All we need is ONE federal judge with a backbone.

The War Crimes Act of 1996 is part of our federal law and it subjects ALL government officials to penalties if they had anything to do with torture. If death results from the torture (as occurred in several cases), then the government official who allowed the torture could face the death penalty.

A best case scenario may involve a judge or grand jury drawing up charges against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. By that time public pressure for a group impeachment should be building.

******************************************

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings
Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so

***********************************************

War Crimes Act of 1996 (as amended)

18 U.S.C. § 2441. War crimes

(a) Offense.--Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

Todays America hates God, spits on Jesus and an extreme rages for anything white. Our culture, our religion, ourselves banished from society. The Democrats and Republicans both equally follow that agenda. And when a politicians of either party gets out of step, he's removed, destroyed....a hater. Just ask Trent Lott. Question the holocaust and get exported to Europe where you'll face 7 years in prison. Just ask Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf is facing this now. Tolerance for some, none for others...and we call that freedom.

Personally, if beating the living bejeebus out of a sworn jihadist will save JUST ONE American citizen (or soldier, for that matter) from the horrors of 9/11, then BY ALL MEANS!

IF IF IF. If wishes were horses, beggers would ride. The problem is that torture NEVER works to get reliable information.

Torture is never even used for such a purpose. The purpose of torture, humiliation, abuse, etc is to degrade the person and make the torturer feel superior to the prisoner.

It has always been againt American policy until the Bush admininistration changed the policy to allow for torture. It remains, however, against both American and international law. Hence the likely chance that Bush is subject to a charge of crimes. Let him have his day in court. If he did nothing wrong then what is he, or you, so afraid of?

Unfortunately today we have the fighting keyboarders, like yourself, who have no idea what the death and destruction of war is all about because you have never experienced it. For you it just an abstract parlour game. (q.v.)

Much the same could be said about commentators who have no idea of the horrors of slavery in subjugation under a tyrant like Saddam.

However, I cannot think of an instance when any people wittingly and voluntarily took on the chains of slavery to escape the "death and destruction of war." Yet history is replete with examples of those who took up arms to escape slavery. Thus, I submit as empirical: when the choice is between slavery and war, mankind finds the former more atrocious.

"[T]hese people [Castro, Mugabe, etc.] would have to step foot on Canadian soil in order for charges to be laid against them. Rest assured though that when one of these people does visit Canada they’ll get the same treatment Bush is getting."

Tho I might rest assured, I don't rest any safer. Flashback to a Peanuts cartoon from years ago: Charlie Brown is looking down at a napping Snoopy. "Some watchdog. What will we do if a burglar breaks in?" Snoopy, with one eye half opened, replies, "Drag him over here and I'll chew on his ankle."

Having the showy "courage" (i.e., pompous bombast) to indict an alleged torturer -- if he should come stumbling into one's parlor -- is one thing. Having the wherewithal to go after the bastard, drag him from his hole, arrest his evil, shut down his torture chambers, and uncover the mass graves of his victims, is quite another.

The Americans are up to it. To Canadians all -- including the chattering freedom-sopping classes -- you're welcome. I do rest assured that when put to the test most of you, the best of you, would do the same for us.

In a fit of pure get-George-Bush frenzy, "[a] Canadian court has allowed a prosecution of President George Bush under the Criminal Code for violations of the 1987 Convention Against Torture.".
This is disappointing, yet not at all surprising. This k...

Rather than continue the debate over whether or not Bush is actually guilty of torture, he utilizes the liberals' favorite tactic of changing (or somehow altering) the subject. At hand is (1) the question of whether Bush is actually the director for a policy of torture and/or the actual perpetrator of these crimes; (2) whether the country to our north has any jurisdiction on the matter [providing the U.S. limitations on -- and exceptions to --said treaty]; and (3) what actually constitues "torture".

Tossing the Plame card into this argument has nothing to do with the topic of Canada charging Bush with torture. It was used only as a hit against Bush and reveals the commenter's own stance: Get Bush.

Personally, if beating the living bejeebus out of a sworn jihadist will save JUST ONE American citizen (or soldier, for that matter) from the horrors of 9/11, then BY ALL MEANS! But, hey, if humiliation works better and takes less effort -- without inflicting exceutiating PAIN (you know: wood-chippers, rape-rooms, and machetes) -- so much the better.

The discomfort and embarassment inflicted upon the prisoners of AG and Gitmo by forcing them to wear panties on their heads, stand naked in front of women, etc., etc. are not truly torture. That is, unless you are a flag-waving member of the "get Bush at any cost" crowd. Kowtowing to the prisoners' "religion" (HA!) plays right into the hands of these murderous Islamofascists. By dividing American public opinion over the matter of this war, the enemy can win -- just like the Left, the media, and the academic crowd did with Vietnam.

The Administration did not employ a policy of torture. They enacted a policy which withstood the test of the Geneva Conventions. They did not have to, simply because the people trying to destroy our civilization were not signatories of the GC and were therefore not entitled to the treatments prescribed therein. But, maintaining a (stealing ken's words) "moral advantage" meant we had to appease the easily-offended Left. Thus, this became policy.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth over "stressing", humiliating, or making prisoners uncomfortable shows just how far some will go in order to knock down a political opponent -- with complete disregard for the much larger picture. Heck, if Bush ordered all prisoners to wear orange jump-suits, the Left would find a reason to whine and moan about it. This is oh, so evident.

Also ken, don't use the "chicken hawk" term as a way to stifle an argument. since i assume you are a liberal you probably didn't show up to logic class to often. if we extend your premise then the only people who should be making wartime foreign policy would be members of the 82nd Airborne or the commandant of the Marine Corps - that's ok by me - hows about you?

To mr. mCcelland. quick google search turns up a visit by the cuban foreign minister to canada on october 7th. if canada was serious about prosecuting human rights violations then why wasn't the minister held in custody? he is not the chief executive but he certainly is in collusion with 1st citizen castro. On october 17th mr. mugabe gave a speech in Italy. Why wasn't he indicted - canada has a criminal extradition treaty with Italy.

we know why. because at the end of the day it's not about protecting human rights or promoting freedom - its about getting President George W. Bush.

If you'd bothered to actually read this post you'd know that these people would have to step foot on Canadian soil in order for charges to be laid against them. Rest assured though that when one of these people does visit Canada they'll get the same treatment Bush is getting.

Don't pay a lot of attention to that sponge Ken.

He has never served his country prefering to let someone else do his fighting for him. He is surely a coward and a leach sucking the life blood from every American while offering nothing in return. I think his problem is that his welfare check is late and he blames Bush and our troops for every thing that he obviously brings on himself. His lefty thoughts and misguided words are often seen on this blog where someone else has provided the means for him to post.

And Sandra, Your father was the hero to which every American can look up to and thank God for guys like him.

Ken is just a kid and you know what they say, "you can always tell a kid, but you can't tell him much"

Unfortunately today we have the fighting keyboarders, like yourself, who have no idea what the death and destruction of war is all about because you have never experienced it. For you it just an abstract parlour game.

Shame on you.