West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Westcoastin' on November 25, 2004, 04:45:13 PM
-
Tuesday man, for anyone near Ottawa that can make it.....supposed to be pretty big, heard they bringin' in Police from T.O.
Bush is coming to Canada for the first time in a few years.
5pm oclock...Parliament Hill, supposed to be a candle thing, dont know if ill bother with that. Sounds like alot of ppl from my Campus are headin down.
edit.....actually the candle lit vigil is at 5pm...i guess for any hippie burnouts still left around after the most-inevitable riot, the actual demonstration is slated for noon...supposedly peaceful, but most things like this turn violent
-
What a bunch of losers.
-
What a bunch of losers.
whatever man, it'l be a trip to go to a mass rally. never been to one of those before......its just one of those things ya gotta do in college. an anti-bush cause is just as good as any other.
-
I found this interesting article from the Toronto Star. Should Canada indict Bush? (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1100517502971&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795)
Excerpts:
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.
..
..
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
-b[X]
-
If Canada arrests Bush, I'll go bail him out. Well, actually if Canada goes and arrests Bush, I'll probably just wait a few months until we conquer the land, and then get a summer home near Ottawa
-
If Canada arrests Bush, I'll go bail him out. Well, actually if Canada goes and arrests Bush, I'll probably just wait a few months until we conquer the land, and then get a summer home near Ottawa
I don't want you near my home
-
I don't give a fuck what you want.
-
If Canada arrests Bush, I'll go bail him out. Well, actually if Canada goes and arrests Bush, I'll probably just wait a few months until we conquer the land, and then get a summer home near Ottawa
The US can't conquer Canada. 1) It would be pointless, because there really isn't anything there that can be aquired with a take over. A few cities do good business but you can't just invade and think that they'll keep doing good business. It isn't like taking over the south or Iraq where you get instant access to physical resources. 2) This isn't Iraq and you wouldn't be going up against a dictator, you would be going against a peaceful nation. This would make the rest of the countries see Bush as a Hitler type and band together to stop him. USA isn't strong enough to go against the world. If the countries moved their militaries here and defended, the USA would lose, and end up in shambles. You can't even nuke us with out fucking yourself over. Invading Canada would be the single stupidest move in US history.
Besides, you tried before and you failed. :D
-
I found this interesting article from the Toronto Star. Should Canada indict Bush? (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1100517502971&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795)
Excerpts:
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.
..
..
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
-b[X]
lol @ Canada thinking they can indict Bush for a crime he did (if he did it) outside Canada. No way.
-
Invading Canada would be the single stupidest move in US history.
and arresting Bush would be the single stupidest move in Canadian history.
-
Invading Canada would be the single stupidest move in US history.
and arresting Bush would be the single stupidest move in Canadian history.
would be worth it for a laugh tho britain would back our old and loyal colony many brave candians came to help us out in both world wars
-
As Canadians, we don't have to agree with Bush, and don't have to like him. But we do have to respect the position he holds. He's coming here to represent his country, not himself.
-
EXACTLY. An intelligent man, well said. That would be like us arresting your prime minister when he comes over, just fucking STUPID. He would be here as our guest, it's too bad many have forgotten what hospitality is all about.
-
wtf? i can't believe ant didn't post this!
-
I never implied that Canada would or should indict Bush. I was just saying IF Bush were to invade it would end up being pointless. Rass Kass Toothpick; ofcourse it would be stupid to try and arrest Bush, since Canada's economy basically lives off the scraps of the US economy. I am not a supporter of Bush, but I am not a supporter of Canada indicting him, if they did.
-
While I don't personally think Canada should indict Bush, I posted that article because I thought it was a legit issue, since it actually deals with Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crime Act. It's not just arresting someone because of difference in opinion.
-b[X]