War Crime. Two words that carry a powerful feel, and two words, which if one is found cuplable of, you would think carry some sort of deep and dark penalty. Which, in theory, should be the case. I am quite sure there would be a % on here who might support the total abolition of the idea of 'war crimes', yet feel confident that most of us realise the importance of having parameters that cannot be crossed without answering to them. Of course, during the Nuremberg War Trials, Nazi's, at least those not dead or escaped, were indeed tried for war crimes, and sentenced to varying punishments. Even today, there are those that, almost unhealthily, pursue men who they believe are the 'last living Nazi's', all across the world. There is almost a futility to spending time and (someone's?) money, chasing men of around 90 around the globe, but that is another arguement. In more recent cases, when someone has been put on trial for a war crime(s), it has often been a farce. It goes a bit like this. One day the despot is fit and well, doing what he does best, hurting his own people, doing deals all over the place. People get fed up. This bit can take decades. People gather enough support to force removal of despot. Despot is put on trial for war crimes. Despot appears in an international court, in a hospital bed, with claims that he is very ill, and not really fit to stand trial. And this circus goes on and on, indeed, the former 'leader' of Egypt is a fine example. These men have become rich at the expense of the nations people, and they can afford to hire the best legal team, to abuse the system. Domestic criminals can have their 'proceeds of crime' taken, and I believe that in theory, international courts can do this with heads of nations (they wanted to with Gadaffi). In practice, it doesn't work, because these men, by their very nature, will have finance stealthed away, here and there. I believe the charge of war crime to be among the most serious of all. I believe that while a trial is appropriate, and representation should be permitted, that the system perhaps needs revisited, to make it less easy for those accused to use their legal might to slow up justice. All we appear to do now is undermine the courts, and the hard work of those that find out about their crimes, and bring them to justice. We also do that with domestic crime, it is set up in way as to give the accused so many out balls, it is loaded folks...in favour of the criminal. Jack
Colombian FARC conflict death toll 220,000 so far... More than 220,000 dead in conflict in Colombia Fri, Jul 26, 2013 - Colombias internal conflict has claimed at least 220,000 lives since 1958, and more than four of every five victims have been civilian noncombatants, a government-created commission said in a report released on Wednesday.
And once again the problem sits with the US, i am sorry to say. I absolutely agree with the tribunal being created but only if everyone who commits atrocities is tried. During the second world war british captains killed german seamen when they were floating in the sea after their boats sunk. No war crime tribunal there. The invasion of Iraq was an illegal action and any inhumane act committed could see the individual tried in the tribunal, but because they allies run the tribunal and conquered the Iraqi's there were no war crimes committed. I do not know how many were tried from Uganda and Rwanda in the mid nineties but I betw e can count on one hand the convictions. Because they are internal conflicts no one will be tried from Libya, Syria or from the Checnyan conflict (which is considered a terrorist conflict) so really we need to ask what is this inept tribunal there for? The tribunals effectiveness is non existent if some perpetrators are tried and others are not!
