Archive

Archive for the ‘Bush led Iraq war criminally’ Category

Bush’s Third Close Call:Desmond Tutu calls for Bush, Blair to face war crimes charges at the Hague.

September 7, 2012 6 comments

Number of state parties to the International C...

Number of state parties to the International Criminal Court from its creation to 2006-11-19 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The International Criminal Court in The Hague ...

The International Criminal Court in The Hague (ICC/CPI), Netherlands. Nederlands: Het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC/CPI), Den Haag. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Bush should answer. US forces committed grievous war crime violations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, Nuremberg Principles, and US Army Field Manual 27-10.

English: International Criminal Court (ICC) logo

English: International Criminal Court (ICC) logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Desmond Tutu calls for war crimes charges for Blair, Bush – World – CBC News.

Sep 2, 2012 Associated Press

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu, on Sunday Sep 2 called for George Bush  and Tony Blair to face prosecution at the International Criminal Court for their role in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Tutu, the retired Anglican Church’s archbishop of South Africa, wrote in an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper that the ex-leaders of Britain and the United States should be made to “answer for their actions.”

_______________________________________________________________________

This  blogger writes: Good ol’ boy,  former U.S. president George Bush  (aka “Shrub”must be sweating it by now. Yet another of his international  nemeses has publicly called for his arrest and indictment at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, (ICC) where he would face charges of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (torture, mainly).

Archbishop Tutu also tapped Bush’s primary ally in the Iraq misadventure,  former British prime minister Tony Blair, as equally complicit in war crimes perpetrated by their countries’ troops in Iraq.

This incident is the third serious threat against Bush’s liberty by the authorities that we know of. Swizterland in February 2011 nearly collared Bush for arrest;  Bush was again nearly nabbed by an international coalition of lawyers out to arrest him when he visited Surrey, British Columbia, Canada in October 2011. Veiled political interference in the B.C. Courts got Bush off in this instance. It’s good to have friends in high places.

Archbishop and Nobel Peace Laureate wants Bush behind bars

This time retired South African Anglican Church archbishop  Desmtond Tutu slammed home an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper that was guaranteed to terrorize Bush. The former U.S. president should be “made to answer” for offences against international laws that protect civilians and prisoners in times of war.

_______________________________

Various international bodies since the end of World War II have enacted wide-ranging laws checking particularly odious behaviours of combatants in war.

The Nuremberg Charter was the decree issued on August 8, 1945 to include not only traditional War Crimes but also Crimes against Peace in its deliberations against Nazi offendersThe United Nations takes general responsibility for the prosecution of Crimes Against Humanity. The International Criminal Court (ICC) situated at the Hague in the Netherlands prosecutes Crimes Against Humanity sent its way from the UN, and this court follows definitions set out  by the ‘Rome Statute.‘ The Rome Statute says Crimes Against Humanity are defined as systematic, serious attacks on human dignity, including acts of grave humiliation or degradation of persons, and practised as government policy.

Persons in Canada suspected of violating Human Rights must face arrest. Why not Bush?

Numerous national governments around the world have also passed their own laws falling under the aegis of  war crimes and crimes against humanity. Both Canada and the U. S. in modern times have passed laws against torture and war crimes. Canada’s Immigration Act demands that any person suspected of crimes of violation against human rights be arrested and either expelled from Canada, or tried criminally in Canada. Why not George W. Bush?

This is the tangled web that a man in Bush’s situation must face as he moves about the world. He could fall into jeopardy  anywhere along the complex strands of  human rights laws extant around the globe. If not snared by an international law, he could as easily find himself  indicted under a domestic law.

_______________________________________________________________________

Reality Check: Accepted wisdom in most parts of the world  agrees that nobody would dare to actually arrest and indict a former president of the United States. It just couldn’t happen!

This blogger asks: Why not? What exact exemption from the law is it that protects certain – always First World – offenders from facing their crimes? Offending individuals from Developing World countries have been, and presently are being tried at the ICC for War Crimes. The first person ever to be brought before the ICC since it’s inception in 2006 was Congolese Thomas Lubanga, leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots, for child recruitment into the army. The list goes on ( But How Peculiar! Please note that all of the faces attached to the following names are brown-skinned!): Liberian Charles Taylor, Congolese Germain Katanga, Congolese Mathieu Ngudiolo Chui; Rwandan Jean-Pierre Bemba, Rwandan Callixte Mbarushimana and last-but-not-least, Cote D’Ivorian Laurent Gbagbo, the darling man who took to bombing citizens who failed to vote for the right party in elections .

Think about Mr. Gbagbo. Hmmm……Electoral fixing you say?…

“Our boy, George”!

….Remember the American presidential election of 2000? Didn’t Our Boy George appear to have his hand in a few Floridian ballot boxes? With a big assist from his powerful ex-president daddy, that is. And further assist  from daddy’s good friend whom he had happily placed on the Supreme Court of Florida himself!?

Something smells bad.

The bizarre thing is, it’s no secret now. The invading armies of the U.S and its allies in the Iraq war rained down terror and death upon hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians – de-humanizing the unfortunate meat targets as mere “collateral damage.”  Further, the whole world now knows beyond any doubt that U.S. troops routinely tortured their prisoners in hell-holes like Abu Ghraib prison. Bush himself confesses proudly in his memoirs published in 2011 to sponsoring torture. “Hell yes!” he responds to a questioner about the alleged use of torture.

By this blogger’s clock, Time is a’Wastin.’ There’s a Hard Rain Gonna Fall’ over Georgey Porridgey’s house one day. The disgraced ex-pres ( and his double-down disgraced ex-vice pres, FAT MAN Cheney)  are afraid. They may just be the most fraidy persons on the planet! 

And THAT would be a peck o’ Justice!


Click

☞ See Google Trends report on “Arrest Bush.”

“More and more in our times Canadians have wondered  just what kind of continental neighbour America, is, exactly.  Where will it all end?”

That’s what this blog is all about.

Canada’s ‘Three Monkeys’ Attorney General’s Office on Bush’s War Crimes: “Not appropriate” to pursue confessed Torturer. “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil.” Lawyer TALKS BACK!

January 8, 2012 Leave a comment

Canada Lets ‘W’ Escape Justice when we had the PERFECT chance to ARREST BUSH!

(Here’s how the “1%” get away with Murder)

Dateline: Surrey, BC, Canada. October 24, 2011.

After successfully lodging a private torture prosecution with the British Columbia Provincial Court in the City of Surrey against former U.S. president George W. Bush as he visited Surrey for a paid speaking engagement, four torture victims  had their pursuit of justice blocked by then Attorney General of B.C., Shirley Bond.

Click: the case details.

The four men, Hassan bin Attash, Sami el-Hajj, Muhammed Khan Tumani and Murat Kurnaz, each endured years of inhumane treatment including beatings, chaining to cell walls, being hung from walls or ceilings while handcuffed, lack of access to toilets, sleep, food and water-deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, sensory overload and deprivation, and other horrific and illegal treatment while in U.S. custody at military bases in Afghanistan and/or at the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.  While three of the men have since been released without ever facing charges, Hassan Bin Attash still remains in detention at Guantánamo Bay, though he too has not been formally charged with any wrongdoing.

One man currently detained at Guantánamo  has been imprisoned there without charge for more than nine years.

Matt Eisenbrandt, legal director of the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ), who submitted the case on behalf of the torture victims remarked: “Mere hours after a justice of the peace received the criminal information and the court set a hearing date for January, we received notice by phone that the Attorney General of Briti sh Columbia had already intervened in the case and stayed the proceedings against former President Bush, effectively ending the case…[and he stressed that: “the legal basis for the case is exceptionally strong under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Eisenbrandt, of CCIJ: “A slap in the face to men tortured by Mr. Bush’s government”

This is a slap in the face to the four men who were brutally tortured by Mr. Bush’s government who have a right to have a court of law examine the evidence and hear the legal arguments,wrote Eisenbrandt.

_____________________________________________

This blogger wrote to the office of the Attorney General for British Columbia, Hon. Shirley Bond, requesting an explanation for the shocking summary dismissal of the 69+ page criminal indictment against Bush for war crimes (torture) presented to her office by the CCIJ. My request was stonewalled for several weeks. In the interim this blogger filed a Freedom of Information Request in search of  possible dark politics at play protecting Bush from Justice in Canada.  After a three week delay, Bond’s Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Robert W. G. Gillen,  replied by email to my inquiry. The high irony did not escape this blogger that, while a serious criminal indictment presented to the court was dispensed with in a mere matter of hours in October, three weeks was the AG’s fastest turnaround time to respond to a citizen’s inquiry on the same matter!

Robert W.G. Gillen. ass’t deputy attorney general for B.C.: “It was not appropriate to prolong the matter.”

The Assistant Deputy AG ‘s reply hardly comprised a reasonable explanation of why the Province of British Columbia was disinterested, when presented with a perfect opportunity to fulfill Canada’s sworn duties under the Convention Against Torture and the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. The former is an international law, the latter a Canadian statute with application only in Canada. Both laws set out similar sanctions to detain and investigate a person suspected to be guilty of, among other things, torture, war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Bush, himself, admits in his own recent memoirs that he OK’d torture from the Oval Office and thoroughly approves of torture. That admission alone surely must comprise “appropriate” grounds to engage the machinery of criminal justice against a suspected offender! Still, “Not appropriate,” says Gillen. It appears the Office of the Attorney General for B.C. is populated by the three monkeys,right-quoteSee No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil!leftquote

“Not apprpriate” to arrest a self-confessed torturer in B.C.

_____________________________________________

LET’S TALK TORTURE, Mr. Assist!ant Deputy Attorney General:

Assistant Deputy Attorney General Contact Info

Robert W.G. Gillen

Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Justice Branch, Ministry of Attorney General

Telephone: 250 387-3840 Email: Not Available
Facsimile: 250 387-0090 URL: http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/prosecution-service/
Mailing Address: PO BOX 9276

STN PROV GOVT

Victoria BC

V8W9J7

CANADA

Click: Homepage.

_____________________________________________

Assistant Deputy Attorney General Gillen’s letter to me: better late than never, at least !

Mr. Gillen wrote:

Dear _____:

I am responding on behalf of the Attorney General to your email of October 26, 2011.  As Assistant Deputy Attorney General, I am responsible for the Criminal Justice Branch within the Ministry of Attorney General, including the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions in British Columbia.

In your email you express concerns about the staying of charges against former United States president George Bush, charges which were laid in a private prosecution filed by the Canadian Centre for International Justice.

In British Columbia the Criminal Justice Branch is given the authority to conduct prosecutions.  It is the policy of the Branch to assume the conduct of all privately initiated prosecutions.  The case is brought to court when the charge assessment standard of the Branch is met.  This standard requires both a substantial likelihood of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest. If the charges do not meet these standards, the case is terminated.

This policy is in place to ensure an equal application of justice throughout the province.  That is, the same standard is used against all accused persons in all prosecutions.  The policy also recognizes that both apparent and actual impartiality and objectivity with respect to every prosecution require that prosecutions be conducted by an independent prosecutor rather than on behalf of an interested party.

Under the provisions of the Criminal Code, the consent of the Attorney General of Canada is required to continue a proceeding of the nature of that which was privately commenced against Mr. Bush, and which involved allegations against an individual who is not a Canadian citizen in relation to events which took place outside of this country.

Section 7(7) of the Criminal Code states: “No proceedings …shall be continued unless the consent of the Attorney General of Canada is obtained not later than eight days after the proceedings are commenced.”

The parties seeking to bring the proceeding against Mr. Bush had not obtained the consent of the Attorney General of Canada and there was no realistic prospect that such a consent would be obtained.   In the circumstances the Criminal Justice Branch concluded that there was no realistic prospect of that consent being provided in future and it was not appropriate to prolong the matter further.

Decisions to prosecute, stay proceedings or launch an appeal are made solely in accordance with legal criteria in a manner that, generally speaking, is independent of government.

You ask about written records related to this matter.  The provision of access to court records in accordance with established policies is the responsibility of court registries.  You may wish to contact the Surrey Provincial Court registry in this regard.

Thank you for writing about your concerns.

Yours truly,

Robert W. G. Gillen, Q.C.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Criminal Justice Branch

          _____________________________________________

Matt Eisenbrandt,  of the CCIJ was kind enough to critique Gillen’s reply. Click: read Eisenbrandt’s “123 People” profile.

                                                      “What happened here? Who covered whose ass?

Lets slice and dice British Columbia’s  Top Reasons Why George W. Bush is Above The Law:

Matt Eisenbrandt critiques Mr. Gillen’s defence of  confessed war criminal George W. Bush:

Mr. Gillen says:  “Three different standards [must be met ] for the continuation of a private prosecution.

Mr. Gillen says:The case is brought to court when the charge assessment standard of the Branch is met.  This standard requires both a substantial likelihood of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.”

CCIJ REPLIES: We (CCIJ)  received no information that the Attorney General analyzed either of these factors in deciding to terminate our case, and Mr. Gillen provides no evidence that the factors could not be met.  (THE CCIJ) presented extensive evidence, including admissions by Mr. Bush himself, showing his involvement in torture.  This does not guarantee conviction but it is a very sound case both factually and legally.

United Nations ‘Convention Against Torture’ – Canada and U.S. both signatories.

CCIJ REPLIES: As for the public interest, the Government of Canada has committed itself, in domestic and international law, to the prevention and punishment of torture.  The Criminal Code explicitly permits prosecution in Canadian courts for torture committed abroad.  This provision was implemented when Canada ratified the Convention against Torture, which obligates parties to investigate any suspected torturer in their territory and submit a case for prosecution if the suspect is not extradited for prosecution abroad.  Canada has repeatedly condemned other countries for torture and done so because the government clearly believes such a stance is in the public interest.

CCIJ REPLIESThe proper option available to the Attorney General’s office was to wait the 8 days and then, if consent was not obtained, intervene in the case.

yellow-pushbuttonMORE CCIJ Mr. Gillen says the parties seeking to bring the proceeding against Mr. Bush had not obtained the consent of the Attorney General of Canada and there was no realistic prospect that such a consent would be obtained.   In the circumstances the Criminal Justice Branch concluded that there was no realistic prospect of that consent being provided in future and it was not appropriate to prolong the matter further.”  While Mr. Gillen is correct that section 7(7) of the Criminal Code requires the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, that provision says that consent must be obtained within 8 daysOur case was stayed only hours after the Justice of the Peace received the criminal information.  Though the BC Attorney General’s office may have believed that we had no realistic prospect of obtaining consent, we were not given the chance to do so in accordance with the Criminal Code.

redpushbutton CCIJ REPLIES no evidence was provided to support the AG’s assertion that we could not have obtained consent.  I would like to know what evidence the Attorney General has to support that notion and what conversations she or others had with the federal government.  The Vancouver Observer reported that the BC Attorney General’s office did not even consult with the Attorney General of Canada before intervening and staying the case.

Finally, Mr. Gillen says:  “Decisions to prosecute, stay proceedings or launch an appeal are made solely in accordance with legal criteria in a manner that, generally speaking, is independent of government.”  This is certainly the standard that should be followed.  To say that the decision was done independent of government does not seem entirely correct.  The Deputy Regional Crown Counsel who stayed the case did so at the direction and under the authority of the Attorney General of BC.  The Attorney General’s office (or the Criminal Justice Branch operating independently) could not possibly have reviewed the substantial evidence in our case before intervening and staying the prosecution.  As a result, the only evidence we have that “legal criteria” were followed is that the Attorney General relied on section 7(7) of the Criminal Code.

CCIJ REPLIESHowever, the BC Attorney General’s immediate intervention denied us the opportunity to obtain the necessary consent from the Attorney General of Canada within the time permitted under the Criminal Code.
green-pushbuttonCCIJ REPLIESI would also like the Attorney General of Canada to state why he did not initiate a prosecution or provide his consent for our private prosecution to continue.

_____________________________________________

This blogger writes: Could it be any more clear that corruption and sycophancy are at work in dark corners of the government(s) of Canada (and likely in other countries too) to save the  hide of the disgraced Mr. Bush from the criminal prosecution he so richly deserves for his self-confessed war crimes?

“We do not torture.” November 7, 2005. “Bush describes waterboarding as ‘highly effective’ ” Quoted in The Guardian, Nov. 9, 2010

It’s an outrage that the Attorney General of British Columbia obstructed the due process of  justice in October, blatantly waving away the indictment brought by the CCIJ against Bush in mere hours – a time frame that, as Matt Eisenbrandt points out, could not possibly have offered sufficient opportunity for the AG and her minions to read, research and fully consider the full 69+ pages of evidence, plus some 4,000 extra background pages made available for the asking. Bond may have given the indictment a cursory reading, or perhaps no reading at all, judging from the outcome.

Furthermore, in her haste to be done with the Bush file, the AG absolutely offended the CCIJ’s right to have up to eight days to convince the federal AG of the merits of the case. Eisenbrandt offers strong evidence suggesting that the AG for British Columbia didn’t bother to consult the federal AG before deep-sixing the Bush file. Dark politics are at work here.

And CAN WE TALK? Gillen: “[ Prosecution] requires both a substantial likelihood of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.” What? How much more evidence does the AG NEED? Everybody in and around the Bush administration, and the cretinous creep HIMSELF says that he sponsored torture! And, Robo, wouldn’t slapping down the creeping fascist practice of  TORTURE be very, very much in the PUBLIC INTEREST!!???

Bush describes waterboarding as “highly effective” – The Guardian, Nov, 2010

Good gawd.

Further light may soon be brought to bear upon this little corner of darkness, via my pending Freedom of Information request. Still, Marlane MorenoInformation Access and Privacy Analyst, Criminal Justice Branch Headquarters advises me that the FOI department will respond to only one of my three queries! (The least revealing of my questions). It’s a  truism that information held by governments in these days of  Homeland Security, Dixie-style - even in the most free democracies such as our Canadian version –  is never really “free” anymore. The very act of this blogger requesting a peek through the AG’s credenza has doubtless sent more data flowing freely  TO government about me than will be merrily flowing  FROM government to me about the AG. That’s the chance we take, thanks to the very man we are so desirous to syncretise, the ‘Decider Hiz-Self,’  the ne’er-do-well former frat boy, George W. Bush! It’s a risk I’m willing to take. I will have the Truth.

George Bush’s luck will run out one day. And that will be a Good Day.

_____________________________________________

“More and more in our times Canadians have wondered  just what kind of continental neighbour America, is, exactly.  Where will it all end?”

That’s what this blog is all about.


Bush speaks in Canada, pockets $200,000, Smirks, Gives Justice the Slip!

October 23, 2011 Leave a comment

Bush

Bush (Photo credit: CloCkWeRX)

COMING IN NEXT POST Breaking News: COVERUP: Canada’s Cowardly Legal Lions secretly shut-down criminal investigation into Bush war crimes. Leave no paper trail. 

What did the 99% of Canadians who aren’t among the lucky one per cent at the top of the socio-economic ladder – but who turned out in their hundreds  to give former U.S. president George W. Bush an energetic  “welcome he deserves” on October 20 – see of the man who some say is the world’s next war criminal overdue for a meeting with justice?

Bush, can you HEAR US? Too bad we’re out here, and HE’s in there. He must be in the one per cent!

The answer is this:  George W. Bush slipped invisibly into the City of Surrey, B.C. accompanied by his fellow ex-president Bill Clinton, where the two were scheduled to speak at Surrey’s $650 per seat summit on regional economic development at the Sheraton Surrey hotel. Having slipped by the several hundred peaceful protestors surging around the hotel entrance, Bush immediately banned the media from the convention room; we can only guess what furtive peeks he might have taken outside at the chanting crowd.

Click↓ C’mon down to the demonstration. Get yer fair share of the noise:

Bush and Mr. Clinton spoke for about one hour to the summiteers. Bush then sortied out the front doors of the Sheraton towards a waiting car – waving like a rock star, (!!) likely still curious to get a closer look at the  protestors. How many had he drawn?  Such peeks at the outside world likely help confirm for Bush the timelessness of his draw as a celebrity, after so many years away from the White House. Like Paris Hilton, Bush is such an empty personality, he needs to know that someone notices him. It makes him feel like a real person.

_____________________________________________

Insulting protest signs greeted Bush. Bush gave back “the smirk.”

Why did Canadians give Bush “the welcome he deserved“: boos, taunts, insults and all manner of scornful signs decrying his administration’s war in Iraq? Why is Bush such a marked target for protestors?

Book: Bush On The Couch

This blogger is not alone in his cynical views about George W. Bush. Many books have been written trying to get inside the man’s head. The most accessible of them is “Bush On The Couch,” by psychoanalyst Justin A. Frank.

In his 2004 book Frank writes: “As a psychoanalyst I’m troubled by [the] president’s current and future mental health.” The author explores “the smirk heard around the world,” particularly in reference to how often “the smirk” was employed by Bush as governor of  Texas when sending death row prisoners to their execution: 

Bush’s trademark smirk makes his sadism easy to spot…At once arrogant and cowardly [the smirk puts] the nation on notice that the act of inflicting pain – and the good fortune of having a job that allow[s] it within the laws of the land – brought Governor Bush a certain pleasure that he couldn’t quite stop himself  from expressing.

Bush’s strut to his waiting car at the Sheraton was spoiled by a loud protestor who shouted out at him: “Hey Bush. How does it feel to be a big fat war criminal?”  In response, Bush gave his infamous smirk! Some things never change.

_____________________________________________

Dear reader, when Bush is in the City of Surrey, he is on Canadian soil. When he deploys that sadistic Bush “smirk” on our streets, there is a problem. If you, dear reader are a citizen of the United States of America, I have faith in your individual acumen to recognize why Canadians hold the former president in such deep derision, and why we protest his presence here.

The “smirk heard around the world”

The “problem” is not Americans, it is George W. Bush’s America. His imperial arrogance and slightly moronic hauteur…never mind for the moment his war crimes …are justification enough for our antipathy.

We come by our national phobia for people like Bush honestly. Bush is, in fact, the very antithesis of his own folksy assessment of some people he meets: Bush himself is notgood people.” Russian demi-autocrat Vladimir Putin, however, garnered the “good people” seal of approval from Bush! So much for Bush’s self-proclaimed instinct for astutely assessing personalities upon first meeting.

_____________________________________________

Bush is the kind of guest who can’t leave soon enough…

…He entered Canada commandeering vast Canadian security resources for his personal protection; he set about peddling such dubious expertise as he claims to have in the area of economics,  of all things (this from the man who nearly wrecked the world economy)! He orders the media out of the room. Ultimately, Bush took off  carrying a bag full of cash for his jackanape quickie-commerce. The City of Surrey refuses to reveal Bush’s speaking fee, but it’s estimated to have been in the order of $200,000. In fairness, Bill Clinton was likely paid the same amount. (Everything any member of the Bush family has ever affected is cloaked in secrecy, including George W’s own White House papers, so no big surprise here. But it is confounding that Bush’s paranoiac demand for secrecy should apply to a foreign country.)

Canadian Centre for International Justice – criminal indictment filed against Bush

The protest at the Sheraton was specifically aimed at outing Bush’s culpability in the perpetration of  war crimes, specifically torture,  associated with the War On Terror.

The Canadian Center for International Justice  (CCIJ) filed a criminal indictment against Bush timed to synchronize exactly with the protest at the Sheraton, for his alleged criminal complicity in the torture of prisoners,

At the time of writing, disposition of the CCIJ’s indictment is unkown – over the weekend – but there is the possibility, though slim, that Bush may now be a fugitive from Canadian law.

But the Sheraton crowd’s anger over Bush’s alleged war crimes spills over into a broader unrest, a simmering stew of  general gut-felt loathing of Bush’s Imperial America: its illegal wars, the bald-faced contempt for international law, broken treaties, bad faith trade pacts. And the startling spectacle of the top executive of the United States denying any responsibility for, or having had any inkling of a warning about the events on September 11, 2001. We all know now that Bush brushed off a clear warning delivered to him by a security briefer about an al Qaeda plot to use commercial aircraft as missiles to attack American tall buildings, imminently, a very short time before the awful events unfolded. Oh! The Humanity. Oh! The Stupidity!

_____________________________________________

Bush lives now in a shrinking world. Everywhere he goes criminal charges await him.

Have you seen the little piggies? I saw so many at the Sheraton I felt dizzy. But Where Was George?

Chronology of  the War Crimes Hunt For George W. Bush

Switzerland February  7, 2011

George Bush named in criminal complaint by two torture victims. At the last minute Bush cancels his speaking engagement in Geneva. He knows that in Switzerland no preliminary investigation can begin against an accused if accused is not present in the country. The complainants had no choice but to drop their complaint. Bush won’t be visiting Switzerland again.

Canada, October, 2011

A Gang of Four: the New York based Centre for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International,  the Canadian Centre for International Justice, and four private individuals present Rob Nicholson, Attorney General for Canada, Jason Kenney,  minister for immigration and refugees for Canada, Stephen Harper,  the  prime minister of Canada and (timed to coincide with Bush’s speaking engagement in the City of Surrey)  the provincial court in the City of Surrey, B.C. with a 69-page criminal indictment against Bush alleging his authorization, condonation, oversight, aiding and abetting, and failing to prevent or punish acts of extraordinary rendition, punching, kicking, isolation in “coffin cells” for prolonged periods of time, solitary confinement, forced nudity, and water boarding of prisoners.

More piggies all in a row

So far Canadian leaders have lacked the political will to act on the charges brought against Bush. So Bush skipped the City of Surrey unimpeded with a rich pay packet for a one hour speech, and likely feeling some trepidation about another close brush with the law. ♦COMING IN NEXT POST Breaking News:

COVERUPCanada’s Cowardly Legal Lions secretly shut-down criminal investigation into Bush war crimesLeave no paper trail

Cops and protestors kept their cool at the Sheraton

Shooters on the roof! George Bush must be one of the most nervous people in the world. What a production, for one ugly Texan!!

Mind you, not everyone here is happy to have you in town.

Remember these shoes? We got more….

In Canada Noose Tightens around Bush-era War Criminals – Cheney’s Visit Draws Protestors, Bush, Clinton Likely to Face Same Soon

October 6, 2011 Leave a comment

Witness Against Torture: Vince Warren

Witness Against Torture: Vince Warren (Photo credit: Shrieking Tree)

City of Greenpeace, No Nukes, and anti-war – Vancouver, Canada

This blogger writes: The peaceful, green Canadian city that first officially opposed  George W. Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003,  that gave birth to environmental juggernaut Greenpeace, and that officially declared itself a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone decades ago, gave former U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney a war criminal’s welcome  – “the kind of welcome he deserved,” in the words of one protestor – as the American leader most often referred to as a “war criminal” arrived in Vancouver to promote his memoirs and speak at a $500-a-plate speaking event on 27 September.

Vancouver protestors block entry to Cheney dinner & book event

_____________________________________________

Cheney got “the welcome he deserved” in Vancouver – protestor

Police were called in to control hundreds of protestors who blocked the entrance to the posh Vancouver Club, making it difficult and frazzling for paid-up ticket holders to gain entry to the venue.

The promotional event was sponsored by The Bon Mot Cluband  sold out almost immediately after tickets went on sale.

People do get a thrill out of seeing a real monster live and up close, in technicolor!

Cheney draws protestors in Calgary, Alta.

Cheney drew fire again from more protestors the following evening when he spoke to a Calgary, Alberta nosh ‘n talk crowd.

Click here to watch video interview with Katherine Gallagher and Matt Eisenbrandt of The Center for Constitutional Rights explaining why Cheney should be arrested, not celebrated.

_____________________________________________

It’s not only Dick Cheney who is drawing heat in Canada recently. Former U.S. presidents George W. Bush and William J. Clinton are targeted continent-wide by at least four organized groups seeking to bring them to justice for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Mr. Cheney is only the most recent leader to face protests from angry Canadians.  More showdowns loom on the near horizon.

Visit of George W. Bush on October 20, 2011: Canada must prevent entry or arrest and ensure prosecution for torture:

Bush tops arrrest list – activists

George W. Bush and  William J. Clinton are scheduled to appear together in the border city of Surrey, B.C. on 20 October, 2011 at a regional economic development summit. Surrey is a member city of Metro Vancouver.  Human Rights activists will be awaiting the arrival of both former presidents there in October.

Clinton of less concern – activists

Vancouver-based  Lawyers Against the War,  The StopWar Coalition, the New York–based Center for Constitutional Rights, and London-based  Amnesty International have all recently lobbied Canada’s immigration minister, Jason Kenney, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Dianne Wattsthe mayor of  The City of Surrey  to insist that authorities  apply Canadian immigration law to the former U.S. leaders, just as the law is applied to all persons who have been deemed by the government of Canada to be, among other things, accused of international crimes, torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity” under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sec 35(1) (a).

The Hon. Don Davies, NDP critic for Immigration of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the Canadian parliament also went public with a demand that Cheney either be banned from entering Canada, or must face a court of law upon his arrival in Canada.

But Mr. Cheney found a friend the same day. Prominent “reputation manager,” Doug Anderson, senior vice-president of  marketing, research and intelligence for Harris Decima defended Cheney on the popular CBC TV News show, “At Issue.” Anderson inveighed against Mr. Davies’ remarks about banning Cheney from Canada, arguing: ”A lot of people in Canada don’t like Dick Cheney, don’t agree with what he did, but I think that might not strike people as being the way to handle that issue.”  Vancouver journalist Charlie Smith called Anderson’s remarks “elite manufactured consent” in The Georgia Straight newspaper.

_____________________________________________

The legal ammo the activists use against the former leaders are two important international laws: (1) The declaration proclaimed at the Nuremberg Tribunal following the Second World War that declared that launching a war of aggression was the  “supreme” war crime if it was not done in self defence. Many legal scholars argue that a war of aggression can only be fought with the backing of the UN Security Council. Bush’s “Iraqi Freedom” was not authorized by the UN Security Council…and….

U.S. disregards anti-torture UN law

(2) The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which the United States participated in drafting. The U.S., however, has neither signed nor ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. When the Bush administration dismissed United Nations concerns about torture, one judge observed: “America’s idea of what is torture … does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations.”  

Cheney represents un-‘Lawful Evil’ to many

 

[As for himself, Cheney made the claim in Vancouver that the controversial water-boarding torture, which he called merely a "coercive interrogation technique"  was used only three times under his watch! I wonder. Did Cheney's blithe, well-heeled audience actually believe that? 

THIS  blogger doesn't believe Cheney's claim for a minute. Three instances of water boarding by American interrogators are on the record. But were they recorded deliberately? Or were they instead leaked photos or recordings? Further, countless prisoners taken by the U.S. were subjected to "rendition" - the practice of shipping detainees away to third party nations where torture is regularly, routinely  practised. Are we to believe that none of those other barbaric countries water-boarded "renditioned"  U.S. prisonersnot even once, !?]

Water boarding torture causes victim drowning panic

____________________________________________

A spokesperson for the New York based Center For Constitutional Rights said that her group was calling for Bush’s arrest but not for Clinton’s, even though they’ll both be in Surrey in October, because Clinton’s 1999 leadership role in the joint invasion with NATO of the former Yugoslavia has already been before the International Court of Justice in the Hague. More seriously, Bush led America in 2003  into war against Iraq criminally, as defined in both international and domestic laws.

_____________________________________________

American criminal lawyer Vincent Bugliosi (who is famous for his convictions of such notorious felons as Charles Manson for murder)  makes the case for charging Bush with first degree murder under U.S. criminal law in his 2008 bestselling book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder.”     In the book, Bugliosi proposes that Bush could, and should, be charged for “the most serious crime ever commited in American history” –  the taking of America into an illegal war under  false pretences, and therein perpetrating serious war crimes. The author writes with deep passion that Bush’s disregard for law and moral rectitude directly resulted in the  deaths of  more than 100,000 human beings, including 4,000 young American soldiers, thus showing “reckless and wanton disregard” for the consequences and “indifference to human life,”  terms that both would lead to a conviction for murder under U.S. criminal law.

_____________________________________________

“More and more in our times Canadians have wondered  just what kind of continental neighbour America, is, exactly.  Where will it all end?”

That’s what this blog is all about.



livingoutloud365

Approaching each day with a spirit of learning and adventure!

Nothing You Can See

life down the rabbit hole with a survivor of brain injury

The Daily Post

The Art and Craft of Blogging

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

The Writ of Cotton

Think...MORE!

Online newspaper of professor Yasser Metwally

Online news and views in neurology

Failed Empire

Chronicling the collapse of a failed society

An Idiot's Soliloquy

Talking to Myself and welcoming others to join in

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.