EU Hypocrisy - Redux

[Ned]

Mark, But if the court cannot get ahold of the perpetrators, all they could ever do is have a trial in absentia. There would be no effective remedy without the cooperation of the soldier's home country. The agreement with Afghanistan really is effective to shield the Europeans from war crimes trials.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


IIUIC, Sharons defense was 'I didn't know'. Janviers defense was 'we feared for the life of our men, and were forced to withdraw'.

Quite different situations.

Is cowardice a legal excuse?

[Roland]

Just quoting Sikander:

"but the most salient difference is that the Israelis were more or less capable of controlling the situation going on in Lebanon, while the Dutch Battalion was not."

So, you have to look for responsibility in the political and military ranks who designed the bosnia mission that way. Just that genuine idiocy is not automatically criminal.

The issue with Sharon is whether he actually was knowingly letting the militias perform their massacre while he could have stopped them.

The real criminal past of Sharon is further way back anyway.

[CyberGnu]

Is cowardice a legal excuse?

I don't think it is. And if he is found to be guilty of cowardice and nothing else, I'm guessing he will be punished.

But if all he did was to order a tactical withdrawal, I don't think anyone can blame him. What would be the sense in sacrificing the lives of his men for no reason?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Ned
Mark, But if the court cannot get ahold of the perpetrators, all they could ever do is have a trial in absentia. There would be no effective remedy without the cooperation of the soldier's home country. The agreement with Afghanistan really is effective to shield the Europeans from war crimes trials.

something tells me that if a british/french/whatever soldier was convicted in an international court he would be eventually handed over to avoid the kind of global embarrasment the US goverment has to deal with....

[Ned]

Mark, But if they handed the soldier over, it would be with their consent. This is exactly what the US wants, the consent of the US to ICC jurisdiction over its nationals.

[Roland]

"This is exactly what the US wants, the consent of the US to ICC jurisdiction over its nationals."

No the US also wants other countries not to hand over US nationals to the ICC.

And the US wants to avoid the legal obligation of cooperation.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Ned
Mark, But if they handed the soldier over, it would be with their consent. This is exactly what the US wants, the consent of the US to ICC jurisdiction over its nationals.

and why was i under the impression that the US wanted for the ICC to NOT be able to trial any american?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


IIUIC, Sharons defense was 'I didn't know'. Janviers defense was 'we feared for the life of our men, and were forced to withdraw'.

very good distinction. a subvariant of the second situation is 'we are protecting the highest moral principles and values of the western society, yet we will not risk a single life of our soldiers even if that means more civilian casualties and more suffering for those we are (supposedly) helping

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Re: EU Hypocrisy - Redux

Originally posted by Ned
permitting Christian troops into the Lebanese Palestinian camps in 1982 to look for terrorists, but knowing there was a risk of a massacre, which then took place. Perhaps a 1000 or more died.

Dutch officers who handed over the men, women and children of Sebrenicia to Bosnian Serb army commander Ratko Mladic in 1995 knowing there was a risk of a massacre, which then took place. More than 8000 died.

You could only considere beigian court as hyprocite if they don't trial the dutch case before (1995 - 1982 = 13) 13 years.

Wait 13 years , if they still don't trial dutch officiers then they would be truly hypocryt.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MarkG
and why was i under the impression that the US wanted for the ICC to NOT be able to trial any american?

Because this treaty is flawed in more ways than one - for example, it outlaws land mines. We need them. However, if a real case we agreed with came along - we may just consent to jurisdiction. A good example (although the ICC is not retroactive) is Sen. Kerrey who is alleged to have massacred civilians. Even one of his own men supports the Vietnamese version of events.

[notyoueither]

What's hypocrisy is parading around as if your sh*t don't stink.

It does! Europe is not holier than anyone.

[Roland]

No idea what the ICC statute says on mines - the only thing debated are anti-personal mines. What would you need them for ?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
No idea what the ICC statute says on mines - the only thing debated are anti-personal mines. What would you need them for ?

To blow up those amusing ads in the newspaper?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Roland
No idea what the ICC statute says on mines - the only thing debated are anti-personal mines. What would you need them for ?

To fight a war?