• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Explainer: How could Russia's Putin be prosecuted

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From here: Explainer: How could Russia's Putin be prosecuted for war crimes in Ukraine?

Excerpt:

The International Criminal Court in The Hague defines war crimes as "grave breaches" of the post-World War Two Geneva Conventions, agreements which lay out the international humanitarian laws to be followed in war time. Breaches include deliberately targeting civilians and attacking legitimate military targets where civilian casualties would be “excessive,” legal experts said.

Ukraine and its Western allies accuse Russian forces of targeting civilians indiscriminately. Russia, which describes its invasion of on Ukraine as a "special operation," denies targeting civilians and says its goal is to "demilitarize and denazify" Ukraine, claims Kyiv and the West say are baseless.

The USSR ratified the Geneva Convention in 1954. Russia in 2019 revoked its recognition of one of the protocols, but remains a signatory to the rest of the agreements. The ICC, formed in 2002, is distinct from the International Court of Justice, a United Nations body that hears disputes between states.
The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, said this month he had opened an investigation into possible war crimes in Ukraine.
 
The United States regularly brings foreign leaders here for trial on drug charges.

An ex-president of a Central American country is currently due to be put on trial here.

So why can't the United States bring that war criminal here to stand trial for genocide?

(There are certainly some Russian officials who would help apprehend him for a reasonable reward.)
 
The United States regularly brings foreign leaders here for trial on drug charges.

An ex-president of a Central American country is currently due to be put on trial here.

So why can't the United States bring that war criminal here to stand trial for genocide?

(There are certainly some Russian officials who would help apprehend him for a reasonable reward.)

Because A) he didn’t commit genocide and B) the odds of Russia handing him over are somewhere between “laughably slim” and “none”.

Same reason all the hoopla over Bush being accused of war crimes never amounted to anything.
 
Because A) he didn’t commit genocide and B) the odds of Russia handing him over are somewhere between “laughably slim” and “none”.
Some people respectfully disagree with your opinion. (a) Killing a pregnant mother and her baby / killing a man standing in line for bread / etc. Some call that "genocide."

(b) Some Russians would hand him over if they received the proper "incentive."
 
Putin will be assassinated by his buddies soon. There will be no war crimes trials.
 
Some people respectfully disagree with your opinion. (a) Killing a pregnant mother and her baby / killing a man standing in line for bread / etc. Some call that "genocide."

(b) Some Russians would hand him over if they received the proper "incentive."

Some people therefore don’t know what genocide is. By that definition we would have committed “genocide” in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And what “incentives” do you fantasize those would be?
 
American dollars and a Green Card.

If throwing money at an issue was enough to overthrow a world leader Fidel Castro would have been toppled decades ago. Not to mention, of course, that it’s rather hard to find anyone willing to run the risk of kidnapping a world leader and smuggling him over a border(not to mention that person actually being able to succeed).

The arrogance in assuming that all one would need to orchestrate a coup is offer someone a green card is truly a sight to behold.
 
For Putin to being handed over to the Hague it would require him losing power, and even then the new government might choose not to in case they instead want him to stand trial for something in Russia to shore up their domestic support, or if they are as antagonistic to the West as he is they just wouldn't give him up.
 
Back
Top Bottom