Qaddafi Killed

[Jon Miller]

The idolization of trials is actually kind of weird. Trials aren't some sacrament in which divine will reveals the truth.

Trial by combat

JM

[Jon Miller]

In this argument Kuci and KH are obviously right.

JM

[The Mad Monk]

I wonder if the Guevara t-shirts are going to be replaced by Gaddafi t-shirts now.

[kentonio]

In this argument Kuci and KH are obviously right.

JM

No they are not. Saying that a certain group of people do not deserve a trial and should just be killed out of hand is morally repugnant. In the case of a Saddam or Ghadaffi yes the trial is going to be a foregone conclusion because they were guilty as hell, but by carrying it out anyway (preferably in a setting like the ICC) we reaffirm the right of everyone to justice.

[kentonio]

That's not what society decided. Society implicitly decides, by practicing kangaroo courts for "crimes against humanity", that we can invent crimes punishable by death for leaders who have lost favor in a dramatic way. So far we have never seen it applied to people who are not obviously atrocious men, but that is not a guarantor of future responsible use of institutions like the ICC. As an example, all those people who wanted to stick Bush up in the ICC for "war crimes".

Bush started a war based on dishonest information which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Please explain why a leader should be above legal recrimination just because he's American? Maybe he didn't commit any crime, but saying that you shouldn't have to be held up to international standards of behaviour is a little rich when you repeatedly demand those standards from others around the world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's lovely. Are you going to address my point, which is that we've shown leaders that even if they back down peacefully, like Mubarak, they run a great chance of death, and they should fight to the last man?

That point may actually have some salience if, you know, Qaddafi actually backed down instead of fighting to the last man.

Oh, and I'm not going to waste my time instructing you on the intricacies of International Law. FWIW, the term "Crimes against humanity" was defined in the Nuremburg Trials (the precursor to all of this).

[Jon Miller]

No they are not. Saying that a certain group of people do not deserve a trial and should just be killed out of hand is morally repugnant. In the case of a Saddam or Ghadaffi yes the trial is going to be a foregone conclusion because they were guilty as hell, but by carrying it out anyway (preferably in a setting like the ICC) we reaffirm the right of everyone to justice.

As long as countries are sovereign, the ICC has no more right to dispense justice than you or I.

If Qaddafi was in the US, of course he would deserve trial.

JM

[Fake Boris]

There's many reputable sources reporting witness accounts that he kept yelling "Don't shoot" and said to at least one young man, "What did I ever do to you?"

It's really not up for debate whether it happened or not.

Yes I agree.

It was not as clear yesterday at 3 PM, and unlike Mad Monk claimed, there was no footage of this on your link.

[kentonio]

As long as countries are sovereign, the ICC has no more right to dispense justice than you or I.

If Qaddafi was in the US, of course he would deserve trial.

JM

If countries are completely sovereign then what gave the US the right to invade Iraq?

We moved away from the idea of complete national soveriegnty about a century ago, you may recall a certain Woodrow Wilson playing a sizable role in that.

[Fake Boris]

Kentonio, no one thinks that the US invasion of Iraq had anything to do with "rights" or "laws".

[kentonio]

Kentonio, no one thinks that the US invasion of Iraq had anything to do with "rights" or "laws".

Then ideally the US should stop trying to claim the moral high ground if it keeps refusing to engage with the international community on moral issues.

[Fake Boris]

Then ideally the US should stop trying to claim the moral high ground if it keeps refusing to engage with the international community on moral issues.

QFT.

At least Pericles had the balls to say: "We have surpassed them in cruelty". Athens had real politicians, not closeted chickenhawks who've had a lifetime of practice fine tuning their hypocrisy.

[The Mad Monk]

Yes I agree.

It was not as clear yesterday at 3 PM, and unlike Mad Monk claimed, there was no footage of this on your link.

Yeah, I confused it with this one, which I was viewing at the time.

The point stands, these images and videos were all over the web by that time.

[Jon Miller]

If countries are completely sovereign then what gave the US the right to invade Iraq?

Because the US is completely sovereign.

Other, completely sovereign, nations could decide that the US acted wrongly, and react by applying censure or declaring war.

JM
(Note that I do not think that Iraq was a good idea or well prosecuted.)

[Jon Miller]

If we had taken Saddam to the US to try him in a US court, then it would be ridiculous, for the 'crimes' he did against Iraqis.

We would not have had the right to do that. We could have probably tried him for the assassination attempt against Bush Sr.

JM