Amnesty International: Arrest Bush for war crimes

22 comments on “Amnesty International: Arrest Bush for war crimes ”

• Comments are now closed

1. freedom 1

   13 October 2011 at 10:35 am

   use a few of the ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques on Bush and see if he thinks it’s ‘reasonable force’
2. freedom 2

   13 October 2011 at 10:42 am

   here is a refresher of the finer points of the Bush regime’s approved methods. Regardless of the Military’s lies, these soldiers were following orders and everybody knows it.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   13 October 2011 at 10:47 am

   Perhaps Mr Key’s staff might like to explain to him what the implications of this development…

   Well, it might do if Canada actually arrested and tried GWB but that’s unlikely to happen. We actually did have a judge issue an arrest warrant for a suspected war criminal visiting here but the government overturned it. Same thing will happen in this case. Nations may have agreed to and signed the Geneva Conventions but they don’t seem to be all that enthusiastic about enforcing them especially where the US and Israel are concerned.
4. alex 4

   13 October 2011 at 11:00 am

   Ah, international law, why does anyone think America would take the slightest notice of it? Supposing someone did lay hands on Bush, is he really likely to go quietly, or would his secret service leap in and shoot everyone?
   • freedom 4.1

     13 October 2011 at 11:45 am

     if it ever eventuated that someone actually got Bush in Custody,
     he would be dead before the holding cell door closed
5. queenstfarmer 5

   13 October 2011 at 11:21 am

   Amnesty International has long since gone off the rails.

   Perhaps Mr Key’s staff might like to explain to him what the implications of this development, taken together with the recent UN Report on NZ SAS rendering prisoners in Afghanistan, might mean for the PM.

   Or perhaps what it might mean for Helen Clark (though in both cases, the answer of course is nothing)
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     13 October 2011 at 11:31 am

     qstf supporting the unaccountability of our political leadership.

     BTW Under Clark those troops would have come home a long time ago; Key plays the submissive role to any US General who asks for a deployment extension.
     • queenstfarmer 5.1.1

       13 October 2011 at 2:12 pm

       “Would have” doesn’t cut it. Labour deployed them there in the first place, which was good. National redeployed them, which was good. Now they are being withdrawn in March, which is about right.

       Withdrawing the troops is hardly being “submissive” to the US, which wants us to keep them there.
       • the sprout 5.1.1.1

         13 October 2011 at 2:20 pm

         If NZ SAS have been involved in war crimes in any way, regardless of whether the deployment was under Clark or Key, there needs to be an enquiry.
         It’s called accountability.
         • queenstfarmer 5.1.1.1.1

           13 October 2011 at 2:32 pm

           I agree. But having politically motivated groups demanding the arrest of former Presidents or Prime Ministers for “war crimes” is not accountability or enquiry. It is stupid grandstanding that actually does more harm than good, and certainly alienates would-be supporters.
           • the sprout 5.1.1.1.1.1

             13 October 2011 at 3:04 pm

             true, that would alienate would-be supporters of war criminals
           • Muzza 5.1.1.1.1.2

             13 October 2011 at 8:03 pm

             What like the ICC grandstanding over Qadaffi on behalf of the crimnals running the USA! Bush was a non entity anyway the real criminals are Cheney, Rumsfeld & Bush Senior!
         • alex 5.1.1.1.2

           13 October 2011 at 3:35 pm

           You’re wasting your time looking for accountability from Key sprout, there won’t be any over the Rena and there won’t be any over SAS torture.
       • Muzza 5.1.1.2

         13 October 2011 at 8:00 pm

         Why is it good that we are participating in illegal wars ?
6. Afewknowthetruth 6

   13 October 2011 at 11:40 am

   The day the UN starts to adibe by its own charter might be the day we start to see some justice in the world.

   As it is, Harper is a war criminal and an environmental criminal, and there is no prospect of his collaborators being arrested for war crimes or environmental crimes. They system won’t allow it. Indeed, the entire western economic system is predicated on various perpetual wars and destruction of the environment.

   The 1% are still very successful at misleading the 99%.

   (Yes, Helen Clark was a war criminal too).
7. Ben 7

   13 October 2011 at 1:29 pm

   The 1% have very successfully drilled apathy into society: “It didn’t happen to me and I don’t think it will happen to me so why should I care?”
8. Tiger Mountain 8

   13 October 2011 at 2:22 pm

   These international criminals should be pursued until their last breath. It is the least that the living who have some understanding and conscience can do for the tortured, executed and “disappeared”.

   Pinochet was buried in a secret location to reduce the chance of grave desecration. They can run but they ultimately can’t hide.
9. the sprout 9

   13 October 2011 at 2:26 pm

   They will also be remembered by history, their children, and their grandchildren, as war criminals
10. fender 10

    13 October 2011 at 4:03 pm

    Throw the book and the shoes at him, and then go to Hawaii and find that little NZ dictator.
11. Pascal's bookie 11

    13 October 2011 at 8:28 pm

    qsf

    I agree. But having politically motivated groups demanding the arrest of former Presidents or Prime Ministers for “war crimes” is not accountability or enquiry. It is stupid grandstanding that actually does more harm than good, and certainly alienates would-be supporters.

    I’d like it if you could expand on this somewhat, as I have to admit I’m not seeing much in there by way of actual argument. There’s conclusions, but nothing there that gives me any reason to support said conclusions.

    Some of it is very strange indeed. This for example:

    “But having politically motivated groups demanding the arrest of former Presidents or Prime Ministers for “war crimes” is not accountability or enquiry.”

    It seems to me that any sort of accountability will be driven by politically motivated groups. How could it not be? Demanding accountability of political actors is a political act, is it not?

    This line seems, and forgive me if I am wrong, to be elevating “former Presidents or Prime Ministers” onto some level that ordinary people cannot question their actions. At the same time, it seems to denigrate Amnesty International by calling them ‘political’ as if this is a bad thing, or even an unknown thing. AI is explicitly political in its aims and actions. It seeks to hold politicians to account and effect political change. It has ever been thus.

    The quote marks around war crimes. What’s that all about? Torture is a crime under both the Geneva conventions and treaties ratified by the US. This makes it a crime under US law according to their constitution.

    Given that after WW2 the US held war crime trials and executed people for waterboarding prisoners then it seems that the admission of waterboarding, (not to mention any number of other things), means that there are definitely questions to be answered, at the very least.

    The way the law works around torture, as signed by the signatories to the UN convention on it, is that if there are credible questions or reasons to suspect, then the nation has a legal obligation to investigate with a view to prosecution.

    Given the admissions of what went on, it is clear that there are credible allegations of breaches of the law. The law demands investigation.

    So that’s political, sure. But is it political in a bad way? If so, why, and how?

    And yes, although it won’t happen, I do think that Obama’s failure to investigate Bush’s actions means he should be impeached for failing to uphold and execute the law as he is constitutionally required to do.
12. oligarkey 12

    14 October 2011 at 12:06 pm

    QSF – if you make a claim can you back it up with some resoning please? You can’t just expect people to swollow your bluster uncritically. This ain’t kiwiblog.
    • Pascal's bookie 12.1

      14 October 2011 at 8:10 pm

      It’s not really the way qs rolls Oli.

      What seems fairly apparent is that, in this thread, qs was projecting.

      The complaint about AI being ‘political’ makes little sense.

      qs sees AI saying what they say, and can only assume that they are doing so because they hate Bush, or whatever.

      He thinks that their ‘real’ motive must be to make Bush, or Republicans, or righties, or whoever look bad and they specifics of the complaint don’t matter. From here he goes on to further lay opprobrium on AI blaming them for discrediting the cause and alienating would be supporters.

      In this way, qs can feel good enough about himself to get through the night.

      He can avoid actually addressing AI’s argument, and thus avoid confronting his other beliefs about Bush, the republicans, the right, or whatever. He projects his own partisan impulses onto AI as a way of avoiding the fact that politicians that he has some sympathy for, may well be guilty of war crimes.

      All of that could be wrong of course. But it certainly looks that way without any explanation of what he meant by calling AI political, or without any argument about the substance of AIs case, or absent an explanation for the scare quotes around torture.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS