General discussion

Locked

George Walker Bush.. charges filed..

By Jaqui ·
[Quote}
[pre]
Re: In the Matter of the Information filed in the Provincial Court of British Columbia Vancouver Registry under registry # 128960-1



Against George Walker Bush pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada







An information was accepted for filing today by the Provincial Court of British Columbia Vancouver Registry under registry # 128960-1 charging George Walker Bush with counseling, aiding and abetting the commission of torture by persons know and unknown being members of US Armed Forces against persons known and unknown being detainees at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons. The Attorney General' consent, within 8 days, is necessary before any process can issue. [/pre]



http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAW412A.html

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

43 total posts (Page 1 of 5)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Unclear

by jdclyde In reply to George Walker Bush.. char ...

as to what the exact charges are here, AND what the "Provincial Court of British" would have to say in the matter.

While a world court could possibly try this is they actually had evidance of torture that Bush was guilty of "counseling, aiding and abetting", what possible jurisdiction would this court have?

That is of course assuming that the "case" ever becomes a real case. "The Attorney General' consent, within 8 days, is necessary before any process can issue."

Note the Date of this post. Was almost a year ago, yet you are just now coming across this? (November 30th, 2004) My guess is this is not a valid post and you have been led astray of the facts Jaqui.

I looked at other articles from your "source" and am amazed and disappointed.

Very anti-american, anti-isral, pro-palistine. What a suprise?

Why do the oppinion pieces all have a disclaimer on them? And that is what they are, oppinion. No facts are provided, and nothing to back up any of the lunitic rantings. Saddens me that you could possibly think this way too?

When they write crap like

"How anyone can enjoy their wealth knowing it required burning thousands of innocent babies, ripping the limbs from thousands of innocent women, and draining the lifeblood from thousands of innocent men is too sick to contemplate"

and

"British Terrorism in Iraq
Al Zarqawi and his ?Al-Qaeda in Iraq? are inventions of the occupying forces"


and Ab would have a field day with this one.

"Let?s be very clear: Islam is not an "evil Ideology", as Tony Blair asserted. The teachings of Islam are peace and equality; it is outrageous for Mr. Blair to suggest otherwise. It is Mr. Blair who is riding on an imperialist ideology of violence and domination against the wishes of the majority of the British people.

No other religion which can claim to teach tolerance, pluralism and respect for the other as beautifully as Islam. Here is just one example and I challenge Mr Tony Blair to produce a similar text from Christian sources that specifically recognise other religions.

"Those who believe, and those who are Jewish, and Christians and the Sabians, -- any who believe in God and the Day of Judgement and perform righteous deeds, shall have their reward with their lord; on them shall be no fear, or shall they grieve". (Qur?an, 2:62, 5:69).

It is true that there are verses in the Qur?an that advocate taking arms in self-defence ? as the Iraqi people are resisting foreign occupation of their land. Yet these verses are taken out of context and deliberately misinterpreted as to advocate violence in order to smear the Qur?an and Islam. Contrary to Christian teachings about Prophet Mohammed, Muslims revere Jesus and recognise his miracle."[/]

Collapse -

actually

by Jaqui In reply to Unclear

I was looking for:
Unauthorized use of computer


342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,

(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,

(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system,

(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system, or

(d) uses, possesses, traffics in or permits another person to have access to a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Definitions


(2) In this section,

"computer password" ? mot de passe ?


"computer password" means any data by which a computer service or computer system is capable of being obtained or used;

"computer program" ?programme d'ordinateur?


"computer program" means data representing instructions or statements that, when executed in a computer system, causes the computer system to perform a function;

"computer service" ?service d'ordinateur?


"computer service" includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of data;

"computer system" ?ordinateur?


"computer system" means a device that, or a group of interconnected or related devices one or more of which,

(a) contains computer programs or other data, and

(b) pursuant to computer programs,

(i) performs logic and control, and

(ii) may perform any other function;

"data" ?donn?es?


"data" means representations of information or of concepts that are being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in a computer system;

"electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device" ?dispositif ?lectromagn?tique, acoustique, m?canique ou autre?


"electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device" means any device or apparatus that is used or is capable of being used to intercept any function of a computer system, but does not include a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not better than normal hearing;

"function" ?fonction?


"function" includes logic, control, arithmetic, deletion, storage and retrieval and communication or telecommunication to, from or within a computer system;

"intercept" ?intercepter?


"intercept" includes listen to or record a function of a computer system, or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof;

"traffic" ? trafic ?


"traffic" means, in respect of a computer password, to sell, export from or import into Canada, distribute or deal with in any other way.

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 45; 1997, c. 18, s. 18.

Possession of device to obtain computer service


342.2 (1) Every person who, without lawful justification or excuse, makes, possesses, sells, offers for sale or distributes any instrument or device or any component thereof, the design of which renders it primarily useful for committing an offence under section 342.1, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument, device or component has been used or is or was intended to be used to commit an offence contrary to that section,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Forfeiture


(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), any instrument or device, in relation to which the offence was committed or the possession of which constituted the offence, may, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed, be ordered forfeited to Her Majesty, whereupon it may be disposed of as the Attorney General directs.

Limitation


(3) No order of forfeiture may be made under subsection (2) in respect of any thing that is the property of a person who was not a party to the offence under subsection (1).

1997, c. 18, s. 19.

and ran across it. kind of funny that someone would even try to charge a world leader under the provincial court.
I would have gone to the Supreme court of Canada.
where they could buck it to the world court.

Collapse -

You lost me

by jdclyde In reply to actually

What does your second post have to do with the first? I even downed more coffee and went back and re-read both and am still at a loss? Enlighten me, I am trying to be as open to all ideas as possible.

But yes, the last part you posted was my thoughts exactly as I had previously asked what jurisdiction ANY Canadian court would have over this?

Collapse -

I found

by Jaqui In reply to You lost me

the article on some site I've never heard of before when doing a google search for the criminal code of canada, and following links from the result set.
( bet it's Oz's favorite news source. )

figured, what the hey, post it just for the conversational value of gwb getting charged.
( even though it went nowhere )


doing a bit of research on laws reguarding unauthourised comuter access. what it is defined as, and where each law is from.

so, where are you located, and what are the specific laws about it there?
( each state being different I know, I have a set of links to 19 or 20 states laws about it )

Collapse -

A close neighbor

by jdclyde In reply to I found

Live in Michigan (as my profile states).

Access law, hmm, I have no idea.

Will have to go and take a look. As Security is one of many hats, I guess it would be a good thing to know?

It also would be good to see what FEDERAL laws I have to deal with.

Collapse -

here

by Jaqui In reply to A close neighbor

is the specific laws for michegan:

Mich. Comp. Laws ?? 752.791 to 752.797

www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-act-175-of-1927.pdf

the listing of laws, by state ( not inclusive, as not all states have them when this site was set up )

http://www.onlinesecurity.com/forum/article46.php

Collapse -

Remember when Belgium tried to do this?

by DC Guy In reply to Unclear

Apparently, as fallout from WWII, they have a law that gives their courts jurisdiction to try any war crimes committed anywhere, whether or not Belgium or Belgians were involved.

However, they stop short of giving themselves authority to go outside their borders to arrest the defendants. So they were planning to put Bush on trial the next time he set foot in Belgium.

Apparently the U.S. Petroleum Mafia or the House of Saud got to them and they backed down.

Collapse -

Or just maybe

by jdclyde In reply to Remember when Belgium tri ...

they realized that you can't "arrest" the leader of the only "super power" left in the world?

Called an "act of war".

Pick your fights. Some you just can't win.

This is one they would not have stood a chance with.

Collapse -

Belgium thinks they can judge the world

by Montgomery Gator In reply to Remember when Belgium tri ...

Related to this, Belgium has asked Rwanda to hand over a priest accused of taking part in genocide in Rwanda, and Rwanda has agreed.

http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-09-27T110059Z_01_ALL739709_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-BELGIUM-RWANDA-20050927.XML

However, since the crimes took place in Rwanda, the suspect should be tried in Rwanda by the government of Rwanda. I do not see how Belgium would have jurisdiction over this case, and why Rwanda has agreed to hand the suspect over instead of trying him in Rwandan courts.

Collapse -

What they think in Belgium

by Absolutely In reply to Belgium thinks they can j ...

...is that they can keep out low-life scumsuckers like Slobodan Milosevic and **** Cheney by offering them life imprisonment if they set foot on Belgian soil. It's truly ingenious.

Back to Community Forum
43 total posts (Page 1 of 5)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums