Friday, March 13, 2009

Bush Self-Confessed Torturer Shouldn't Be Permitted to Enter Canada

Is The Canadian Government Unaware of Any Criminal allegations of George W. Bush ?
Many Americans and most of the nations around the Globe are aware of Bush's criminal activities . Prime Minister Harper claims ignorance and that we have no legal right to prevent Bush from entering our country. So much for the rule of law or our international obligations to the United Nations. In the eyes of Harper's supporters Bush is still seen as one of the good guys who did what was necessary in the so-called War on Terror.

Anyway it appears that it is necessary to inform the Canadian government that there is convincing evidence that former President Bush permitted the use of torture on detainees. So for those who have kept up with the events surrounding the Bush Regime bare with me as I try to explain the situation to the dumbed down Canadian public who for the most part are uninterested in talk about subjects such as human rights , War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

Under Canadian law given the preponderance of evidence Bush should therefore not be permitted to enter the country. Of course this is not going to happen since Harper all along has been one of Bush 's main cheerleaders. And Canada itself has gotten its hands dirty since 9/11. The Canadian government extradited Canadian citizens to countries which were known to torture prisoners. The Canadian government also has done little to ensure that a Canadian citizen who is being held in Guantanamo is treated properly and further that under international law that he is in fact a Child-Soldier and should not be held at Gitmo.

But then again Prime Minister Harper being a Bush supporter as many Canadians still are including much of our media he believes that anyone arrested as a so called terrorist get what they deserve including physical and psychological and sexual abuse so why would Harper or many Canadian citizens object to anything Bush did.
Under Canadian law someone who it is believed has been involved in permitting the use of torture would not be permitted to enter Canada as a Persona NonGrata. Bush and Cheney have both admitted to permitting the use of torture.The United Nations SpecialRapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak believes there is enough evidence to procede with investigations of Bush and Cheney.

Top UN Investigator Manfred Nowak calls for indictment of Bush and Rumsfeld- Jan. 22, 2009

Bush confesses to permitting torture.

Special Comment: You Must Prosecute Bush! ~Olbermann-Jan. 19, 2009

Cheney Admits Authorizing Detainee's Torture- Dec. 15, 2008 ABC

also check out interview on CNN of Manfred Nowak The U.S. Is Required To Bring George W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld Before A Court! U.N. War Crimes, Jan. 26-
Nowak also argues that the attempts to redefine what constitutes torture by the Bush administration has no legal standing .

Further Manfred Nowak insists that the Obama administration could be held accountable if it does not take action.

Of course the United States does not recognize the United Nations

Being a polite wishy-washy spineless society Canada will once again greet with open arms another War Criminal Former President Bush. In Canada it would be seen as just bad manners not to welcome the man who inspires to this day Prime Minister Harper and many conservative and Pro-Bush Canadians. These are the Canadians who believe we were derelict in our duty for not sending troops into Iraq in 2003 or who still feel bad we didn't join in with the Americans in Vietnam. But then again these are the people who would like to emulate the Bush Regime and would prefer Canada to become part of the United States. There also many Canadians especially fans of tv show 24 or who also watch Fox News and other American or even Canadian right wing news networks who see nothing wrong with torture or other breaches of an individuals human rights.

Canada Should Bar or Prosecute Bush: Lawyer:Foreign Affairs stays silent on upcoming Calgary visit by Jeremy Klaszus Fast Forward Weekly (Calgary, Alberta) March 12, 2009

As George W. Bush's St. Patrick's Day visit to Calgary draws near, the federal government is facing pressure from activists and human rights lawyers to bar the former U.S. president from the country or prosecute him for war crimes and crimes against humanity once he steps on Canadian soil.

Bush is scheduled to speak at the Telus Convention Center March 17, but Vancouver lawyer Gail Davidson says that because Bush has been "credibly accused" of supporting torture in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Canada has a legal obligation to deny him entry under Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The law says foreign nationals who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, including torture, are "inadmissible" to Canada.

"The test isn't whether the person's been convicted, but whether there's reasonable grounds to think that they have been involved," says Davidson, who's with Lawyers Against the War (LAW). "...It's now a matter of public record that Bush was in charge of setting up a regime of torture that spanned several parts of the globe and resulted in horrendous injuries and even death. Canada has a duty."

...Davidson is one of many voices around the world calling for Bush's prosecution. Earlier this year, Manfred Nowak, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Torture, said the U.S. has a "clear obligation" to prosecute Bush and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld for authorizing torture - a violation of the UN Convention on Torture. "Obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this," Nowak told a German TV station in January.

Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary, Alberta, To Be Tried For International Crimes? by Prof Anthony J. Hall Global Research.caMarch 7, 2009

Serious allegations of criminality are swirling around ex-US President George W. Bush and current Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. In late February of 2009 it was reported that the Hague-based International Criminal Court was preparing to issue a warrant for al-Bashir alleging his culpability for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. As the documents were being prepared against Sudan’s head of state, ex-President Bush was preparing to initiate a series of high-paying speaking engagements beginning in Calgary Alberta on March 17. Bush’s visit to Alberta’s oil capital tests the consistency and authenticity of the Canadian government’s "unequivocal" position that "Canada is not and will not become a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or other reprehensible acts."

...The striking contrast between the treatment of al-Bashir and Bush serves to clarify the division of the world’s criminals and suspected criminals into two major categories, one inhabited by a small elite that is essentially above the law and the other populated by figures not rich or influential enough to gain exemptions from the law’s coercive force. It is not without a sense of irony that I arrive at this conclusion. On the one hand the ICC’s decision to press charges against al-Bashir, as well as to initiate in January of 2009 a full-fledged trial against Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, signals a major transformation in the career of the ICC. It indicates that the court is no longer a mere vehicle for the empty expression of lofty idealism but rather a site of real engagement aimed at subjugating the rule of murder, mayhem and intimidation to the higher authority of law.

On the other hand by pointing its initial surge of juridical activism at the local criminality of individuals in those afflicted regions of Africa where resource cartels and their client regimes often dominate, the ICC has called attention to the West’s hypocrisy in shielding its own war lords and war profiteers in the military-industrial complex from any legal accountability for the violent acts its operatives, many of them in the so-called private sector, regularly plan, instigate, finance, arm, facilitate, commit and exploit. Indeed, the double standard promoted by the ICC in the choice of its targets for prosecution replicates in the international arena much of the duplicity of the criminal justice system in the United States.

And of course part of the problem with dealing with Bush & Co. is that Prime Minister Harper is still trying to bring into effect laws as draconian as the Bush administration. So while there are demands that President Obama get rid of these special laws which were put in place by the Bush administration our Prime Minister is moving in the opposite direction and continues with fear-mongering about terrorist sleeper cells in Canada .
also see:

Can you hear the jackboots?by webmaster in Human Rights, Nibbling on The Empire March 11, 2009

News that the Tories are rushing to restore extraordinary police and judicial powers dropped from the federal Anti-Terrorism Act two years ago should concern every freedom loving Canadian. These measures include preventive arrests and compelling people to testify in investigations on the strength of suspicions by law enforcement authorities. The news story doesn’t say one way or another, but the old Anti-Terrorism Act permitted arrests without warrants of people suspected to be thinking about a terrorist act — we should be very afraid.

Before the “war on terror” a citizen was presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law where all of the charges and the evidence would be laid out. These days, the government can allege “terrorism” and important protections disappear.

(and so the Canadian government has been compiling a list of terrorists suspects in Canada if you are on it it is almost impossible to fight it :)

Where it gets sticky is the secrecy that surrounds the whole business. If you find yourself on the list, you can appeal the ruling. However, under the Criminal Code, you have no right to see all of the evidence “if the judge is of the opinion that the disclosure of the information would injure national security.” (See Criminal Code 83.05 (6) (a).)

Creepier yet, “(6.1) The judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the judge, is reliable and appropriate, even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law, and may base his or her decision on that evidence.”

Hmmm. Does this mean that hearsay evidence or evidence obtained under torture is admissible?

...National Security versus Real Security

Anyone who has followed the case of Maher Arar knows that government spooks are unreliable judges of threats to our national security. Secret evidence and secret trials lead only one way — to tyranny.

Under the guise of fighting terrorism, our freedom is being stolen. Real security exists where accused persons have the unfettered right to confront their accuser with all of the evidence public and open to challenge. Unless we demand this basic protection for all accused, we are allowing a police state to be born.

and so it goes,

No comments: