I was never a Dubya fan but

…this request by Amnesty International does seem more than just a bit over the top.

OTTAWA - 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.
“None of those arguments justify inaction under international law,” he said.
Neve conceded that arresting a former president would likely cause tension with the United States, but “taking a principled step merits that sort of strain.”
Neve said Bush admitted in his memoirs that he authorized the use of torture against terror suspects.
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.
“All of this was authorized and condoned and put in place through his own repeated decisions.”
Neve said the international arm of Amnesty sent a lengthy brief to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson outlining the government’s responsibilities under international law and urging him to act.
“This is something the entire global movement stands behind,” Neve said.

They probably should snag both of them while they’re there. Yugoslavia wasn’t pretty either (to say nothing of what he did to that poor intern’s blue dress).

Dan

Neve conceded that arresting a former president would likely cause tension with the United States,


Ya think? This gets my vote for understatement of the decade.

“taking a principled step merits that sort of strain.”

It is a shame that their “principled” steps never seem to include classic bad guys. Why do you suppose that is? I have a guess or two, but that might let my cynicism get ahead of me.

It is a shame that their “principled” steps never seem to include classic bad guys. Why do you suppose that is?

I don’t know, I put your statement to the test by looking up the three first active “classic bad guys” I could think of (Dear Leader, al-Bashir, al-Assad) on amnesty.org, and they call came up with same equally impotent calls to face arrest and trial.

Or by “classic bad guys” do you mean like Reid and Pelosi. :slight_smile:

I stand with Amnesty on a lot of issues. However, I oppose them on just as many.

I do have a question, though. Let’s say that Bush IS arrested and charged under the Geneva Conventions. Let’s say he is found guilty of war crimes. In the past, every person tried for these crimes has been executed.

But Amnesty is vehemently against the death penalty.

So, if he was found guilty, what would be his punishment? Sit in a jail cell for the rest of his life? Isn’t Amnesty after justice? House arrest hardly sounds like justice after murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents.