Who Invited Bush to Calgary?

[Oscar]

George Bush to address Calgary crowd

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009 ... 1-sun.html

By KATIE SCHNEIDER, SUN MEDIA The Calgary Sun

February 13, 2009

CALGARY -- Calgary will be the site of the first speaking engagement since former U.S. president George W. Bush left office.
Bush is to speak at a private event March 17 at the Telus Convention Centre to a crowd of about 1,500 people.
The occasion will give guests the opportunity to hear about Bush's life and times as president, said Christian Darbyshire, who is behind the event along with partner Andy McCreath.
"It's called A Conversation with George W. Bush and basically he is going to be talking about his past eight years as president," Darbyshire said.
He refused to reveal how much tickets cost or who is expected to be among the crowd, but he said it will be an exciting event for Calgary to host.
"It is great for the city," he said.
But news of the appearance was given a muted response from Alberta's premier.
When Ed Stelmach was asked in a news conference yesterday what he thought of the former president's visit to Alberta, he didn't exactly call out the Welcome Wagon for Bush.
"He's a free man," said Stelmach. "He can travel to any country he wants."
More: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009 ... 1-sun.html

[Oscar]

Bush Should be Barred from Canada or Prosecuted

http://pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modl ... News&file=
article&sid=7619&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

February 24, 2009

George W. Bush, former President of the United States of America (U.S.) and Commander in Chief of the Armed Force, is reported to be coming to Calgary Alberta on March 17, 2009 to speak at a private function.

Lawyers Against the War (LAW) has advised the Prime Minister of Canada, the Attorney General and the Ministers of Immigration, Public Safety and Foreign Affairs that George W. Bush is inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Evidence of Bush’s involvement in torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity has triggered Canada’s legal duty to bar Bush from entering Canada and if he enters, to prosecute him for torture.

"To add you signature to this letter, email your name and consent to signing to law@portal.ca " please see below:

LAW has advised the Prime Minister of Canada, the Attorney General and the Ministers of Immigration, Public Safety and Foreign Affairs that George W. Bush is inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Section 35(1) (a) states that a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights or for committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Also inadmissiable (s.35 (1)(b)) are persons who are, or were, senior officials “in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in gross human rights violations…”

Under sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act:
"crimes against humanity" includes murder, enforced disappearance, deportation, imprisonment, torture, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group.

"war crime" includes wilfull killing, torture and inhuman treatment, unlawful confinement, willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of fair trial rights, intentionally launching that the attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

If there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has been complicit in any of these crimes, entry to Canada must be denied. The Supreme Court of Canada says reasonable grounds are “something more than suspicion but less than…proof on the balance of probabilities.”

Please:

a) let us know if you would like to add your signature to this letter; and,
b) distribute the letter and the request for endorsement to other groups and individuals.
c) post the letter on your site.

Thanks. Gail Davidson

Lawyers Against the War
Tel: +1 604 738-0338
Fax: +1 604 736-1175
Email: law@portal.ca
Website: www.lawyersagainstthewar.org

[Oscar]

Canada should bar or prosecute Bush: lawyer

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news- ... wyer-3378/

Foreign Affairs stays silent on upcoming Calgary visit

Published March 5, 2009 by Jeremy Klaszus in News

Vancouver lawyer Gail Davidson says that because Bush has been 'credibly accused' of war crimes, Canada should deny him entry

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 Centre 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.”

In February, Davidson sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other cabinet ministers asking the Canadian government to either bar Bush from Canada, prosecute him once he arrives, or have the federal attorney general consent to a private prosecution by LAW against the Texan. She hasn’t received a response, and concedes she’s fighting “an uphill battle” with “terrific challenges.” Davidson laid torture charges against Bush during his visit to Vancouver in 2004, but a judge quashed them within days.

The federal government is keeping silent on the upcoming visit. “We have no comments to offer on the visit of Mr. George W. Bush to Calgary,” said Foreign Affairs spokesperson Alain Cacchione in an e-mail to Fast Forward. When told about Davidson’s letter, a spokesperson with the Canadian Border Services Agency said “we wouldn’t comment on something like that.”

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 defence 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.

Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director for Human Rights Watch, says that while there’s legally “all the reason in the world” to prosecute decision-makers in the Bush administration, “it’s a different story” politically. “The Obama administration certainly has not given much in the way of encouraging signals for such a prosecution,” says Mariner, who’s based in New York. “Obama has consistently said that he wants to look forward.” Mariner says that while a U.S. justice department investigation is unlikely, a congressional investigation is more probable — and “that could lead to recommendations for prosecution.”

Mariner’s not expecting a Canadian prosecution against Bush. “Obviously the Canadian government would have to be in favour of it, and that seems rather unlikely,” she says.

Calgary activists, meanwhile, are organizing a number of events for the week of Bush’s visit, culminating in a noontime rally outside the Telus Convention Centre during Bush’s speech. “We want to give him the welcome that he deserves — which is we want him to go back to the States, or we want him arrested,” says organizer Collette Lemieux. Activist Julie Hrdlicka, who visited Iraq twice during the American occupation, agrees. “We need to send a clear message to him that he’s not welcome,” she says.

Lemieux is hopeful that Bush will eventually be prosecuted. “Do I think that it’s going to happen very soon? No,” she says. “But I think that it’s very important that we keep the pressure up…. We have to make it clear that there’s accountability.”

The Plaza Theatre, meanwhile, is screening three Bush-themed documentaries for a “Bush Bash Film Fest” the night of the visit. Half the box office proceeds will go to the United Way.

[Oscar]

Lawmakers Debate Establishing “Truth Commission” on Bush Admin Torture, Rendition and Domestic Spying

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/5/la ... commission

March 5, 2009

On Capitol Hill, debate has begun over forming a truth commission to shed light on the Bush administration’s secret polices on detention, interrogation and domestic spying. A hearing on the issue was held Wednesday, two days after the Obama administration released a series of once-secret Bush administration Justice Department memos that authorized President Bush to deploy the military to carry out raids inside the United States. We speak to human rights attorney Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

Michael Ratner, human right attorney and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of the book The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld.

Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

-----------------------

JUAN GONZALEZ: On Capitol Hill, debate has begun over forming a truth commission to shed light on the Bush administration’s secret polices on detention, interrogation and domestic spying. A hearing on the issue was held Wednesday, two days after the Obama administration released a series of once-secret Bush administration Justice Department memos that authorized President Bush to deploy the military to carry out raids inside the United States. The author of the memos, John Yoo, said Bush could disregard the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, committee chair Patrick Leahy said the newly released memos highlight the need for a truth commission.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Vice President Dick Cheney and others from the Bush administration continue to assert that their tactics, including torture, were appropriate and effective. I don’t think we should let only one side define history on such important questions. It’s important for an independent body to hear these assertions, but also for others, if we’re going to make an objective and independent judgment about what happened and whether it did make our nation safe or less safe.

Just this week, the Department of Justice released more alarming documents from the Office of Legal Counsel demonstrating the last administration’s pinched view of constitutionally protected rights. The memos disregarded the Fourth and First Amendment, justifying warrantless searches, the suppression of free speech, surveillance without warrants, and transferring people to countries known to conduct interrogations that violate human rights. How can anyone suggest such policies do not deserve a thorough, objective review?

I am encouraged that the Obama administration is moving forward. I’m encouraged that a number of the things that—number of the issues we’ve been stonewalled on before are now becoming public. But how did we get to a point where we were holding a legal US resident for more than five years in a military brig without ever bringing charges against him? How did we get to a point where Abu Ghraib happened? How did we get to a point where the United States government tried to make Guantanamo Bay a law-free zone, in order to deny accountability for our actions? How did we get to a point where our premier intelligence agency, the CIA, destroyed nearly a hundred videotapes with evidence of how detainees were being interrogated? How did we get to a point where the White House could say, “If we tell you to do it, even if it breaks the law, it’s alright, because we’re above the law”?

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Patrick Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. At Wednesday’s hearing, several Republican senators and witnesses opposed the creation of a truth commission. This is attorney David Rivkin.

DAVID RIVKIN: There’s another large problem that looms in my view. It’s important to recognize that the commission’s most deleterious and dangerous impact would be to greatly increase the likelihood of former senior US government officials being tried overseas, whether in courts of foreign nations or through international tribunals. And the reason for it is because the matters to be investigated by the commission implicate not only US criminal statues but also international law and which are arguably subject to claims of universal jurisdiction by foreign states.

I have no doubt that foreign prosecutors would eagerly seize upon the supposedly advisory determination that criminal conduct occurred, especially if it is the only authoritative statement on the subject by an official US body as a pretext to commence investigations and bring charges against former government officials. If they were clever, and most of them are, they would argue that the mere fact that the commission was established vividly demonstrates that grave crimes must have been occurred and interpret UN non-prosecution of individuals concerned through formal prosecutorial channels as a mere technicality to be repaired by their own broad assertions of jurisdiction.

AMY GOODMAN: Human rights attorney Michael Ratner joins us now in the firehouse studio, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, author of the book The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld, among others.

Welcome to Democracy Now! I want to talk about the secret memos. Let’s start with this hearing that has been called by Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, calling for an investigation into Bush administration crimes.

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I won’t say I’m exactly biased here, but I think essentially that the Leahy commission is an excuse for non-prosecution. It’s essentially saying, “Let’s put some stuff on the public record. Let’s immunize people. And then,” as he even said, “let’s turn the page and go forward.” That’s really an excuse for non-prosecution. And in the face of what we’ve seen in this country, which is essentially a coup d’etat, a presidential dictatorship and torture, it’s essentially a mouse-like reaction to what we’ve seen. And it’s being set up really by a liberal establishment that is really, in some ways, in many ways, on the same page as the establishment that actually carried out these laws. And it’s saying, “OK, let’s expose it, and then let’s move on.”

And he even says, he says what we’re going to do with the truth commission is we’re going to look and see what mistakes were made. I mean, just ask the hundred people who were tortured in the secret sites about what mistakes were made, or ask the 750 people at Guantanamo, or ask the people at Abu Ghraib. This is not about mistakes. This is about fundamental lawbreaking, about the disposal of the Constitution, and about the end of treaties. So I think, actually, that Leahy’s current proposal is extremely dangerous. I call it the lame commission or basically an excuse for non-prosecution.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And you think that there’s no essential difference between him and the Obama—the White House position at this point?

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, I don’t think he would be out there without the Obama administration at least saying this is maybe a way to go. Look at, there’s a lot of pressure in this country right now for prosecutions. I mean, the polls indicate that people want to see a criminal investigation. We’ve had open—open and notorious admissions of waterboarding by people like Cheney. And we know that waterboarding is torture, even according to Obama.

So, how do you diffuse that pressure? And one way you diffuse it is you set up a, quote, “truth commission” that’s going to give immunity to people. And then, as Leahy himself says—the word he used, I think, is that he objects to those “fixated” on prosecution. Well, you know, it’s a legal requirement that you prosecute torturers in your country. And yet, he calls us “fixated” on it and wants to make this excuse. So I think this is, in a way—you don’t know this—but in conjunction with the Obama administration saying, “Let’s do this. It will dispose of, you know, the human rights groups in the world and others. And let’s go forward.”

JUAN GONZALEZ: And your assessment of these latest memos that the Justice Department has released, in terms of the further proof that they show possible criminal actions?

MICHAEL RATNER: I’m glad you said that, Juan, “further proof,” because, you know, we’ve known a lot of this from the beginning. You know, I remember, actually, six weeks after 9/11 writing an article called “Moving Toward a Police State (Or Have We Arrived?)” And we’ve certainly seen the effects of these memos. We’ve seen the military arrest Jose Padilla in the United States. We’ve seen them do that to al-Marri. We’ve seen torture. We’ve seen secret sites. We’ve seen warrantless wiretapping.

But what we see in these memos—and I recommend them to everybody, because you read these, you are seeing essentially the legal underpinnings of a police state or a dictatorship of the president. There’s no doubt about it. That’s what it is, and it’s not theoretical. These were the actual building blocks of what we had in this country for eight years, in which—and the one you mentioned when we opened, Juan, that what happened here was one of these memos said the military could operate in the United States, and operate in the United States despite the Posse Comitatus law, which prohibits the military from operating in the United States. And when it operates—this is really extraordinary—they can arrest and detain—“arrest” is not the right word—kidnap anyone they want and send them to a detention place anywhere in the world without any kind of law.

And then, on top of that, they can disregard the First Amendment. So this conversation we’re having right now, they could say, “Well, this is harmful to the national security of the United States”—that’s what these memos say—“this type of conversation is harmful, and we can ban this conversation.” And then they could put the military at the door to the firehouse and come in and say the Fourth Amendment, the one that protects us against unlawful searches, that the military could walk in here, search all of us and see if we have anything they don’t like on us. So, no First Amendment, no Fourth Amendment, no Fifth Amendment—essentially, the end of the Constitution and 225 years of constitutional history. In the face of this, this kind of memo, we’re seeing Leahy say, “Let’s see what kind of mistakes were made.”

AMY GOODMAN: Why was Posse Comitatus first put into effect, first passed?

MICHAEL RATNER: You know, that’s a good question. I don’t remember, Amy. It’s unfortunate I don’t remember. But it had to do—it goes back to our constitutional—the original convention, I mean, the original Constitution, that one of the biggest fears is that you don’t want the military operating in a democracy, because the military is not trained in constitutional rights. They’re trained to go in and kill and destroy, and that’s what they do in a country. And so, it was really—it came out of really the amendments that said you can’t quarter soldiers in your houses, all those kind—that kind of push that we don’t want the military enforcing law in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: Go on through the memos that have now been released.

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I said that the key memo is this one that we’ve been discussing, this one that the military can operate in the United States. I mean, as I said, that’s really—you know, I used to talk about Fuehrer’s law when I talked about the President. Everybody thought I’m exaggerating. Fuehrer’s law is what the Fuehrer, Hitler, said; that’s the law. And what these memos do is essentially say that what Bush says is the law. So that’s memo number one.

There’s another memo here on extraordinary rendition. We’ve discussed it here before. That’s where you send people overseas for torture. You nab them or grab them in Pakistan or Afghanistan, send them to another country where it’s more likely than not where they’ll be tortured. And these memos go through why that may—the argument they make is that that’s not against the law, that the Convention Against Torture doesn’t apply and the anti-torture statute, you know, can be avoided by not having the intent to carry out torture. So they essentially authorize sending people—sending people for torture.

Then, two of the memos—and this is pretty interesting—actually concerned Jose Padilla. Jose Padilla, you remember, got off the plane in Chicago, the so-called dirty bomber, never charged with that, and when he’s in the prison, the military comes to the prison door. They knock. Maybe they knock. And they say, “Give us Jose Padilla.” And they grab him. This is in America. This is in the United States. And they take him, and for five years they put him in a military brig. Two of the memos justify and say the President had the power to do that to Jose Padilla, an American citizen living in the United States, that the military could come in—could come in and get him.

Then, a couple of these memos go to what—parts that we haven’t yet seen exposed, which I think will be a broad and vast intelligence effort in the United States, surveillance effort, done by the Department of Defense, under the auspices of these memos, to essentially surveil and look into what all of us are doing in the United States. That hasn’t come out yet completely, but it’s going to be in these memos.

And there’s another memo on the warrantless wiretapping that essentially says the commander-in-chief can carry out warrantless wiretapping as his commander-in-chief power.

And let’s look at what these memos were built on. You know, first you have the question of, are we at war at all? So, first you have this questionable proposition, this questionable proposition that the war against al-Qaeda, so-called war against al-Qaeda, or the global war on terror, is a war at all. Or shouldn’t this be really a legal operation in which people are arrested and charged? So, my position, of course, is this should have been done under law. But so, they first make a questionable assumption about war, and then, once they call it a war, they then say, “Well, the President’s the commander-in-chief, and under war, commander-in-chief power, he can do whatever he wants.” So even if this had been the Second World War, he couldn’t have the power that he’s asserting here.

I have to say that, you know, to see these memos, to put it into that they were actually instrumentalized—this is not just theoretical; this is what was happening here for eight years, essentially a dictatorship—and then to see the response of many of the Democrats here to saying, “Oh, let’s just expose it and turn the page,” I mean, what we’re saying is that’s the way it’s going to happen again, because unless you prosecute people, there is no deterrence for not doing this again. And it’s out there, it’s public. If you’re going to do a commission—and I’m opposed completely to the Leahy type—if you’re going to do one, you can’t bury the issue of prosecution. You have to appoint a special prosecutor and make sure a commission of inquiry works together, because a commission can tear up and finish up prosecutions by giving immunity.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Michael, the prime author of these memos, John Yoo, what happened to him? He went back for awhile, left the Bush administration, went back to Berkeley, law school, to teach. What’s happened with him since?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, first of all, I think that these memos, these most recent ones, shred any semblance, any scintilla of reputation that John Yoo ever had that he was, you know, doing something in essentially an honest way. I mean, this finishes his reputation. I think the only—the questions we’re faced with are, is he going to be disbarred, and is he going to be prosecuted?

And it’s interesting. You know, two of the memos, which I didn’t mention, were issued by Steven Bradbury, who was head of the office that John Yoo was formerly in, the Office of Legal Counsel. And those memos are the—they were done within a few weeks of the Bush administration leaving office, in fact, one within a week of him leaving office, essentially, in a relatively mealy-mouthed way, saying he cautions against looking at the Yoo memos, that they shouldn’t—the OLC doesn’t really agree with them anymore. But he has a footnote in there saying—to protect the John Yoos of the world—saying, “I think all of those prior memos,” referring to the John Yoo memos, “were done—did not violate professional responsibility,” because it’s recognized that currently there’s an investigation going on of John Yoo, and I think it’s very—and Bradbury, himself—and I think it’s very likely that that’s going to come out and say certainly disciplinary, if not disbarment, for those guys. So I think Yoo is facing that and, as I said, prosecution.

Now, his geographical travels, of course, have been—as you said, he went to Berkeley, which, as he described a couple of days ago at a speech in Orange County, is made up of a bunch of hippies and radicals. That’s his former law school, or it’s still his law school. And there’s been a push to get rid of him at the law school. I think he finally realizes he can’t stay there, so he’s teaching at some—I guess a very conservative law school in Orange County, which is, of course, the heart of law schools and others that are very conservative. So he’s slowly being cornered, slowly being cornered.

One thing I should say about Yoo and even about the Leahy hearings, the one—you know, while I think they’re a bad idea, I think one thing that could come out of them, which Rivkin, the conservative commentator, made a good point on—he says, “Look at, you’re going to expose the stuff on the record.” And then, while he didn’t use the name of the Center for Constitutional Rights, he said, “Then people are going to be able to prosecute these guys in Europe, because the evidence is all out there.” And that’s correct. As more and more information comes out and these memos come out, we’re going to continue to pursue efforts in Europe and pursue prosecution at home. The Center actually currently has a campaign, if people go to our website, to actually tell Leahy, “This is not enough. We want prosecution.”

AMY GOODMAN: Where is Donald Rumsfeld?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, you know, he and Rice, right? They’re—you know, what is California? What is it? Like a magnet for right-wingers? You know, they’re both at the—what is it now?—on the campus of Stanford. What’s it called? The Hoover Institution? Yeah. So they’re there, or they’re going there, Rice and Rumsfeld, and they’re going to be some kind of scholars-in-residence at Stanford at the Hoover Institution. And there’s apparently a protest that was starting either yesterday or today objecting to that. So, you know, maybe we can all get them into a corner of Orange County and actually give them their own country and just put prison walls around it. You know, I’m not sure, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: And are there other countries that are pursuing a possible prosecution against any of these Bush administration officials?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, I think right now what’s happening is they’re going to wait and see what Obama does. If Obama doesn’t do anything in the next few months, I think there’s going to be a huge push in Europe. At the same time, there is stuff going on in Europe, and that’s—when there’s conduct or illegalities on the country itself, they don’t have to wait for the United States. So, you have an investigation, that we’ve talked about here, in Italy of the CIA agents going on who kidnapped an Egyptian cleric of the street. In Spain, you have a—

AMY GOODMAN: Explain that. You have CIA officers being tried in absentia in Italy.

MICHAEL RATNER: That’s correct. There were twenty-four CIA officers involved in a conspiracy to kidnap an Egyptian cleric off the streets of Milan. There’s an independent prosecutor in Italy who has been running a trial now for probably a year or more, in which testimony is being taken on what those CIA agents have done. I think there’s arrest warrants issued for a number of those people throughout Europe. So that’s one relatively successful effort in Italy. And again, if you look at it, they actually kidnapped someone and violated the sovereignty of Italy, so they went after them.

Spain, likewise, has an investigation going on with a court, a judge, because the rendition flights landed in Majorca, they landed in Spain. And so, Spain looked, and its territory has been violated. So that’s going on.

But I think, overall, what we’re seeing here is—I mean, from my perspective, we’re seeing actually more push for prosecutions than I actually expected, that the American public, it seems, is not really giving the sort of Obama line, “Let’s look forward and not backward.” Of course, to me, prosecutions is looking forward, because that’s how you prevent torture in the future. So I think we’re seeing a much greater push. I do think, though, that, as I want to say, that the combination of the memos and Leahy should just really send a message to America that we’ve got to make these guys accountable.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What about the—do you have any hopes for any more independent investigations going on in the House at all? Or in—

MICHAEL RATNER: Oh, I think that’s a good question. You know, I think Conyers has a better take on this than Leahy. Conyers does want a commission or an investigation set up, but his material also talks about accountability and prosecutions. I think if you had a commission here—not a commission; I would never call this a truth commission. I mean, this is not—this is not South Africa. This is not, you know, an emerging democracy from, you know, Chile or something. This is—supposedly was a functioning democracy. In that case, you don’t need, quote, “a truth commission." What you need is a commission of inquiry that’s going to lead to prosecutions. And I think that’s much more what Conyers is looking for. I’m sure he’s in favor of prosecutions. And, you know, there’s a huge effort, a grassroots effort, out there, as petitions—hundreds of thousands of people have signed this stuff.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Maher Arar. The Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, has represented this Canadian citizen, who was sent by the United States, when he was transiting through JFK Airport, took him, held him in detention, then sent him to Syria, where he was tortured, eventually got back to Canada. Tell us what is happening. This is a new administration, the Obama administration. What’s happened with this case? He was awarded $10 million by the Canadian government?

MICHAEL RATNER: He was awarded $10 million, completely cleared. As of the end of the Bush administration, he was still on the terrorist list, prohibiting him getting into this country. And there’s a major lawsuit that the Center has pending. We’re awaiting word from that from the Second Circuit here in New York. It was argued before the full set of judges on whether or not he could sue his torturers or really sue the people who sent him to torture—the FBI agents, Ashcroft and others—and whether that’s a constitutional violation. So that’s what we’re waiting on.

We haven’t heard anything about whether the Obama administration is going to say, “Yes, we can do that.” And, you know, this has been a fairly strong negative of the Obama administration. I know you’ve covered it here, their position on state secrecy in the ACLU case on renditions, where they stood up in court and said, “We are insisting on state secrets. We vetted this with the Obama administration, and we’re insisting on it.” Hopefully that will not happen in the Arar case. But there has not yet been the push against this administration, this current one, to say, really, “Open this up, stop the state secrets stuff, and go for real accountability.”

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner is president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. We’re going to break, and we’d like to ask you, Michael, to stay with us, as we go to the segment on Cuba coming up, the more than a thousand artists, musicians, calling for Cuban musicians being able to come into the United States, challenging the blockade. We’ll also be joined by Vicki Huddleston. She was the equivalent of the US ambassador to Cuba, if there was one, the [US Interests Section in Cuba] under George W. Bush, and has taken an interesting stance on this. And we’ll be joined by a Grammy Award-winning musician, Arturo O’Farrill.

Related Links
Senator Patrick Leahy's statement on "Truth Commission"

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/pol ... ssion.html

[Oscar]

Just say no to Bush

http://www.yukon-news.com/letters/11446/

Friday February 20, 2009

By Yukon News

I presume that since Michelle Magnans Calgary Herald story of February 13 (Bush Picks Cowtown For Debut), Calgary Chamber of Commerce vice-president Geoff Pradella has heard something other than positive interest regarding the chambers courtship of former US president George W. Bush.

If not, please consider this note to be the spoiler.

Theres no need to explain ones opinion of Bush and everything he stood for and continues to stand for. Political events of the last decade speak for themselves. Rather, this letter is a challenge to the Calgary chamber and the Calgary Herald.

I would like the Herald to publish the list of Calgary businesses that hold chamber memberships. Let their staffs, colleagues, customers, friends and families see how these businesses support Bush by virtue of their chamber membership. Consumers could either patronize or boycott these businesses accordingly.

If everyone loves Bush there should be nothing to worry about. But this experiment in democratic capitalism wont happen, for the chamber will undoubtedly deny this request and so apply the same mean deception for which Bush is renowned, which depends on consumer ignorance.

I, for one, will never knowingly transact with any Calgary business that supports Bush. If I were a chamber member I would resign my membership immediately, or demand new leadership and a cancellation of Bush's March 17 address.

Graeme McElheran
Edmonton

[Oscar]

Hello, Calgary Chamber of Commerce

March 10, 2009 5:14 PM

Subject: Who Invited Bush to Canada?

I am very unhappy that the Calgary Chamber of Commerce has invited this person into Canada....he should be put in jail!

This does NOT look good in the eyes of the world!

What would make me happy?

If the Calgary Chamber of Commerce uninvited this person to Canada .... before it's too late!

Thank you for your anticipated consideration of this issue.

Yours truly,

Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK

[Oscar]

Too ashamed to publish the Bush event?

From: Marc Loiselle
To: chinfo@calgarychamber.com ; hdouglas@calgarychamber.com ; kkoss@calgarychamber.com ; eleitch@calgarychamber.com ; cfinn@calgarychamber.com ; tabbott@calgarychamber.com ; jgrabic@calgarychamber.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:59 PM

Subject: Bush coming to Calgary??!

Too ashamed to publish the event with former US president George W. Bush on your website?

We hope that Calgary Chamber of Commerce vice-president Geoff Pradella, and you in turn, have had an earful of negative reaction regarding the Chambers courtship of George W.

We find it appalling that such an invitation could be made, when the former president should be on trial for numerous crimes, including war crimes!

We demand that the Chamber`s invitation be rescinded immediately.

Chamber members should resign their membership, or demand new leadership and a cancellation of the March 17th address by Bush.

We have family in Calgary and will urge them to boycott any Chamber member that is found to be supportive of the proposed visit.

Sincerely,

Marc & Anita Loiselle
Vonda, SK

[Oscar]

Bush's Calgary speech 'closed to the media'

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news- ... edia-3339/

Former president won't have to worry about dodging shoes

Published February 19, 2009 by Jeremy Klaszus in News

Former U.S. president George W. Bush won’t have to worry about dodging journalists’ shoes when he speaks in Calgary March 17, as reporters won’t be allowed in the same room as the unpopular Texan.

Christian Darbyshire of tinePublic, the group organizing the event, says news outlets won’t be able to listen to Bush’s lunchtime speech at the Telus Convention Centre. “It’s actually been closed to the media,” says Darbyshire. The Calgary event, called “A Conversation with George W. Bush,” will be the former president’s first public speech since leaving the White House in January. A table for 10 at the private event costs $4,000.

When former U.K. prime minister Tony Blair visited Calgary in November 2007 for a similar $400-a-plate event, journalists were allowed into the event to report on Blair’s speech. (TinePublic also organized that event.) “This is just a different event [with] different rules,” says Darbyshire.

Another group of Calgarians, meanwhile, is planning to let Bush know he’s not welcome in the city. “There will definitely be a protest,” says activist Grant Neufeld.

It won’t be the first time Bush is met with derision in Alberta. The U.S. leader also provoked protests in Calgary when he attended the Kananaskis G8 Summit in 2002.

Barack Obama replaced Bush as president on January 20 — the same day the UN’s special torture rapporteur called on the U.S. to prosecute Bush and former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for authorizing torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, thereby violating the UN Convention Against Torture.

[Oscar]

Letter to RCMP War Crimes Program

Wednesday, March 11, 2009:

LAW sent the attached letter today to the RCMP War Crimes Program requesting them to:

- begin an investigation of George W. Bush for aiding, abetting and counseling torture between November 13, 2001 and November 2008 at Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Bagram prison in Afghanistan and other places; and,

- advise the Prime Minister, Attorney General of Canada and Ministers of Immigration and Public Safety that the George W. Bush administration is a “ government that has engaged in torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity and therefore G.W. Bush, as former President, is also inadmissible under section 35(1)(b) of the IRPA.

PLEASE POST THIS LETTER AND DISTRIBUTE TO MPs, Media and other groups and individuals.

THANKS.

Gail Davidson

Lawyers Against the War
Tel: +1 604 738-0338
Fax: +1 604 736-1175
Email: law@portal.ca
Website: www.lawyersagainstthewar.org

=======================================

Letter to RCMP War Crimes Program

LAWYERS AGAINST THE WAR
Canada 1 877 662 7344
law@portal .ca
www.lawyersagainstthewar.org

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Officer in charge, RCMP War Crimes Section
110 Place d'Orléans, Room 2200
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R2

VIA FACSIMILE: (613) 590-2130

Attention Officer in Charge of RCMP War Crimes Section;

George W. Bush is reported to be planning to visit Calgary Alberta on or before March 17, 2009 as a guest of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

We are writing to report that:

- George W. Bush, former President of the United States and Commander is Chief of the Armed Forces, is inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), section 35(1)(a) because of overwhelming evidence that he has ‘committed, outside Canada, torture and other offences referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWC); and,

- the George W. Bush Administration has engaged in “systematic or gross human rights violations, or a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the CAHWC.

We request that the RCMP War Crimes Section immediately take the following steps:

- begin an investigation of George W. Bush for aiding, abetting and counseling torture between November 13, 2001 and November 2008 at Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Bagram prison in Afghanistan and other places; and,

- advise the Prime Minister, Attorney General of Canada and Ministers of Immigration and Public Safety that the George W. Bush administration is a “ government that has engaged in torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity and therefore G.W. Bush, as former President, is also inadmissible under section 35(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Overwhelming evidence of these allegations against both G.W. Bush and the Bush Administration is widely available. These allegations have triggered Canada’s duty to act to use all legal means to ensure the appropriate investigations, remedies and responses. Canada’s international legal duties specifically prohibit treating these acts as legal, as ignoring the IRPA and allowing Bush into Canada would do.

Under sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, "crimes against humanity" include murder, enforced disappearance, deportation, imprisonment, torture and imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group. War crimes include willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment, unlawful confinement and willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of fair trial rights.

If there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has been complicit in any of these crimes, entry to Canada must be denied. Reasonable grounds, according to the Supreme Court of Canada are “something more than suspicion but less than…proof on the balance of probabilities.”

Many have concluded that the available evidence establishes conclusively that Bush and the Bush Administration committed torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity and that Canada and other states now have a duty to condemn, investigate, prosecute and punish those crimes.

U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, on March 4, 2009 concluded, "The [Bush Administration] aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations,"

U. N. Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin, in February 2009 concluded, “…the United States has created a comprehensive system of extraordinary renditions, prolonged and secret detention, and practices that violate the prohibition against torture and other forms of ill treatment…. States must not aid or assist in the commission of acts of torture, or recognize such practices as lawful, …Under international human rights law, States are under a positive obligation to conduct independent investigations into alleged violations of the right to life, freedom from torture or other inhuman treatment, enforced disappearances or arbitrary detention, to bring to justice those responsible for such acts, and to provide reparations where they have participated in such violations.”1 (underlining added)

The RCMP has a duty to investigate and prevent such crimes at common law2 and also under the War Crimes Program. This program, as you know, was established specifically to meet the challenge of investigating crimes committed outside Canadian territory. The mandate of the War Crimes Program to, “…ensure that the Government of Canada has properly addressed all allegations of war crimes…” is achieved by, “…the RCMP, with the support of DOJ [Department of Justice], investigating allegations involving reprehensible acts that could lead to a possible criminal prosecution.”3

Lawyers Against the War is ready, on request, to provide references to evidence of torture. We are confident that other organizations such as the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, National Lawyers Guild, American Civil Liberties Association and the Center for Constitutional Rights would also be ready to assist by providing references to evidence.

We request a reply before March 17, 2009

Respectfully,

Gail Davidson, Lawyers Against the War

Copied to:
Prime Minster Stephen Harper;
Attorney General Rob Nicholson;
Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety;
Jason Kenney, Minister of Immigration;
Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs;
Jack Layton-Leader of NDP;
Joe Comartin, NDP Justice Critic;
Paul Dewar, NDP Foreign Affairs Critic;
NDP Don Davies, Critic on Immigration;
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff;
Bob Rae, Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic;
Dominic Leblanc, Liberal Justic Critic;
Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal Immigration Critic;
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois Gilles Duceppe;
Real Menard, BQ Justice critic;
Serge Menard, BQ Public Security critic;
Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc Immigration critic;
Paul Crete, Bloc Foreign Affairs critic.
---------------------------
1 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, A/HRC/10/3,4 February 2009.

2 RCMP Act, R.S. 1985, c. R-10, s. 18 and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988, SOR/88-361, s. 17.
See also “[common law] recognizes the existence of a broad conventional or customary duty in the established constabulary as an arm of the State to protect the life, limb and property of the subject.” Shacht v. R. [1973] 1 O.R. 221 at pp. 231-32.

3 Overview of Operations, mandates and Structure, Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program: http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/wc/oms-ams.html

[Oscar]

LAWYERS AGAINST THE WAR
Canada 1 604 738 0338
law@portal.ca www.lawyersagainstthewar.org

Monday, February 23, 2009

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0A2

The Honourable Rob Nicholson
Minister of Justice, House of Commons

The Honourable Peter Van Loan
Minister of Public Safety,
House of Commons

The Honourable Jason Kenney
Minister of Immigration, House of Commons

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon
Minister of Foreign Affairs, House of Commons

Dear Prime Minister and Ministers Nicholson, Van Loan, Kenney and Cannon;

Legal duties triggered by news of visit:
Bar George W. Bush from entering Canada or prosecute him for torture.

George W. Bush, former President of the United States of America (U.S.) and Commander in Chief of the Armed Force, is reported to be coming to Calgary Alberta on March 17, 2009.1

George W. Bush is a person credibly accused of torture and other gross human rights violations, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This fact triggers two branches of Canadian law: first, the Minister of Immigration is legally bound to prevent Bush’s entry into Canada at any time and for any reason; second, if Bush enters Canada, the Attorney General of Canada must prosecute him for torture or provide consent to private prosecution.

With this document, LAW formally requests that the government of Canada immediately take all necessary steps, as required by law, to:

1. ensure that G.W. Bush is denied entry to Canada, in accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA); and,

2. designate the George W. Bush administration, between October 2001 and November 2008 as a “government that…has engaged in systematic or gross human rights violations, or a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, pursuant to s. 35(1)(b) of the IRPA.

Alternately, LAW hereby formally requests that the Attorney General of Canada give written consent to LAW to commence a prosecution of George W. Bush for torture.

We remind you of your government’s oft repeated statement, “The most effective measure to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for suspected perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide is their early detection and subsequent prevention of entry into Canada.”2

Inadmissibility to Canada: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)

The IRPA, section 35(1) (a) & (b), creates two categories of foreign nationals inadmissible to Canada because of human rights violations: individuals and senior members of a government who have engaged, anywhere, in Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA) offences. While CAHWCA includes all international crimes against humanity and war crimes, the accusations of torture against Bush and the Bush administration are alone sufficient, to absolutely bar his entry both as an individual and as the (former) U.S. President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. It should be noted that the CAHWCA, (s. 7), places special responsibility on ‘military commanders’ and other ‘superiors’ for crimes committed by their subordinates that they
knew of, or were criminally negligent in failing to know of, and with respect to which they did not take necessary and reasonable steps to prevent. (CAHWCA list of crimes below)

Inadmissibility to Canada is established when there are “reasonable grounds to believe” the foreign national has engaged in torture or other international crimes. There is no requirement for personal involvement. Neither is there any requirement for proof of the accusations. Evidence of Bush’s involvement in authorizing a systemic regime of torture far exceeds the ‘reasonable grounds’ test and triggers a legal duty to bar his entry to Canada.

Experts’ Opinion: Torture by Bush and the Bush Administration

In June 2008, Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba (USA-Ret.), author of the U.S. Army’s 2004 internal report on Abu Ghraib,3 stated,
“… the Commander-in-Chief [Bush] and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture…. After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current [Bush] administration has committed war crimes. "4

In December 2008 the bipartisan U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee5 published a report, based on an 18-month investigation, 38,000 pages of documents and the testimony of 70 people, that concluded, “senior officials [Bush and others] in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”

In February 2009, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak concluded there is now proof of torture authorized by Bush and others.

"We possess all the evidence which proves that the torture methods used in interrogation by the U.S. government were explicitly ordered by former U.S. defence minister Donald Rumsfeld…Obviously, these orders were given with the highest U.S. authorities' knowledge."6

Professor Nowak further stated that evidence of torture has triggered the legal duty of the U.S. government “to take all necessary steps to bring George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld before a court.” Once Bush crosses the border, Canada will have the legal duty to prosecute G.W. Bush for torture.

In these circumstances, Canada must bar George W. Bush from entering Canada.

Duty to Prosecute

The necessity to prosecute Bush for torture (and other war crimes and crimes against humanity) once he is in Canada, arises from many sources including: Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA), Criminal Code of Canada, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) and Convention against Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). The Rome Statute, obliges Canada generally to, “…exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.” CAT, specifically requires Canada to either prosecute or extradite for prosecution any person within Canadian territory, alleged to have committed torture. (Art. 7)

No Immunity for Prosecution for Torture

In November 2004 when Bush entered Canada, LAW filed a 7-count information alleging that, as President of the U.S. and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Bush had aided, abetted and counseled torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. A judge of the Provincial (Criminal Division) Court of BC dismissed the proceedings on the
basis that as a head of state, Bush had, “immunity from prosecution under the criminal laws of Canada.” The Attorney General of Canada then blocked appeals and an adjudication on the merits, by refusing to consent to the proceedings, presumably on the same basis. No such immunity from prosecution for torture applies to Bush any longer.

We look forward to receiving a timely response to our formal requests for action by the Prime Minister, Minister of Immigration, Attorney General of Canada, Minister of Public Safety and by the Canadian Border Services Agency: actions required by Canadian and by international law.

Sincerely,

Gail Davidson, Lawyers against the War
Amy Bartholomew, LLB, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Law, Carleton University
Professor Francis A. Boyle, USA
National Lawyers Guild, U.S.
Joan Russow (PhD), Global Compliance Research Project, Victoria, Canada
Bev Collins, Prince George BC
Splitting the Sky Mohawk, Alberta
Benjamin Merhav, Australia
Armida Spada-McDougall, Vancouver BC
James Buels, El Paso, Texas.
Tamara Lorincz, Halifax Peace Coalition and Nova Scotia Voice of Women for Peace, Halifax
Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, Vancouver, BC
Nattanya H. Anderson Vancouver BC
Kenneth A. Lerczak, Saginaw, MI 48603
Dr. John R. Brown, Dundas, ON
Eric Malone, Grass Valley, CA
E.J. Ochmanek Jr., Vancouver, BC
Chante Wolf, Veterans For Peace, Chapter 27, MN
Robert and Susan Giesen, Ontonagon Michigan
People for Peace Group, Michigan
John Parry
Harold H. Burbank, II, Attorney, Canton, CT
Croft Woodruff, Coquitlam BC
Drew Nofte, Vancouver BC
Rev. Canon Robert C. Wild, and Mrs. Audrey Wild, Anglican Church of Canada
Nicole St. Denis, Victoria BC
Norm Lowry, Lancaster PA USA
Robert Kochanuk, Private Contractor/Consultant, Edmonton Alberta
Michael Keefer, Professor, School of English and Theatre Studies, University of Guelph
Susan Stout, retired, North Vancouver BC
Darle Nelson, Hamilton ON
Dana Edgar, Victoria BC
Robert Clegg, Calgary, AB
Elsie Dean, Burnaby BC
Janet Hudgins, Vancouver BC
Roy Saetre, Norway
Peter Hartmann, Blaine WA
Andrew Leacock, Vancouver, BC
Shahram Vahhany, Vancouver BC
Rachel Dolfi, Victoria BC
John B. Thomas, Quesnel, B.C.
David Kos.
John McNamer, Kamloops
Dr. Susan W. Mann, Kamloops, and
Simone McNamer, Kamloops BC
Jim Riesberry
Simon Good, Engineer, Ottawa ON
Stewart Seidel, Vancouver, BC
Polly Mann, MN
Ken Pitt, Waterloo, ON
Juergen Dankwort, Ph.D. Vancouver, B.C.
John Shafer, Toronto, ON
David Stewart, Medicine Hat AB
Philip Kienholz, Hay River, NT
Jamie Reid, North Vancouver, BC
Suzanne Gross, Interim Manager, Child and Family Services, Edmonton AB
James Matthew Branum, Attorney, Fort Cobb, OK
Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University
Rose DeShaw, Raging Granny, Kingston, ON
James I Coulter, Arkansas, USA
World Peace Forum Society, Board of Directors, Vancouver BC
Dayne Cook
Chris Froud, Duncan BC
Donald Byers, Maple Creek ,Sask
Wanda Laurin, Peace River AB
Denise Dufault, Burnaby, B.C.
Jay Smith, Edmonton, Alberta
Phil Little, Ladysmith BC
Jim Broom, New Denver BC
Don Ryane, Lethbridge AB
Ian Gartshore, Nanaimo, B.C.
David Boese, St. Catharines, ON
Margaret Kelly Butler
Dana Watson
Diane Morris, Nanaimo BC
Elizabeth Armstrong
Ian Gartshore, Nanaimo B.C.
Wilf Frank, Langley B.C.
J. G. Matheson, Glace Bay N.S.
Paul Christian Chafe, Toronto, ON
Mike Hubbard
Louise Jones, Saskatoon, SASK
Laura Savinkoff
The Boundary Peace Initiative
Marc & Anita Loiselle, Vonda, SK
Samuel Willoughby, lawyer, Toronto ON
Michael Keith Yasheyko
Stephanie McDowall, Nanaimo, B. C.
Margaret Maier, Winnipeg, MB
Michel Chossudovsky, Director/ Directeur, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
Jeff Prager, Minneapolis, MN
Daniel A. Fitzgerald, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Chuck Livingston, Boston Mass.
Terry Ambrose
Sandra Gathercole
Kelly Dowdell, Calgary AB

N.B. Hard copy to follow by mail

Encl.
Relevant Provisions Of The Crimes Against Humanity And War Crimes Act.
Information filed Nov. 30/04 against George W. Bush in the Provincial Court of BC

This letter has been copied to:

Leader Jack Layton-NDP
634-C Centre Block, House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Joe Comartin, Justice Critic
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6

Paul Dewar
Foreign Affairs Critic
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Don Davies
Opposition Critic on Immigration And Public Safety
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A OA6

Bob Rae
Foreign Affairs Critic
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A OA6

Dominic Leblanc
Justice Critic

Maurizio Bevilacqua
Immigration Critic

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Gilles Duceppe
Bureau 533-S, édifice du Centre
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Real Menard
Justice Et Procureur Général
Responsable Région De Montréal
Bureau 218, édifice de la Justice
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Serge Menard
Sécurité Publique
Bureau 286, Édifice de la Confédération
Chambre des communes
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Thierry St-Cyr
Citoyenneté Et Immigration
Bureau 09, Édifice de la Justice
Chambre des communes
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Paul Crete
Affaires Étrangères
Bureau 420, édifice de la Confédération
Chambre des communes
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Lawyers Against the War (LAW) is a Canada-based committee that opposes war and advocates for adherence to international humanitarian law and against impunity for violators.

Contacts:
Gail Davidson, Tel: 604 738 0338; Fax: 604 736 1175, Email: law@portal.ca

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT

Inadmissibility

Rules of interpretation

33. The facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur.

Security

34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for
(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;
(c) engaging in terrorism;
(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;
(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or
(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).

Exception

(2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or a foreign national who satisfies the Minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest.

Human or international rights violations

35. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for
(a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;
(b) being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; or

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES ACT.

OFFENCES OUTSIDE CANADA

6. (1) Every person who, either before or after the coming into force of this section, commits outside Canada
…
(b) a crime against humanity, or
(c) a war crime,
is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted for that offence in accordance with section 8.
(1.1) Every person who conspires or attempts to commit, is an accessory after the fact in relation to, or counsels in relation to, an offence referred to in subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence.

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (1.1)
(a) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, if an intentional killing forms the basis of the offence; and
(b) is liable to imprisonment for life, in any other case.

Definitions

(3) The definitions in this subsection apply in this section.
"crime against humanity" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.
…
"war crime" means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.

(4) For greater certainty, crimes described in articles 6 and 7 and paragraph 2 of article 8 of the Rome Statute are, as of July 17, 1998, crimes according to customary international law, and may be crimes according to customary international law before that date. This does not limit or prejudice in any way the application of existing or developing rules of international law.

ARTICLE 7

Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) murder;
…
(e) imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) torture;
(g) rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
…
(i) enforced disappearance of persons;
(k) other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
…
(e) "torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
…
(i) "enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 8

War crimes

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) wilful killing;
(ii) torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv) extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
…
(vi) wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(b) other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
…
(iv) intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
…
(vi) killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
…
(ix) intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
…
(xi) killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
…
(xiv) declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
…
(xxi) committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
…
(xxv) intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

[As a result of Security Council Resolution 1546 of 8 June 2004, it is arguable that the conflict ceased as of that day to be 'of an international character'. In that case, crimes committed from that day forward would fall under the following provisions:]

(c) in the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:
(i) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(ii) committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
…
(e) other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;
…
(iv) intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;
…
(vi) committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2(f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;
…
(ix) killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;
…
(f) paragraph 2(e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

=================================

1 Department of Justice, Canada War Crimes Program website, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/newsnouv/
nr-cp/2007/doc_32020.html, accessed on February 20, 2009.

2 Canada's Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes: Tenth Annual Report, 2006-2007
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-sec ... 7-eng.html

3 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade, February 2004.

4 Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba (USA-Ret.), Preface to Broken Laws, Broken Lives: Medical Evidence of Torture by U.S. Personnel and its Impacts, A Report by Physicians for Human Rights, June 2008. http://brokenlives.info/?page_id=69

5 Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into The Treatment Of Detainees In U.S. Custody, Dec. 11, 2008. http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/suppor ... 121108.pdf

6 RIGHTS: Call to Try Bush, By Julio Godoy, IPS/Berlin, February 2. 2009.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45636

[Oscar]

Criminal visiting the Calgary Chamber of Commerce?

----- Original Message -----
From: <ernstj@telusplanet.net>
To: "Sorenson, Kevin - M.P." <Sorenson.K@parl.gc.ca>; <mackinnonh@bennettjones.com>; <spitznagelp@bennettjones.com>; "Kevin Sorenson" <mpsorens@telusplanet.net>; <chinfo@calgarychamber.com>; <hdouglas@calgarychamber.com>; <rhofmann@calgarychamber.com>; <tabbott@calgarychamber.com>; <jgrabic@calgarychamber.com>; <hdouglas@calgarychamber.com>; <rhofmann@calgarychamber.com>; <tabbott@calgarychamber.com>
Cc: "Fed.For.Aff.Min. Cannon" <CannonL@parl.qc.ca>; "Fed.Immig.Min. Kenney" <KenneJ@parl.qc.ca>; "GlobalResearch.ca" <crgeditor@yahoo.com>; "Council of Canadians" <bpatterson@canadians.org>; "Calgary Herald" <lmotley@theherald.canwest.com>; "Duncan, Linda - M.P." <Duncan.L@parl.gc.ca>; "David Swann" <calgary.mountainview@assembly.ab.ca>; "JV Anglin" <jvanglin@telus.net>; <ignaieff.m@parl.gc.ca>; <leader@greenparty.ca>; "Duceppe, G. Bloc" <Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca>; <callet@sunpub.com>; <letters@globeandmail.ca>; <letters@nationalpost.com>; "Advocate Newsroom" <editorial@reddeeradvocate.com>; <pcowley@reddeeradvocate.com>; <law@portal.ca>

Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:18 PM

Subject: Criminal visiting the Calgary Chamber of Commerce?


Jessica Ernst
Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0
1-403-677-2074

OPEN LETTER TO MP Sorenson, Directors of Bennet Jones and the Calgary Chamber of Commerce,

Mr. Sorenson, I request that you demand in writing that the abhorrent GW Bush stay out of Canada; to the Directors of Bennet Jones and the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, I request that you cancel your atrocious event. The souls of the many murdered (for profit) innocent women and children bear witness.

Sincerely,

Jessica Ernst
Rosebud, AB

[Oscar]

Legal group asks RCMP to investigate former president George W. Bush

By Charlie Smith Straight Talk March 11, 2009

http://www.straight.com/article-206030/ ... rge-w-bush

An international legal group, Lawyers Against The War, has written a letter to the Mounties asking them to investigate former president George W. Bush "for aiding, abetting and counselling torture between November 13, 2001 and November 2008 at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Bagram prison in Afghanistan and other places".

Download Lawyers Against The War's letter to the RCMP

http://www.straight.com/files/pdf/LAWWa ... 10309F.pdf

Today's (March 11) letter to the RCMP War Crimes Section, which is signed by Vancouver lawyer Gail Davidson, points out that Bush is reported to be planning a to visit Calgary, Alberta as a guest of the city's chamber of commerce.

LAW claims that Bush is "inadmissable to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act...because of overwhelming evidence that he has committed, outside Canada, torture and other offences referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act".

The letter also alleges that Bush has engaged in "systematic or gross human rights violations, or a war crime or a crime against humanity" under subsections 6(3) to 6(5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

"Overwhelming evidence of these allegations against both G.W. Bush and the Bush Administration is widely available," LAW wrote. "These allegations have triggered Canada's duty to act to use all legal means to ensure the appropriate investigations, remedies and responses. Canada's international legal duties specifically prohibit treating these acts as legal, as ignoring the IRPA and allowing Bush into Canada would do."
The letter closes by stating that LAW is ready, on request, to provide references to evidence of torture.

"We are confident that other organizations such as the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, National Lawyers Guild, American Civil Liberties Association and the Center for Constitutional Rights would also be ready to assist by providing references to evidence," LAW stated.
It requested a reply before March 17, which is the day Bush is expected to touch down in Canada.

[Oscar]

Government ignores request to bar Bush from Canada;
LAW to respond at Vancouver press conference Tuesday

MEDIA RELEASE for immediate use March 15, 2009

VANCOUVER, B.C., Canada – Canadian government officials have chosen to ignore a request to bar George W. Bush from entering Canada, but the issue is not going to go away, according to the lawyers’ group that first raised it.

Lawyers Against the War’s (LAW) Gail Davidson said Sunday that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Attorney General Rob Nicholson have been formally notified of their legal obligations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. She told them in a March 11 letter there is “overwhelming evidence that (Bush) has committed, outside Canada, torture and other offences” referred to in Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, and said LAW can provide the evidence.

Harper and other government officials were also told that the act states “if there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has been complicit in any of these crimes, entry to Canada must be denied.”

However, neither Harper nor any other Ministers responded to last month’s request from the group. Consequently, LAW recently asked the RCMP War Crimes Section to investigate the matter and advise the government that Bush is inadmissible.

“We can only conclude that the Harper government has made a political decision to ignore the law and allow Bush to freely enter and leave Canada,” said Davidson. “Canadians are left to wonder why.”

Bush will visit Canada Tuesday, March 17, to give a paid speech in Calgary to a private audience. Davidson said the speech is part of an international speaking tour by Bush that began with a very negative reception from large and angry crowds in Brazil as he began a six-day swing through Latin America.

“LAW and other organizations will continue to press for Bush and other members of the Bush Administration to be treated and dealt with in accordance with Canadian and international law,” Davidson said. “We are confident this will mean investigations and prosecution for torture and other war crimes in Canada or elsewhere.”

She said demonstrations are planned in Calgary and that there will be a public demonstration and press conference at 12:30 pm on Tuesday, March 17, in Vancouver at the 800 Smithe Street entrance to the B.C. Supreme Court sponsored by LAW and StopWar.ca to address the government’s response to the Bush visit.

#############

ATTACHED: Media background paper

CONTACT:

Gail Davidson, e-mail: law@portal.ca tel. 1 877662-7344
Lawyers Against the War, Canada

[Oscar]

What has Canada become?

From: Jeremy Arney <iamjema@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM
To: Ignatieff Michael <Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: All MPs

Mr. Ignatieff,

In the last few months, Canada has been under an extraordinary attack from one man who seems hell bent on destroying everything Canadian people think we stand for.

The Dictatorial Harper appears to be breaking laws even faster than he can make them, and now, with Bill C10 on the books, he can make them just as fast as he wants without even going to parliament.

This was in your hands a few short weeks ago to avoid and you choose not to stop this man; therefore, I am holding you personaly responsible for all his illegal actions that you allow from now until we are rid of him.

I should tell you that, until 4 years ago, I had been a Liberal Party supporter since coming to Canada in 1967. But then I realised that the Liberals no longer represent or care for their employers, the Canadian People. I know that is a very broad generalisation and acknowledge that there a few MPs from all parties who do care for the people, but the parties themselves do not. That is why I ran in the last election for the Canadian Action Party which does care for the people.

To me, it is the ultimate insult to all Canadians that a certain war criminal Bush (yet uncharged is true) is allowed into a secret meeting in Calgary to do whatever nefarious speaking he may choose, and those Canadians who protested were arrested. At the same time, a humanitarian MP from the UK is rejected from entering Canada for unspecified (see below) reasons.

I also understand that the paranoid USA will allow him in again, so perhaps the Canadian Border Sevices Agency is not taking their orders from the US Homeland Security on this one.

Under these circumstance, I guess Mother Teresa would have been rejected too by Harper as she gave comfort to possible future terrorists.

Mr Kenney's spokesperson, Velhsi (Kenney, of course, was unavailable) responded when asked, by refusing to explain the specific grounds, but referred me to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Section 34(1):

34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for
(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;
(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;
(c) engaging in terrorism;
(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;
(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or
(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
- Kim Elliot 20th March 2009--

It is my understanding that Harper is as close as can be to being a member of The Bildederger Group, and the Council for Foreign Relations. He is definitely a supporter of the Trilateral Commission and of the North American Competitiveness Council, all of whom have the avowed intention of doing away with Canada by amalgamating it into the North American Union, based, of course, out of Washington DC.

Where do you stand on these organisations anyway?

My question is: why are you, as leader of our opposition and protector of Canadian peoples' rights and freedoms, allowing such a "person" as Harper to be still walking around; he clearly is unacceptable here in Canada by Kenny's standards and certainly by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. under Section 34. 1. a b c d e & f

Different standards, you say, for ex-US presidents and Canadian dictators....yes, I guess so.

Let it be clearly understood by all that I do not approve of or consent to these mentally unbalanced actions of the people-paid minority leader of Canada, nor do I approve of or consent to your apparent complicity in this matter.

In closing this letter, I recall that when my daughter visited Europe (mostly Italy, Austria, France and Spain) 10 years ago as a grade 12 student, she went with the maple leaf on her back pack, and was welcomed and treated with respect wherever she went.

When I was in Europe 1 year ago, the maple leaves on my baggage were vandalised and I was asked way too many times why we had changed so much in what we were doing to the world: trying to force Ireland to buy fake Monsanto wheat, for example, and why we licked Bush's boots.

This is not the Canada I want for my grandhildren; is it what you want for yours?

Jeremy Arney
Victoria BC.

[Oscar]

Canada’s legal duties regarding alleged war criminals in Canada

September 03, 2009

Members of the House of Commons:

I write to you as Members of Parliament, elected by the people of Canada, to govern the country according to the laws created for the common good and to legislate when the need arises.

It has come to my attention, a matter of public information really, that the three persons most responsible for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan are scheduled to visit Canada. No, these are not members of the Taliban, or the mujahideen, or some Islamic sect. I speak about Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney who are each scheduled at different times to visit Canada this fall.

While I would simply prefer that they be barred entry to Canada, I do think that Canada can exercise a role in promoting international justice by allowing these men to enter the country and then allow the court to decide if "according to Canadian law" they are war criminals. This of course requires that the government of Canada allow, even encourage, law enforcement officers to bring charges against these men upon entry into Canada. It is not for parliament to judge or exonerate, but to defend the law of the land.

There is every good reason to accept that these men, Blair, Bush and Cheney are guilty of war crimes, and with growing revelations in the USA due to investigations initiated by the current government of Obama, Canadian investigators would have little difficulty in presenting a case for criminal charges and for presenting a strong case. The Canadian courts have recently won a conviction against the Rwandan war criminal - Desire Munyaneza, whose horrible deeds in the Rwandan genocide, though atrocious, pale in comparison to the war crimes of Blair, Bush and Cheney and the estimated 1.4 million deaths in Iraq alone directly related to the US (Coalition) invasion (JustForeignPolicy.org).

Your response should be natural and automatic - let the law of the land prevail. Previous parliaments have enacted laws that allow foreign war crimes perpetrators to be brought to justice in our country when they can escape justice in their own countries.

Blair, Bush and Cheney are chosing to visit Canada, confident that the Canadian government and parliament is willing to turn a blind eye to justice and Canadian law.

I hope they are wrong.

Canada’s legal duties

By ratifying the Convention against Torture and the Rome Statue for an International Court, Canada agreed not only to make the torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity crimes under Canadian law but also to participate in acting effectively to prevent and punish these crimes wherever they occur.

To ensure Canada’s ability to fulfill these duties, Parliament has:

o Passed laws enabling Canada to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity wherever the crimes occurred and whatever the nationality of the suspected perpetrators and the victims. (e.g. Criminal Code, torture provisions and the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.) Under the Convention against Torture, when a person suspected of any involvement in torture enters Canada, Canada has a duty to either prosecute that person or extradite him to a state that is willing and able to prosecute.

o Passed laws to ensure that Canada will not allow people suspected of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity and/or gross human rights abuses to enter Canada or otherwise provide a safe haven, even temporarily, for people suspected of any involvement in carrying out or acquiescing to war crimes, crimes against humanity or other gross human rights abuses. (e.g. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act).

Sincerely,

Phil Little
Ladysmith, B.C.
= = = = =

Bush, Cheney and Blair plan to visit Canada in October 2009

From: Lawyers Against The War
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:57 AM

G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Tony Blair scheduled to visit Canada in October/09

In October G.W. Bush, Tony Blair and Dick Cheney, all accused of horrifying war crimes and crimes against humanity plan to visit Canada. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act each of these people if reported plans go ahead.

· G. W. Bush will be, on October 22, 2009, at the Fairmont Queen Elizabeth in Montreal PQ to deliver a lunch-time speech at an invitation-only event organized by tinePUBLIC Inc

· Tony Blair will be the keynote speaker October 6 2009 at the Surrey Regional Economic Summit, at the Sheraton Vancouver Guilford Hotel, Surrey BC. Blair was invited by Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts

· Dick Cheney is booked for a week of fishing at the Silver Hilton Lodge on the Babine River near Smithers BC from October 8 to 15 2009.
Canada’s legal duties

By ratifying the Convention against Torture and the Rome Statue for an International Court, Canada agreed not only to make the torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity crimes under Canadian law but also to participate in acting effectively to prevent and punish these crimes wherever they occur.

To ensure Canada’s ability to fulfill these duties, Parliament has:

o Passed laws enabling Canada to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity wherever the crimes occurred and whatever the nationality of the suspected perpetrators and the victims. (e.g. Criminal Code, torture provisions and the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.) Under the Convention against Torture , when a person suspected of any involvement in torture enters Canada, Canada has a duty to either prosecute that person or extradite him to a state that is willing and able to prosecute.

o Passed laws to ensure that Canada will not allow people suspected of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity and/or gross human rights abuses to enter Canada or otherwise provide a safe haven, even temporarily, for people suspected of any involvement in carrying out or acquiescing to war crimes, crimes against humanity or other gross human rights abuses. (e.g. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act).

The Canadian Ministers responsible are not enforcing these laws. In spite of significant intelligent, peaceful protests, G.W. Bush was allowed entry in Canada in March and May 2009 and Colin Powell was allowed entry in June 2008.

Write to Members of Parliament asking that Canadian Border Services Agency issue a cross-Canada directive to all entry points ordering that G.W. Bush, Tony Blair and Dick Cheney be barred from Canada and, if found in Canada, be arrested and dealt with according to the law. Some email addresses are below.

Attached is the only reply LAW received to our February/09 correspondence regarding the March/09 visit by G.W. Bush. (not sent. Ed)

laytoj@parl.gc.ca; Comartin.J@parl.gc.ca;Dewar.P@parl.gc.ca; Davies.D@parl.gc.ca; Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca; Rae.B@parl.gc.ca; Holland.M@parl.gc.ca; Leblanc.D@parl.gc.ca; Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca; Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca; menarr@parl.gc.ca; menarse@parl.gc.ca; stcyrt@parl.gc.ca; cretep@parl.gc.ca; pm@pm.gc.ca; NichoR@parl.gc.ca; Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca;VanLoan.P@parl.gc.ca; Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca;

Lawyers Against the War
Tel: +1 604 738-0338
Fax: +1 604 736-1175
Email: law@portal.ca
Website: www.lawyersagainstthewar.org