This is so funny

[Roland]

LaRusso:

"Roland, as Kelsen said, people observe law because it IS law, not because they are punished."

Kelsen emphasised the force element (Zwangsordnung). I'm not sure what you mean there - Grundnorm?

"Yet Dubbya can kill anyone not carrying US passport and get away with it."

Currently yes. Although, when the likes of Milosevic are put on trial, it will be more difficult to say "we go our merry killing ways" then if it is accepted state practice.

Dino:

"That's too bad."

It's good that way. Trust me.

[Fidel]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Roland
LaRusso:
Kelsen emphasised the force element (Zwangsordnung). I'm not sure what you mean there - Grundnorm?

No, I meant that he also said that people observe law because it IS law. He noted that Zwangsordnung only kicks in after the obedience to the law itself (present in many people) is depleted I can find you a quote if you want, but I will be off home soon.



"Yet Dubbya can kill anyone not carrying US passport and get away with it."

Currently yes. Although, when the likes of Milosevic are put on trial, it will be more difficult to say "we go our merry killing ways" then if it is accepted state practice.

Wanna bet 10 euros? CIA is already paying those poor bastards that got their bones broken during interrrogative chitchat in Kandahar base. Imagine what happens to real Al_Qaeda. Wait a sec, they are not human...

[Roland]

"I can find you a quote if you want, but I will be off home soon."

If we're within legal sociology yes. Although I'm not sure and the Kelsen quote would be inetersting...

"Wanna bet 10 euros? CIA is already paying those poor bastards that got their bones broken during interrrogative chitchat in Kandahar base."

Ehm... paying ?

[Fidel]

Kelsen : Pure theory of the law, 2nd ed. Uof Ca Press, 1967, pp35, 44 ff.


Look at IHT in the last couple of days.
They launched missiles on some guys who were after scrap metal left over from the bombs.
Then they raided wrong Afghan village.
IHT claims CIA has been paying them to shut up.

[Saint Marcus]

1) Dutch - should face their Indonesia episode

Late 1940s. Too late to start the trials now.

2) Swedish - should pay us reparations for selling steel to Hitler

1930s/early 1940s. Too late. Also, those aren't crimes against humanity.

3) Yanks - should pay massive reparations to half a dozen nations they invaded

Most aren't cases of crimes against humanity. Vietnam could be considered that, but it's also too long ago.

4) Belgians - should do some soul searching on Kongo

Same as above. Too late.

5) Russians - should send couple of generals to answer about Grozny

The Russians should be held accountable for Chechnya. Maybe someday.

6) the whole of Middle East - bunch of lunatics

True enough. That's why Sharon and probably also Arafat might face trial in Belgium. Others won't even dare to set foot in a western nation out of fear of being arrested (Sadam, among others)

7)Turkey - paradise for minorities

They can and should be held accountable as well.


Still, most on your list simply don't apply. The crimes aren't crimes against humanity, or have been commited far too long ago.

[Roland]

"Kelsen : Pure theory of the law, 2nd ed. Uof Ca Press, 1967, pp35, 44 ff."

Thou shalt not read Kelsen in english!

He refers to religious and moral motivations to follow law, but the "because it is law" thing is something I can't see there...

"They launched missiles on some guys who were after scrap metal left over from the bombs.
Then they raided wrong Afghan village."

Ah, that one. Yes, it seems they also get drawn into local struggles (instead of sueing your neighbour, you tell the yanks he's a Taliban).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Ah, that one. Yes, it seems they also get drawn into local struggles

Yeah, I think they need to start turning over the informants that give them bad intel to the villages that informant chose to target.

Re the whole scrap metal deal: I was under the impression that accusation was far from proven.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Roland
1. War crimes, genocide etc are matters of universal jurisdiction. [/QUOTE]

Nah, Roland, this is much too sweeping. First of all, iurisdiction by whom? Obviously by those who win. Or can you imagine Bush or Clinton under trial for NATO war crimes?

2. Whether the UN SC can create a court and endow it with such jurisdiction can be debated, but under the broad phrasing of the UN statute I'd tend to say yes.

No, the can´t. They have precisely those rights that are put in writ, and no others.

3. Serbia's government extradited Milosevic. This may have been a violation of Yugoslavia's federal constitution, but this constitution does not take precedence over international law.

Oh, yes, if we recognize self-determination of peoples, it does. Particularly as there is no International Criminal Court, yet.

4. Whether NATO intervention was illegal... we could do a nice debate about that and about the concepts of self determination and sovereignty, but it is irrelevant here. First the link between his fall and NATO action is questionable, second there is no fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine equivalent that would render Milosevic being held at the Hague illegal.

Unless we consider the Dutch government an accomplice in a kidnapping.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
It would be interesting to hear justifiable reasons for what he was trying to create - greater Serbia- or to find out that he was not behind all the operations and was not the real leader at all.

Simple. He was never trying to create Greater Serbia. This is a propaganda invention wholesale. What he was trying to do is defending the original Yugoslavia, and when failing in that, giving assistance to Serb minorities that were, as a matter of fact, persecuted in both Croatia and Bosnia. Hardly a crime.

See also the other Milosevic thread (p.2, I think), where I have posted at length about the whole affair.

[Lung]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Those "murdering sunza*****es" (which I grant they were) violated no international laws they agreed to or any national laws.

Er, how about basic human rights? Of course, this can be a grey area as morals are not set in stone - rather they standards dictated by society and change with the times, but grey areas never extend across the entire spectrum. Killing unarmed people because of their race is hardly open to debate, though

What annoys me is that Australia is condemned over illegal immigrants while support exists for people who commit mass genocide. How can they even compare?

I must say i'm rather interested to hear what your views on the Al Quaeda/Taliban prisoners are, considering that you are american. What may they be???

[Lung]

Originally posted by LaRusso
Roland, as Kelsen said, people observe law because it IS law, not because they are punished.

What planet did you come from? Laws are not worth the paper they're written on if they can't be enforced.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Simple. He was never trying to create Greater Serbia. This is a propaganda invention wholesale. What he was trying to do is defending the original Yugoslavia, and when failing in that, giving assistance to Serb minorities that were, as a matter of fact, persecuted in both Croatia and Bosnia. Hardly a crime.

See also the other Milosevic thread (p.2, I think), where I have posted at length about the whole affair.

Well as I pointed already you are plain wrong here does a protection of Serb minority include ethnic clensing of 1/3 of Croatian territort and 170 000 people expelled? Or shelling of city Vukovar fro three months because Croats there did not want to surrender until there were overwhelmed by superior artillery power and numbers and city burned to the ground? Etc...

And prosecution in Croatia there are other ways to act othere than conquer as much as you can and throw all non-serbs out... but prosecution of serbs in Bosnia Anyway he has a full right to defend himself and whole world is watching so if that was the case he better present it well instead of complaining on illegallity of the court.

http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=597371

some news from his four hour defence

[MarkG]

paiktis got any more of this???

[Roland]

Tribune:

"Nah, Roland, this is much too sweeping. First of all, iurisdiction by whom? Obviously by those who win. Or can you imagine Bush or Clinton under trial for NATO war crimes?"

Having jurisdiction does not automatically mean you can actually exercise it. Universal jurisdiction simply means that a state does not need substantial connections to a case. Read eg § 64 StGB.

"No, the can´t. They have precisely those rights that are put in writ, and no others."

Overall yes, though some may be customary, esp as far as SC actions extend to non UN members. Those in the Charter are quite broad. And what they legally can do and what they legally may do are two different things.

"Oh, yes, if we recognize self-determination of peoples, it does. Particularly as there is no International Criminal Court, yet."

If we recognize Haider as god, his word takes precedence over the constitution. So tell me, on what do you base it ? International law or ideology ? What does it entail ? How does it relate to the int.law-national law issue ?

"Unless we consider the Dutch government an accomplice in a kidnapping."

Sure. Just under what set of rules ? International law ? Nope. Dutch law ? Nope. And if you want to put national above international law, shouldn't the dutch be free to do what they want anyway ?

Overall... why this leftie love affair with Slobo ?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Roland
Overall... why this leftie love affair with Slobo ?

Not a fair question. Imagine yourself on the side of 'Why this love affair with Karla del Ponte?"

Much has been said about the values of dissedentism, especialy in our part of the Europe. Well, it feels good (and sometimes even right) to challenge certain things whose only evidentiary weight was that they have been repeated 1000 times.

I watched BBC last night, they invited just an Albanian to comment on it, and the servile news anchor was asking the following questions to this Betulahu guy:
- Is this all rubbish?
- Yes, this is all rubbish.
- Albanians, of course, did not run away from the KLA?
- Of course they did not. My mom was on Kosovo, there was no KLA around. She run away because of the Serbs. She called me by the phone and told me that she will leave because of the Serbian army.

I mean, beats me.....I thought they were being forced out by submachineguns-totting Serbian lunatics...in which case you do not chat over a phone...