You find a man wanted for serial murder and rape in Ontario in a rowboat in the Caribbean.
I'm going to wear my legalistic hat for this post. The issue here is recognized jurisdiction. The govt. of the USA recognizes the govt. of Canada as a sovereign party with jurisdiction over agreed boundaries, including the province of Ontario. It would be appropriate for Capt. Teapot to turn the guy over to the Canadian authorities, because (except perhaps for lawyer games) there is no question in international law that Canada has jurisdiction.
According to the govt. of the USA, and perhaps the govts. of Britain, Australia and Poland, the U.S. is at the moment the lawful authority in Iraq. As far as I know, the 130 or so countries who are not part of the "coalition of the willing" continue to recognize the Baathist regime as the 'legitimate' government in Iraq -- or at least have taken no official steps to say otherwise. Now effectively you can't turn somebody over to the recognized government if you can't find it, but that's another matter. Legalistically, for those who did not chose to side with the coalition, it's not clear in "international law" that it would be appropriate to turn top officials over to the U.S. It's not the same thing at all as a Canadian fleeing Canadian authorities, or a U.S. citizen fleeing U.S. authorities.
I'm sure the US would gladly charge him with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Again, though, under what authority? The Nuremburg tribunals were established by the four victorious powers, presumably with U.N. backing (since the U.N. was effectively a U.S. instrument in 1945). If I'm not mistaken, the proceedings against Milosovich in the Hague are an ad hoc thing under U.N. auspices. The new ICC wouldn't apply, both because the U.S. hasn't signed on and because it can't try crimes retroactive to its creation. When it comes down to it, a trial for Saddam would be victor's justice (which Nuremburg effectively was) without the multilateral gloss.
I'll reiterate that I don't agree with the stand our government has taken. And it's been rife with contradictions. All I'm trying to do is sketch out a set of reasoning that follows consistently from their initial position.
we've always had a contingent that hated Canada.
LOL, that's a hoot. Must be people with low tolerance for smugness.
The Quebecois seem under the impression the prime ministership is now theirs by right of birth
Yep. Not just the Quebecois -- it seems that Ontario voters would prefer to vote for someone from Quebec as part of their appeasement program. Not an issue in this instance, though. Although Paul Martin comes from Windsor, Ontario, he's lived in Quebec for a long time and represents a Montreal riding in Parliament. He's almost as much a Quebecker as Mulroney was, and Mulroney did fine with Quebec seats. Quebec voters will vote for the closest approximation of a Quebecois. Mulroney got away with it because he was up against the unquestionably anglo Turner. How he would have done against Trudeau, say if he'd won the leadership instead of Clark in '76, is another question (the issue of seasoning aside). Martin vs. Harper will be no contest. |
