Africa to quit ICC forever

[Artevelde]

The trouble with taking the "smart-alec" route and insulting me is that you're wrong. Kristallnacht -date 1938; invasion of Poland 1939.

1938, 32 leaders of various countries meet in Evian, France to discuss the growing problem of jewish emigrant numbers. International community takes the appeasement route thus trapping millions of Jews who would otherwise escape.

goodbye and good riddance to your rubbish argument for appeasement. Please don't waste my time by responding further - I've no time for your stupid and ignorant argument.

[/thread]

The trouble with people who have never read a real history book and just rely on quick googling is that they don't know what they're talking about.

Kristallnacht is NOT the beginning of the Holocaust. The Holocaust began in 1941. People like you are the objective allies of holoaust deniers.

 

[VanceMack]

Yes...the perpetrators of mass slaughters in Rwanda, Darfur, and others are being pursued by the ICC...because of racism...

classic....

 

[donsutherland1]

If they do, ICC will lose about 40 African countries. This means that ICC is no longer acceptable body.

That's not the case. The Rome Statute would still have more than the 60 required ratifications. It would remain legitimate, so long as it focuses on its mission as set forth in the Rome Statute. What would happen is that the credibility of a commitment to combat war crimes and other crimes against humanity among the withdrawing African states would be undermined, especially if they fail to adopt a robust and credible alternative legal mechanism for addressing those issues.

 

[donsutherland1]

No, I feel countries should be responsible for what happens on their territory.

The ICC is a perversion of international law. It does not provide justice, just propaganda trials and moralizing grand-standing.

That's incorrect. The ICC offers a last resort of sorts if a sovereign state is unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute suspected war crimes and other crimes against humanity. If a sovereign state is willing and able to prosecute those suspected crimes, then the ICC does not handle those cases.

Article 17 of the Rome Statute states:

Issues of admissibility

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable: (a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;

(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

 

[Artevelde]

That's incorrect. The ICC offers a last resort of sorts if a sovereign state is unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute suspected war crimes and other crimes against humanity. If a sovereign state is willing and able to prosecute those suspected crimes, then the ICC does not handle those cases.

Article 17 of the Rome Statute states:

Issues of admissibility

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable: (a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;

(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

It's a kangaroo court trying people according to made-up law and following made-up procedures. It is the very negation of due process.

 

[donsutherland1]

It's a kangaroo court trying people according to made-up law and following made-up procedures. It is the very negation of due process.

What's the evidence for your argument?

 

[Artevelde]

What's the evidence for your argument?

From the actual functioning of this kangaroo court.
Would you like to be tried by judges according to procedures and statutes that were made up ad hoc?

 

[donsutherland1]

From the actual functioning of this kangaroo court.
Would you like to be tried by judges according to procedures and statutes that were made up ad hoc?

The procedures and statutes were not "made up ad hoc." The Rome Statute is very specific.

Articles 5-9 provide the definitions of the crimes over which the ICC has jurisdiction
Articles 11-20 outline the ICC's jurisdiction and limitations
Article 21 sets for the applicable law
Articles 22-33 establish the principles of law

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/english/rome_statute(e).pdf

 

[Artevelde]

The procedures and statutes were not "made up ad hoc." The Rome Statute is very specific.

Articles 5-9 provide the definitions of the crimes over which the ICC has jurisdiction
Articles 11-20 outline the ICC's jurisdiction and limitations
Article 21 sets for the applicable law
Articles 22-33 establish the principles of law

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/english/rome_statute(e).pdf

As I said, they were made up. So for example a person from a country where criminal cases are tried by jury finds himself completely bereft of this right. Trials last years. There is no limit on the sort of procedures the prosecution can use. Etc. It is an absolute kangaroo court and a disgrace. It is the antithesis of due process.

 

[donsutherland1]

As I said, they were made up. So for example a person from a country where criminal cases are tried by jury finds himself completely bereft of this right. Trials last years. There is no limit on the sort of procedures the prosecution can use. Etc. It is an absolute kangaroo court and a disgrace. It is the antithesis of due process.

That's incorrect. The country can try the individual with its jury system. Only if the country is unwilling or unable to do so, would the individual be subject to the ICC.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

The trouble with people who have never read a real history book and just rely on quick googling is that they don't know what they're talking about.

Kristallnacht is NOT the beginning of the Holocaust. The Holocaust began in 1941. People like you are the objective allies of holoaust deniers.

1) 96 Jews killed on Kristallnacht. I've linked to Kristallnacht already for you. You were the one who mentioned the Holocaust as if that was the start of Hitler's pogrom. I didn't. Back-up link.
2) There were no international outcries over what happened in Germany to the jews, the world effectively appeased Hitler and left him to his internal activities against those he didn't like - this is what I said in my original post which you threw some stupid comment about the Holocaust into.

I suggest you actually read your history book - including the pages you obviously skipped.

As I said, they were made up. So for example a person from a country where criminal cases are tried by jury finds himself completely bereft of this right. Trials last years. There is no limit on the sort of procedures the prosecution can use. Etc. It is an absolute kangaroo court and a disgrace. It is the antithesis of due process.

Nothing to back your argument. You were asked for evidence - not your opinion.

 

[Gardener]

The trouble with people who have never read a real history book and just rely on quick googling is that they don't know what they're talking about.

Kristallnacht is NOT the beginning of the Holocaust. The Holocaust began in 1941. People like you are the objective allies of holoaust deniers.

How funny.

Any ACTUAL student of history would not reduce the issue down in such a simplistic fashion as to say it started at some precise point in time, and do so in such a definitive fashion, especially since Holocaust historians differ among themselves when they do attempt to argue some beginning point. Some refer to the passage of the Nuremburg laws, some to Hitler assuming Chancellorship, while a few others such as you point to that time when the systematic extermination began. Probably the largest number, if pressed on the issue, would say Kristallnacht, but when it gets down to it, what freaking difference does it make WHICH arbitrary point in time is chosen? It happened, and the reasons for it are so myriad as to defy your attempt at simplification.

You might as well argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for all the validity to the issue you offer with this bellicose nit picking.

 

[ecofarm]

That's incorrect. The country can try the individual with its jury system. Only if the country is unwilling or unable to do so, would the individual be subject to the ICC.

Additionally, the subject must be accused of crimes against humanity (+) and their actions must carry regional ramifications.

 

[donsutherland1]

Additionally, the subject must be accused of crimes against humanity (+) and their actions must carry regional ramifications.

I'm just puzzled by the allegation that the ICC's rules and procedures, all of which are specified in detail under the Rome Statute, have been characterized as "ad hoc," among other things. There seems to be a willingness to overlook the very serious allegations of crimes against humanity that have taken place in Africa. The nations considering withdrawing from the ICC appear to be doing so for purely political reasons that have little to do with improving the judicial process related to the prosecution of crimes against humanity. In the end, if they withdraw from the ICC and if they fail to develop a robust judicial mechanism for prosecuting suspected crimes against humanity, they will merely be depriving their citizens of an opportunity to seek justice when such serious crimes are committed. Sudan has already demonstrated no willingness or desire to seriously address crimes against humanity. Whether Kenya adopt a similar posture remains to be seen.

 

[donsutherland1]

How funny.

Any ACTUAL student of history would not reduce the issue down in such a simplistic fashion as to say it started at some precise point in time, and do so in such a definitive fashion, especially since Holocaust historians differ among themselves when they do attempt to argue some beginning point. Some refer to the passage of the Nuremburg laws, some to Hitler assuming Chancellorship, while a few others such as you point to that time when the systematic extermination began. Probably the largest number, if pressed on the issue, would say Kristallnacht, but when it gets down to it, what freaking difference does it make WHICH arbitrary point in time is chosen? It happened, and the reasons for it are so myriad as to defy your attempt at simplification.

You might as well argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for all the validity to the issue you offer with this bellicose nit picking.

I agree. One needs to consider the events that led to the Holocaust. The context of growing anti-Semitic persecution is highly relevant to understanding the Holocaust. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum provides a succinct timeline and description of some of the events leading up to and during the Holocaust for those who are interested:

Timeline of Events - Before 1933 — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

And, relevant to the argument raised in this thread, the Museum's account notes that Kristallnacht was a "turning point" in Nazi Germany's persecution of Jewish people.

 

[Gardener]

I agree. One needs to consider the events that led to the Holocaust. The context of growing anti-Semitic persecution is highly relevant to understanding the Holocaust. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum provides a succinct timeline and description of some of the events leading up to and during the Holocaust for those who are interested:

Timeline of Events - Before 1933 — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

And, relevant to the argument raised in this thread, the Museum's account notes that Kristallnacht was a "turning point" in Nazi Germany's persecution of Jewish people.

My Mother's cousin was a screen actress in Germany in the late 20s and early 30s, and so I have long been fascinated by the rise of the Nazis, especially in regards to the underlying social psychology. She was in a field considered "degenerate", Jews were already being quite actively persecuted, intellectuals were being harassed and what they all had in common was that they provided convenient fodder for the Nazi propaganda mill which promised a return to order along any number of fronts. The Nazis played upon perceptions of moral upheaval, financial catastrophe, the threat of communism, whatever they could utilize to scapegoat various groups to facilitate their rise.

It strikes me as quite naïve and myopic to state the Holocaust began HERE. Why not THERE? The field of history is not mutually exclusive with that of sociology, and from the social perspective, the wheels were in motion for the Holocaust LONG before 1941. Heck, my Mothers cousin was right in the middle of it in 1930. It was already happening.

Do you call it a fire when the paper is lit or do you wait until all the logs have been engulfed? That is all that people are arguing here.

 

[Rainman05]

How did a topic about Africa turn into a nazi thread?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- That is all that people are arguing here.

I will apologise for my part in that, I was offended by the attempt to deflect the point which was that the international community followed a path of appeasement and did not protest at the treatment of jews and others which simply allowed Hitler to believe the world didn't care.

How did a topic about Africa turn into a nazi thread?

Read back, the argument that the world or International community should just sit back and allow dictators and mass murderers to wantonly slay or ruthlessly maltreat their own citizens has precursors in 1930's 1940's europe.

 

[Van Basten]

How did a topic about Africa turn into a nazi thread?

Nazis are always relevant when talking about bad people in a government.

 

[sudan]

i read all your comments and its really useful to me ,, thanks

 

[Gardener]

I will apologise for my part in that, I was offended by the attempt to deflect the point which was that the international community followed a path of appeasement and did not protest at the treatment of jews and others which simply allowed Hitler to believe the world didn't care.

No need to apologize at all. At least from my perspective, you were doing just fine.

As to the subject, the international community will always follow the path of indecision, if not outright appeasement. Put a group of representatives of disparate states in a room and ask them to formulate a real plan for dealing with ethnic clensing and you might as well try to herd cats.

 

[MadLib]

I think the world dealt appropriately with Hitler. When he started attacking other countries his country was attacked and he was driven from power.

If we had begun preemptively, we would have been able to save quite a bit of bloodshed because the German army was still relatively weak when they occupied the Rhineland.

 

[Rainman05]

As Kenya prosecutions continue, African leaders accuse The Hague of discrimination | News | DW.DE | 11.10.2013

As Kenya prosecutions continue, African leaders accuse The Hague of discrimination
African leaders have accused The Hague of targeting the continent in prosecutions. A summit comes as tensions mount between the International Criminal Court and the African Union.

"Those leaders seeking to skirt the court are effectively looking for a license to kill, maim and oppress their own people without consequence," Tutu wrote in an opinion piece carried by several newspapers Friday. "They simply vilify the institution as racist and unjust, as Hermann Göring and his fellow Nazi defendants vilified the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II," he wrote.

Kenya on trial
Africans stand trial in all eight cases currently before the ICC. However, the countries themselves have referred four of those cases to The Hague - including those involving Kenya. The ICC has charged Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vice President William Ruto, as well as former radio boss Joshua Arap Sang, with crimes against humanity linked to post-election violence in 2007-2008 that left at least 1,100 dead and more than 600,000 homeless.

Yeah... go ahead Kenya. Try and sqeak your way out of this. Kenyans are a bunch of genocidal psychopaths with a long history of abuse against somalians... well against all people really but I say somalians because of the following things:
After kenyan troops entered to "help" somalian republican forces defeat al-shabab, the Doctors without Borders organization has been forced out of Somalia. So we are basically blind about what is happening there (we = the west). Chances are... kenyans are behind this so that they can do more genocide on the somalian people without anyone having to ever find out about it. Defeat al-shabab in somalia while at the same time, doing a bit of ethnic cleansing. win-win for kenyans.

 

[MadLib]

As Kenya prosecutions continue, African leaders accuse The Hague of discrimination | News | DW.DE | 11.10.2013





Yeah... go ahead Kenya. Try and sqeak your way out of this. Kenyans are a bunch of genocidal psychopaths with a long history of abuse against somalians... well against all people really but I say somalians because of the following things:
After kenyan troops entered to "help" somalian republican forces defeat al-shabab, the Doctors without Borders organization has been forced out of Somalia. So we are basically blind about what is happening there (we = the west). Chances are... kenyans are behind this so that they can do more genocide on the somalian people without anyone having to ever find out about it. Defeat al-shabab in somalia while at the same time, doing a bit of ethnic cleansing. win-win for kenyans.

So...you're inferring that 44 million people are "genocidal psychopaths" because an NGO has been forced out and because there was some post-election violence 6 years ago?

 

[Rainman05]

So...you're inferring that 44 million people are "genocidal psychopaths" because an NGO has been forced out and because there was some post-election violence 6 years ago?

the kenyans in the military and the ones who are in their leadership are genocidal psychopaths, sure. They have a long history of massacres in the past decades, especially against somalians.