PDA

View Full Version : Statute of limitations, legal immunity or otherwise...


airship
4th Feb 2014, 16:33
20 years after the events, France is finally prosecuting one of those suspected involved in the Rwanda genocide (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26030493)...?!

I note that even heads of states in western democracies are granted "immunity from prosecution" during their official tenures. So do most elected politicians (at least MPs in UK), so that they can generally say what they like, when they like about anyone, whilst hiding behind this "curtain of immunity".

I've often (R)wandared, whether the very long delays in bringing any prosecutions before French or ICC courts, has more to do with protecting the immunities of previous public officials (French, Rwandan or others) for as long as possible, to the detriment of justice.

Compared to WWII certainly, when many Nazi's and Japanese were dealt with swiftly. Whilst many escaped completely, or were only brought before a court once aged in their 80-90s (not-withstanding efforts by the Mossad in the intervening years). Presumably, that way, most politicians all got to live out the rest of their lives with relative impunity...?! :mad:

Lonewolf_50
4th Feb 2014, 20:48
Compared to WWII certainly, when many Nazi's and Japanese were dealt with swiftly. Whilst many escaped completely, or were only brought before a court once aged in their 80-90s (not-withstanding efforts by the Mossad in the intervening years). Presumably, that way, most politicians all got to live out the rest of their lives with relative impunity...?! :mad:

Victor's justice (post WW II) is quite a bit different than what you were on about in re various heads of state being selectively called before international (and politically motivated) courts.

I find it culturally arrogant of Europeans to damand African heads of state answer to them in Europe for African civil wars. FFS, Europe had civil wars aplenty over the years, and did the Africans haul the Europeans into their courts?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Europe. :p (I suspect a few on my side of the pond are in on the hypocrisy as well ... )

Haraka
5th Feb 2014, 13:40
I find it culturally arrogant of Europeans to damand African heads of state answer to them in Europe for African civil wars. FFS, Europe had civil wars aplenty over the years, and did the Africans haul the Europeans into their courts?

I presume you are referring to the 122 nation strong International Criminal Court (ICC.)
You might care to look a little deeper in to the initial wishes of African members of the organisation on this issue.
(Currently half of the African cases referred to the ICC were requested by those States themselves).
The USA of course is one of three countries that has decided no longer to be a state party: the others being Israel and the Sudan.

Lonewolf_50
5th Feb 2014, 20:01
The ICC, aka Kangaroo Court, is a European invention.

It is also a farcical body, covered in political stains. It is with good reason that my nation will not dirty itself by participating. (Hell, we have plenty of other dirt to try and clean off, no point in making the job harder, eh? )

500N
5th Feb 2014, 20:08
I don't blame the US for not joining the ICC party.

I wish Australia would do the same. we had the farcical situation here
a few years ago where a gung ho Brigadier charged a couple of soldiers
with things done in Afghanistan which could have ended up at the ICC.
As it was, the whole case collapsed but it made a lot of people very annoyed
that the ICC was even contemplated.

Haraka
6th Feb 2014, 05:04
The ICC, aka Kangaroo Court, is a European invention.
The ICC is a creation of the United Nations. Period.
To accuse it of being somehow "European" because of its location in the Hague is about as logical as calling the U.N. "American" because it is headquartered in New York.

But let's not allow the facts to confuse the issue for those whose minds are made up.:ok:

racedo
6th Feb 2014, 12:09
ICC ......................so who charges all those United Nations missions involved in Child abuse around the world. Oh wait no one.

Lonewolf_50
6th Feb 2014, 13:41
Haraka, the imperial powers of the 19th and 20th century attempted to establish an orderly world with their lines drawn on maps.
The powers were European. The League of Nations, though promoted by an American President, was an allegedly supra national organization (as is the ICC) which was European in nature and in its effectiveness.

The US filled a power vacuum after WW II, surely, but the European cultural arrogance that their world, and their world view, was "the world as it is" remains.
The ICC is a direct result of that attitude.
The American elected government in due course recognized the corrupt nature of the ICC and its politicization, whereas the Europeans remain all in and cannot admit that their lack of power renders the ICC a farce.
The ICC remains a European institution in nature. (I'd say it is a grandchild of the Metternich System, but that may be a stretch).

The fact that third worlders showed up to play simply reinforced the paternalistic European nature of that particular kangaroo court. The ICC is not in a system of checks and balances. That is a core reason behind why our political will has been to give it the elbow.