Amnesty calls on Canada to arrest George W. Bush

• Yoorah wrote on 2011-10-13 03:49

  Quote from The Canadian Press:

  Amnesty International wants the federal government to arrest former U.S. president George W. Bush when he visits British Columbia next week.
  
  The rights body said both Canadian and international law require Canada to detain Bush and investigate him for war crimes and torture.
  
  "It is incumbent upon Canadian officials to investigate, arrest and prosecute former president Bush for torture when he arrives in Canada a week tomorrow," said Alex Neve, Amnesty Canada's secretary general.
  
  Bush and former president Bill Clinton are scheduled to attend an economic conference in Surrey, B.C. next week.
  
  Neve said many will argue that arresting Bush is unrealistic because the United States is a close and powerful ally or that the crisis after 9-11 required extraordinary measures.
  
  American authorities used a variety of torture methods, including water boarding, beatings and sleep deprivation, Neve said.
  
  The Bush administration used euphemisms such as "enhanced interrogation techniques," but these methods constituted torture.

  
  More here.
  
  Do you think Canada should arrest him?
  I think it would be pretty funny if we did.
• Zid wrote on 2011-10-13 04:06
  It sounds righteous, but in the end, it's going to cause enough drama to warrant questioning the risk-to-rewards scale. International incident is a painstaking period to go through with a bordering country, especially with the world economy as it is right now.
  
  Blocking Bush from entering Canada isn't going to help either.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2011-10-13 04:06
  Absolutely not. Canada would not want to provoke the US at all considered that they have pretty good relations for a very long time.
• Nintega wrote on 2011-10-13 06:00
  I wouldn't do it, and I don't think they will either.
  
  F*ck it, I voted yes anyways.
• Cynic wrote on 2011-10-13 07:14
  I'm all for it. Obviously it will provoke the US, but it's still redundant of them to get iffy, since they eff'd up in the first place.
• Phunkie wrote on 2011-10-13 07:33
  Bush and Cheney and all those guys should've been arrested a long time ago.
• Chockeh wrote on 2011-10-13 08:44
  All though I agree that this might initiate unnecessary consequences, I want to see it anyways.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2011-10-13 08:49
  I'm not sure. Realistically and practically speaking, this could cause way too much problem to follow through on. I'm sure thats what everyone is thinking, and thats why no one has done it.
  
  But if its an international crime, theres no real excuse for breaking it, no matter how much it was for national security.
• Osayidan wrote on 2011-10-13 11:18
  I want to see it happen.
  I don't even know what bush does anymore, is he retired from politics? If so he probably doesn't have immunity to anything anymore and we would most likely have global support (including from many US citizens).
  
  Realistically, it won't happen. Bush and Harper used to secretly sleep together anyways.
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2011-10-13 11:27
  I picked no. I frankly have no qualms about torturing terrorists. If they were innocent, I would be against it. If they were guilty, I wouldn't shed a tear to see them beat around and treated inhumanely. Terrorists ARE inhumane. That's my take on terrorism. No sympathy for terrorists whatsoever.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2011-10-13 11:29

  Quote from Kingofrunes;618676:

  I picked no. I frankly have no qualms about torturing terrorists. If they were innocent, I would be against it. If they were guilty, I wouldn't shed a tear to see them beat around and treated inhumanely. Terrorists ARE inhumane. That's my take on terrorism. No sympathy for terrorists whatsoever.

  
  
  But.
  
  Assuming that we made an international agreement to create a law in which such levels of torture is prohibited, whether you agree with it or not, you've committed crimes against humanity to break said laws.
  
  Don't make the rules and then break them.
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2011-10-13 11:34

  Quote from Cucurbita;618678:

  But.
  
  Assuming that we made an international agreement to create a law in which such levels of torture is prohibited, whether you agree with it or not, you've committed crimes against humanity to break said laws.
  
  Don't make the rules and then break them.

  
  
  This is also true. I didn't make the laws though. Oh wells, the law is the law. However, a good majority of Americans would be up in arms about it most likely.
  
  Then again, I find the UN to be a complete joke and a worthless body. I frankly find the idea of a world government to be stupid as well.
• Cucurbita wrote on 2011-10-13 11:38

  Quote from Kingofrunes;618680:

  This is also true. I didn't make the laws though. Oh wells, the law is the law. However, a good majority of Americans would be up in arms about it most likely.
  
  Then again, I find the UN to be a complete joke and a worthless body. I frankly find the idea of a world government to be stupid as well.

  
  
  The idea I'm trying to point out is that people find excuses for rules they've once agreed with if it is convenient to them.
  
  "X is evil, no one should ever do it, lets make an international law". Everyone agrees and rejoices.
  
  "X is necessary, we need to do it for the safety of our people". People are a bit confused, but can't really seem to refute it because they aren't in agreement over whether or not the statement justifies partaking in the actions we all frowned upon just a little while ago.
  
  Certainly, the UN is in no position of power, but if this turns out to be a big case, America can lose quite a bit of face. In international politics, its not something you'd want happen to your country.
  
  That said, I don't actually think this will become something big. Sounds like bitter men just trying to get as much publicity as possible.
• Sayoko wrote on 2011-10-13 11:48

  Quote from Yoorah;618378:

  More here.
  
  Do you think Canada should arrest him?
  I think it would be pretty funny if we did.

  
  
  No. Only a "defeated" country's leader can be considered a war criminal (aka saddam).
  
  But it would still be funny if they did for the lulz
• Cucurbita wrote on 2011-10-13 11:50

  Quote from Sayoko;618685:

  No. Only a "defeated" country's leader can be considered a war criminal (aka saddam).
  
  But it would still be funny if they did for the lulz

  
  
  

  [Image: http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/923-facepalm.gif]