic of Ukistan
Backtothemac said:
Um, no to all of the above. You cannot hold the President responsible for isolated events in the field of battle. That is just crazy. To claim that he violated international law by invading Iraq. Nope. Saddam had violated the cease fire of the 1st gulf war, and thus, this could be argued was a reactivation of actions.

Or as it was once said, "the president reserves the right to act unilaterally if need be to defend this country against a tyrant like Sadam Hussain." -- John Kerry.
I'm not. I'm holding him responsible for falsifying the evidence in order to try to justify an aggressive war which has cost upwards of 100,000 lives, for failing to protect the civilian population, for failing to protect Iraq's cultural heritage, for allowing and condoning serial breaches of the Geneva Convention. A "reactivation of actions"? What kind of crap is that? Does that excuse flattening cities, murdering civilians and shutting down water supplies? This is some rebuilding effort.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Okay trivia fans, Michael Moore has made only one fiction feature film (no wisecracks, you know what I mean). What is the name, and the plot?

(I promise, this is relevant to the thread.)
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
IJ Reilly said:
Okay trivia fans, Michael Moore has made only one fiction feature film (no wisecracks, you know what I mean). What is the name, and the plot?

(I promise, this is relevant to the thread.)
I'm glad we all agree it was fiction... :D

However, he is planning a new fictional film about the same subject. :rolleyes:
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Sun Baked said:
Everybody says somebody should be prosecuted for war crimes, as they sit back and watch the bodies stack up in the mass graves, because they are unwilling to send their troops into an area and bring them to justice without the UN behind them.

It's sit back and wait for the UN to act, and we all know how quick they are.

Of course detaining the US President for trial would bring about some interesting military action that would probably end up with the US capturing more oil fields :p and leave Cheney in charge. :eek:

It's all probably a rumor made up by Halliburton in their effort to take over North America. :eek:
The way Cheney has continued to misrepresent the facts, he ought to have his sanity put on trial.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,030
PDX
I'm sorry, I thought this thread had to be satire with a title like that.

I guess I do not give Canada the respect she deserves.

Still with Global Warming and large shale-oil reserves, Canada may have the last laugh...
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
Backtothemac said:
Um, no to all of the above. You cannot hold the President responsible for isolated events in the field of battle. That is just crazy. To claim that he violated international law by invading Iraq. Nope. Saddam had violated the cease fire of the 1st gulf war, and thus, this could be argued was a reactivation of actions.

Or as it was once said, "the president reserves the right to act unilaterally if need be to defend this country against a tyrant like Sadam Hussain." -- John Kerry.
Yet Saddam was held for the actions of his troops at his direction. Spin it your way, in the end 20+ years from now GWB will be seen as the criminal that he is.
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
skunk said:
I'm not. I'm holding him responsible for falsifying the evidence in order to try to justify an aggressive war which has cost upwards of 100,000 lives, for failing to protect the civilian population, for failing to protect Iraq's cultural heritage, for allowing and condoning serial breaches of the Geneva Convention. A "reactivation of actions"? What kind of crap is that? Does that excuse flattening cities, murdering civilians and shutting down water supplies? This is some rebuilding effort.
Amen! Bush is no better than Saddam. The results are an end to the means. Whether it was killing his own people, or the killing of ones own people. The result is just wrong, particularly with the lies the GWB gave. God have mercy on his soul....