From the Times of India

Bush fears arrest, scraps Swiss visit

PTI, Feb 7, 2011, 08.03am IST


WASHINGTON: Former US President George W Bush has reportedly cancelled a visit to Switzerland amid concerns that he could be arrested for allegedly authorising the torture of prisoners.

The former American president was due to speak at a charity gala, making the keynote speech at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner in the city of Geneva on February 12.

Human rights groups in the country have been calling for the Swiss government to arrest Bush over allegations he had ordered the torture of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Court officials have said criminal complaints against Bush have been lodged in Geneva.

He couldn't run that risk. He doesn't own a chalet in Gstaad.

and good luck on getting Obama to demand his release....

__________________
....attached to sanity by a bungee cord.....

Awesome.

Now he can go and hang out with that other war criminal, Henry Kissinger.

F

__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36

I think Bush is not the only one who needs to think twice before traveling to Europe any time soon. The same goes for Cheney and Rumsfeld. After all, they were really the architects of the stupid "war on terror" and of the Guantánamo debacle. Bush was only the BIIC (bumbling idiot in charge).

Who's not a war criminal these days?

__________________
Addicted to a naïve stimulus-response philosophy, we tend to take it for granted that people’s actions depend on nothing but the momentary stimuli that we, the manipulators, can control at will.
-Paul Kecskemeti

Pity no one thought of this when he was in power - sure it's not very diplomatic but you'd save $$$ in security costs and annoyance.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Lucas

Who's not a war criminal these days?

Well, that's a good point. Has Obama finally closed Guantanamo or is it still open, due to 'technical' issues?

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Well, that's a good point. Has Obama finally closed Guantánamo or is it still open, due to 'technical' issues?

That is not exactly the same thing. Obama inherited Guantánamo. As far as I am aware of, Obama has not placed a single new prisoner at that location. He wasn't able to close Guantánamo yet, because he doesn't know where to put the remaining inmates. He can't send them back to where they came from, because there they would be immediately rearrested and treated worse. Any country in the world that is willing to take in one or the other of these inmates is most welcome to do so ... and some countries have done that, but there are still unclaimed prisoners left in Guantánamo.

In my view, the "you-broke-it-you-own-it" rule should be applied, i.e., the U.S. should take the remaining inmates in, and either try them on U.S. ground or, if the U.S. authorities can't put a case together, let them free.

Originally Posted by Francois Cellier

That is not exactly the same thing. Obama inherited Guantánamo. As far as I am aware of, Obama has not placed a single new prisoner at that location.

... but, in general, has kept doing a lot of what GWB was doing wrt "war on terror"...

Quote:

He can't send them back to where they came from, because there they would be immediately rearrested and treated worse (...) or, if the U.S. authorities can't put a case together, let them free.

How is that not the same thing? Send them back home with some damage money and be done with it. Why would they be re-arrested per se? And what would the world say about that? Unfairly sent to Guantanamo, finally released, sent back to Pakistan and, there, arrested again - still on no grounds!

It's not like we like to criticise Pakistan or anyone in the area that does the "war on terror" dirty work but I think people would get pissed off at this...

Beside which, I forgot to add, I am not sure the Geneva Convention or whatever, cares about that kind of shaded distinction... If you're keeping prisoners unfairly and stuff, it's probably enough to make you an accomplice of war crimes...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.