Give him the Ben Marble, M.D. treatment!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/swiss-groups-plan-protest-legal-action-during-bush-20110122-030754-673.html

February 12th. See above article that I found. Bring a shoe.

Im preparing a shoe attack. you are welcme! 

i wouldn't waste a bus ticket on getting to a demo against that "has been"....

(cant change history)

(about the video) -I wish all the politics be so open andtransparent!

Can a War Criminal be a has been? just asking..

Easy, good things about him

1. He is no longer president.

2. His stupidity made us laugh.

3. His first name is better than that of his brother

Great point - if only Switzerland was Germany tho, the judges would be preparing the order ... I am not aware of any legal action been taken as of yet, given the context. I guess war criminals are really careful when they chose their vacation destinations in Europe nowadays ...

I wasn't aware he is visiting - how do you know? Is it in the news or do you know if off the record?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/swiss-groups-plan-protest-legal-action-during-bush-20110122-030754-673.html

I saw it in the Tribune about 3 weeks ago.

hey, my shou

 Let's just imagine a hypothetical situation in which Bush is indeed apprehended and indicted for war crimes and/or torture. Let’s take torture, which triggers universal jurisdiction, whereby any state can try a perpetrator of torture. (War crimes might be a little bit more difficult.) So let’s assume it’s for authorizing torture, which can be proven through the available ‘torture memos’. And also let’s assume we do this in a national court and not in the ICC. I don’t think that at this point the International Criminal Court is willing to issue an order for arrest – they are dealing with Sudan and Albania international criminals, not daring to touch Bush. Often the court is depicted as a ‘dumping ground for opposition rebels from African countries’. Perhaps also given Obama’s friendlier attitude to the ICC, the court  doesn’t want to alienate the US at this point. Anyways.

If we forget about the ICC then and focus on the national case, first it would really take a country with balls to lift the former president’s immunity. Certainly not Switzerland given its history of hosting war criminals, exiled dictators and ‘their ‘ financial assets. Perhaps Germany or France, given the periovus court order for Rumsie? Which would certainly put Obama in a very very uncomfortable position. In order to try Bush the court has to strip him off presidential immunity, which continues even after the president is out of office. (However, there are cases when former heads of states have been tried.)  But it is unheard of to try a former American President. With regard to trying even a regular American, the prevailing attitude in US policy maker circles is that no foreign or international court can EVER be good enough to deliver the justice, which the American system would deliver. So translate this to actually holding THE President accountable! It would be interesting given all the trouble Obama has at the moment – Egypt, health care, tax, economy, wars, etc. - how he would react to something like that. I don’t think Obama would use force to bring Bush back to the US (that was an option under an order by Bush who authorized all means to bring back Americans if they were ever arrested in the ICC in the Hague, which would have meant invading). However, Obama wouldn’t be able to allow a former US President being tried.

As I said it’s a long stretch, as it would take a lot of balls for a country to go down that path. But you never know. May be in future. My gut feeling tells me though it ain’t gon’ happen – at least not now in Switzerland.

Um, perhaps some of you forgot or didn't know that former US presidents all have around-the- clock protection from the US Secret Service, not to mention whatever additional protective services they might engage in-country.

Furthermore, any country issuing an arrest warrant for a US ex-president would risk an interruption of trade privileges and every other adverse economic measure that the US could inflict upon it.

Finally, it is likely that US would learn of any such warrant being prepared and would inform that ex-president so that he would never visit that nation.

In any case, it's a highly unlikely scenario for many reasons.

"In any case, it's a highly unlikely scenario for many reasons."

Yes, but the incarceration of the Bush criminal is really fun to contemplate.

here here!!

That was a cracking reply. 8)

The ICC does not 'dare' touch Bush. Because they have no legal right to it.  The United State is not a party to the Rome statute, so the ICC has no jurisdiction in the U.S, or on it's leaders.  Obama made me friendly towards it, but theres no ratification, so its a as worthwhile to Americans as tissue paper.  Like it or not, we value our constitution, and we don't hand over our rights easily.

Bush, like any other president who creates a war is guilty without UN approval, is guilty of .. 'the Crime of Agression"  which good luck defining that...   Its been 100 years, there is still no legal definition for it.  One is proposed to be agreed up on by 2017.  Try then.

It's impossible to make a working definition of a crime againg agression in a responsibility2 protect like atmosphere of the UN.  I believe everyone agrees that someone should have intervened in Rwanda, with or without UN support, a crime of agression would have made Clinton (or whoever else) also a war criminal. Which is why the ICC has left it alone.

In the legal world... its black and white. 

None of this is in support of Bush.. Just saying ;)

Im losing my english apparantly, or its too early for me ;)

@IVET - when you say " . . .given all the trouble Obama has at the moment – Egypt, health care, tax, economy, wars, . .. "

1. Egypt - the only problem is that the US can't accomodate any more increases in the price of gasoline -> they should get descent train system

2: health care - someone has to pay for it, or is the US a 3rd world country because 1/2 their inhabitants don't have health care

3. tax - sinsce most of US taxe are spent on paying for the armed forces, try making a few cuts (or is the power of the miltary the only "great & mighty" left in the US ? - much like many 3rd world dictatorships - ie N. Korea, Myranmar,etc)

4. economy - for a country that is obsessed with only the Wall Street - no wonder they all shop at WalMart

5. wars - why is the US in so many wars to begin with ?   . . . because they started them for their own national gain !

I like Obama, but it will take 30 years for him and anyone else to undo the slop that Bush has created, and then to think that 1/2 of the US has voted and willl vote again for Pallin . . .

#3 is incorrect.

Defense and security spending account for 20% of the US federal budget. Non-security-related international assistance amounts to 1% of the pie.

Social Security accounts for 20% and Medicare/Medicaid 21%, but only 3% on  Education. 

We'd be much better off if we reversed the percentages of Education and Defense.

  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Translator: Good point. However, it is possible that on one occasion the US might not be informed - or even more likely -  the order is issued while Bush is in the country or on the flght to that country - and not before so he is not prepared. It'd be good to just jump out of the bushes (no pun intended) and wack him: 'Surprise!'. I wait for that day ..

Lexillent: The issues you raise (i.e. violation of UN Charter use of force) are on the state level. I was suggesting international individual criminal responsibility - that's why I brought up war crimes and torture, rather than use of force. And we don't even have to touch 'act of agression' here as you made the good point that legally speaking act of agression is a no-go at this point. So, good news is torture and war crimes are enough to bust him. War crimes include unlawful acts during the war (not debating whether the war was waged lawfully or not), such as torture, for example. That's why a national court can try him individually using universal jurisdiction.

For practical reasons, I wanted to focus on the national case rather than the ICC. With the ICC, I just think the political will is not there. As to legal basis, you correctly point out the US is not a party to the ICC. However, apart from the nationality of the alleged perpetrator (Bush), the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes, which occured on the territority of states that accepted ICC's competence. Parties to the ICC at this point also include Afghanistan and Romania among others. It means that even if the US is not a party, anyone who committed a war crime on the territory of these countries may be tried in the ICC. For Afghanistan the crimes we can take would be willful killing and torture. For Romania that would be unlawful detention and interrogation techniques for the CIA flights operating there. (Romania evidence might be difficult to bring though..) So even with the ICC, although the US is not a party to the Rome Statute, the legal basis is there: both in terms of jurisdiction and the nature of the crimes.

Poster on Obama: I really like the Obama guy. Too bad he has to deal with so much, which is none of his making ... Unfortunately, the machinery is in place, the wheels are turning and there is little he can do on these fronts. I certainly wasn't wishing him more headache - I just can't imagine if yet another crisis falls on his shoulders. As you said, 30 years might not be enough ...

@translator - Thanks, I stand corrected, but the spending attribution is still grotesquely pathetic.

 I agree!  Way too much spending on old people!  Time to push them off onto ice flows and oil slicks...along with those bumper stickers that say, "[I]'m spending my grandkids inheiritance!" 

protests are planned at 14:30 (la Poste de Mont-Blanc)

& 19:00 (l'Hotel président Wilson)

on Feb.12.11

bring your own shoe

I will definitely be at Hotel Wilson. It would be wonderful to see the beautiful people of Geneva come out and make a little noise. As I stated in the initial post, he is generally despised and even if it is unlikely he will be hauled off to The Hague, it could be fun to show up and toss a shoe and toss back a little wine. 

Is the Bush dinner at the President Wilson - or was that location chosen for some other reason?

According to the article in the Tribune a few weeks ago, the fundraiser with United Israel Appeal will be held there. 

I removed the visual put up by member Poster, comparing Bush to Hitler. Pls guys, let's not cross the lines here. 

Good move.  Better to comparet Bush to the buffoonish Benito....

Hey,

I am fortunate enough to be from a city (in CANADA no less) that has
had such good relations with good ol` “w” It was his first visit
post-presidency (the city is a oil and gas centre in Canada, and yes a
couple companies profited by the war on Iraq, so I presume are number
of oilmen are indebted to him, ugh :-(  ) .

The politics of the city and province are not unanimously shared by its citizens, naturally a protest was arranged; I attended, perhaps more of an observer and supporter than an active participant. My reluctance towards fully engaging in the protest was that it was the nature of the protest was
founded in hate and anger towards this man. I respect the right for
people to feel angry, however my fury is also mingled with immense
sadness that the tragedy that has occurred. I had a problem with
colleagues of mine screaming in the faces of people who choose to buy
a 400 dollar ticket to listen and perhaps even meet “W”, I had a
problem with perhaps with people who saw him being called murderers. I
don’t see how any justice is being brought by us screaming and hating,
shouldn’t we have learned from Bush and his armies in Iraq.

To me George Bush represents a tragedy and a very dark era in history.
Millions of people are dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, the biggest
refugee crisis the world has ever seen came about from the 2003 war on
Iraq, I have strong  premonition that the Christian population,
Assyrians, in Northern Iraq is decimated-almost all the has been
murdered and whoever survived has sought asylum. This is a horrible
period of mankind and I fail to see how we can rectify by presenting
our grievances in anger and hate. “W” will most likely never be
apprehended, and we all know this. What has happened in Iraq is
unjust, yet I don’t see how Iraq will be able to gain justice. My
biggest concern now is helping the people of Iraq recover. We are not
responsible for the disaster, but hopefully we can move beyond the blame game and realise it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong but how can we learn to move beyond that and help the orphaned children of Iraq, help educate the children and promote literacy in the country (I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to eradicate illiteracy; it not only helps with emancipating people but it helps them gain dignity and confidence, Ive met too many illiterates from Iraq, and I want to change this), helping womens rights and generally developing the country.

In any case point is there are many reasons to protest against Bush, but from my experience is hasn’t achieved anything other than make a couple of wealthy people hate protesters and college students a tad bit more; and shoes stores wealthier as everyone brings a pair of shoes to “throw” at Bush. Let move beyond the hate and anger, even though it is very well-deserved it achieves nothing, and place more emphasis on the helping the people who are still suffering!

-sorry long rant, but I think Genevans and expats, being super intelligent and reasonably proactive at least interested in these issues, can move away college protests/ debates and be more sophisticated in their address of global issues, like what can be solved and will be solved, not the impossible, Bush is most likely never be brought to justice.

I agree with PIA , Great analysis :-)

The Tribune de Genève reports that the visit of former President Bush is apparently cancelled.

http://www.tdg.ch/geneve/actu-geneve/george-bush-ne-viendra-geneve-2011-02-04

(Planned) Protests and demonstrations are not always ineffective. 

Definitely cancelled.

Oh I know protests are not ineffective and I am certainly a person who does encourage people to voice their concerns, go out on the streets and encourage change (the protests in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen and Egypt for example are working, civil disobedience and political activism has created great and much needed change in the world and I consistently encourage people to take the time and be courageous enough to stand up for human rights, peace and justice, even the smallest voice can make a difference). I do this while encouraging protesters to have a goal and a direction, and to refrain from violent or hateful discourse as it is often antithetical to the message that is being be sent. A so called bush welcoming party of sorts, has the purpose of informing the dear former president that in light of what occurred under his presidency, he may not want to get too comfy in our city, or better yet he shouldnt  even come (I have no idea what on earth he is thinking traveling the world giving speeches, has he no shame? I honestly have no idea what his audience are thinking when they choose to attend them, how can they give money to this guy?-to each their own I guess). 

I discourage people from screaming in other peoples faces during protests, especially when some people may just be walking by. If people want to listen to your side of the argument, then they will stop and listen, don't force them to listen to you or even go as far as harassing or insulting them, thats not what we are standing for! The particular anti-Bush protest I attended was not organised by my friends who make effort to keep the protests from getting extreme and out of line, and work hard to keep them peaceful, this is a particular reason why their cause(s) are gaining more and more supporters. Due to the particular circumstances surrounding Bush, we may not apprehend him, but we should still make the effort to rectify injustices by not forgetting the people who have been and still are being victimised by american imperialism.

I recall I had the opportunity of a lifetime of speaking one-on-one, for a few minnutes though, to Madame Louise Arbour,  the lady who lead the indictment against slobadan Milosevic (for me that is pretty awesome, I cant properly describe my admiration for this lady, her endeavours for human justice are incomparable). She recounted to me that when she lead the indictment against him, everyone said it was a impossible task there is no way anyone would apprehend the former yugoslav president, well I am delighted to inform you that she succeeded. So there is always a chance for justice to prevail, and we should not lose hope, but at the same time not lose sight of our goals. However the case with respect to George Bush is really tricky, Kofi Annan himself said it was illegal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm). Being a former american president, a president of a superpower, that the global community, whether they like it or not, rely on it is sadly unlikely he'll face justice. However there is much to be learned from Bush presidency, and much has to be learned so this type of injustice may not reoccur.

I am content he cancelled his visit, good riddance I say!

Although international rule of law has come a long way, unfortunately I don't think we have progressed far enough that international institutions are really able to take concrete action against a major power or its leaders for the "simple" act of initiating the unprovoked use of military force without the appropriate international authorization.

To me, this is the central issue of the Bush presidency.  Allegations of torture, rendition etc are indeed grave, but pale in comparison to the option of unilaterally waged war for the sake of perceived national interests.

Fortunately even if international institutions cannot currently hold the United States or its leaders at the time to account for promoting this paradigm, I think the damage suffered by the United States and the Bush presidency in terms of political capital around the world and domestically will serve as a major deterrent for these types of actions in the future.

To reinforce that deterrent, in a somewhat juvenile sense, it doesn't hurt to remind everyone that Bush is widely disliked wherever he goes as a direct consequence of his actions in office.  On the other hand, it's always better to be mature and reasonable while doing so :)

And Pia it's good to know that all the citizens of Alberta share not a unanimous set of political opinions.  Sometimes we get the wrong idea all the way over in Toronto ;)

Hahahaha! I have no explanation for the politics of my province! I often wonder why Canadians look at me strangely when I mention Im from there, I sometimes forget the impression Alberta leaves on the rest of Canada :-)

The first past the post electoral system distorts the reality of the Albertan public sphere, about 20% (adjusted for population not just voter turn-out) of Albertans actually voted for the tories, leaving 80% of Alberta's political views out of the legislature. It just goes to show what can happen when people don't actively participate in politics. I think a similar situation helped Bush get into Office :-

I don't believe any truth in this Protest of Shoes conspiracy press release.

though, some press follow up:

http://networkedblogs.com/dXAnf

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/world/europe/06bush.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/06/bush-trip-to-switzerland-canceled-amid-threatened-legal-action/?iref=allsearch

Thought you would enjoy this ;)

But who cares about? when there are stories of American leaders like this.. Priorities people...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/09/obama-does-not-dye-hair-michelle-obama-says/

the Bush Protest is still on this eve in GE...

Feb.12.11

17h00 Hotel president Wilson

(cannot attcah poster image webmaster)

^_^

OK, the updated info

http://www.urgencepalestine.ch/Agenda/agenda11.html#Buch

Sat.Feb.12.11
17h00 Hotel President Wilson

http://repaire-cervens.over-blog.com/ext/http://www.urgencepalestine.ch/doc/manifBush.pdf

"Organisée par le Collectif pour l'application des conventions de Genève, contre l’impunité
pour les criminels de guerre, Non à la venue de Bush à Genève,
la manifestation est soutenue par
Action boycott-désinvestissement-sanctions – Aide sanitaire suisse aux Palestiniens – Arab NGOnetwork-Geneva
– Association Droit pour tous – ATTAC Pays de Gex - Cartel Intersyndical du personnel de l’Etat et de la
fonction publique – Centre Europe-Tiers Monde - Collectif Urgence Palestine – Communauté Genevoise d’Action
Syndicale – Coordination en Suisse du Parti Communiste d’Espagne Izquierda Unida – Droit au retour des
Palestiniens – Femmes en Noir-Genève - Fondation de l’entreconnaissance – Gauche anticapitaliste – Gauchebdo
- Génération Palestine – Groupe pour une Suisse sans armée – International Lawyers.org – La Gauche – Les
communistes – Les Verts – Nord-Sud XXI – Nouveau parti anticapitaliste 74-nord – Parti du travail – solidarités
– UNIA – Union des Juristes arabes auprès de l’ONU"

Totally agree on priorities regarding education, healthcare, social Security.

20% depends on how you define/interpret 'defense' spending, its dynamics over the years, comparisons to other countries' military/security budgets as well as hidden costs.. Is it just the Pentagon budget per se which no accounting agency can account for including the the Conressional Budget Office, or do we include Homeland security, projected increase in military hardware acquisisition e.g. F-35, investment in nuclear weapons development, Veteran's Administration budget, CIA budgets, foreign loans to Israel, Columbia and Egypt, AID budgets, Guantanamo and renditions to and maintenace of secret prisons, embassies, 700+ military bases and the losses to the economy of PTSD invalids etc (see Stiglitz on 'The Three Tillion Dollar War' recounting the economic, health and military aquisisition costs of 'defense' against Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the outsourcing to Halliburton and Xe (former Blackwater)!

"With his decision to boost defense spending, President Obama is continuing the process of re-inflating the Pentagon that began in late 1998 — fully three years before the 9/11 attacks on America. The FY 2011 budget marks a milestone, however: The inflation-adjusted rise in spending since 1998 will probably exceed 100 percent in real terms by the end of the fiscal year. Taking the new budget into account, the Defense Department has been granted about $7.2 trillion since 1998, when the post-Cold War decline in defense spending ended".http://www.counterpunch.org/conetta03102010.html

One reason is that—with $549 billion requested for basic military expenditures and another $159 billion requested for U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—the record $708 billion military spending called for by the Obama administration for fiscal 2011 will be nearly equivalent to the military spending of all other nations in the world combined. When it comes to military appropriations, the U.S. government already spends about seven times as much as China, thirteen times as much as Russia, and seventy-three times as much as Iran" .http://www.counterpunch.org/wittner08172010.html

The US economy is the largest and defense spending may seem a fraction of GDP etc. but depends on loans from China and others in the purchase of Treasury bonds.  Without considering some or all of the above, 20% is almost a non sequitir.