FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > ICC and putin
ICC and putin
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Interesting that the BBC is highlighting the fact that Russia doesn't recognise this international body yet fails to mention that neither does the US....or China for that matter. However, that aside, he needs someone to reign him in doesn't he?" Empty gesture. | |||
"Interesting that the BBC is highlighting the fact that Russia doesn't recognise this international body yet fails to mention that neither does the US....or China for that matter. However, that aside, he needs someone to reign him in doesn't he? Empty gesture. " Meaning what exactly | |||
"Interesting that the BBC is highlighting the fact that Russia doesn't recognise this international body yet fails to mention that neither does the US....or China for that matter. However, that aside, he needs someone to reign him in doesn't he? Empty gesture. Meaning what exactly " As Russia doesn't recognise the ICC. It's an empty gesture. Nothing will happen. | |||
"Interesting that the BBC is highlighting the fact that Russia doesn't recognise this international body yet fails to mention that neither does the US....or China for that matter. However, that aside, he needs someone to reign him in doesn't he? Empty gesture. Meaning what exactly As Russia doesn't recognise the ICC. It's an empty gesture. Nothing will happen. " Russia recognises yet blocks the UN if it feels like it so that's a waste of time too | |||
"Interesting that the BBC is highlighting the fact that Russia doesn't recognise this international body yet fails to mention that neither does the US....or China for that matter. However, that aside, he needs someone to reign him in doesn't he?" If the USA doesnt recognise it, then why has the Whitehouse welcomed the report? | |||
"Interesting that the BBC is highlighting the fact that Russia doesn't recognise this international body yet fails to mention that neither does the US....or China for that matter. However, that aside, he needs someone to reign him in doesn't he? If the USA doesnt recognise it, then why has the Whitehouse welcomed the report? " They have actually come out and said they don't recognise it. It really is an empty gesture. | |||
| |||
"Waste of time as nothing is gona happen" This pretty much summarises politics since I've been alive. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's just a ploy. Technically south Africa is in the spotlight because they would have to arrest Putin if he shows up to the BRICS summit. Political posturing." How does Diplomatic Immunity work with an existing Head of State.....May be different from a former Head with no Diplomatic mission? | |||
"It's just a ploy. Technically south Africa is in the spotlight because they would have to arrest Putin if he shows up to the BRICS summit. Political posturing." Is this going to divide the world into 2 camps again. Will the rest of the world be forced to choose sides. What will they do to Saudi Arabia if he MBS. Those 2 are very close. | |||
| |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. " They do seem to have got away with it. Instead people like Assange seemed to have been punished for trying to expose the truths of the war. Blair keeps trying to justify the war by saying it got rid of a terrible dictator. But then has no qualms about making money advising and associating with dictators from Kazakhstan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. " How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? | |||
"Interesting that the BBC is highlighting the fact that Russia doesn't recognise this international body yet fails to mention that neither does the US....or China for that matter. However, that aside, he needs someone to reign him in doesn't he?" I imagine because they are discussing the President of Russia rather than the USA or China? | |||
| |||
"By classifying Putin as an international criminal this makes anyone entering or trying to instigate negotiations a fellow criminal. " Is that, actually, true? Talking to a criminal doesn't make you a criminal to the best of my knowledge. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? " It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest." Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy?" Bucha ? | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy?" It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people." lol what about the other nations the " Coalition of the willing" ? Do you forget they are just as responsible in your eyes or is it just the select few? Many nations involved. Yet 2 stand out. | |||
"Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy?" The targeting of electricity supply and generation is a war crime. There's plenty of evidence that Russia is doing that. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? Bucha ?" Meaning against Bush and Blair. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people." Again, what are the "war crimes" instigated by either leader? An "illegal" war is not a war crime, I believe. There were prosecutions of illegal activity, but they were not ordered by leadership as far as I'm aware. That's not the same as saying that the war was correct or justified. Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot, and it is only in retrospect that it is clear what followed was even worse in many ways. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people. Again, what are the "war crimes" instigated by either leader? An "illegal" war is not a war crime, I believe. There were prosecutions of illegal activity, but they were not ordered by leadership as far as I'm aware. That's not the same as saying that the war was correct or justified. Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot, and it is only in retrospect that it is clear what followed was even worse in many ways." How can an illegal war not be a war crime? By very definition surely! This is the very war crime that the defendents of Nuremberg were tried and convicted of. Bush and Blair headed this up, fabricated evidence, produced the dodgy dossiers, lied to their governments, used sources they knew were problematic, used evidence gained from torture, used torture in Guantanamo, killed probably a million people. Where is the line? | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest." There would be no difference in the impact or effectiveness of this arrest warrant. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people. Again, what are the "war crimes" instigated by either leader? An "illegal" war is not a war crime, I believe. There were prosecutions of illegal activity, but they were not ordered by leadership as far as I'm aware. That's not the same as saying that the war was correct or justified. Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot, and it is only in retrospect that it is clear what followed was even worse in many ways. How can an illegal war not be a war crime? By very definition surely! This is the very war crime that the defendents of Nuremberg were tried and convicted of. Bush and Blair headed this up, fabricated evidence, produced the dodgy dossiers, lied to their governments, used sources they knew were problematic, used evidence gained from torture, used torture in Guantanamo, killed probably a million people. Where is the line? " Your applying your beliefs not the law. Nuremberg was not trying the legality of starting WWII. It was trying the inhumane acts carried out in its conduct. What is a definition of a war crime according to the ICC? If this is about application of the law make it about application of the law. Rendition, however abhorrent, was not carried out as an act of warfare. It was a general "anti-terrorism" policy. So, outside the ICC jurisdiction, I believe. In retrospect the invasion of Iraq or at the very least it's final outcome, may have been completely wrong. Don't conflate that with a "war crime" as that devalues the gravity of what that really means. | |||
"Interesting that the BBC is highlighting the fact that Russia doesn't recognise this international body yet fails to mention that neither does the US....or China for that matter. However, that aside, he needs someone to reign him in doesn't he? Empty gesture. " Not quite…. Where as has been explained a lot of countries don’t recognise the authority of the ICC… because a lot of countries do, the Russians can’t claim it was Western or nato influenced | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people. Again, what are the "war crimes" instigated by either leader? An "illegal" war is not a war crime, I believe. There were prosecutions of illegal activity, but they were not ordered by leadership as far as I'm aware. That's not the same as saying that the war was correct or justified. Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot, and it is only in retrospect that it is clear what followed was even worse in many ways. How can an illegal war not be a war crime? By very definition surely! This is the very war crime that the defendents of Nuremberg were tried and convicted of. Bush and Blair headed this up, fabricated evidence, produced the dodgy dossiers, lied to their governments, used sources they knew were problematic, used evidence gained from torture, used torture in Guantanamo, killed probably a million people. Where is the line? Your applying your beliefs not the law. Nuremberg was not trying the legality of starting WWII. It was trying the inhumane acts carried out in its conduct. What is a definition of a war crime according to the ICC? If this is about application of the law make it about application of the law. Rendition, however abhorrent, was not carried out as an act of warfare. It was a general "anti-terrorism" policy. So, outside the ICC jurisdiction, I believe. In retrospect the invasion of Iraq or at the very least it's final outcome, may have been completely wrong. Don't conflate that with a "war crime" as that devalues the gravity of what that really means." No. You are absolutely wrong here. Look what they were charged and indicted with at Nuremberg. It was planning and carrying out a war of aggression. Only a minor part of thr trials were then also about additional war crimes. 'The IMT focused on the crime of aggression — plotting and waging aggressive war, which the verdict declared "the supreme international crime" because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"' Bush and Blair were as guilty of this charge as those in Nuremberg. That is very different to making any equivalence between what happened in those wars, which I am absolutely not doing. But waging a war of aggression was the war crime used then. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people. Again, what are the "war crimes" instigated by either leader? An "illegal" war is not a war crime, I believe. There were prosecutions of illegal activity, but they were not ordered by leadership as far as I'm aware. That's not the same as saying that the war was correct or justified. Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot, and it is only in retrospect that it is clear what followed was even worse in many ways. How can an illegal war not be a war crime? By very definition surely! This is the very war crime that the defendents of Nuremberg were tried and convicted of. Bush and Blair headed this up, fabricated evidence, produced the dodgy dossiers, lied to their governments, used sources they knew were problematic, used evidence gained from torture, used torture in Guantanamo, killed probably a million people. Where is the line? Your applying your beliefs not the law. Nuremberg was not trying the legality of starting WWII. It was trying the inhumane acts carried out in its conduct. What is a definition of a war crime according to the ICC? If this is about application of the law make it about application of the law. Rendition, however abhorrent, was not carried out as an act of warfare. It was a general "anti-terrorism" policy. So, outside the ICC jurisdiction, I believe. In retrospect the invasion of Iraq or at the very least it's final outcome, may have been completely wrong. Don't conflate that with a "war crime" as that devalues the gravity of what that really means. No. You are absolutely wrong here. Look what they were charged and indicted with at Nuremberg. It was planning and carrying out a war of aggression. Only a minor part of thr trials were then also about additional war crimes. 'The IMT focused on the crime of aggression — plotting and waging aggressive war, which the verdict declared "the supreme international crime" because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"' Bush and Blair were as guilty of this charge as those in Nuremberg. That is very different to making any equivalence between what happened in those wars, which I am absolutely not doing. But waging a war of aggression was the war crime used then. " You're wasting your time. Easy is never wrong  | |||
| |||
"I just seen him have his ass handed over to him on UK death ages about France retiring ages! He was defo wrong big time there lol " Trust me, you're wrong. He owns this forum  | |||
"I just seen him have his ass handed over to him on UK death ages about France retiring ages! He was defo wrong big time there lol Trust me, you're wrong. He owns this forum "Shame he doesn't own his (frequent) mistakes within it | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people. Again, what are the "war crimes" instigated by either leader? An "illegal" war is not a war crime, I believe. There were prosecutions of illegal activity, but they were not ordered by leadership as far as I'm aware. That's not the same as saying that the war was correct or justified. Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot, and it is only in retrospect that it is clear what followed was even worse in many ways. How can an illegal war not be a war crime? By very definition surely! This is the very war crime that the defendents of Nuremberg were tried and convicted of. Bush and Blair headed this up, fabricated evidence, produced the dodgy dossiers, lied to their governments, used sources they knew were problematic, used evidence gained from torture, used torture in Guantanamo, killed probably a million people. Where is the line? Your applying your beliefs not the law. Nuremberg was not trying the legality of starting WWII. It was trying the inhumane acts carried out in its conduct. What is a definition of a war crime according to the ICC? If this is about application of the law make it about application of the law. Rendition, however abhorrent, was not carried out as an act of warfare. It was a general "anti-terrorism" policy. So, outside the ICC jurisdiction, I believe. In retrospect the invasion of Iraq or at the very least it's final outcome, may have been completely wrong. Don't conflate that with a "war crime" as that devalues the gravity of what that really means. No. You are absolutely wrong here. Look what they were charged and indicted with at Nuremberg. It was planning and carrying out a war of aggression. Only a minor part of thr trials were then also about additional war crimes. 'The IMT focused on the crime of aggression — plotting and waging aggressive war, which the verdict declared "the supreme international crime" because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"' Bush and Blair were as guilty of this charge as those in Nuremberg. That is very different to making any equivalence between what happened in those wars, which I am absolutely not doing. But waging a war of aggression was the war crime used then. " Fair point about the Nuremberg, although they were far more successful in trying people for crimes against humanity. I had incorrectly assumed that the ICC was constituted on the same basis. It is not, quite. "Crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court War crimes War crimes include torture, mutilation, corporal punishment, hostage taking and acts of terrorism. This category also covers violations of human dignity such as r@pe and forced prostitution, looting and execution without trial. War crimes, unlike crimes against humanity, are always committed in times of war. Genocide This includes all acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic or religious group. Crimes against humanity Crimes against humanity are acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, such as murder, deportation, torture and r@pe. The ICC prosecutes the perpetrators even if the crimes were not committed in times of war. Consequences of the crime of aggression The states that are party to the Rome Statute have not yet reached consensus on the definition of and punishment for aggression. Until they do, the ICC is unable to prosecute individuals for acts of aggression." So, what you may want Bush and Blair tried for is specifically off the list. | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people. Again, what are the "war crimes" instigated by either leader? An "illegal" war is not a war crime, I believe. There were prosecutions of illegal activity, but they were not ordered by leadership as far as I'm aware. That's not the same as saying that the war was correct or justified. Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot, and it is only in retrospect that it is clear what followed was even worse in many ways. How can an illegal war not be a war crime? By very definition surely! This is the very war crime that the defendents of Nuremberg were tried and convicted of. Bush and Blair headed this up, fabricated evidence, produced the dodgy dossiers, lied to their governments, used sources they knew were problematic, used evidence gained from torture, used torture in Guantanamo, killed probably a million people. Where is the line? Your applying your beliefs not the law. Nuremberg was not trying the legality of starting WWII. It was trying the inhumane acts carried out in its conduct. What is a definition of a war crime according to the ICC? If this is about application of the law make it about application of the law. Rendition, however abhorrent, was not carried out as an act of warfare. It was a general "anti-terrorism" policy. So, outside the ICC jurisdiction, I believe. In retrospect the invasion of Iraq or at the very least it's final outcome, may have been completely wrong. Don't conflate that with a "war crime" as that devalues the gravity of what that really means. No. You are absolutely wrong here. Look what they were charged and indicted with at Nuremberg. It was planning and carrying out a war of aggression. Only a minor part of thr trials were then also about additional war crimes. 'The IMT focused on the crime of aggression — plotting and waging aggressive war, which the verdict declared "the supreme international crime" because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"' Bush and Blair were as guilty of this charge as those in Nuremberg. That is very different to making any equivalence between what happened in those wars, which I am absolutely not doing. But waging a war of aggression was the war crime used then. Fair point about the Nuremberg, although they were far more successful in trying people for crimes against humanity. I had incorrectly assumed that the ICC was constituted on the same basis. It is not, quite. "Crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court War crimes War crimes include torture, mutilation, corporal punishment, hostage taking and acts of terrorism. This category also covers violations of human dignity such as r@pe and forced prostitution, looting and execution without trial. War crimes, unlike crimes against humanity, are always committed in times of war. Genocide This includes all acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic or religious group. Crimes against humanity Crimes against humanity are acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, such as murder, deportation, torture and r@pe. The ICC prosecutes the perpetrators even if the crimes were not committed in times of war. Consequences of the crime of aggression The states that are party to the Rome Statute have not yet reached consensus on the definition of and punishment for aggression. Until they do, the ICC is unable to prosecute individuals for acts of aggression." So, what you may want Bush and Blair tried for is specifically off the list." can I make a suggestion UKeasy ? Honestly no one wants to read your responses. Can you dumb it down some it's kind of daunting. Simplify. Just a suggestion. You might get better answers instead of being glossed over.We do not need a dissertation on why.... I get it you take pride in your self claimed knowledge. Dumb it down. If you want to reach the masses your " I am better then everyone else". To put it bluntly is showing  | |||
"It would hold more weight if they had ever indicted Bush and Blair too. How would it hold more weight? What would the difference be? It would hold more weight because the argument that will inevitably come from Russia and Putin is that this is evidence that the West's intention all along was to target Putin and Russia. If courts like the ICC had similarly held to account the likes of Bush and Blair, correctly, for planning and carrying out a war of aggression, which is a war crime, then any sanction applied to Putin would carry more weight. Otherwise it looks like it's one rule for the West, another rule for the rest. Someone has to bring the case and the evidence. Then the prosecution investigates like any other case. Have any specific accusations or evidence been brought of an actual war crime as opposed to a war without a construction and exit strategy? It's not about a construction and exit strategy. "Launching a war of aggression" is the War Crime that the Nuremberg Trials convicted of. Many people have accused Bush and Blair of War Crimes. The Iraq War, launched on knowigly false evidence, killed (by conservative estimates) half a million people, it could have been over a million people. Again, what are the "war crimes" instigated by either leader? An "illegal" war is not a war crime, I believe. There were prosecutions of illegal activity, but they were not ordered by leadership as far as I'm aware. That's not the same as saying that the war was correct or justified. Saddam Hussein was a horrible despot, and it is only in retrospect that it is clear what followed was even worse in many ways. How can an illegal war not be a war crime? By very definition surely! This is the very war crime that the defendents of Nuremberg were tried and convicted of. Bush and Blair headed this up, fabricated evidence, produced the dodgy dossiers, lied to their governments, used sources they knew were problematic, used evidence gained from torture, used torture in Guantanamo, killed probably a million people. Where is the line? Your applying your beliefs not the law. Nuremberg was not trying the legality of starting WWII. It was trying the inhumane acts carried out in its conduct. What is a definition of a war crime according to the ICC? If this is about application of the law make it about application of the law. Rendition, however abhorrent, was not carried out as an act of warfare. It was a general "anti-terrorism" policy. So, outside the ICC jurisdiction, I believe. In retrospect the invasion of Iraq or at the very least it's final outcome, may have been completely wrong. Don't conflate that with a "war crime" as that devalues the gravity of what that really means. No. You are absolutely wrong here. Look what they were charged and indicted with at Nuremberg. It was planning and carrying out a war of aggression. Only a minor part of thr trials were then also about additional war crimes. 'The IMT focused on the crime of aggression — plotting and waging aggressive war, which the verdict declared "the supreme international crime" because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"' Bush and Blair were as guilty of this charge as those in Nuremberg. That is very different to making any equivalence between what happened in those wars, which I am absolutely not doing. But waging a war of aggression was the war crime used then. Fair point about the Nuremberg, although they were far more successful in trying people for crimes against humanity. I had incorrectly assumed that the ICC was constituted on the same basis. It is not, quite. "Crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court War crimes War crimes include torture, mutilation, corporal punishment, hostage taking and acts of terrorism. This category also covers violations of human dignity such as r@pe and forced prostitution, looting and execution without trial. War crimes, unlike crimes against humanity, are always committed in times of war. Genocide This includes all acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic or religious group. Crimes against humanity Crimes against humanity are acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, such as murder, deportation, torture and r@pe. The ICC prosecutes the perpetrators even if the crimes were not committed in times of war. Consequences of the crime of aggression The states that are party to the Rome Statute have not yet reached consensus on the definition of and punishment for aggression. Until they do, the ICC is unable to prosecute individuals for acts of aggression." So, what you may want Bush and Blair tried for is specifically off the list. can I make a suggestion UKeasy ? Honestly no one wants to read your responses. Can you dumb it down some it's kind of daunting. Simplify. Just a suggestion. You might get better answers instead of being glossed over.We do not need a dissertation on why.... I get it you take pride in your self claimed knowledge. Dumb it down. If you want to reach the masses your " I am better then everyone else". To put it bluntly is showing "It's not a dissertation. It's not "self claimed knowledge". It's a direct quote of what the court does when you look it up. The last paragraph days that they didn't agree about what a "crime of aggression" is, so they specifically do not try anyone for it. That's what the other poster wanted Bush and Blair tried for. If I just state that they can't try them because of the rules someone will demand to know why and I'd need to write it anyway... | |||
| |||
"Well I probably will get banned for bullying. But you don't need to try and be superior to others just because... All I asking is is for people to be more simplistic. Not everyone wants to see someone post a novel. " You are not being unreasonable, but you did understand the summary at the end, didn't you? "So, what you may want Bush and Blair tried for is specifically off the list." I usually do summarise my point. It's usually in the form of a question so that someone goes off and finds their own answer rather than taking my word for it. Some people get upset about being asked questions... | |||
"Well I probably will get banned for bullying. But you don't need to try and be superior to others just because... All I asking is is for people to be more simplistic. Not everyone wants to see someone post a novel. You are not being unreasonable, but you did understand the summary at the end, didn't you? "So, what you may want Bush and Blair tried for is specifically off the list." I usually do summarise my point. It's usually in the form of a question so that someone goes off and finds their own answer rather than taking my word for it. Some people get upset about being asked questions..." agreed you can't blame bush and Blair when 48 other nations supported the war in one way or another. Yet those 46 are not held to thee same standards. Why is that? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Well I probably will get banned for bullying. But you don't need to try and be superior to others just because... All I asking is is for people to be more simplistic. Not everyone wants to see someone post a novel. You are not being unreasonable, but you did understand the summary at the end, didn't you? "So, what you may want Bush and Blair tried for is specifically off the list." I usually do summarise my point. It's usually in the form of a question so that someone goes off and finds their own answer rather than taking my word for it. Some people get upset about being asked questions... agreed you can't blame bush and Blair when 48 other nations supported the war in one way or another. Yet those 46 are not held to thee same standards. Why is that? " On balance it does look like the "evidence" of WMDs as a reason for the invasion was a pretext because Bush wanted to invade Iraq based on daddy issues and his mates who wanted to make money (which they did). The rest of the coalition chose to believe that "evidence" (equally bad) or genuinely did believe (conned). What do you think? Do you think it was done for the right reasons? | |||
"Well I probably will get banned for bullying. But you don't need to try and be superior to others just because... All I asking is is for people to be more simplistic. Not everyone wants to see someone post a novel. You are not being unreasonable, but you did understand the summary at the end, didn't you? "So, what you may want Bush and Blair tried for is specifically off the list." I usually do summarise my point. It's usually in the form of a question so that someone goes off and finds their own answer rather than taking my word for it. Some people get upset about being asked questions... agreed you can't blame bush and Blair when 48 other nations supported the war in one way or another. Yet those 46 are not held to thee same standards. Why is that? On balance it does look like the "evidence" of WMDs as a reason for the invasion was a pretext because Bush wanted to invade Iraq based on daddy issues and his mates who wanted to make money (which they did). The rest of the coalition chose to believe that "evidence" (equally bad) or genuinely did believe (conned). What do you think? Do you think it was done for the right reasons?" Are you telling me other nations failed on their intelligence assets on to why? There is clearly some nations that have that ability to assess the situation. Yet there is only 2 that are the scapegoats. | |||
"Well I probably will get banned for bullying. But you don't need to try and be superior to others just because... All I asking is is for people to be more simplistic. Not everyone wants to see someone post a novel. You are not being unreasonable, but you did understand the summary at the end, didn't you? "So, what you may want Bush and Blair tried for is specifically off the list." I usually do summarise my point. It's usually in the form of a question so that someone goes off and finds their own answer rather than taking my word for it. Some people get upset about being asked questions... agreed you can't blame bush and Blair when 48 other nations supported the war in one way or another. Yet those 46 are not held to thee same standards. Why is that? On balance it does look like the "evidence" of WMDs as a reason for the invasion was a pretext because Bush wanted to invade Iraq based on daddy issues and his mates who wanted to make money (which they did). The rest of the coalition chose to believe that "evidence" (equally bad) or genuinely did believe (conned). What do you think? Do you think it was done for the right reasons? Are you telling me other nations failed on their intelligence assets on to why? There is clearly some nations that have that ability to assess the situation. Yet there is only 2 that are the scapegoats." Most countries do not have the same intelligence assets as the US, so they make a choice to believe or not believe what they are told. I am not "scapegoating" anyone. However, the evidence was presented primarily by the US and backed up by the UK who both have some reputation for intelligence capability. Regardless, you haven't said if you thought that the WMD evidence was presented with knowledge by the US that it was false or not. The consequences of the invasion have not been at all good for the US or the world at large in my opinion. What do you think? | |||
| |||
"Nobody looks at the Coalition of the willing. Yet lair and bush are the major culprits. Umm hello there was others." Maybe the coalition of the willing were nodding along, while Uncle Sam was twisting the arm vigorously behind the curtain. Bush wasn't adverse to saying publicly you are either with us or against us. Am sure the words behind the scenes were probably stronger regarding the consequences of being against us. | |||
"Lol maybe you should go look who are on the list of intelligent assets and get back to me. There are some stellar assets that know." You often ask for simple, direct answers and claim to give them. This doesn't seem to be. Was the invasion of Iraq carried out based on reliable intelligence, was the evidence known to be unreliable and used as a pretext or did the US believe incorrect evidence? | |||
"Lol maybe you should go look who are on the list of intelligent assets and get back to me. There are some stellar assets that know. You often ask for simple, direct answers and claim to give them. This doesn't seem to be. Was the invasion of Iraq carried out based on reliable intelligence, was the evidence known to be unreliable and used as a pretext or did the US believe incorrect evidence?" Would you have preferred Iraq to continue without anyone from the west getting involved? | |||
