CALGARY - The rage on the man's face was evident as he berated police officers preventing him from entering the building where former U.S. president George W. Bush was making a speech Tuesday.

A woman holds a protest sign outside the Calgary convention centre where former U.S. President George Bush was making a speech to the business community in Calgary, Alberta March 17, 2009. (REUTERS/Todd Korol)‘‘There is a war criminal upstairs that has committed murder,'' screamed the man, who identified himself only as Splits the Sky. ‘‘If I try to get in there you will arrest me. What is wrong with you?

‘‘I am going in there and make a citizen's arrest,'' he said as he attempt to push past police. ‘‘Arrest George Bush. Arrest George Bush.''

A few minutes later he was handcuffed and hustled past a long line of Calgary's business elite waiting to get inside the Telus Convention Centre.

Protest organizers say at least four demonstrators were arrested at Tuesday's event.

About 60 Calgary police officers were on duty outside to control between 200 and 300 people carrying signs that read ‘‘No to U.S. Crimes Against Humanity,'' ‘‘Indict Bush For War Crimes'' and ‘‘Canada Is Not Bush Country.''

Another sign read ‘‘Shoe Him The Door'' - a reference to the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoe at Bush during a news conference in Baghdad in December.

Two Calgary men showed up at the demonstration to support the former U.S. president. Their signs read ‘‘The World Is Safer Because of George W. Bush.''

‘‘Thank you, George Bush. Thank you, George Bush,'' they chanted.

‘‘He doesn't sit down and negotiate with terrorists,'' shouted one of the men, who identified himself as Merle.

‘‘Try doing this in Cuba,'' he said as he pointed to the jeering protesters.

There were shoes everywhere during the protest. A young woman wearing a hood, orange jumpsuit and a name tag that said ‘‘Club Gitmo'' was pulling a shoe cannon along with a target festooned with pictures of Bush.

An obviously amused police officer told her to leave.

Some of those opposed to Bush's visit have said he should be arrested as a war criminal because of alleged torture at military prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Tuesday's speech was one of the first public appearances Bush has made since leaving the presidency in January with a dismal approval rating and much of the blame for his country's collapsing economy. The speech was closed to the media.

‘‘It's not too late to turn back. Walk away,'' the demonstrators yelled to some of the 1,500 guests invited to hear Bush speak to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

A couple of hundred people lined up early to go through a special security screening room before entering the hall where Bush was speaking.

A few said the former president has to take some of the responsibility for what has happened in the United States, but also has the right to talk about his administration.

© 2009 The Candadian Press
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/17-10

How many million people live in Canada?

200-300 protesters...

Now that is certainly worth the time and effort to write an article about it...

Actually I think people are too busy surviving to take the time to go and shout at Bush. Bush is not worth that level of anxiety to me. And if our leaders are too reluctant to deal with his past actions what makes the protesters think they ... oh well never mind.

200-300 people doesnt really count as rage in the streets

more like a handful of nutcases harrasing participants

again, what crimes, specifically, did the man commit???? not the administration but him, personally .........

Im still in shock anyone would pay to hear the man speak.

not to mention...it's canada lol

provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants — including prisoners — in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration's arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0630-27.htm

also google the Geneva conventions

Common Article 3 forbids "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." The provision's language is sweeping enough to prohibit many of the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration. That's why the administration had argued that Common Article 3 did not apply to the war on terror, even though legal experts have long concluded that it was intended to provide minimum rights guarantees for all conflicts not otherwise covered by the Geneva Convention.

But here's where the rubber really hits the road. Under federal criminal law, anyone who "commits a war crime … shall be fined … or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." And a war crime is defined as "any conduct … which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva." In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other "outrages upon personal dignity" could face prison or even the death penalty.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0630-27.htm

double post

"A Society of Sheep must in time beget a Government of Wolves" -- Bertrand de Jouvenal

. According to US Army Field Manual 27-10 the chain of command itself determines accountability for war crimes, with the highest participating officer to be held most accountable. Specifically, paragraph 501 in the manual states that commanders who order criminal abuse (or who knew about such criminal abuse and then consequently failed to stop or report it) are then guilty of war crimes. If you look at the public record it is clear that Gens. Sanchez and Miller ordered war crimes and both should be relieved of their command immediately: abuse of prisoners is in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_Administration_War_Crimes_in_Iraq

3. Article 44, paragraph 3, of Protocol I

In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: (a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.



4. Article 51, paragraph 7, of Protocol I

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Interesting but lets face it the simple fact we target civilian infrastructure is also a war crime. We are a nation of war criminals and bush is our hitler and we let him skate.

Once again, your posts are meaningless and do not answer the question posted....

How unfortunate for the Iraqis they cannot field an honest army under our brutal occupation and must resort to the tactics they use. I ask what would you do if you were in their shoes. Saddam gone, no wmds neverwas and here we are still there killing them and blowing the crap out their country and infrastructure. How dare they fight back eh?