War is hell – but there are standards

[Fishbone Jones]

Inherently wrong and unfair because YOU say so. Well I don't agree. Capital punishment is fine, and we should have more of it.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

Inherently wrong and unfair because YOU say so.

Might I add, the majority of most modern nations say so as well.

-C/D

 

[KingKikapu]

Not that you're here with us anymore, but sentencing happens after a trial.  It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of due process.

 

[TCBF]

- Hey, where did C/D go?

 

[KingKikapu]

- Hey, where did C/D go?

Kibitzer purgatory.  :skull:

 

[George Wallace]

- Hey, where did C/D go?

TCBF

He is now in a Monty Python skit, playing a parrot.

 

[Drag]

Not that you're here with us anymore, but sentencing happens after a trial.  It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of due process.

Iraqi soil, Iraqi nationals, Iraqi courts, Iraqi rope, seems very simple to me. 

 

[gun runner]

GIT'R'DONE..!!! Ubique

 

[KingKikapu]

Iraqi soil, Iraqi nationals, Iraqi courts, Iraqi rope, seems very simple to me. 

Also international laws, international courts, and international ropes.

 

[Drag]

Please explain to me who would have jurisdiction in this case, if not Iraq?  Brits maybe since the crimes were committed against their people, but they were done by Iraqis on Iraqi soil>  i am not aware of any international court that has juristion.

 

[George Wallace]

Please explain to me who would have jurisdiction in this case, if not Iraq?  Brits maybe since the crimes were committed against their people, but they were done by Iraqis on Iraqi soil>  i am not aware of any international court that has juristion.

There is of course the World War Crimes Tribunal in Da Hague.  It isn't solely restricted to European Theatres of Operations.

 

[Drag]

There is of course the World War Crimes Tribunal in Da Hague.  It isn't solely restricted to European Theatres of Operations.

Iraq is not party to the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, just like the US for example, and not Iraq tribunal was established by the UN Security Council.  Thus they have no jurisdiction.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court

"Territorial jurisdiction
During the negotiations that led to the Rome Statute, a large number of states argued that the Court should be allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction. However, this proposal was defeated due in large part to opposition from the United States.[36] A compromise was reached, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction only under the following limited circumstances:

-where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);
-where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
-where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.[9] "

 

[KingKikapu]

They are signators of the geneva conventions.  You bet your ass the hague can stand in.

 

[Pikache]

They are signators of the geneva conventions.  You bet your ass the hague can stand in.

Does the Hague court has legal jurisdiction to enforce Geneva convention?

 

[Drag]

Does the Hague court has legal jurisdiction to enforce Geneva convention?

According to my understanding it does not.  When most people think of the Hague Tribunal they think of the ICTY( International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia).  The ICTY was specifically authorised by the Security Council to deal with the wars in former Yugoslavia.  The Security Council has set up other such tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and Sierra Leone(I think). The World Court is also located in the Hague but it deals with disputes between states.  The International Criminal Court I mentioned earlies is also in the Hague and is meant to be a permanent war crimes court but, as I also previously stated, it lacks jurisdiction over this case since Iraq is not party to the treaty.  The Security Council can ask the ICC to investigate warcrimes in a particular conflict and authorise prosecutions, but it was only done so for the Darfur and NOT for Iraq. 

 

[KingKikapu]

Are you editing after the fact?  I don't remember a lot of that text being there a few posts ago.  It just might be my insomnia as well...


You're right iraq pulled out of the ICC at the behest of the US a few years ago.  There have been documented cases of UN security council members requesting investigations and or a tribunals which have been granted.  In those cases the Hague, being founded on both the Hague and Geneva articles (to which Iraq is still a signatory), becomes the court of choice.  I am not so sure whether the power of veto is available in these circumstances.  In any event it is feasable, but being the UN it would be a nightmare to even attempt.  Getting UN members to play nice is an impossible task. 

Since the UK courts are handling this, my guess is it has fallen under the purview of private international law to which both are signators of Hague/Geneva.  That commonality could transfer jurisdiction if both agreed.  I suspect the real motive is that if these guys have to serve time, then they'd rather do it in the relatively safer UK penal system.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

King, one can edit their posts for 24 hours I believe. [Moderators can always edit so I'm not 100% sure]

 

[Drag]

If I edited, it would say I did on the bottom of the post.  I did not... Will respond to the rest when I have more time.

Like I edited this post to demonstrate.

 

[KingKikapu]

Fair enough.  To be honest, I totally forgot that Iraq didn't ratify the ICC roman statute, so I must tip my hat there.

 

[Drag]

I played with it and figured out that now the edit indicator is the modify icon on the bottom... before it used to say something like "last edited" and a time