Amnesty: Canada 'required' to arrest George W. Bush

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

King Abdullah visited Canada and the US last year.

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article69230.ece

*If this weren't GS I would place an insult here*

PWSteal_Ldpinch

If a US president ordered prisoners to be beheaded I'm sure amnesty international would find something in their charter to arrest him. Otherwise it wouldn't be a very good human rights organization, would it?? You need to stop being so dishonest by looking for technicalities to win your arguments. These organizations clearly avoid making moral judgements about muslim countries for one reason or another.

I would rather be waterboarded than beheaded any day. Realize this, and you will realize how cowardly Amnesty International really is.

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Still no reason to arrest him according to the charter in question. That's nice, I'll take that as a compliment.Ace6301

If a US president ordered prisoners to be beheaded I'm sure amnesty international would find something in their charter to arrest him. Otherwise it wouldn't be a very good human rights organization, would it?? You need to stop being so dishonest by looking for technicalities to win your arguments. These organizations clearly avoid making moral judgements about muslim countries for one reason or another.

I would rather be waterboarded than beheaded any day. Realize this, and you will realize how cowardly Amnesty International really is.

That's the thing about morality. It either applies, or it doesn't.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

I'm all for it. And maybe we can get someone to arrest Obama for authorizing the assassination of US citizens without a trial.

Both would be great steps to let our politicians know that actions such as these have consequences.

commonfate

He was a terrorist plotting attacks on U.S. Soil... hardly a citizen.

His citizenship doesn't change with his crime.

And like other citizens who plotted terrorist attacks on American soil (McVeigh, etc.), he deserved a trial.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

If a US president ordered prisoners to be beheaded I'm sure amnesty international would find something in their charter to arrest him. Otherwise it wouldn't be a very good human rights organization, would it?? You need to stop being so dishonest by looking for technicalities to win your arguments. These organizations clearly avoid making moral judgements about muslim countries for one reason or another.

I would rather be waterboarded than beheaded any day. Realize this, and you will realize how cowardly Amnesty International really is.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

That's the thing about morality. It either applies, or it doesn't.

[QUOTE="commonfate"]

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

I'm all for it. And maybe we can get someone to arrest Obama for authorizing the assassination of US citizens without a trial.

Both would be great steps to let our politicians know that actions such as these have consequences.

m0zart

He was a terrorist plotting attacks on U.S. Soil... hardly a citizen.

His citizenship doesn't change with his crime.

And like other citizens who plotted terrorist attacks on American soil (McVeigh, etc.), he deserved a trial.

What if someone is on a killing spree and cannot be arrested. More and more people may be killed the longer he remains at large. Does such a person also deserve a trial at all costs? This is a similar ethical dilemma as Obama had to face when he decided to kill Al Awlaki. Can we at least be honest and admit that there may not be a correct answer?PWSteal_Ldpinch

I was being completely honest when I said what I said. There was no attempt at all to take him alive for a trial. There was no intent. There was no order. He was simply assassinated, and that's all there was to it. And that is simply unlawful -- it's unlawful I'd argue for anyone we could capture alive, but it's CERTAINLY unlawful to do to an American citizen. To say otherwise is really not fundamentally different IMO than the Bush justification that torture was absolutely necessary to ensure that we had the intel to prevent future attacks. Both of them have the same basic ethic behind them (or lack thereof). If I'm expected to take Bush as a war criminal (and I do), then I can be rightfully expected to throw that accusation Obama's way and have the expectation of fairly applying the law to both, irregardless of the multitude of justifications they can make to bypass our own legal standards.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I would feel a lot better about Harper if he actually did it.m0zart

Yeah I was thinking that Harper being there means it probably won't happen.

actually given that nobody really takes harper seriously anymore up here. hed probably do it jsut to push for a party re-election. expect to see him at least tlak about the idea of doing it. will he do it.. probably not he was probably the biggest political friend to bush outside of the USA (omitting perhaps tony blair of the UK).

i expect to see the idea considered.. and ya know what i back amnesty international on this one let him fry and ya know what fry obama as well.

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]What if someone is on a killing spree and cannot be arrested. More and more people may be killed the longer he remains at large. Does such a person also deserve a trial at all costs? This is a similar ethical dilemma as Obama had to face when he decided to kill Al Awlaki. Can we at least be honest and admit that there may not be a correct answer?m0zart

I was being completely honest when I said what I said. There was no attempt at all to take him alive for a trial. There was no intent. There was no order. He was simply assassinated, and that's all there was to it. And that is simply unlawful -- it's unlawful I'd argue for anyone we could capture alive, but it's CERTAINLY unlawful to do to an American citizen. To say otherwise is really not fundamentally different IMO than the Bush justification that torture was absolutely necessary to ensure that we had the intel to prevent future attacks. Both of them have the same basic ethic behind them (or lack thereof). If I'm expected to take Bush as a war criminal (and I do), then I can be rightfully expected to throw that accusation Obama's way and have the expectation of fairly applying the law to both, irregardless of the multitude of justifications they can make to bypass our own legal standards.

Do you mind telling me what you would do if you were faced with the dilemma that I posited earlier? There is always the possibility to capture an armed gunman alive by sending cannon fodder toward him but is it really justified? Is this what you would do if you were faced with such a dilemma?PWSteal_Ldpinch

I would issue an order to capture (i.e. arrest) him alive and bring him to trial. If he then returned gunfire, I have to recognize that returning fire to protect the arresting "officers" is acceptable protocol and fits our legal standards.

I would not however issue an order to simply assassinate him, nor would I issue orders to torture him once in custody.

If we have *anything* left in this country, it is the integrity of our constitutional protections, which go very easily down the tube with every justification to violate them in the name of safety. A justification that happens for an American citizen who acts as a terrorist against his own people and soil doesn't seem like much to the average person, and they usually balk at any attempt to salvage our own integrity at the expense of a simple assassination. But with every decision you make to shrink the circle of those protected by legal standards we have put in place for that very effect, especially unilaterally, without any change in Constitutional provisions through the allowable channels, the circle continues to shrink and any one of us could find ourselves outside of it, having our pithy eulogies being delivered by a multitude of users on a forum like this one to describe how "it just wasn't worth a trial".

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]Do you mind telling me what you would do if you were faced with the dilemma that I posited earlier? There is always the possibility to capture an armed gunman alive by sending cannon fodder toward him but is it really justified? Is this what you would do if you were faced with such a dilemma?m0zart

I would issue an order to capture (i.e. arrest) him alive and bring him to trial. If he then returned gunfire, I have to recognize that returning fire to protect the arresting "officers" is acceptable protocol and fits our legal standards.

I would not however issue an order to simply assassinate him, nor would I issue orders to torture him once in custody.

If we have *anything* left in this country, it is the integrity of our constitutional protections, which go very easily down the tube with every justification to violate them in the name of safety. A justification that happens for an American citizen who acts as a terrorist against his own people and soil doesn't seem like much to the average person, and they usually balk at any attempt to salvage our own integrity at the expense of a simple assassination. But with every decision you make to shrink the circle of those protected by legal standards we have put in place for that very effect, especially unilaterally, without any change in Constitutional provisions through the allowable channels, the circle continues to shrink and any one of us could find ourselves outside of it, having our pithy eulogies being delivered by a multitude of users on a forum like this one to describe how "it just wasn't worth a trial".

mozart dropping the dime FTW

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]Do you mind telling me what you would do if you were faced with the dilemma that I posited earlier? There is always the possibility to capture an armed gunman alive by sending cannon fodder toward him but is it really justified? Is this what you would do if you were faced with such a dilemma?m0zart

I would issue an order to capture (i.e. arrest) him alive and bring him to trial. If he then returned gunfire, I have to recognize that returning fire to protect the arresting "officers" is acceptable protocol and fits our legal standards.

I would not however issue an order to simply assassinate him, nor would I issue orders to torture him once in custody.

If we have *anything* left in this country, it is the integrity of our constitutional protections, which go very easily down the tube with every justification to violate them in the name of safety. A justification that happens for an American citizen who acts as a terrorist against his own people and soil doesn't seem like much to the average person, and they usually balk at any attempt to salvage our own integrity at the expense of a simple assassination. But with every decision you make to shrink the circle of those protected by legal standards we have put in place for that very effect, especially unilaterally, without any change in Constitutional provisions through the allowable channels, the circle continues to shrink and any one of us could find ourselves outside of it, having our pithy eulogies being delivered by a multitude of users on a forum like this one to describe how "it just wasn't worth a trial".

That was very well writen. However, you say that you would permit your officers to use letal force if the gunman had fired upon them. A person who may kill innocent people at any moment is already outside the circle of those protected by legal standards. If Al Awlaki is in this category of people, then there is no reason to believe that the circle is getting any smaller. If he was not an imminent threat, then the standard measures should have been taken. To continue this argument we have to find out how dangerous he really was. However, I am not particularly interrested in finding out and I have class tomorrow. I will have to stop here, good night.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]Do you mind telling me what you would do if you were faced with the dilemma that I posited earlier? There is always the possibility to capture an armed gunman alive by sending cannon fodder toward him but is it really justified? Is this what you would do if you were faced with such a dilemma?PWSteal_Ldpinch

I would issue an order to capture (i.e. arrest) him alive and bring him to trial. If he then returned gunfire, I have to recognize that returning fire to protect the arresting "officers" is acceptable protocol and fits our legal standards.

I would not however issue an order to simply assassinate him, nor would I issue orders to torture him once in custody.

If we have *anything* left in this country, it is the integrity of our constitutional protections, which go very easily down the tube with every justification to violate them in the name of safety. A justification that happens for an American citizen who acts as a terrorist against his own people and soil doesn't seem like much to the average person, and they usually balk at any attempt to salvage our own integrity at the expense of a simple assassination. But with every decision you make to shrink the circle of those protected by legal standards we have put in place for that very effect, especially unilaterally, without any change in Constitutional provisions through the allowable channels, the circle continues to shrink and any one of us could find ourselves outside of it, having our pithy eulogies being delivered by a multitude of users on a forum like this one to describe how "it just wasn't worth a trial".

hes only dangerous because he could testify at the underwear bomber trails.. he is highly likely to have provided that dude with the fake bomb at the behest of the CIA

this was a setup of some nobody from square one.

anwar id also like to point out has known ties to the CIA even having dinner their once put on by the CIA itself. you dont get invited to dine at the pentagon on the CIA's dime without a good reason.. wouldn't you agree??

That was very well writen. However, you say that you would permit your officers to use letal force if the gunman had fired upon them. A person who may kill innocent people at any moment is already outside the circle of those protected by legal standards. If Al Awlaki is in this category of people, then there is no reason to believe that the circle is getting any smaller. If he was not an imminent threat, then the standard measures should have been taken. To continue this argument we have to find out how dangerous he really was. However, I am not particularly interrested in finding out and I have class tomorrow. I will have to stop here, good night.

maybe we could finally start a war of conquest, canada would give us some of that much needed leg room we need here in the over populated united states.

What would be your reaction if George Bush was arrested?M4Ntan

What would be your reaction if George Bush was arrested?

M4Ntan

Strangely Obama gets an exemption, curious and curiouser.

[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]A well known Canadian news source too. Also better headlines than American news sources. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/12/what-the-should-canada-arrest-george-w-bush/Ace6301

You just lumped legit news organizations in with opinion/blog sites. That's swinging for the fences, even for you.

Strangely Obama gets an exemption, curious and curiouser.

QuistisTrepe_

Exactly. Quoting Chomski, Bush tortures and Obama kills.

Amnesty International has no problem with Obama just assassinating people without any kind of a trial?

On a personal note. I'm all for them doing it...just wondering why the flip flop wearing wienies aren't crying about it?

Amnesty International has no problem with Obama just assassinating people without any kind of a trial?

On a personal note. I'm all for them doing it...just wondering why the flip flop wearing wienies aren't crying about it?

coasterguy65

[QUOTE="coasterguy65"]

Amnesty International has no problem with Obama just assassinating people without any kind of a trial?

On a personal note. I'm all for them doing it...just wondering why the flip flop wearing wienies aren't crying about it?

surrealnumber5

Well to be frank I would hardly call this more of a double standard of party politics, but a sad truth that no one is willing to admit... Regardless of which party or specific president you look at, all have had a extremely questionable foreign policy morally for the past 40 to 50 years.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="coasterguy65"]

Amnesty International has no problem with Obama just assassinating people without any kind of a trial?

On a personal note. I'm all for them doing it...just wondering why the flip flop wearing wienies aren't crying about it?

sSubZerOo

Well to be frank I would hardly call this more of a double standard of party politics, but a sad truth that no one is willing to admit... Regardless of which party or specific president you look at, all have had a extremely questionable foreign policy morally for the past 40 to 50 years.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] because double standards are what they are.

surrealnumber5

Well to be frank I would hardly call this more of a double standard of party politics, but a sad truth that no one is willing to admit... Regardless of which party or specific president you look at, all have had a extremely questionable foreign policy morally for the past 40 to 50 years.

What can one do in the end? Because we as consumers are part of the problem, a very specific metal for instance within electronics like our playstation or cell phones, things we covet so much.. Has literally been a root cause of genocide within central Africa that is largely ignored due to our demand of the said resource.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Well to be frank I would hardly call this more of a double standard of party politics, but a sad truth that no one is willing to admit... Regardless of which party or specific president you look at, all have had a extremely questionable foreign policy morally for the past 40 to 50 years.

sSubZerOo

What can one do in the end? Because we as consumers are part of the problem, a very specific metal for instance within electronics like our playstation or cell phones, things we covet so much.. Has literally been a root cause of genocide within central Africa that is largely ignored due to our demand of the said resource.

I'm no fan of the US government or its people, but even I would be against that. The global consequences would be too great.

No, that's not going to happen.

Just sayin

I'm all for it. And maybe we can get someone to arrest Obama for authorizing the assassination of US citizens without a trial.

Both would be great steps to let our politicians know that actions such as these have consequences.

m0zart

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

I'm all for it. And maybe we can get someone to arrest Obama for authorizing the assassination of US citizens without a trial.

Both would be great steps to let our politicians know that actions such as these have consequences.

fueled-system

Someday I hope that fate finds the occasion to cause you much displeasure in that regard.

But since I am too sensible and too consistent for the people who appoint to such positions, I have a feeling fate is on your side.

Lol, with Harper in office? Nah mayne, ain't happening.Ringx55

Yeah, he's more likely to bend over.

I doubt that he will be arrested. If he were though, I would laugh so hard that my sanity will be questioned.

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

I'm all for it. And maybe we can get someone to arrest Obama for authorizing the assassination of US citizens without a trial.

Both would be great steps to let our politicians know that actions such as these have consequences.

m0zart

Someday I hope that fate finds the occasion to cause you much displeasure in that regard.

But since I am too sensible and too consistent for the people who appoint to such positions, I have a feeling fate is on your side.

But meh who cares about the lives of our soldiers after all everyone needs a trial so lets let one or two soldiers die while getting him... hey its fair right

The risk of our National Security and the lives of our men and women would be good for you? Cause thats what you are saying with your comments...

But meh who cares about the lives of our soldiers after all everyone needs a trial so lets let one or two soldiers die while getting him... hey its fair right

fueled-system

Soldiers exist to protect our liberties here and abroad. When a President uses their activities to instead erode them, we are no longer sanctifying their position.

So yes, of course it matters. I want them to have a free land to return home to.

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

The risk of our National Security and the lives of our men and women would be good for you? Cause thats what you are saying with your comments...

But meh who cares about the lives of our soldiers after all everyone needs a trial so lets let one or two soldiers die while getting him... hey its fair right

m0zart

Soldiers exist to protect our liberties here and abroad. When a President uses their activities to instead erode them, we are no longer sanctifying their position.

So yes, of course it matters. I want them to have a free land to return home to.

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

The risk of our National Security and the lives of our men and women would be good for you? Cause thats what you are saying with your comments...

But meh who cares about the lives of our soldiers after all everyone needs a trial so lets let one or two soldiers die while getting him... hey its fair right

m0zart

Soldiers exist to protect our liberties here and abroad. When a President uses their activities to instead erode them, we are no longer sanctifying their position.

So yes, of course it matters. I want them to have a free land to return home to.

Well they would also have to arrest Obama aswell, since he is doing it aswell. But I doubt Bush would ever get arrested, although I would like to see him in prision.

Take a college class in Counter terrorism and hopefully you will learn something about this because its clear that if your plan ever came true there would BE NO AMERICAfueled-system

If the only way to have an "America" is to erode civil liberties and protections against institutionalized actions of violence, then there already is no America.

No clue who Harper is

After reading it 50 times, I can safely assume he lives in Canada

No clue who Harper is

After reading it 50 times, I can safely assume he lives in Canada

M4Ntan

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

No clue who Harper is

After reading it 50 times, I can safely assume he lives in Canada

M4Ntan

He is the prime minister of Canada. I can't give an opinion of him because I don't live in Canada so it would be wrong of me to assume that I understand their issues that face their country. Unfortunately many Canadians think they understand American issues, which they do not.

No clue who Harper is

After reading it 50 times, I can safely assume he lives in Canada

M4Ntan

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]Take a college class in Counter terrorism and hopefully you will learn something about this because its clear that if your plan ever came true there would BE NO AMERICAm0zart

If the only way to have an "America" is to erode civil liberties and protections against institutionalized actions of violence, then there already is no America.

Quite frankley its insulting to even suggest a President should be arrested

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]Take a college class in Counter terrorism and hopefully you will learn something about this because its clear that if your plan ever came true there would BE NO AMERICAfueled-system

If the only way to have an "America" is to erode civil liberties and protections against institutionalized actions of violence, then there already is no America.

Quite frankley its insulting to even suggest a President should be arrested

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]Take a college class in Counter terrorism and hopefully you will learn something about this because its clear that if your plan ever came true there would BE NO AMERICAfueled-system

If the only way to have an "America" is to erode civil liberties and protections against institutionalized actions of violence, then there already is no America.

Quite frankley its insulting to even suggest a President should be arrested

Quite frankly it's insulting to even suggest that a President should be above reproach.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I'd love to see them try.

Communist_Soul

If the evidence is sufficient he deserves to go to jail. What makes him above the law?

What law? International law? Does anyone take international law seriously?

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I'd love to see them try.

SpartanMSU

If the evidence is sufficient he deserves to go to jail. What makes him above the law?

What law? International law? Does anyone take international law seriously?

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

If the only way to have an "America" is to erode civil liberties and protections against institutionalized actions of violence, then there already is no America.

worlock77

Quite frankley its insulting to even suggest a President should be arrested

Quite frankly it's insulting to even suggest that a President should be above reproach.

I think the president should be subject to trials and that goes for Obama aswell. Hell the vast majority of politicians are criminals..

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="fueled-system"]If you believe our sitting president should be arressted then LEAVE THE COUNTRY because you need to take a ****in counter terrorism to understand the REALITY of government in the world because as of right now you have this notion that countries are different

Quite frankley its insulting to even suggest a President should be arrested

ShadowMoses900

Quite frankly it's insulting to even suggest that a President should be above reproach.

I think the president should be subject to trials and that goes for Obama aswell. Hell the vast majority of politicians are criminals..