 sj |
||
|
||
BS: War crimes ljc
|
|
|
Subject: War crimes ljc From: little john cameron Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:55 PM What do you think of this then.No opinion from me,I am just posing the question. ljc War crimes Petition |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: Lepus Rex Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:57 PM Here it is: To: Mrs. Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights "History teaches that as long as the duty of justice has not been discharged, the spectre of war can re-emerge", Judge Claude Jorda. WE, the undersigned, as the people of this planet, call urgently on Mrs. Mary Robinson to set up a committee to investigate the involvement of Ariel Sharon in war crimes against humanity according to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the General Assembly resolutions 260, 2391, 3074 and Security Council resolution 1296 of United Nations, on behalf of the victims of 1982 massacre of Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. UN's resolutions have made it clear that the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and War Crimes should be prosecuted and duly punished. It is also made clear that the total protection of civilians in an occupied country is in the hands of occupying army. In 1982, Israeli Army was an occupying force in Beirut (Lebanon); according to the international laws they had the responsibility of protection of all civilians under their control. At that time the Israeli Army was under total control of Israeli Defence Ministry, and Ariel Sharon was the Defence Minister. He visited Beirut and pledged total support for the Israeli allied Lebanese Christian Militia. Ariel Sharon himself gave the green light to Lebanese Christian Militia to enter the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in west Beirut, which consequently resulted in the massacre, torture and rape of hundreds of unarmed civilians, mainly women and children. The Israeli Army was not only monitoring the camps and did nothing to stop the massacre, but as a matter of fact, they paved the path for Militias to enter the camps. They had their direct and clear orders from the Israeli Defence Ministry not to interfere and give free hands and assistance to the Lebanese Christian Militia. "There was a clear obligation on political and military leaders to take reasonable steps to protect civilians when they made their orders. In a situation where civilians' lives were clearly at risk, the person giving orders was even more responsible than the ones carrying them out", Judge Richard Goldstone. With the outbreak of news of massacre in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, Israeli public was outraged and went on demonstration, and demanded the resignation of Ariel Sharon and an inquiry to the matter. Israeli Knesset took action and sat up a parliamentary committee to investigate Ariel Sharon's involvement in this inhumane act of atrocity. As result of that inquiry, Ariel Sharon was found responsible for the actions of Lebanese Christian Militia, and consequently forced him to resign from his post as Defence Minister. But of course, as he is an Israeli and these crimes were not committed against Israeli nationals, he was never charged and never appeared in any court of justice in Israel. Now the time has come, all evidences and documents are gathered and ready to set up an investigation committee in order to bring those responsible ones to justice beyond their social or political status. May justice prevails and heals the wounds of survived victims. < Sincerely, The Undersigned
|
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: Lepus Rex Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:59 PM Oh, and I like it. :) But I thought he already was considered a war criminal? ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:18 PM Thank you for this thread ljc. |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 02 - 07:50 PM If you have no opinion ljc why did you post? |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 02 - 08:06 PM Aiece from the Guardian about the birth today of "the long-awaited international criminal court"
"On Thursday, at a ceremony at UN headquarters in New York, the international criminal court will be born. Enough states will ratify the Rome statute of the ICC to bring the total from its present 56 to above the critical number of 60 needed to activate the treaty. The statute, the text of which was drawn up and first signed in 1998, will then come into force on July 1. Acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from then onwards can be investigated and prosecuted by the court. By 2003, the ICC will be up and running, with headquarters in the Hague."
Unfortunately Israel, along with the USA, China, Russia and a lot of others are refusing to be parties to it. And that's all in the article I linked to there. But it'd be much better to have a properly established court to hear these kind of cases rather than cobble together some special tribunal for particular cases, which effectively means war criminals getting away with it unless they come up against what can be dismissed as victors' justice.
|
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 02 - 09:42 PM What do you think of this then.No opinion from me,I am just posing the question. ljc How do you spell troll? I spell it l j c |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 10 Apr 02 - 11:27 PM A moment of sober reflection is perhaps what is needed with this thread, rather than opinions or discussion. And perhaps contributions like McGrath's. Feels like that to me, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: Wolfgang Date: 15 Apr 02 - 10:13 AM MidEastChamber That's where the petition comes from. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Date: 15 Apr 02 - 10:43 AM War is murder and therefore not lightly entered into. Ariel Sharon is no more a criminal than Arafat nor less of one for his actions. The UN has for the most part been totally ineffective throughout its lamentable existance and should be tried for similar crimes itself. Somalia and several other examples.... "Judge Not lest ye yourself be judged" |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: The Pooka Date: 16 Apr 02 - 01:35 AM I too would see both Arafat & Sharon investigated and, if probable cause found, both put on trial. I gotchyer "moral equivalency", riiight heeeah! If it should be answered that Arafat is exempt because he does not lead a nation-state at formal war, then Israelis need only harken back to the early days of the Irgun guerrillas and send unofficial, "private" death squads---citizen militias, y'know, just expressing their deep anger & frustration---in to "take care of business". (Hey, the IRA and the Orange paramilitaries did it; and now their "political wings" have honored seats at the tables of government. "So it goes." - Vonnegut War IS criminal, God damn it. |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 16 Apr 02 - 01:43 AM I don't know, The Pooka. It looks like the Israeli military is doing a pretty good job of expressing their deep anger and frustration as it is. Or are you saying that they should send in some terrorists to take up any slack left by the Military? |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Apr 02 - 08:43 AM Things can only start getting better when the peoples involved put their own leaders on trial for leading them into disaster. And the more they are actually in control of events, the greater the responsibility. |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Date: 16 Apr 02 - 08:57 AM Perhaps it would help if the Arabs would stop shouting Holy War, and teaching young children to commit suicide in the name of Allah. Strange how Arafat's wife can live in Paris and go shopping with her daughter, and at the same time give an interview about how concerned she is about Arabs living in poverty; and "if she had a son she would be proud if he died as a suicide bomber" Perhaps its time they spread some of that oil wealth around their own people and gave them something worth living for? Educate women instead of treating them like chattel; and join the rest of the world in the 21st century. |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: RichM Date: 16 Apr 02 - 09:08 AM War is not murder. Look at any legal definition. The reverse "is killing murder?" is a subject that philosophies, creeds, ethicists, and religions have and will continue to debate, for as long as the human race endures. Does war work? Unfortunately it does. Either one side defeats the other, or both sides eventually become weary of destruction--weary enough to consider nonviolent alternatives.
War is endemic to the human social process. This isn't debatable, since war has always been with us. In the context of the Palestine-Israeli conflict: the combattants have yet to reach the point where the heat of emotions gives way to a weary halt, and then a search for accommodation.
What complicates the solution is that potential intervenors--the USA, EU, Muslim nations, all have their own agendas. Beyond this is the question as to the aims and effects on the world, of the religion of Islam. So far, no one has been able to offer the magic solution to this conflict. So, we wait....
|
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Apr 02 - 11:40 AM The problem with "all war is murder" is that it tends in practice to be interpreted to mean that any attempts to pout a limit on the murder is futile, and undermines the concept of war crimes.
Trying to construct agreed limits is frustrating, and has a risk of appearing to legitimise terrible things - but the alternative is even worse.
War crimes include such practices as killing prisoners, targetting civilians, using civilian prisoners as shields, torturing captives, ethnic cleansing, and other things like that.
Outlaw them and war is still horrible. But at least in wars where people in power knew that they would have to answer in court for it, even if their side won, we might get away from a world in which the vast majority of people killed in wars are non-combatant civilians of all ages. |
|
Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Apr 02 - 03:00 PM And what about the Dutch government resigning en masse for their role in the Serbian massacre? Now that is taking responsibility. A little too late, but still, better than most! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Date: 16 Apr 02 - 03:28 PM If you have any experience in it you know war is murder.. Dont sugar coat it with any idea you can apply civilized rules to combat. You kill the enemy as required, sometimes because you cant take them prisoner, or leave them in the field. Going too far and commiting murder on a mass scale can be judged but who is going to do the judging? The UN is a fucking farce, and the International Court of the Hague not much better. The winners judge the losers and all the rest be damned...An impartial judge doesnt exist except in fiction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: RichM Date: 16 Apr 02 - 05:58 PM The problem with treating *war* as something beyond any rules, is that humans are consistent; once you dismiss rules in one arena(war), it starts to be applied to other arenas (civilian). Where do you draw the line? All human activity should be subject to some ethical standards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Apr 02 - 06:12 PM An honest judge could tell the difference between killing in battle and carrying out massacres of prisoners and murdering civilians. It's just a question of the evidence being produced, and the judge having the courage to do what's right.
I suspect that most people in most countries would have no problems with their politicians being given a fair trial for any crimes they were accused of, and being found guilty and punished if the crimes were proved.
Do people really feel a sense of solidarity with war criminals just because they come from their own country? Or because they are powerful and important people? I think the closer such people were to me the more sense of outrage against them I would feel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: The Pooka Date: 16 Apr 02 - 08:11 PM Carol C, your Q. earlier - nonono. I wrote (emphasis added) "**If it should be answered that Arafat is exempt because he does not lead a nation-state at formal war**, then Israelis need only harken back to the early days of the Irgun guerrillas ..." My point, ineptly expressed, was simply that *Arafat* must not be let off the hook simply because he's not prime minister of a nation or general of an army as such. That's all. If only Sharon is now accountable, then the Israelis in future could escape trial by *switching* to guerrilla terror tactics (which they used to be *very* good at) *instead* of organized military operations. It's not a serious suggestion; it's just to support the point that if both sides commit atrocities, both sides must stand so accused. As for reference to Israeli "deep anger and frustration", that was, quite frankly, satirical of the proposition that the Palestinian terrorists conduct their suicide/homicide bombings because they feel severely pissed off and terribly thwarted and we must be understanding of this. I agree with McGrath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Apr 02 - 08:27 PM The question with Arafat wouldn't be whether he was prime minister or whatever, it would be whether he was in fact in a position to control and stop violence that amounted to war crimes.
Sharon managed to avoid getting tried for the massacres in Lebanon, on the grounds that, though he was in chrge of the miliart operation, he wasn't in fact in full control of what his agents did in Sabra and Shatilla. In Qibya in 1953, where his men killed scores of civilians in an attack on a village that involved blowing up houses, the excuse was, I gather, that they didn't actually know there were people in the houses... Unfortunately perhaps it never ever went to trial in either case, which might have cleared up a lot of things.
I'd like to see them both in the dock in some neutral country. Maybe they'd even get cleared. Being put on trial should have nothing at all to do with whether your side wins or not. If you pull off a successful bank raid, that isn't normally seen as a reason you shouldn't be tried for it, so why should it be different for politicians and generals and other public servants? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: The Pooka Date: 16 Apr 02 - 08:33 PM McGrath - "The question with Arafat...would be whether he was in fact in a position to control and stop violence that amounted to war crimes." / Yes -- or, whether he in fact ordered, inspired, and/or facilitated it. "Being put on trial should have nothing at all to do with whether your side wins or not. " / AMEN. Well said.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Amos Date: 16 Apr 02 - 08:36 PM Perhaps a new look at what constitutes "legal" war should be entered -- not allowing it to simply be legal by reason of declaration but only under conditions of certain defined threats to the survival of a people or the people of a state -- NOT merely to the leaders of the state. The problem is that wars are often caused by insanity and incompetence. Even insanity can sometimes pass, but the death of young, able, intelligent people who step forward in relatively good-faith responses to a PR campaign about defending a homer country against an eneemy country is extremely permanent. I seriously wonder how many soldiers Germany would have raised if the strategies being considered by Hitler and his cohorts were to have been made public BEFORE they were executed under military commannd? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 16 Apr 02 - 08:50 PM Ok, The Pooka. I think I understand the distinction you're making. However, I think it would be a lot more accurate to say that the reason the Palestinians use the tactics they've been using is because they don't have a military force at all. Whereas the Israelis have the fourth biggest military force in the world (at least that's the figure I've been hearing). Maybe if the Palestinians had a military force of their own, they would be using it instead of suicide bombers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 16 Apr 02 - 08:53 PM ...and then the Palestinian leaders could be held accountable to the standards that are set for military forces who are defending their homeland against occupying forces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Date: 16 Apr 02 - 09:13 PM No, the Palestinians do not have a standing army. Palestine has standing terrorists. Those are the ones Israel is trying to eradicate. For the life of me, McGrath, I don't understand why you, and many others who agree with you, believe that an International Tribunal would be fairer than each individual country trying those who commit crimes against them. I don't agree with your P.O.V. at all (not that it will come as a surprise to you of course :>)) I doubt very seriously if any of the countries you name in one of your earlier posts would agree to by-pass their own courts in favor of a world court or tribunal. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 16 Apr 02 - 09:28 PM No, the Palestinians do not have a standing army. Palestine has standing terrorists. Those are the ones Israel is trying to eradicate. And in going about it the way they have, the only thing they have succeded in accomplishing is to create a whole new generation of terrorists. The problem can't be solved with the use of military force. It has to be a political process if the Israelis want to see lasting relief from terrorism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Celtic Soul Date: 16 Apr 02 - 09:49 PM This has nothing at all to do with this thread really, but I am curious here...Israel is the size of New Jersey. For those on the other side of the pond, I can drive the long way through N.J. in less than 3 hours, and across it in one. How can they have the 4th largest military in the world?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 16 Apr 02 - 10:14 PM I can't answer the "how" question, but according to the results of the Google search I just did, it appears that Israel shares the distinction of having the fourth largest military in the world with India and Iraq. So I guess not everyone is in agreement about who has the fourth largest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 16 Apr 02 - 10:33 PM Correction: Aparently the figures on Iraq were prior to the Gulf War. And one site I visited claims that India has the third largest military force in the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Date: 16 Apr 02 - 10:39 PM Carol C: I will pose the same question to you I posed in a thread several weeks ago. When has a conflict of the magnitude that exists between the Palestinians and the Israelies at the present time been resolved over a "peace" table? The Israelies and the Palestinians are at war. Pure and simple. Like it or not. The winner, which will be determined when the loser says "enough" will dictate the terms of the truce. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 16 Apr 02 - 11:10 PM Those Brits that read the lovely pink paper Financial Times know this, it was in the Tueday, April 16, 2002 edition. Perhaps, Americans will see it on their way to the funny pages. A quick synopsis.
The Dutch cabinet resigned on Tuesday, after two ministers forced the hand of premier Wim Kok by saying they would quit over the country's role in the Srebrenica massacre.
This follows a report last week commissioned by the government into how its troops failed to defend the Muslim enclave in Bosnia against a 1995 incursion by Serb forces that left 7,000 inhabitants dead.
After a cabinet meeting lasting nearly four hours, Mr Kok said he was going to see Queen Beatrix to hand in their collective resignation.
At least seven-and-a half thousand Bosnian Muslims missing, presumed dead. Some six thousand of them were the victims of mass executions. That is the dreadful outcome of the events following the invasion and capture of the Srebrenica enclave - an official Safe Area.
At least seven-and-a-half thousand Bosnian Muslims went missing; it is virtually certain that all of them were killed. Around six thousand of these people were slaughtered in mass executions. This is the sad balance of the events of July 1995 that followed the Bosnian-Serbian army's capture of Srebrenica, which had been declared a United Nations 'Safe Area' in 1993. These atrocities have evoked deep emotions.
Dutch troops (Dutchbat) were present at the fall of Srebrenica. Therefore, the ensuing debate was particularly heated in the Netherlands. There were numerous uncertainties about exactly what had occurred. But, the ruling party of the Dutch government took the "hit." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Date: 16 Apr 02 - 11:25 PM A bit of thread creep here but somewhat relevant to the discussion. It is from an article published on 11 April in FrontPageMagazine.com entitled "Ten Tips On Being An Arafat Apologist". Thei "tip" deals with the "Palestinian Homeland"; a term that is much used these days and has been used in this thread. "Tip #1 – Imagine that the Palestinians are fighting for a homeland that was taken away from them by the evil Jews. That's right. The foundation to becoming and remaining a faithful pro-Arafat enthusiast is to intoxicate yourself with the belief that the Palestinians actually once owned a homeland that was, in turn, stolen by the greedy and parasitic Jews. While trying to convince yourself of this fantasy, ignore the historical fact that the Palestine Mandate was never a nation, let alone even a political entity of any kind. It was a "mandate" that was created by the British from the remnants of the Turkish Empire after World War I. 10% of it was given to the Jews and 90% was given to the Palestinian Arabs. The key here is that you should never worry about where 90% of Palestine actually is. Just obsess with the miniscule tiny bit of land that the Israelis "occupy" now. It's not important that this land was never officially "owned" by anyone in the first place. You should also never reflect on whether all of your rage and hatred on this issue is proportional to the fact that Israel consists of 1% of the land in the Middle East. Just get really angry that Israel is on territory that you think should be given to the Palestinians. And because you think this, then it automatically makes it right and historically correct. You should never wonder how your moral indignation on this issue fits with your complete indifference to the fact that Jordan occupies 80% of the land that made up the original Palestine Mandate. So if you really cared about the Palestinians, you would obviously be focusing your energy on protesting the crime being perpetrated by the Jordanians against the Palestinians. But the key here is that, well, deep down, you don't really care about the Palestinians -– and neither should you. You must never admit this, but the Palestinians are only there for you to cynically exploit as pawns in your contributory effort to finish off what Adolph Hitler started. That's right. You know what I'm talking about. And even the Palestinians are in on this with you. I mean, think about it: if the Palestinians themselves really cared about getting a homeland, don't you think that they would be screaming about -- and fighting for -- the land that Jordan occupies? Don't you think it is somewhat curious that Jordan has never, even for a second, been the target of a Palestine liberation movement? Don't you think it is a little bit curious that, in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs rejected an international resolution that would have established a Palestinian state, and instead focused all of their energies on destroying the new Jewish state? You're starting to get the picture now, right? So be a smart and clever Arafat apologist. The overall objective of your life should be facilitating the killing of Jews and destroying the state of Israel. The last thing you should be doing is worrying about the Palestinians. At the same time, however, in terms of what you actually say in public, you must always discuss the Middle East "problem" on the assumption that you are agonizing over the Palestinians' plight and how their entire "homeland" somehow lies in tiny little Israel. It is also a very good idea that you always refer to the myth of how the Jews "stole" the Palestinian "homeland" in passing, because then it makes its reality appear to be a given. You can't believe how effective this ploy can be, especially in the midst of people who know nothing about Middle East history. So believe in yourself and just do it!" I'll try to find the url and post it if anyone waoul care to read the entire piece. I also posted this on 13 April on the "who are the terrorists now" thread. troll
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 16 Apr 02 - 11:33 PM Israel gets 3 billion dollars from the US in foriegn aid (as opposed to 17 million to the Palestinians). The US places the condition that 2 billion of foriegn aid to Israel has to go for military purposes.
DougR, some people would say that peace negotiations are working in Northern Ireland. I don't know, myself, if that is the truth or not, but the people in the US who have been a part of that process have said that it's working.
Having said that, when did people ever go to the moon before they went to the moon? If you always use what has been done before to determine what can be done, you'll never accomplish anything at all. And short of being eliminated through ethnic cleansing, I don't really see the Palestinians giving up until they are free from Israeli occupation according to the terms of the UN resolutions (can't remember the names of them right now) that are being applied to this situation.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Big Mick Date: 16 Apr 02 - 11:36 PM Well said, CarolC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Date: 17 Apr 02 - 12:19 AM I know that Saudi Arabia doesn't send money to Israel; how much do they send to their co-religionist Arab brothers in so-called Palestine? How much do the other wealthy (and not so wealthy) countries send? Israel is our only friend in the Middle-East and we have substantial national interest in what goes on in the area. It rather stands to reason that we want them to have a strong military. The Saudis et.al. have done nothing to promote growth in the region -which they could easily afford to do- because it is to their advantage to keep the West Bank as a giant refugee camp. The Saudi King could bring irrigation water (for example) to the area with his pocket change. It hasn't been done. Why? Because the Arab world wants nothing less than the destruction of the State of Israel. Their own words have proved it time and again. Should they accomplish this feat, the palestinian Arabs will be left to sink or swim with minimal support. Take a good look at how they treat them (the palestinians) now. They keep them in refugee camps and give them no opportunities to start a new life. No. they must wait until Isreal is defeated and then go back "home." Speaking of "occupation" didn't they WIN that territory in the 1967 War? Just asking. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 17 Apr 02 - 12:28 AM troll, re: your accusation that everyone who doesn't agree with Sharon is a Nazi, there are Jews in the US, and even Jews in the Israeli government who don't agree with Sharon. Are they Nazis too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Date: 17 Apr 02 - 01:49 AM Carol, I made no accusation of any kind. I posted a portion of an article satirically talking about those who support Yasser Arafat and addressing the self-deception the author feels they must find necessary to render that support. Sharons name isn't mentioned. I think that it is entirely possible to support NEITHER side or to feel that one side is more in the wrong that the other. Just my opinion> I think that the section you have based your charge on is the one which reads:"You must never admit this, but the Palestinians are only there for you to cynically exploit as pawns in your contributory effort to finish off what Adolph Hitler started. That's right. You know what I'm talking about. And even the Palestinians are in on this with you. I mean, think about it: if the Palestinians themselves really cared about getting a homeland, don't you think that they would be screaming about -- and fighting for -- the land that Jordan occupies? Don't you think it is somewhat curious that Jordan has never, even for a second, been the target of a Palestine liberation movement?
Don't you think it is a little bit curious that, in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs rejected an international resolution that would have established a Palestinian state, and instead focused all of their energies on destroying the new Jewish state?" troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: The Pooka Date: 17 Apr 02 - 02:02 AM Carol C - prominent Palestinian spokespersons are now accusing the Israelis of being Nazis. What a world. If I deliberately murder innocents, I am accountable, irrespective of my "cause" or my "status". Likewise if you do; if bin Laden does; if Sharon does; if Gen. Tommy Franks does; if Timothy McVeigh does; if the IRA does, or the Ulster Red Hand Defenders; --- or the Fatah militias under Arafat. In my book, one woman's terrorist is another man's terrorist. The only true Freedom Fighters are those who struggle, however forlornly, to liberate humankind *from this madness.* May God deliver us from our tribes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Date: 17 Apr 02 - 02:12 AM Here's the address for the article. The authors name is Jaime Glazov. click here troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Date: 17 Apr 02 - 03:14 AM Carol C: you want to compare what is currently going on in Palestine and Israel with what has been going on in Northern Ireland? Okay, but I don't think so. The will of both sides in both confrontations might be similar, but I don't believe (and I'm ducking my head as I say this) I don't think the conflict in Ireland ever reached the same point that it has in the Mid-East at the present moment. I hope the truce in Northern Ireland results in a final solution to the problem there, but I would not bet on it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Apr 02 - 06:10 AM "I don't understand why you, and many others who agree with you, believe that an International Tribunal would be fairer than each individual country trying those who commit crimes against them."
That's called private justice, or vengeance in normal life, and it's what the Mafia does.
The idea of an International Tribune is that is countries are unable or unwilling in particular cases to put on trial their own people who are accused of war crimes, it's there to see that justice is done.
I wouldn't think that our view on the principles involved are so far apart Doug. I think the differences would come in more about the actual facts.
The principles would be that there are some actions which deserve to be treated as criminal, whoever does them, and that where there are serious grounds for thinking that someone has committed such acts, it is right that they should be given a fair trial by a fair court.
I'd also think that we would both agree that, where crimes are committed by people acting as our representatives, we have a particular duty to ensure that they are fully investigated and punished.
Where we might disagree is about the extent to which this is already done. My view is that people in many countries, including the ones we live in, and especially important people, have been allowed to get away with murder; that sometimes there is more hope of a fair trial where the tribunal is not domestic; and that the existence of the International Tribunal is a small step towards making it more likely that these crimes will be deterred in more cases. A very small step.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Apr 02 - 06:23 AM That Glazov has a PhD in history should not deceive us. The article Troll has linked too isn't meant as a piece of serious research but as a piece of one-sided propaganda. I have read similar pieces from the other side and what amazes me most is that close to all of the facts mentioned are correct (as far as I can tell) but that the tales are vastly different. Both sides don't usually work with lies but with omissions. If you read about the same event from different sources you find completely different things mentioned. The only thing both parties agree is that the UN resolution # ... should be respected and isn't by the other side. The number of the resolution they want the focus the attention on, however, differs. Read on the sites Troll has linked to and on the sites of the MidEastChamber I have linked to above and you'll realise that the time for peaceful talks has not come yet as sad as this may be. The ability or the will to see the world with the eyes of the opponent (just for the sake of understanding) is still completely missing. In Northern Ireland, they are much further in that respect. I don't think that Sharon's policy is criminal but I think it is wrong, completely wrong (if that sounds familiar to you, I'm merely paraphrasing Talleyrand). Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Date: 17 Apr 02 - 01:12 PM I don't think the conflict in Ireland ever reached the same point that it has in the Mid-East at the present moment. I guess I have to agree with you on that one, DougR. The magnitude of death and destruction that is currently being visited upon the Palestinians by the Israeli military is probably more comparable to what was happening in Yugoslavia a few years ago than what has happened in Northern Ireland. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,Ard Mhacha Date: 17 Apr 02 - 01:57 PM Doug R, I would agree with you, the conflict in the north of Ireland never got close to the terrible scenes we have witnessed on TV in Palestine. As a resident of north-east Ireland I am truly thankful. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Apr 02 - 02:32 PM McGrath, you have very good arguments for an International Court and I'm with you there, but you are off the mark with the Mafia comparison. Doug writes of trials and that is not what the Mafia is known for. You both disagree whether an International Court or a National Court is the better choice, but a National Court with a trial is very far from private justice or Mafia. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Apr 02 - 02:36 PM Thank God they never did get to this level in the Northern Ireland war. But all the ingredients were there for it to have. The British Government botched things badly enough, and helped keep the pot boiling for long long years, but there were at least some kinds of limits, limits which were consistently disregarded in the Holy Land conflict. There's been a feedback process of violence.
Yes there was shoot-to-kill and internment, and Bloody Sunday, all feeding into the madness. But if there had been an official policy of assassination of militants on the streets of Dundalk or Dublin, or as then were driving in their cars with their families; if there had been armed colonies of Loyalist, with military garrisons to guard them set up on strategic places throughout the Republic, and checkpoints on roads everywhere, and armed incursions and raids on communities in the Republic after every bombing carried out by the IRA, or by any breakaway group of militants...
Every conflict is different - they all have their own forms of insanity. But there have been some terrible mistakes made by the Israeli government, and it looks like worse to come. And the outcome will be even worse things happening from the other side.
"This is not the way to put an end to war..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Apr 02 - 02:49 PM What I meant there was that being your own judge and jury and executioner against people who have offended you is a Mafia way of working. That's how far the analogy was mean to carry. The implication was that all countries should focus their main attention on their own war criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Apr 02 - 02:58 PM There have been hundreds (or thousands) of war crime trials against German perpetrators held in other countries than Germany after the last war. If a German was sentenced (sometimes in absence) in Italy or Greece or wherever for a crime he had done there I fail to see anything mafialike in that procedure. Wolfgang |