So Changez, if you are not with terrorists than what's the problem? I thought you condoned ethnic cleansing of Shias that why I was questioning your motives. Well, so you don’t condone the brutality Shias faced by Saddam, then that's OK. Sometimes you need to spell out your position clearly. Let me get it straight. You like Iraqis to sue General Franks, but you also think that Saddam was no angel and he had to be removed. You call that intelligence? Get out.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
So Changez, if you are not with terrorists than what's the problem? I thought you condoned ethnic cleansing of Shias that why I was questioning your motives. Well, so you don’t condone the brutality Shias faced by Saddam, then that's OK. Sometimes you need to spell out your position clearly. Let me get it straight. You like Iraqis to sue General Franks, but you also think that Saddam was no angel and he had to be removed. You call that intelligence? Get out.
[/QUOTE]
Problem is "WAR" and a big pack of lies associated with it. I am glad you got many things correctly this time.
IF the objective of this war was to "remove" Saddam because he is "evil" then why was he not "removed" in 1991 war because he had already used "WMDs" against Iranis and Kurds (his own countrymen)!?!?
Intelligence should have been used 12 years ago... someone is VERY VERY slow.
Proving that a lawyer will sue based on anything:
Taking the biscuit: how a health lawsuit threatens America’s favourite cookie
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
13 May 2003
The Oreo cookie – two round chocolate-flavoured slabs with a sugary white cream filling – is America’s favourite biscuit.
Oreos are stocked in every supermarket and corner store and are instantly recognisable to children across the country.
They are also a tempting target for a lawsuit. A British-born lawyer called Stephen Joseph has filed suit against Kraft Foods Inc, the manufacturers, alleging not only that the biscuits are unhealthy, but that the company engages in “fraudulent and deceptive marketing”.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=405752
Changez, if you wana go back in time, why don’t you blame Saddam's dad for impregnating his Mom to give birth to that pig? Didn't President George W. Bush say that the "regime" must be "removed". Was that not clear to you? Stop looking for excuses and accept the reality that butchers and dictators will be removed wherever they may be. If not today, for sure tomorrow.
It appears from your posts that you want Saddam back. Well, he ain't coming back. Trust me on that.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Changez, if you wana go back in time, why don’t you blame Saddam's dad for impregnating his Mom to give birth to that pig? Didn't President George W. Bush say that the "regime" must be "removed". Was that not clear to you? Stop looking for excuses and accept the reality that butchers and dictators will be removed wherever they may be. If not today, for sure tomorrow.
It appears from your posts that you want Saddam back. Well, he ain't coming back. Trust me on that.
[/QUOTE]
Besides that, it was another BUSH in 1991, who cares? Its just all pack of lies no one wants to admit that invasion of Iraq was not for "wmd" but anything.
I don't give a $hit if Saddam lives or is already dead. Well before the war I said that even if Saddam is killed by mercenaries, no problem... but first 12 years of sanctions then bombing, no AT LEAST 12 months of FULL CONTROL.... what else do you want to do in Iraq?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Bam! Another one bringing up Japan, like blind men in a boxing ringing swinging at anything. Yes the Americans are massacring Iraqi's like Saddam did (that's true if you don't let the facts get in the way ;) )
[/QUOTE]
And what do you think ? all the facts are pointing fingers at US anyway. So there goes your argument.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
A court to be effective has to have some integrity. Simply filing a suit and paying a small court fee is not enough of a threshold to prevent everybody in the world from suing each other. This is not a suit, it is a shake down and a political statement.
[/QUOTE]
These Belgium courts have totally abandoned any concept of limitations on their own jurisdiction which is an important aspect of integrity.
Traditional notions of jurisdiction state that a court can only exert power and authority over you if you have committed an act within their defined territorial scope or you have done something outside that defined territorial scope that has caused some harm or damage inside the defined territorial scope.
These ridiculous laws in Belgium try to give a Belgium court power and authority over people who have never done anything in Belgium nor have their acts outside of Belgium caused any harm or damage inside Belgium. Basically, a group of lunatic polititians in Belgium have asserted that Belgium courts should have the world-wide power and authority to hear cases and grant relief based upon the type of offense that has allegedly been committed (i.e. war crimes) even though the offense has nothing whatsoever to do with Belgium. No nation and no person on earth has given their consent to this abomination.
Can you imagine the hue and cry that would arise if the US Congress passed a law similar to the Belgium law giving the US courts jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes cases?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
....
These ridiculous laws in Belgium try to give a Belgium court power and authority over people who have never done anything in Belgium nor have their acts outside of Belgium caused any harm or damage inside Belgium. Basically, a group of lunatic polititians in Belgium have asserted that Belgium courts should have the world-wide power and authority to hear cases and grant relief based upon the type of offense that has allegedly been committed (i.e. war crimes) even though the offense has nothing whatsoever to do with Belgium. No nation and no person on earth has given their consent to this abomination.
...
[/QUOTE]
replace "Belgium court" with X country, and think in "pre-emptive strike" context. what do you get? isn't that ridiculous?
Changez,
No, the thought of a truely effective international court is something that every world citizen should appreciate. BUT, and this is a huge BUT, it should be reserved for the most heinous and difficult situations. Kenneth Roth from Human Rights Watch travelled the world for 10 years in search of a country to sponsor a case against Saddam for Genocide against the Kurds. The US would have sponsored it, but was blocked by doing so based on some anti-genocide convention it had signed. Not the UN, nor a single coutry was willing to risk the rath of Saddam, and the Arab countries to indict him. Utter failure.
This Belgian Court then swings to the absurd, and everybody and their brother can be indicted willy-nilly. Absurd.
International trials for crimes against humanity need to be a world wide endeavor, not some holier-than-thou cottage industry in Belgium. This is but another Utter failure of the UN.
These criminal courts could be a valuable non-violent tool that can bring about change and justice. Instead we have the world wide equivalent of the small claims court.
Do you seriously think you can make Palestinians and Israelis happy at same time? Blacks and Whites in South Africa? etc. a long list.
What about less than “most heinous”? who will define “most heinous”?
Thats VERY weird that you signed an anti-genocide convention and not able to try someone who committed genocide??? VERY strange. Can you please elaborate further?
Where was Britain then? Why couldn’t be a coalition formed for that purpose?
The whole world is “holier than thou”, since there is no one perfect “holiest of all”.
BTW, why did US oppose ICJ?
I guess we are :topic: … we should discuss that in a separate thread if you have any input.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
replace "Belgium court" with X country, and think in "pre-emptive strike" context. what do you get? isn't that ridiculous?
[/QUOTE]
If that is the way you think, then it follows that you must be absolutely opposed to the Belgium court's trying to assert jurisdiction in this kind of case. Are you opposed?
Changez,
My point is that this "court in Belgium is a farce. Do you have any doubt that Saddam should have been indicted for genocide in SOME court, ANY court? Yet this is what HRW said:
"Human Rights Watch thus turned to the only available remedy – a civil suit before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, commonly known as the World Court. The relevant U.N. treaty – the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – assigned the World Court the task of adjudicating disputes under the treaty. We hoped for a declaratory judgment that the Iraqi government had committed genocide, damages for the survivors, and an order that the perpetrators be prosecuted.
The problem was that only governments can bring suit before the World Court. Washington was a logical first choice, and ultimately the Clinton administration endorsed the case. But restrictions in the U.S. ratification of the Genocide Convention stood in the way of a successful suit.
Human Rights Watch staff then circled the globe trying to convince another government to bring the suit. None would. At best, a couple of governments said they would join a coalition to bring the case, but only on the condition that at least one European government joined as well. Several European governments gave the matter serious consideration, but in the end none would take the plunge."
http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm
So Saddam goes unindicted for a decade when the evidence existed in 18 tons of documents seized after the Gulf War, while Tommy Franks is indicted within 30 days of the Iraq War with virtually no documentary evidence?? You don’t find something desperately wrong with this?
A complete farce…
OhioGuy:
What you describe is a complete farce. However, the situation with the World Court and Saddam is different from the suit against Franks. The suit against Franks would not be filed in the World Court. It would be filed in a run of the mill Belgium court and proceed under run of the mill Belgium law.
The World Court, at least, has jurisdiction over certain matters by virtue of the fact that countries have consented to give it jurisdiction over them. The fact that the jurisdictional rules and predicates are set up such that Saddam could escape charges of crimes against humanity demonstrates that the World Court is a pretty bogus institution in most cases.
The Belgium law under which the suit against Franks would proceed allows any person who thinks they have a grievance to start an action. The World Court already struck down the first Belgium law that tried to do this based on a lack of jurisdiction. So, the Belgium legislature tinkered with the law a little bit and tried a new one.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
If that is the way you think, then it follows that you must be absolutely opposed to the Belgium court's trying to assert jurisdiction in this kind of case. Are you opposed?
[/QUOTE]
And if you agree with OhioGuy, do you oppose US invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
....
So Saddam goes unindicted for a decade when the evidence existed in 18 tons of documents seized after the Gulf War, while Tommy Franks is indicted within 30 days of the Iraq War with virtually no documentary evidence?? You don't find something desperately wrong with this?
...
[/QUOTE]
That is the hypocricy of world governments.
mv:
so should these cases be moved to ICJ instead of Belgium?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
And if you agree with OhioGuy, do you oppose US invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
No. I supported those. I don't see any similarity between US military action in Afghanistan/Iraq and the Belgium courts asserting jurisdiction over alleged war crimes. However, you think there is a similarity, so you must either support both or oppose both. Which is it?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
No. I supported those. I don't see any similarity between US military action in Afghanistan/Iraq and the Belgium courts asserting jurisdiction over alleged war crimes. However, you think there is a similarity, so you must either support both or oppose both. Which is it?
[/QUOTE]
It was the way you worded that paragraph, it has striking similarities with US claims for the entire world for pre-emptive strikes.
"Court" thing is for "establishing law and order" while "pre-emptive strike" is to destroy the same. I support former only, to establish law and order, whether that be through Belgium court or ICJ. If you prefer ICJ, I am all for that but US opposed that one already.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
It was the way you worded that paragraph, it has striking similarities with US claims for the entire world for pre-emptive strikes.
"Court" thing is for "establishing law and order" while "pre-emptive strike" is to destroy the same. I support former only, to establish law and order, whether that be through Belgium court or ICJ. If you prefer ICJ, I am all for that but US opposed that one already.
[/QUOTE]
About the last thing this Belgium law does is promote law and order. The court has no power to compel the defendant to answer the charges and no power to enforce any judgment it might enter. You and I could set up the IICJ (the Internet International Court of Justice) and we would have the same power and legitimacy as the Belgium court.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
....would have the same power and legitimacy as the Belgium court.
[/QUOTE]
Lets say the world didn't endorse the Belgium courts. What about ICJ?