[Bloquez l'empire!] Charging Bush for War Crimes ...

[Mary Foster]

> [From the Georgia Straight in Vancouver ...]
>
> Bush publication ban lifted
>
> http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=13646
>
> By matthew burrows
> Publish Date: 20-Oct-2005
>
> A Vancouver lawyer has won a procedural victory in her attempt to
prosecute
> U.S. President George W. Bush under the Criminal Code.
>
> Gail Davidson, cofounder of an international group of jurists called
Lawyers
> Against the War, expressed her delight on October 18 following the lifting
of a
> publication ban on court proceedings against the U.S. president.
>
> "It's great news, but really they had no choice," Davidson told the
Georgia
> Straight.
>
> The Kitsilano lawyer got the ball rolling against Bush as soon as he set
foot
> on Canadian soil for his November 30, 2004, visit. As a private citizen,
she
> charged him with seven counts of counselling, aiding, and abetting torture
at
> Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay naval base. She had
her
> charges accepted by a justice of the peace in Vancouver Provincial Court.
>
> Bush faces prison time if the case goes to trial and he is found guilty.
>
> On December 6, 2004, Davidson was at Provincial Court to fix a date for
the
> process hearing. However, Provincial Court Judge William Kitchen promptly
> ordered a Straight reporter and other observers from the courtroom and
> cancelled the charges, declaring them a "nullity". The meeting was deemed
to be
> "in-camera" and Kitchen concluded immediately that Bush had diplomatic
immunity
> during his two-day visit to Canada because he was a head of state.
>
> Davidson subsequently appealed Kitchen's decision and B.C. Supreme Court
> Justice Deborah Satanove directed the Crown to produce submissions on the
> publication bans by October 14. The Crown consented to the termination of
Judge
> Kitchen's Provincial Court ban and an interim ban made by B.C. Supreme
Court
> Justice Patrick Dohm.
>
> "We are next in [B.C. Supreme] court at 10 a.m. on November 25 for the
Crown to
> argue that the case is moot and that the court not hear any argument on
the
> substantive issue as to whether George Bush is protected from prosecution
under
> the laws of Canada by what Judge Kitchen called a "concept of diplomatic
> immunity,"" Davidson wrote in an October 18 e-mail to the Straight.
>
> In an earlier interview with the Straight, Davidson said "nullity" means
the
> charges never legally existed, even though they were approved by a justice
of
> the peace on November 30, 2004. Crown counsel spokesperson Stan Lowe told
the
> Straight that the upcoming November 25 court proceedings - he erroneously
> referred to the case as "Regina versus Bush" - will focus on two issues.
>
> "First of all, the court has to determine whether it has jurisdiction in
the
> Supreme Court to hear the matter," Lowe said. "It's a review, an
application by
> Gail Davidson arising out of a Provincial Court decision. Secondly, part
of the
> issue is whether they [LAW] can proceed in their application without the
> permission of the Attorney General of Canada."
>
> Canadian Attorney General Irwin Cotler must give his consent within eight
days
> of laying charges for the case to continue. The Crown is now raising a
> preliminary objection that B.C. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction
to
> adjudicate on Davidson's appeal because the issues raised are no longer
moot.
> "It's great," Davidson said. "Now the Crown's argument is moving from mute
to
> moot."
>
> As a result of the lifting of the publication ban, the Straight has
obtained a
> copy of the Provincial Court transcript from December 6, 2004. It sheds
new
> light on some of the finer details of why Davidson and LAW laid the
charges.
>
> "It's not a frivolously filed application," Davidson said last year in
court.
> "The application was filed on the 30th [of November] because Mr. Bush was
in
> Canada, thereby giving Canada the jurisdiction to prosecute under 269(1)
[of
> the Criminal Code of Canada], the torture section."
>
> Deputy regional Crown counsel Marion Paruk stated the Bush couldn't be
charged
> because he is a head of state: "This immunity flows from both the common
law,
> international common law, Canadian common law, as well as by Canadian
statute."
>
> In her response - outlining why immunity does not apply to Bush - Davidson
was
> hurried up by Kitchen.
>
> "I can give you a few minutes, not too many. It seems to be a slam dunk to
me.
> I'm not going to get into a long argument about it. It seems to be trite
> criminal law."
>
> Davidson pointed out that Canada signed the 1987 Convention Against
Torture. As
> a result, she said, "amendments to the Criminal Code were made to allow
Canada
> to expand its jurisdiction to prosecute crimes of torture."
>
> Addressing directly the Crown's question of immunity, Davidson referred to
the
> Rome Statute, defining torture as a war crime and barring immunity for
torture
> and other war crimes.
>
> "Well, I'm afraid I don't agree with you," Kitchen said.