Does a country have to be a member of/recognise the ICC for it people to
be prosecuted for war crimes?
Does a country have to be a member of/recognise the ICC for it people to
be prosecuted for war crimes?
I think this Reuters article from 13th October may answer all your
questions:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-attack-would-fall-under-jurisdiction-war-crimes-court-prosecutor-2023-10-12/
Selected quotes from the article:
On 30/12/2023 in message <kvakktF8lpfU3@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker wrote:
Does a country have to be a member of/recognise the ICC for it people
to be prosecuted for war crimes?
I think this Reuters article from 13th October may answer all your
questions:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-attack-would-fall-under-jurisdiction-war-crimes-court-prosecutor-2023-10-12/
Selected quotes from the article:
[snipped]
Thank you, that is very interesting :-)
On 30/12/2023 15:46, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/12/2023 in message <kvakktF8lpfU3@mid.individual.net> Simon
Parker wrote:
Does a country have to be a member of/recognise the ICC for it
people to be prosecuted for war crimes?
I think this Reuters article from 13th October may answer all your
questions:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-attack-would-fall-under-jurisdiction-war-crimes-court-prosecutor-2023-10-12/
Selected quotes from the article:
[snipped]
Thank you, that is very interesting :-)
The ICC is pretty slow.
As an example, look at the ICTY case of RADOVAN KARADŽIĆ - https://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/cis/en/cis_karadzic_en.pdf
War crimes were committed 1991 - 1995, but he wasn't arrested until
2008. His trial commenced in 2009, but was not concluded until 2014,
with judgment in 2016!
If you were thinking of Benjamin Netanyahu, he is 74. If the same delays happen as with Karadzic, Netanyahu will probably be dead long before
they could finish the process.
The ICC is pretty slow.
As an example, look at the ICTY case of RADOVAN KARADŽIĆ - https://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/cis/en/cis_karadzic_en.pdf
War crimes were committed 1991 - 1995, but he wasn't arrested until
2008. His trial commenced in 2009, but was not concluded until 2014,
with judgment in 2016!
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:36:56 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
The ICC is pretty slow.
As an example, look at the ICTY case of RADOVAN KARADI? -
https://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/cis/en/cis_karadzic_en.pdf
War crimes were committed 1991 - 1995, but he wasn't arrested until
2008. His trial commenced in 2009, but was not concluded until 2014,
with judgment in 2016!
If you were thinking of Benjamin Netanyahu, he is 74. If the same delays
happen as with Karadzic, Netanyahu will probably be dead long before
they could finish the process.
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held custody after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit their national to be extradited except for an offense committed prior to becoming a national.
On 30/12/2023 15:46, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/12/2023 in message <kvakktF8lpfU3@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker
wrote:
Does a country have to be a member of/recognise the ICC for it people
to be prosecuted for war crimes?
I think this Reuters article from 13th October may answer all your
questions:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-attack-would-fall-under-jurisdiction-war-crimes-court-prosecutor-2023-10-12/
Selected quotes from the article:
[snipped]
Thank you, that is very interesting :-)
The ICC is pretty slow.
As an example, look at the ICTY case of RADOVAN KARADI? - https://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/cis/en/cis_karadzic_en.pdf
War crimes were committed 1991 - 1995, but he wasn't arrested until
2008. His trial commenced in 2009, but was not concluded until 2014,
with judgment in 2016!
If you were thinking of Benjamin Netanyahu, he is 74. If the same delays happen as with Karadzic, Netanyahu will probably be dead long before
they could finish the process.
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held custody >>after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit their national
to
be extradited except for an offense committed prior to becoming a
national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way
Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he surrendered >voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him
and delivered him to the court.
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:36:56 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 30/12/2023 15:46, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/12/2023 in message <kvakktF8lpfU3@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker >>> wrote:
Does a country have to be a member of/recognise the ICC for it people >>>>> to be prosecuted for war crimes?
I think this Reuters article from 13th October may answer all your
questions:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-attack-would-fall-under-jurisdiction-war-crimes-court-prosecutor-2023-10-12/
Selected quotes from the article:
[snipped]
Thank you, that is very interesting :-)
The ICC is pretty slow.
As an example, look at the ICTY case of RADOVAN KARADŽI? -
https://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/cis/en/cis_karadzic_en.pdf
War crimes were committed 1991 - 1995, but he wasn't arrested until
2008. His trial commenced in 2009, but was not concluded until 2014,
with judgment in 2016!
If you were thinking of Benjamin Netanyahu, he is 74. If the same delays
happen as with Karadzic, Netanyahu will probably be dead long before
they could finish the process.
That particular process is not even available. Karadžic was held custody after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit their national to be extradited except for an offense committed prior to becoming a national.
On 30/12/2023 in message
<slrnup11ta.2nf.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held custody >>> after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit their
national to
be extradited except for an offense committed prior to becoming a
national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way
Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he surrendered
voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him
and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend
his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
On 30/12/2023 17:51, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:36:56 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>wrote:
On 30/12/2023 15:46, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/12/2023 in message <kvakktF8lpfU3@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker >>>>wrote:
Does a country have to be a member of/recognise the ICC for it people >>>>>>to be prosecuted for war crimes?
I think this Reuters article from 13th October may answer all your >>>>>questions:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-attack-would-fall-under-jurisdiction-war-crimes-court-prosecutor-2023-10-12/
Selected quotes from the article:
[snipped]
Thank you, that is very interesting :-)
The ICC is pretty slow.
As an example, look at the ICTY case of RADOVAN KARADŽI? - >>>https://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/cis/en/cis_karadzic_en.pdf
War crimes were committed 1991 - 1995, but he wasn't arrested until
2008. His trial commenced in 2009, but was not concluded until 2014,
with judgment in 2016!
If you were thinking of Benjamin Netanyahu, he is 74. If the same delays >>>happen as with Karadzic, Netanyahu will probably be dead long before
they could finish the process.
That particular process is not even available. Karadžic was held custody >>after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit their national
to
be extradited except for an offense committed prior to becoming a
national.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-780187
"Israel is building case against Hamas terrorists in style of Eichmann
trial - report
"The Wall Street Journal revealed that investigators in the Israel Police
and prosecution lawyers are compiling one of the most significant cases >against Hamas terrorists."
Net-an-whatsit had better call off his troops or there won't be any >"terrorists" left alive for his show trial.
On 30/12/2023 22:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/12/2023 in message
<slrnup11ta.2nf.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held
custody
after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit their
national to
be extradited except for an offense committed prior to becoming a
national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way
Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he surrendered
voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him
and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend
his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
Apparently kidnapping and "extraordinary rendition" are OK.
On 31/12/2023 in message <umro6s$1nr9r$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote:
On 30/12/2023 17:51, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:36:56 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 30/12/2023 15:46, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/12/2023 in message <kvakktF8lpfU3@mid.individual.net> Simon
Parker
wrote:
Does a country have to be a member of/recognise the ICC for it
people
to be prosecuted for war crimes?
I think this Reuters article from 13th October may answer all your >>>>>> questions:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-attack-would-fall-under-jurisdiction-war-crimes-court-prosecutor-2023-10-12/
Selected quotes from the article:
[snipped]
Thank you, that is very interesting :-)
The ICC is pretty slow.
As an example, look at the ICTY case of RADOVAN KARADŽI? -
https://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/cis/en/cis_karadzic_en.pdf
War crimes were committed 1991 - 1995, but he wasn't arrested until
2008. His trial commenced in 2009, but was not concluded until 2014,
with judgment in 2016!
If you were thinking of Benjamin Netanyahu, he is 74. If the same
delays
happen as with Karadzic, Netanyahu will probably be dead long before
they could finish the process.
That particular process is not even available. Karadžic was held custody >>> after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit their
national to
be extradited except for an offense committed prior to becoming a
national.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-780187
"Israel is building case against Hamas terrorists in style of Eichmann
trial - report
"The Wall Street Journal revealed that investigators in the Israel
Police and prosecution lawyers are compiling one of the most
significant cases against Hamas terrorists."
Net-an-whatsit had better call off his troops or there won't be any
"terrorists" left alive for his show trial.
And we need to start putting a case together against Netanyahu, although
that will be much more difficult as the world seems content to stand by
and see hospitals bombed.
What about the Israeli cheeldren?
On 31/12/2023 12:56 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/12/2023 22:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 30/12/2023 in message
<slrnup11ta.2nf.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held
custody
after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit their
national to
be extradited except for an offense committed prior to becoming a
national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way
Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he surrendered
voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him
and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend
his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
Apparently kidnapping and "extraordinary rendition" are OK.
I was wondering when that would be mentioned.
Surely a state's "sanctuary" policies should be respected (at least to
the extent that persons availing themselves of it are not currently committing offences against persons outside that state)?
On 31/12/2023 17:34, Max Demian wrote:
What about the Israeli cheeldren?
Can I ask why you spelt children like that? You had a point to make, so
why spoil it?
"Israel is building case against Hamas terrorists in style of Eichmann >>>trial - report
"The Wall Street Journal revealed that investigators in the Israel Police >>>and prosecution lawyers are compiling one of the most significant cases >>>against Hamas terrorists."
Net-an-whatsit had better call off his troops or there won't be any >>>"terrorists" left alive for his show trial.
And we need to start putting a case together against Netanyahu, although >>that will be much more difficult as the world seems content to stand by
and see hospitals bombed.
What about the Israeli cheeldren?
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-780127
"While the world seems endlessly concerned with the plight of the children
of Gaza, the effect of the war on Israeli children is largely ignored."
Apparently Israeli children are suffering PTSD and so on. Is that worse
than being killed or having limbs amputated without an anaesthetic?
Answers on a postcard please.
On 31 Dec 2023 at 17:17:23 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2023 12:56 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/12/2023 22:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held
custody after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit
their national to be extradited except for an offense committed
prior to becoming a national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way
Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he surrendered >>>>> voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him
and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend
his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
Apparently kidnapping and "extraordinary rendition" are OK.
I was wondering when that would be mentioned.
Surely a state's "sanctuary" policies should be respected (at least to
the extent that persons availing themselves of it are not currently
committing offences against persons outside that state)?
I think Eichmann would have felt the same. I am really not sure how I feel about his kidnapping.
On 31/12/2023 06:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Dec 2023 at 17:17:23 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2023 12:56 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/12/2023 22:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held >>>>>>> custody after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit >>>>>>> their national to be extradited except for an offense committed
prior to becoming a national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way
Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he surrendered >>>>>> voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him >>>>>> and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend
his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
Apparently kidnapping and "extraordinary rendition" are OK.
I was wondering when that would be mentioned.
Surely a state's "sanctuary" policies should be respected (at least to
the extent that persons availing themselves of it are not currently
committing offences against persons outside that state)?
I think Eichmann would have felt the same. I am really not sure how I
feel
about his kidnapping.
His is the obvious case. It raised moral questions at the time.
On 31/12/2023 in message <ums8m8$1pvph$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote:
"Israel is building case against Hamas terrorists in style of
Eichmann trial - report
"The Wall Street Journal revealed that investigators in the Israel
Police and prosecution lawyers are compiling one of the most
significant cases against Hamas terrorists."
Net-an-whatsit had better call off his troops or there won't be any
"terrorists" left alive for his show trial.
And we need to start putting a case together against Netanyahu,
although that will be much more difficult as the world seems content
to stand by and see hospitals bombed.
What about the Israeli cheeldren?
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-780127
"While the world seems endlessly concerned with the plight of the
children of Gaza, the effect of the war on Israeli children is largely
ignored."
Apparently Israeli children are suffering PTSD and so on. Is that
worse than being killed or having limbs amputated without an anaesthetic?
Answers on a postcard please.
I think death is worse as it is so final. I assumed the investigation
you referred to ""Israel is building case against Hamas terrorists in
style of Eichmann trial" would include Israeli children and other
Israeli civilians.
On 31/12/2023 20:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 31/12/2023 in message <ums8m8$1pvph$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote:
"Israel is building case against Hamas terrorists in style of Eichmann >>>>>trial - report
"The Wall Street Journal revealed that investigators in the Israel >>>>>Police and prosecution lawyers are compiling one of the most significant >>>>>cases against Hamas terrorists."
Net-an-whatsit had better call off his troops or there won't be any >>>>>"terrorists" left alive for his show trial.
And we need to start putting a case together against Netanyahu, although >>>>that will be much more difficult as the world seems content to stand by >>>>and see hospitals bombed.
What about the Israeli cheeldren?
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-780127
"While the world seems endlessly concerned with the plight of the >>>children of Gaza, the effect of the war on Israeli children is largely >>>ignored."
Apparently Israeli children are suffering PTSD and so on. Is that worse >>>than being killed or having limbs amputated without an anaesthetic?
Answers on a postcard please.
I think death is worse as it is so final. I assumed the investigation you >>referred to ""Israel is building case against Hamas terrorists in style
of Eichmann trial" would include Israeli children and other Israeli >>civilians.
The Israeli authorities show no compassion or respect towards Palestinian >children. They are shot for throwing stones at soldiers or for being >suspected of throwing stones.
In prison, children are detained without trial and physically abused.
See eg
https://time.com/6548068/palestinian-children-israeli-prison-arrested/
But move along, nothing to see here, the priority is to inflict merciless >retribution on those who have attacked Israeli citizens. Even Palestinian >children are characterised as Nazis in "the worst atrocity since the >Holocaust".
On 31/12/2023 19:20, JNugent wrote:
On 31/12/2023 06:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Dec 2023 at 17:17:23 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2023 12:56 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/12/2023 22:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karad?ic was held >>>>>>>> custody after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit >>>>>>>> their national to be extradited except for an offense committed >>>>>>>> prior to becoming a national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way >>>>>>> Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he surrendered >>>>>>> voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him >>>>>>> and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend >>>>>> his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
Apparently kidnapping and "extraordinary rendition" are OK.
I was wondering when that would be mentioned.
Surely a state's "sanctuary" policies should be respected (at least to >>>> the extent that persons availing themselves of it are not currently
committing offences against persons outside that state)?
I think Eichmann would have felt the same. I am really not sure how I
feel
about his kidnapping.
His is the obvious case. It raised moral questions at the time.
I wonder whether there were any respected lawyers or civil liberties campaigners who raised well-argued objections to his kidnapping and subsequent trial.
It would have been a very distasteful and of course a wholly futile
argument. He deserved to face justice in a court of law.
A more deserving case is that of Mordechai Vanunu. The government of
Israel treated him disgracefully but I don't think the civilised world
spoke up for him. Those who believe that Israel is a beacon of freedom
and democracy among repressive Islamic nations are deluded by Israel's propaganda.
quote (from Wikipedia)
Mordechai Vanunu is an Israeli former nuclear technician and peace
activist who, citing his opposition to weapons of mass destruction,
revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British
press in 1986. He was subsequently lured to Italy by the Israeli
intelligence agency Mossad, where he was drugged and abducted. He was secretly transported to Israel and ultimately convicted in a trial that
was held behind closed doors.
Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 in solitary confinement, though no such restriction is mentioned in Israel's penal
code, nor imposed by his verdict. Released from prison in 2004, he was further subjected to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and his movement, and arrested several times for violations of his parole terms, giving interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel.
He claims to have suffered from "cruel and barbaric treatment" at the
hands of prison authorities, and suggests that these would have been different if he had not converted to Christianity
On 31/12/2023 19:20, JNugent wrote:
On 31/12/2023 06:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Dec 2023 at 17:17:23 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2023 12:56 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/12/2023 22:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held >>>>>>>> custody after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit >>>>>>>> their national to be extradited except for an offense committed >>>>>>>> prior to becoming a national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way >>>>>>> Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he surrendered >>>>>>> voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him >>>>>>> and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend >>>>>> his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
Apparently kidnapping and "extraordinary rendition" are OK.
I was wondering when that would be mentioned.
Surely a state's "sanctuary" policies should be respected (at least to >>>> the extent that persons availing themselves of it are not currently
committing offences against persons outside that state)?
I think Eichmann would have felt the same. I am really not sure how I
feel about his kidnapping.
His is the obvious case. It raised moral questions at the time.
I wonder whether there were any respected lawyers or civil liberties campaigners who raised well-argued objections to his kidnapping and subsequent trial.
It would have been a very distasteful and of course a wholly futile
argument. He deserved to face justice in a court of law.
A more deserving case is that of Mordechai Vanunu. The government of
Israel treated him disgracefully but I don't think the civilised world
spoke up for him. Those who believe that Israel is a beacon of freedom
and democracy among repressive Islamic nations are deluded by Israel's propaganda.
quote (from Wikipedia)
Mordechai Vanunu is an Israeli former nuclear technician and peace
activist who, citing his opposition to weapons of mass destruction,
revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British
press in 1986. He was subsequently lured to Italy by the Israeli
intelligence agency Mossad, where he was drugged and abducted. He was secretly transported to Israel and ultimately convicted in a trial that
was held behind closed doors.
Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 in solitary confinement, though no such restriction is mentioned in Israel's penal
code, nor imposed by his verdict. Released from prison in 2004, he was further subjected to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and his movement, and arrested several times for violations of his parole terms, giving interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel.
He claims to have suffered from "cruel and barbaric treatment" at the
hands of prison authorities, and suggests that these would have been different if he had not converted to Christianity
On 01/01/2024 09:42 am, The Todal wrote:
On 31/12/2023 19:20, JNugent wrote:
On 31/12/2023 06:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Dec 2023 at 17:17:23 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2023 12:56 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/12/2023 22:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held >>>>>>>>> custody after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit >>>>>>>>> their national to be extradited except for an offense committed >>>>>>>>> prior to becoming a national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way >>>>>>>> Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he
surrendered
voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him >>>>>>>> and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend >>>>>>> his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
Apparently kidnapping and "extraordinary rendition" are OK.
I was wondering when that would be mentioned.
Surely a state's "sanctuary" policies should be respected (at least to >>>>> the extent that persons availing themselves of it are not currently
committing offences against persons outside that state)?
I think Eichmann would have felt the same. I am really not sure how
I feel about his kidnapping.
His is the obvious case. It raised moral questions at the time.
I wonder whether there were any respected lawyers or civil liberties
campaigners who raised well-argued objections to his kidnapping and
subsequent trial.
I said it raised *moral* issues. That's in addition to questions about kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment as an alternative to seeking
extradition in the normal and lawful way.
What if an Argentinian police patrol had happened on the scene of the kidnapping and taken all hands into custody?
Would they eventually have released them all, except for Eichmann, whom
they would have delivered into the custody of the kidnappers?
It would have been a very distasteful and of course a wholly futile
argument. He deserved to face justice in a court of law.
A *German* court of law that is, possibly to be tried for an offence
which did not exist at the time it was committed.
A more deserving case is that of Mordechai Vanunu. The government of
Israel treated him disgracefully but I don't think the civilised world
spoke up for him. Those who believe that Israel is a beacon of freedom
and democracy among repressive Islamic nations are deluded by Israel's
propaganda.
quote (from Wikipedia)
Mordechai Vanunu is an Israeli former nuclear technician and peace
activist who, citing his opposition to weapons of mass destruction,
revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British
press in 1986. He was subsequently lured to Italy by the Israeli
intelligence agency Mossad, where he was drugged and abducted. He was
secretly transported to Israel and ultimately convicted in a trial
that was held behind closed doors.
It's certainly no better!
Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 in solitary
confinement, though no such restriction is mentioned in Israel's penal
code, nor imposed by his verdict. Released from prison in 2004, he was
further subjected to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and
his movement, and arrested several times for violations of his parole
terms, giving interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to
leave Israel. He claims to have suffered from "cruel and barbaric
treatment" at the hands of prison authorities, and suggests that these
would have been different if he had not converted to Christianity
At least Israel had been betrayed (I don't know what the offences would
have been, but there can hardly be a state in the world which does not proscribe unauthorised disclosure by a citizen of important state
secrets useful to an enemy). The issue which stands out there is the
same as that which applied in the Eichmann case: unlawful action to
secure the captivity of the suspected person rather than respecting the
laws of other states and applying for extradition (which admittedly,
will not always be granted).
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2023 19:20, JNugent wrote:
On 31/12/2023 06:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Dec 2023 at 17:17:23 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2023 12:56 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/12/2023 22:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karad?ic was held >>>>>>>>> custody after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit >>>>>>>>> their national to be extradited except for an offense committed >>>>>>>>> prior to becoming a national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way >>>>>>>> Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he surrendered >>>>>>>> voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested him >>>>>>>> and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend >>>>>>> his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
Apparently kidnapping and "extraordinary rendition" are OK.
I was wondering when that would be mentioned.
Surely a state's "sanctuary" policies should be respected (at least to >>>>> the extent that persons availing themselves of it are not currently
committing offences against persons outside that state)?
I think Eichmann would have felt the same. I am really not sure how I
feel
about his kidnapping.
His is the obvious case. It raised moral questions at the time.
I wonder whether there were any respected lawyers or civil liberties
campaigners who raised well-argued objections to his kidnapping and
subsequent trial.
It would have been a very distasteful and of course a wholly futile
argument. He deserved to face justice in a court of law.
On the other hand one can reasonably object to governments abducting and killing foreign nationals because they say they "deserve it".
A more deserving case is that of Mordechai Vanunu. The government of
Israel treated him disgracefully but I don't think the civilised world
spoke up for him. Those who believe that Israel is a beacon of freedom
and democracy among repressive Islamic nations are deluded by Israel's
propaganda.
It would have been especially difficult for the USA to have done so since they actually electrocuted the Rosenbergs for a very similar offence.
On 01/01/2024 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2024 09:42 am, The Todal wrote:
On 31/12/2023 19:20, JNugent wrote:
On 31/12/2023 06:20 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 Dec 2023 at 17:17:23 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 31/12/2023 12:56 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/12/2023 22:37, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
That particular process is not even available. Karadic was held >>>>>>>>>> custody after his extradition from Serbia. Israel does not permit >>>>>>>>>> their national to be extradited except for an offense committed >>>>>>>>>> prior to becoming a national.
Obviously with Israel as a non-signatory to the ICC, the only way >>>>>>>>> Netanyahu could end up on trial in person would be if he
surrendered
voluntarily or travelled to another country which then arrested >>>>>>>>> him
and delivered him to the court.
Perhaps there is a Palestinian like Simon Wiesenthal who will spend >>>>>>>> his/her life seeking the perpetrators?
Apparently kidnapping and "extraordinary rendition" are OK.
I was wondering when that would be mentioned.
Surely a state's "sanctuary" policies should be respected (at
least to
the extent that persons availing themselves of it are not currently >>>>>> committing offences against persons outside that state)?
I think Eichmann would have felt the same. I am really not sure how
I feel about his kidnapping.
His is the obvious case. It raised moral questions at the time.
I wonder whether there were any respected lawyers or civil liberties
campaigners who raised well-argued objections to his kidnapping and
subsequent trial.
I said it raised *moral* issues. That's in addition to questions about
kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment as an alternative to seeking
extradition in the normal and lawful way.
What if an Argentinian police patrol had happened on the scene of the
kidnapping and taken all hands into custody?
Would they eventually have released them all, except for Eichmann,
whom they would have delivered into the custody of the kidnappers?
It would have been a very distasteful and of course a wholly futile
argument. He deserved to face justice in a court of law.
A *German* court of law that is, possibly to be tried for an offence
which did not exist at the time it was committed.
A more deserving case is that of Mordechai Vanunu. The government of
Israel treated him disgracefully but I don't think the civilised
world spoke up for him. Those who believe that Israel is a beacon of
freedom and democracy among repressive Islamic nations are deluded by
Israel's propaganda.
quote (from Wikipedia)
Mordechai Vanunu is an Israeli former nuclear technician and peace
activist who, citing his opposition to weapons of mass destruction,
revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British
press in 1986. He was subsequently lured to Italy by the Israeli
intelligence agency Mossad, where he was drugged and abducted. He was
secretly transported to Israel and ultimately convicted in a trial
that was held behind closed doors.
It's certainly no better!
Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 in solitary
confinement, though no such restriction is mentioned in Israel's
penal code, nor imposed by his verdict. Released from prison in 2004,
he was further subjected to a broad array of restrictions on his
speech and his movement, and arrested several times for violations of
his parole terms, giving interviews to foreign journalists and
attempting to leave Israel. He claims to have suffered from "cruel
and barbaric treatment" at the hands of prison authorities, and
suggests that these would have been different if he had not converted
to Christianity
At least Israel had been betrayed (I don't know what the offences
would have been, but there can hardly be a state in the world which
does not proscribe unauthorised disclosure by a citizen of important
state secrets useful to an enemy). The issue which stands out there is
the same as that which applied in the Eichmann case: unlawful action
to secure the captivity of the suspected person rather than respecting
the laws of other states and applying for extradition (which
admittedly, will not always be granted).
If the trial had not been held in secret, presumably Vanunu would have
been able to argue that what he revealed was not a secret that would be useful to an enemy but a secret that would actually help the balance of
power in the Middle East by deterring Israel's enemies from attacking
Israel. He revealed nothing that would help someone make a nuclear weapon.
I think there is ample information in the public domain about precisely
how big the UK's nuclear arsenal is, and to what extent it is ready for deployment. It would be interesting to hear just why Israel preferred
not to admit that it had nuclear weapons and why it was believed that
made Israel more rather than less secure.
I think there is ample information in the public domain about
precisely how big the UK's nuclear arsenal is, and to what extent
it is ready for deployment. It would be interesting to hear just
why Israel preferred not to admit that it had nuclear weapons
and why it was believed that made Israel more rather than less secure.
The case against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was that they spied for the Soviet Union and passed top secret plans to the Russians. The result of
which would have helped the USSR develop its nuclear arsenal slightly
more quickly - it was foolish to believe that Russian scientists would
never be able to develop such weapons without the help of Western traitors.
But Vanunu merely revealed to the world that Israel had atomic weapons. Presumably this was already known to the UK and USA anyway, but for some reason Israel wanted to keep it secret. Why?
From Wikipedia:
By not acknowledging possession of nuclear weapons, Israel avoids a US
legal prohibition on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Such an admission would prevent Israel from receiving over
$2 billion each year in military and other aid from Washington. Ray
Kidder, then a senior American nuclear scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has said:
"On the basis of this research and my own professional experience,
I am ready to challenge any official assertion that Mr. Vanunu possesses
any technical nuclear information not already made public."
On 01/01/2024 17:21, The Todal wrote:
The case against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was that they spied for
the Soviet Union and passed top secret plans to the Russians. The
result of which would have helped the USSR develop its nuclear arsenal
slightly more quickly - it was foolish to believe that Russian
scientists would never be able to develop such weapons without the
help of Western traitors.
"Slightly more quickly" - do you have a cite for that? Teller was
working on the H bomb for 10 years before the first test, so getting
much of his work might have saved the Russians a decade or so.
On 02/01/2024 12:17, GB wrote:
On 01/01/2024 17:21, The Todal wrote:
The case against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was that they spied for
the Soviet Union and passed top secret plans to the Russians. The
result of which would have helped the USSR develop its nuclear
arsenal slightly more quickly - it was foolish to believe that
Russian scientists would never be able to develop such weapons
without the help of Western traitors.
"Slightly more quickly" - do you have a cite for that? Teller was
working on the H bomb for 10 years before the first test, so getting
much of his work might have saved the Russians a decade or so.
I can only quote from the Wikipedia article about the Rosenbergs.
On 02/01/2024 14:21, The Todal wrote:
On 02/01/2024 12:17, GB wrote:
On 01/01/2024 17:21, The Todal wrote:
The case against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was that they spied for the Soviet Union
and passed top secret plans to the Russians. The result of which would have helped
the USSR develop its nuclear arsenal slightly more quickly - it was foolish to
believe that Russian scientists would never be able to develop such weapons without
the help of Western traitors.
"Slightly more quickly" - do you have a cite for that? Teller was working on the H
bomb for 10 years before the first test, so getting much of his work might have saved
the Russians a decade or so.
I can only quote from the Wikipedia article about the Rosenbergs.
I'm sorry I put you to that trouble, as I was talking about the H bomb, but the
Rosenbergs provided no information about that.
On 28/12/2023 08:42, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Does a country have to be a member of/recognise the ICC for it people to
be prosecuted for war crimes?
A follow-up to your original question as the situation has developed:
On Friday of last week, South Africa filed an 84 page submission [1] with
the the International Court of Justice, (the ICJ) stating that the "acts
and omissions by Israel" are "genocidal in character because they are >intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the >Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group".
Israel has issued a statement denying this with the UN ICJ confirming it
had received the submission.
The ICJ is a civil court that hears disputes between countries whereas the >ICC is a criminal court that prosecutes individuals.
South Africa previously filed a referral to the ICC relating to alleged
war crimes by Israel in Gaza.
Regards
S.P.
[1] >https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf
The ICJ is a civil court that hears disputes between countries whereas
the ICC is a criminal court that prosecutes individuals.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 43:10:44 |
| Calls: | 6,709 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,017 |