Thread: Bush JR get's his Day in court

Those good hearted folks sound like they are full of love.

There are several towns here in Vermont that passed legislation to arrest GW Bush on the spot if he ever stepped foot within their jurisdiction. Vermont is the only state Bush never visited during his 8 years in office. Go us.

This just cements my utter contempt for the United State's News media. Not a single word about this in any of the major media outlets. This should be everywhere, and it is no where.

Here's a video of the arrest of splitting of the sky:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62a53enMtA0

What I want to know is, who's side are the cops on?

George W. Bush has a better chance of getting assasinated than standing trial in court. He's too connected with poweful families (including his own) and friends for something like that to ever happen.

Hint hint, clue clue.. >_>

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

There are several towns here in Vermont that passed legislation to arrest GW Bush on the spot if he ever stepped foot within their jurisdiction.

Hmm...my dad is personal friends with the mayor here...

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

There are several towns here in Vermont that passed legislation to arrest GW Bush on the spot if he ever stepped foot within their jurisdiction. Vermont is the only state Bush never visited during his 8 years in office. Go us.

This just cements my utter contempt for the United State's News media. Not a single word about this in any of the major media outlets. This should be everywhere, and it is no where.

Town governments have no federal or international jurisdiction, Canada has no jurisdiction concerning American laws and is in no position to solely arrest Americans for breaking international laws when the acts don't concern Canada, and a few silly people using interesting imagery while talking about arresting a former president of the United States do not make a legitimate focus for a major world news story. They just sound like stoned college kids being funny.

By the way, is this group gung ho at all about arresting members of Al Qaeda or any ruthless dictators? I would be profoundly shocked if they were.

No man or woman however should be exempt from the justice system when they are being accused, by the millions, of serious crimes.

Originally Posted by Invader

No man or woman however should be exempt from the justice system when they are being accused, by the millions, of serious crimes.

It's not the claims of millions that count. It's what the law actually is and what the facts actually are. If the entire nation of Canada claimed Barack Obama should go to prison because the Iraq War is a violation of Canadian prostitution laws, Obama should still be exempt from the Canadian justice system. Canada has no jurisdiction over Obama until he does something against Canada or goes there and truly breaks one of their laws. The same goes for Bush.

Bush was physically in Canada.

Originally Posted by http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/03/george-w-bush-gets-his-day-in-court-sts.html

LAW detailed why George W. Bush was inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act

If it was being argued by members of the Canadian legal system that Obama was a war criminal, and Obama was in Canada, they would have a right to arrest and try him.

Originally Posted by UM

Canada has no jurisdiction over Obama until he does something against Canada or goes there and truly breaks one of their laws.

Off topic>> Just out of curiosity then (and I really want to know about your thoughts on this) how does this kind of thinking not apply to the questionable leadership of other countries that we've interfered with? The one's we've engaged with militarily, in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's not the claims of millions that count. It's what the law actually is and what the facts actually are. If the entire nation of Canada claimed Barack Obama should go to prison because the Iraq War is a violation of Canadian prostitution laws, Obama should still be exempt from the Canadian justice system. Canada has no jurisdiction over Obama until he does something against Canada or goes there and truly breaks one of their laws. The same goes for Bush.

Bush Jr. has been accused of war crimes that are illegal under international law. Waterboarding is considered torture under the Geneva Convention. The United States convicted Japanese of the war crimes for waterboarding after WWII.

Even here in the United States he should be arrested (along with Cheney, various generals, etc.). Any country that he steps foot into has the right to arrest him, and Canadians have the right to demand that their government do just that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

By the way, is this group gung ho at all about arresting members of Al Qaeda or any ruthless dictators? I would be profoundly shocked if they were.

Always ready to turn a blind eye to what your countrymen are doing because the enemies are committing atrocity as well. How many times are you going to haul out this sort of shuck and jive misdirection? Don't you get tired of misleading yourself?

Originally Posted by Invader

Bush was physically in Canada.

But he didn't do anything that Canada has jurisdiction over.

Originally Posted by Invader

If it was being argued by members of the Canadian legal system that Obama was a war criminal, and Obama was in Canada, they would have a right to arrest and try him.

A right? A right under what?

Originally Posted by Invader

Off topic>> Just out of curiosity then (and I really want to know about your thoughts on this) how does this kind of thinking not apply to the questionable leadership of other countries that we've interfered with? The one's we've engaged with militarily, in the Middle East.

We didn't arrest them and put them through our civilian legal system. We went to war with them. Those are two very different things. When the Hussein regime took over Kuwait, we went to Kuwait and helped them drive out Hussein's military. We went to war with the Hussein regime again in 2003 because they violated our ceasefire. We overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were harboring an organization we were at war with. What we did not do was arrest Taliban members or other foreigners in the United States and put them through our civilian court system because of what they supposedly did in another country in a way that had nothing to do with us. That would be absurd. If Bush committed war crimes under current international law, it is the job of the U.N. to arrest him, not Canada.

I would love to see those jokers try to arrest Bush. He has secret service protection for life, and our special forces would turn the citizens arresters into mashed potatoes if necessary. Canadians arresting Bush for supposed crimes against Middle Eastern terrorists at a U.S. military base in Cuba is a completely unrealistic concept.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Bush Jr. has been accused of war crimes that are illegal under international law. Waterboarding is considered torture under the Geneva Convention. The United States convicted Japanese of the war crimes for waterboarding after WWII.

Even here in the United States he should be arrested (along with Cheney, various generals, etc.). Any country that he steps foot into has the right to arrest him, and Canadians have the right to demand that their government do just that.

Where do these countries get the "right" to arrest Bush for what he supposedly did to people who have nothing to do with Canada?

I'm not sure how the Japanese performed waterboarding, but I doubt they did it in the manner Americans did it to the THREE psychopaths we did it on in order to save lots and lots of innocent lives. The Japanese were guilty of a very long list of war crimes in World War II, such as bombing Pearl Harbor and trying to take over Asia. Our war crimes trials of Japanese officers were about all that they had done, not just their style of waterboarding.

One of the three scum bags the U.S. waterboarded was Khallid Sheik Muhammad, the 9/11 architect. Are those Split the Sky comedians in Canada screaming for his head too? Are they?????

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Always ready to turn a blind eye to what your countrymen are doing because the enemies are committing atrocity as well. How many times are you going to haul out this sort of shuck and jive misdirection? Don't you get tired of misleading yourself?

If you want to see my arguments on whether waterboarding is torture, dig up the threads where I argued about it for dozens of posts each. I didn't pull any misdirection in here. You made that up. I talked about the illegitimacy of Canadians arresting Bush (and in this post the utter stupidity of attempting it) and then pointed out the recurring double standard of those who are so venomously hateful against Bush but don't have even the first fucking syllable to say against Khallid Sheik Muhammad or his horrific organization of irrational mass murder. Do you admit the double standard? I challenge you right now to trash Al Qaeda with the same or stronger passion for even one sentence. Can you do it? Seriously, can you?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But he didn't do anything that Canada has jurisdiction over.
...
A right? A right under what?

What do you mean? Canada can bar entry to those who have allegedly committed "crimes against humanity" through their written law. If Bush can be legally defined as a war criminal by the Canadians, entering the country is a crime. They would need to try him for actually being a war criminal, though. Am I making sense?

We didn't arrest them and put them through our civilian legal system. We went to war with them. Those are two very different things. When the Hussein regime took over Kuwait, we went to Kuwait and helped them drive out Hussein's military. We went to war with the Hussein regime again in 2003 because they violated our ceasefire. We overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were harboring an organization we were at war with. What we did not do was arrest Taliban members or other foreigners in the United States and put them through our civilian court system because of what they supposedly did in another country in a way that had nothing to do with us. That would be absurd.

Fair enough.

If Bush committed war crimes under current international law, it is the job of the U.N. to arrest him, not Canada.

Canada and the U.S. are members of the same military alliance, NATO, and Bush is considered a war criminal. As a member of this alliance I'd think the Canadian government would have a say in this directly, but perhaps you can clarify. Does either NATO or the UN have a written agreement that claims that an individual country cannot try the leader of another country for what would go against their treaties?

Originally Posted by Invader

What do you mean? Canada can bar entry to those who have allegedly committed "crimes against humanity" through their written law. If Bush can be legally defined as a war criminal by the Canadians, entering the country is a crime. They would need to try him for actually being a war criminal, though. Am I making sense?

They can definately prevent him from entering the country, but they are in no position to allow him into the country and then arrest him. If they did, it would be a Canadian action and nothing beyond that. Canada would be starting a serious conflict with the United States. They don't have any kind of international legal authority to arrest Bush at this point. If the U.N. or NATO declared him a war criminal and a hunted man, then Canada could arrest Bush as a representative of the organization. Otherwise, they are just committing a daring Canadian act.

Also, did Bush specifically authorize the three waterboardings, or did they just happen while he was president? Even if he specifically authorized them, I think the extreme nature of the circumstances would deem punishing him to be unconscionable. The waterboardings really did get extremely important information out of terrorists and stop terrorist attacks that would have otherwise happened. That kind of mitigation alone would prevent a sentencing. If you ever killed somebody and it could be proven that doing so saved thousands of innocent lives, you wouldn't get too much of a punishment.

Originally Posted by Invader

Canada and the U.S. are members of the same military alliance, NATO, and Bush is considered a war criminal. As a member of this alliance I'd think the Canadian government would have a say in this directly, but perhaps you can clarify. Does either NATO or the UN have a written agreement that claims that an individual country cannot try the leader of another country for what would go against their treaties?

I don't know that they have a written agreement that says countries cannot do that, but as far as I know, they have no written agreement saying they can do it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

But he didn't do anything that Canada has jurisdiction over.

Canada has laws regarding torture. It is unlawful for someone suspected of war crimes to enter on to Canadian soil. Bush broke Canadian Law by entering Canada and he was under the jurisdiction of that law during his time in that country.

If you want to see my arguments on whether waterboarding is torture, dig up the threads where I argued about it for dozens of posts each. I didn't pull any misdirection in here. You made that up. I talked about the illegitimacy of Canadians arresting Bush (and in this post the utter stupidity of attempting it) and then pointed out the recurring double standard of those who are so venomously hateful against Bush but don't have even the first fucking syllable to say against Khallid Sheik Muhammad or his horrific organization of irrational mass murder. Do you admit the double standard? I challenge you right now to trash Al Qaeda with the same or stronger passion for even one sentence. Can you do it? Seriously, can you?

Have you ever seen that episode of the Boondocks, "Return of the King" when MLK wakes up from a coma? You often times remind me of the fox news type news caster that is yelling at him "Say 'I love America!' Say it! You can't even say it. Say 'I love America'...." I bet you were mad that Obama wouldn't wear the flag pin just because pundits told him to as well.

Also, I just realized, you keep saying things like "This group" and "those Split the Sky comedians". Do you realize that Splitting the Sky is one man? His name is Dacajaweiah. He is a mohawk indian and his name means "Splitting the Sky". have you read anything about it at all?

How does NATO or the UN go about declaring one a war criminal? I have thought of the UN as being rather useless in that they don't get much done.

So in the end, Canada would be taking a gamble if they attempted to pull an arrest or trial. They don't have the authority to do this on paper, but if no national power disagrees (or, if NATO or the UN agree that trying him is acceptable) then a legal hearing can commence. Is that the gist of it?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I would love to see those jokers try to arrest Bush. He has secret service protection for life, and our special forces would turn the citizens arresters into mashed potatoes if necessary.

Actually, Bush is the first US president to only be protected for 10 years by the Secret Service as opposed to life. Guess they figured it would be too expensive .

Anyways, these are just run of the mill protesters. Canada is not actually trying to arrest Bush...

They have been doing the protecting presidents for life thing very long. They changed the law, because they probably figured out how expensive it really was. Really they shouldn't get any protection after they leave office.

Of course it was just random people and not the actual government. Canada would never try to arrest bush. What the laws say or don't say, is really pretty irrelevant in this case.

Its more of a political matter than a legal one.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Actually, Bush is the first US president to only be protected for 10 years by the Secret Service as opposed to life. Guess they figured it would be too expensive .

Anyways, these are just run of the mill protesters. Canada is not actually trying to arrest Bush...

Really? Then I guess Bush has about nine years left.

I know that the attention getting guy is just a citizen, but his citizen's arrest process would have to be connected to Canadian law. I am positive the Canadian government has no plans of arresting Bush.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I challenge you right now to trash Al Qaeda with the same or stronger passion for even one sentence. Can you do it? Seriously, can you?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Have you ever seen that episode of the Boondocks, "Return of the King" when MLK wakes up from a coma? You often times remind me of the fox news type news caster that is yelling at him "Say 'I love America!' Say it! You can't even say it. Say 'I love America'...." I bet you were mad that Obama wouldn't wear the flag pin just because pundits told him to as well.

To answer to your diversion, I roll my eyes at things like flag pins and the national anthem. I have refused to say the Pledge of Allegience since I was a teenager because it is stupid. Now, how much do you hate Al Qaeda? Spill it all out. Show me your passion.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Also, I just realized, you keep saying things like "This group" and "those Split the Sky comedians". Do you realize that Splitting the Sky is one man? His name is Dacajaweiah. He is a mohawk indian and his name means "Splitting the Sky". have you read anything about it at all?

I thought he had people supporting and working with him. No, I haven't read much about him. He is nothing important.

Originally Posted by Invader

How does NATO or the UN go about declaring one a war criminal? I have thought of the UN as being rather useless in that they don't get much done.

The U.N. used to be worth a lot, but now they are virtually useless. I don't know all of the details of the process, but they would have to come to some kind of agreement and order. Neither organization has declared Bush a war criminal, and Bush has not violated Canadian laws, so Canada has no business arresting him.

Originally Posted by Invader

So in the end, Canada would be taking a gamble if they attempted to pull an arrest or trial. They don't have the authority to do this on paper, but if no national power disagrees (or, if NATO or the UN agree that trying him is acceptable) then a legal hearing can commence. Is that the gist of it?

Canada would be starting a world of shit if they arrested Bush. If the U.N. agreed to it after the fact, which as far as I know they wouldn't, no more U.N. Their headquarters is in New York.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

To answer to your diversion, I roll my eyes at things like flag pins and the national anthem. I have refused to say the Pledge of Allegience since I was a teenager because it is stupid. Now, how much do you hate Al Qaeda? Spill it all out. Show me your passion.

My diversion to your diversion? Start a thread about hatin' on Al Qaeda. In here it is an off topic logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

My diversion to your diversion? Start a thread about hatin' on Al Qaeda. In here it is an off topic logical fallacy.

... again.

No, my challenge is not fallacious. I addressed your points very directly and then brought up a question about your obvious double standard. You, on the other hand, dodged.

Your simultaneous hatred for Bush and severe lack of disdain for Al Qaeda is really fucked up. The fact that the architect of 9/11 was waterboarded pisses you off far more than the fact that he was the architect of 9/11 and in the process of trying to pull another terrorist attack. You are biased toward a fucking terrorist. Look into that problem.

Are the calls to arrest Bush seriously only about stuff like waterboarding? Think of how many conflicts America has been in; Somalia, Gulf War 1, Viet-Nam, Korea, the Cold War, Central America...

I think it's naive to think that waterboarding hasn't occurred during the terms of most presidents.

UM, I really don't know what to say to you most of the time. Why are you here? You could just as easily shout your opinions at a brick wall for all you take away from the conversation. Why should I have to tell you that murderers are bad? Why is every person captured by the military automatically guilty in your mind? Are you aware of how many innocent people are sitting in prison right now? Have you ever been wrongfully accused? What evidence have you seen corroborating the accusations against the people who have been waterboarded? What have these people even been accused of, above and beyond being an "unlawful combatant"? Do you know what they have done? Don't tell me they've blown people up because I'm fairly certain you realize there are no suicide bombers in guantanamo.

I would like to know, who is it that you mean when you say "the architect of 9/11 was waterboarded"? I tried searching for "architect of 9/11" but all I came up with was a petition of 1000 engineers and architects who want a new investigation into the collapse of the WTC buildings.

I think you and I agree that murderers are bad. Most people do. What you are really asking me is to condemn the same people you condemn without giving me any evidence to condemn them beyond labeling them "terrorists". Terrorists are bad, including those who are employed by the government of the united states. The CIA is a terrorist organization. Does using the word terrorist make you automatically side with me now?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

UM, I really don't know what to say to you most of the time. Why are you here? You could just as easily shout your opinions at a brick wall for all you take away from the conversation. Why should I have to tell you that murderers are bad? Why is every person captured by the military automatically guilty in your mind? Are you aware of how many innocent people are sitting in prison right now? Have you ever been wrongfully accused? What evidence have you seen corroborating the accusations against the people who have been waterboarded? What have these people even been accused of, above and beyond being an "unlawful combatant"? Do you know what they have done? Don't tell me they've blown people up because I'm fairly certain you realize there are no suicide bombers in guantanamo.

I would like to know, who is it that you mean when you say "the architect of 9/11 was waterboarded"? I tried searching for "architect of 9/11" but all I came up with was a petition of 1000 engineers and architects who want a new investigation into the collapse of the WTC buildings.

I think you and I agree that murderers are bad. Most people do. What you are really asking me is to condemn the same people you condemn without giving me any evidence to condemn them beyond labeling them "terrorists". Terrorists are bad, including those who are employed by the government of the united states. The CIA is a terrorist organization. Does using the word terrorist make you automatically side with me now?

9/11 architect means 9/11 mastermind, the planner of the specific manner in which the attacks would be perpetrated. Also, as I said, he had information on another terrorist attack he was in the process of organizing. The information gotten out of him saved a whole lot of innocent lives. I understand why people are against waterboarding. I don't have a personal problem with anybody for that. It is just that you have said so much against waterboarding that scum bag but never ever until just now actually said something negative about the scum bag. Nothing like, "Those three people waterboarded were captured terrorists who had MAJOR information on how masses of innocents could be saved, but I suggest handling those assholes such and such way instead." You just cry over and over about how they were waterboarded. You have passionate anger toward the waterboarders but don't seem to have any toward the mass murderers who got waterboarded. Even the negative comment you just finally made aboput them is very minor. You're like, "Eh, I don't really agree with terrorists, but fuck Bush fuck Bush fuck Bush!!!!" Discussing the problems with waterboarding is legitimate, but you don't show even the slightest bit of understanding for why it was done. We have a huge problem on our hands. There are no easy answers. Do you have any suggestions for alternative interrogation practices?

Only three people have been waterboarded by the U.S., as far as we know, and they were extreme cases. We are not waterboarding everybody in Guantanamo Bay. Why people are in Guantanamo Bay is beside the point of what I have said. I also never said every person captured by the U.S. military is automatically guilty, though the Guantamo Bay prisoners are prisoners of war. You keep putting words in my mouth. Why do you do that?

Name one war in which the prisoners of war were sent through a legal system while the war was going on. It would be such a clusterfuck, but I do see the problems with not doing it. There are no easy answers with that either.