Amnesty wants Canada to arrest George Bush! - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Stormchaser · 10-13-2011, 08:36 AM

Well this is funny! Can't imagine this would go over well....

Quote:

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.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...sh-arrest.html

wookster · 10-13-2011, 08:45 AM

Now that is funny...I love this part:

Quote:

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

You think?

Seriously though, this doesn't really add a lot of credibility to Amnesty International when they do something like this.

CaptainCrunch · 10-13-2011, 08:47 AM

National Post says "You mad"

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10...george-w-bush/

Amnesty International lost touch a long time ago.

When they bitched about Canada deporting war criminals they showed that they had lost touch

When they suspended Gita Sahgal because she didn't think that Amnesty Internationals support of Moazzam Begg was just plain stupid.

When they launch more complaints against the American's then the Cuban's North Koreans and Iranians its pretty clear that they have become an orgnization with a political agenda and have lost their way.

And what a stupid dumb a$$ statement, while George Bush was not a good president, there's no way that Canada would invite their own destruction by arresting him.

Amnesty International has not only bankrupted their own message, but they have become stupid as well.

Sliver · 10-13-2011, 08:55 AM

Well it's not like they don't have a leg to stand on. If say the president of Mexico invaded a random country under the guise of a bunch of lies and kidnapped, detained and tortured thousands of people, we'd probably consider him to be a criminal. GWB is a criminal. An untouchable one, but I like that Amnesty International is at least calling him out on it.

Devils'Advocate · 10-13-2011, 09:09 AM

I disagree that Amnesty has lost touch. I think they are willing to take an enormous bull by the horns and hold EVERYONE accountable, not just the easy targets.

As a long time Amnesty member, they certainly are NOT quiet on North Korea or Cuba. *AND* I agree with them on not deporting war criminals... we should be convicting them and giving them the justice they deserve, not freeing them.

Well the Sahgal/Begg issue showed poor judgement, I'm not willing to let the incident override the overwhelming amount of good the organization has done over the years.

troutman · 10-13-2011, 09:12 AM

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...+international

jar_e · 10-13-2011, 09:18 AM

Hasn't this drum been beaten before? I remember hippies back in the day when Bush was here wanting him arrested for war crimes. Nothing new really.

Flashpoint · 10-13-2011, 09:22 AM

The man killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 figures worth of people by invading Iraq for no reason.

You're damn right he should be arrested.

PIMking · 10-13-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

The man killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 figures worth of people by invading Iraq for no reason.

You're damn right he should be arrested.

lol the man didn't invade crap, congress gave the approval arrest them all...

Also if they're going to arrest Bush they better arrest Obama with his killing of an American in the middle east, killing people in Lybia and continuing a war in both Iraq and Afghanistan

mykalberta · 10-13-2011, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well it's not like they don't have a leg to stand on. If say the president of Mexico invaded a random country under the guise of a bunch of lies and kidnapped, detained and tortured thousands of people, we'd probably consider him to be a criminal. GWB is a criminal. An untouchable one, but I like that Amnesty International is at least calling him out on it.

Differing opinions is what makes this country great. Someone can have an opinion and someone else can think that persons mother drank to much 40 proof while pregnant with said person.

CaptainCrunch · 10-13-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I disagree that Amnesty has lost touch. I think they are willing to take an enormous bull by the horns and hold EVERYONE accountable, not just the easy targets.

As a long time Amnesty member, they certainly are NOT quiet on North Korea or Cuba. *AND* I agree with them on not deporting war criminals... we should be convicting them and giving them the justice they deserve, not freeing them.

Well the Sahgal/Begg issue showed poor judgement, I'm not willing to let the incident override the overwhelming amount of good the organization has done over the years.

I think that the number of cases that Amnesty were complaining about in the last year or two were like

151 against the American's
141 against Iran
6 against North Korea
4 against Cuba.

Let me ask why they didn't call for Ajermapyscho's arrest when he's come over to visit the UN? When he ruthlessly put down the Arab Spring Iran, they killed seveal thousand people? Where were the Arrest calls for Fidel Castro when he left Cuba to visit Venezuala?

Why the hell is Amnesty parading Moazzam Begg around as a poster boy? To the point where thier head on Gender and woman issues flips her middle finger at AI and walks away from it.

And most of the war criminals that we deported had lied on their applications to get in or were just plain here illegally, so frankly I don't see where its our job to try them, these are thugs and murderers in their own countries so let their own countries deal with them.

When Salman Rushdie and Christopher Hitchen's are accusing Amnesty of being morally bankrupt and politicized you have a problem

old-fart · 10-13-2011, 09:56 AM

Amnesty Internation loses whatever shred of credibility they had when they go off on ridiculous stunts like this. It's a shame really, because while they may have some good valid points, they get lost in the idiocy.

TorqueDog · 10-13-2011, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

As a long time Amnesty member...

Oh good, so I know this post is going to be unbiased.

MelBridgeman · 10-13-2011, 10:05 AM

LOL although you may have a slight case with Bush,let's stick to reality, whether you agree with it or not.

and lets call a spade a spade: publicity!

Kavvy · 10-13-2011, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well it's not like they don't have a leg to stand on. If say the president of Mexico invaded a random country under the guise of a bunch of lies and kidnapped, detained and tortured thousands of people, we'd probably consider him to be a criminal. GWB is a criminal. An untouchable one, but I like that Amnesty International is at least calling him out on it.

100% disagree, the only thing I may have a soft side for is the torture comment (which is what the actual story is on), but I still disagree. Torture is illegal, and he broke the law, but nothing is black and white, and more so when it comes to protecting and running a nation.

Bush was a terrible president, but as much as people hate him, he was in charge of a hurt and scared nation - to no fault of his own (you could argue the Clinton argument that 911 could have been prevented, but its a stretch to say its his fault). He used torture to defend a nation which was attacked. He was in uncharted waters for the modern presidency and made mistakes. As much as I would love to be a politician, I do not envy his first few years of his term.

As for the false evidence and invading an random country, you have to be very careful with this argument. Bush isn't Hitler or Gaddafi, meaning, he can't force the nation to go to war. Congress voted for it based on his staff's evidence. The United States government voted to go to war. As for the fact he mislead Congress, its a shady argument at best. First off, it would be a stretch to say its illegal (evidence could be "point of view"), secondly, from my brief understanding of what happened, he can plead ignorance, as they did have sources (terrible ones) stating there were nukes in Iraq. Lastly, as bad as it has been for the middle east region, for the American tax payers, and for the brave soldiers, Saddam deserved to die. If it came down to a trial, one could easily argue that based on the previous genocide Saddam ordered, invading the nation to arrest him was lawful. I disagree with the Iraq invasion, but you couldn't ring up Bush for it.

I am aware of Jason K's open letter the Amnesty Int. and while I didn't go into the background of what Amnesty was charging Canada with, I have no problem with them criticizing us. I skimmed through Jason's letter, and read how he ripped Amnesty because they are focusing on Canada when there are much worse human rights violations occurring in the world. As a cabinet member, he has to defend our reputation, and that's fine, but if we are making minor human rights mistakes, we need to be called out on them. Just because were not as bad a China, doesn't mean we can't improve. The day China because the minimum standard for Human Rights is the day we need to rebel.

In the end, I think this was a mistake for Amnesty as it makes them seem naive and will drive people away from them.

Weiser Wonder · 10-13-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Oh good, so I know this post is going to be unbiased.

I assume that you are a not a member of Amnesty, so I guess that makes you biased against them.

bizaro86 · 10-13-2011, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I assume that you are a not a member of Amnesty, so I guess that makes you biased against them.

While joining amnesty indicates positive support of their organization, not joining doesn't mean opposition or bias against. It (in the vast majority of cases I'm sure) indicates that someone doesn't feel strongly enough about them either way to join them or protest them.

Ozy_Flame · 10-13-2011, 01:17 PM

Arrest Cheney while you're at it. Their administration started a war they couldn't finish and it has cost an unnecessary amount of human life. What a waste of skin these two are.

CaptainCrunch · 10-13-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Arrest Cheney while you're at it. Their administration started a war they couldn't finish and it has cost an unnecessary amount of human life. What a waste of skin these two are.

Arresting Bush and or Cheney would be an illegal act because the U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC so the ICC has no jurisdiction.

Plus Waterboarding wasn't illegal under bush, it was made illegal under Obama so technically he didn't break the laws when he was in office.

Plus how can they arrest him when there is no warrent issued for his arrest arrest by the International Courts.

It would be nice if Amnesty International understood the laws that they were trying to use.

Weiser Wonder · 10-13-2011, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizaro86

While joining amnesty indicates positive support of their organization, not joining doesn't mean opposition or bias against. It (in the vast majority of cases I'm sure) indicates that someone doesn't feel strongly enough about them either way to join them or protest them.

Positive support of an organization does not indicate bias on its positions. It only indicates support of its positions. You must look at the objectivity of the evidence he gives to decide if there is bias.

Not to mention, you can arrive at apathy through bias as well.