EU Hypocrisy - Redux

[MarkG]

Because this treaty is flawed in more ways than one - for example, it outlaws land mines

what does the ICC have to do with mines?

However, if a real case we agreed with came along - we may just consent to jurisdiction

the following doesnt sound like leaving any room for any other option:

United States on Wednesday threatened to withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping missions if its troops were not exempted from the reach of a new global criminal court.

and what doest Vietnam have anything to do with it?

The court is not retroactive. No crime committed before July 1 can be prosecuted by the tribunal when it begins functioning in The Hague ( news - web sites), Netherlands, sometime next year.

[notyoueither]

Mark.

How is the US, or anyone, supposed to fight a war?

That's what this whole court system f*cks up. Intent. It seems to be more a show of 'we aren't going to ever fight again, therefore we can now judge combatants. After all, we don't have to worry about judging ourselves.'

F*ck u! You have failed miserably in governing and managing yourselves.

Did the Allies go to war with Germany to commit war crimes? No. Did some allied soldiers commit war crimes? Yes. How far up the chain of command do you go when it happens?

That is the problem with the Sharon case. There appears to be 0 evidence that Sharon is responsible for the crimes. However, some Euro court is going to try him as if they are some ultra authority.

In the US, it would have been dismissed before trial. I suspect the same in Britain or Canada. I do not know enough about European courts to say. However, I guess I can assume.

I know that this is a Belgian court. It is not all of Europe. My response is more for all the Euros in this thread who think that they somehow have a better mousetrap since they have lived at peace since, ohhh 1998.

The need to fight wars is real. The need that soldiers not be needlessly harassed is real. Or else democracies will have a hard time finding soldiers.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Roland, can you fill Ned in?

France are pretty much bound to look into it. A french guy was the supreme commander in the area.

Col. Janviers ?

Yes, he didn't order airstrikes against Serbs army.

Official reason : Lake informations on the situation, risks to kill blue helmet soldiers during the strikes.

I don't trust official reason.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Ned
Kropotkin, Well, I believe our good friend Saint Marcus started it all a while back in a discussion on the ICC. Then it was the Americans who were hypocrits.

So? What does that have to do with anything? What kind of sand-box level do you want to keep this on anyway?

I'm wondering what of some people here think international politics is all about. There's loads if hypocrasy involved. Also, states are not the result of one single thought. It's quite possible for a state to act differently on two different occasions without since decisions are made by different individuals that didn't know of the other occasion or didn't agree as it was made by another group of individuals and/or administration.

[Roland]

"That's what this whole court system f*cks up."

Bull****. It's based on the rules of armed conflict that already exist.

"However, some Euro court is going to try him as if they are some ultra authority."

It's called universal jurisdiction. I do not know enough about the charges, the statute and the decision to say whether they overstep the limits - do you ?

"In the US, it would have been dismissed before trial."

The US extends jurisdiction to all kinds of things - usually in flagrant violation of international law.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by notyoueither
F*ck u!

well after that argument i must recognise that you are right

[Zevico]

Sharon has already stood trial. He was found indirectly responsible (or somesuch), and resigned from his post as defense minister at the time.

[notyoueither]

Bull**** Rolland. No court has ever gone after a high ranking officer or minister without clear evidence of direct complicity. You know that.

Until now.

I know that no one has ever made public any information that incriminates Sharon directly. Unless some civy has it and has hidden it for all these years, I doubt it exists.

OK. So the Americans have done some f*cked up things with their courts. Now it's Europe's turn to do the same?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MarkG
well after that argument i must recognise that you are right

You have to read the whole thing Mark, especially the end. Yes, I got a bit emphatic. However, I think I pulled the whole thing together quite nicely by the end.

There's so much 'stuff' flying around on these issues, I allowed myself a little feeling. Sorry. I did not mean fu to you, personally. By the time I re-wrote that I was... oh gahhh

I apologize to you personally, because you do not deserve it.

[Dry]

Re: EU Hypocrisy - Redux

Originally posted by Ned
Tommorrow is June 26th, the date the Belgian court will decide whether to try Ariel Sharon for crimes against humanity for 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.

However, we here narry a peep from the Belgian court concerning the 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.

The massacre permitted by the Dutch was orders of magnitude worse than that committed in Lebanon.

But, do we here demands in Belgium and Holland or the rest of of the EU for even-handed justice. NO!

Hyprocrites!

Errr,... in order for a court to summon sb, there must be a complaint before.
I know no judge in the world who may decide "Today, I decide to summon, errr, ... you there!".
For Sharon, the Pals complaint. For the Dutchies (or the UN) there is still no official complaint AFAIK.

FYI: much less known, there was a complaint against Arafat, at the same court... but I guess that, because it does not give an anti-semitic picture of Belgium, it is not an 'interresting' new.

link:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/28/sharon.belgium/

small extract:
On Tuesday, lawyers representing 33 Israelis and Belgians accused Arafat of initiating terrorist attacks.

The court is already considering complaints against a string of other past and present world leaders, including Cuban President Fidel Castro, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and Rwandan President Paul Kagame.

[Roland]

"No court has ever gone after a high ranking officer or minister without clear evidence of direct complicity. You know that. Until now."

So we are at Belgium again ? Or still at the ICC ?

"I know that no one has ever made public any information that incriminates Sharon directly."

Yes. So ? How does it relate to bringing charges ?

"Now it's Europe's turn to do the same?"

No, you just brought up an assumption about the US court system.

And it seems it's not our turn. At least not in Belgium.

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/26/sharon.belgium/index.html

[MarkG]

apology accepted

[notyoueither]

Roland.

Both the Beglians and the ICC. Charges must require hard evidence in such cases, or they are harrasment. Courts do not lend themselves well to politics.

Evidence... Charges.... I thought the one was connected to the other... or is that just in British courts?

And I am happy to recognize that the Begian court system is working in a good and just way. Hooray!

The entire concept of the Belgian court setting itself up to judge actions anywhere in the world was abhorrent to my thinking of justice and sovereignty. What next, they would rule on the constitution of Canada?

[Roland]

"Charges must require hard evidence in such cases"

When we go into a prosecution yes. When individuals bring "charges" in the broader sense it's for the court or prosecutor to investigate.

"to judge actions anywhere in the world was abhorrent to my thinking of justice and sovereignty."

Only certain crimes. Most countries have provisions for that in penal law. War crimes, highjacking... I think the US pushed for universal jurisdiction on drug offenses.

"What next, they would rule on the constitution of Canada?"

Isn't that up to the House of Lords ?

[notyoueither]

Private charges should not be recognized against foreign soldiers, ministers and heads of state. I think that is what the lesson that this farce teaches.

In a court that is. Have your prosecutors look at all the allegations they like. Charges in a court are a bit more serious where I'm from. Just make sure your court has jurisdiction.

And the US way of looking at drugs anywhere in the world is abhorrent to my thinking of justice and sovereignty.

It might be a bit different though if the DEA can trace the criminal enterprise on a path into the USA. The Belgian courts have no such claim in these cases.

No. the constitution of Canada is no longer up to the House of Lords, nor Belgian courts. No matter how much they would like things to be otherwise.