View Full Version : ICC says Muammar Gaddafi killing may be war crime
Jimbuna
12-16-11, 08:35 AM
Never really thought about this but looking back at the final piece if video footage certainly gives one food for thought :hmmm:
The death of Libya's former leader Muammar Gaddafi "creates suspicions" of war crimes, says the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo said the ICC was raising the concern with Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16212133
Skybird
12-16-11, 09:17 AM
French sources and a German-French journalist claim Gaddafi got impaled with an iron rod.
Being determined or not forgiving a crime, is on thing. Cruelty for the sake of being cruel, is another one, no matter what the deliquent has done.
Originally, the way it was done in past times, impaling can be counted to some of the most cruel and inhumane things humans can do to other humans.
the_tyrant
12-16-11, 10:11 AM
What authority does the ICC have?
How many divisions does the ICC have?
What authority does the ICC have?
How many divisions does the ICC have?
Lybia's NTC have promised to allow ICC to investigate and prosecute the war crimes cases in Lybia, including those Gaddafi was sought for in the first place.
And I like your implication that military strength has anything to do with determination of cruelty or justice.
I also like the ICC's implication, of course, that war is somehow not a dirty business to begin with; so I hope this claim doesn't draw attention to the wrong things.
Tribesman
12-16-11, 10:57 AM
ICC says Muammar Gaddafi killing may be war crime
He was captured and then killed by a mob, seems to fit the bil for war crimes doesn't it.
Probably why they tried to claim he died in a gun battle until the videos emerged.
mookiemookie
12-16-11, 11:20 AM
It may very well be a war crime, but how do you prosecute a mob of irregulars?
PapaKilo
12-16-11, 11:21 AM
If you rob your thief is this a crime ? =]
Skybird
12-16-11, 11:42 AM
If you rob your thief is this a crime ? =]
If you do it by skinning him instead of emptying his pockets, I would say yes.
Not that I cry for Gaddafi, to simply kill him probably was the most elegant solution, instead of giving him a media platform at court, and wasting a lot of money and time and effort and distracting the discussion and relativiisng his deeds. After all he was a mass murderer, torturer and blood-dripping terrorist. But if the rumours are right about how they killed him, then I have a problem with the bastards having done that and would not mind to blow them to pieces as well.
Sick is sick.
Gaddafis gruesome end was inevitable. The Libyan irregulars were just that, irregulars, they had no intention of obeying any word of law when it came down to gaining their revenge. Quite frankly I'd be very surprised if what they did to Daffy was their only war crime.
C'est la Guerre. History is written by the victors.
AVGWarhawk
12-16-11, 12:13 PM
The investigation is a waste of time, money and energy IMO.
Betonov
12-16-11, 12:20 PM
It may very well be a war crime, but how do you prosecute a mob of irregulars?
You wave your finger at them and go: you naughty naughty rebels
Mussolini was a victim of war crimes as well then.
Mussolini was a victim of war crimes as well then.
Possible.:hmmm:
Gaddafi had the chance to get out but no, so he bought his own miserable squalid end on himself.
Who cares the swine is dead.
ICC says Muammar Gaddafi killing may be war crime
:hmmm:
No bklawa to ICC.
Mussolini was a victim of war crimes as well then.
If we had the same sort of mindset on war then that we have now then, well...Bomber Harris would not have lasted long, neither would have Le May. Patton would never have made General, and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died invading Japan because of the risk of damage from the Atomic bombs.
It's all well and good to have laws on war, but when you're fighting for your survival you will throw every law out of the window if it means that you will win.
Betonov
12-16-11, 01:13 PM
Mussolini was a victim of war crimes as well then.
Yes he was.
Does it matter, no.
If we had the same sort of mindset on war then that we have now then, well...Bomber Harris would not have lasted long, neither would have Le May. Patton would never have made General, and hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died invading Japan because of the risk of damage from the Atomic bombs.
It's all well and good to have laws on war, but when you're fighting for your survival you will throw every law out of the window if it means that you will win.
Yeah, in other words, here we have a basic contradiction at play: on the one hand, in civil society (that we HAVE to stand for, or else you may as well surrender your American, British, or other first-world Western country's passport) we have to defend ideals of due process, and abhor violent retribution and violence in general. That goes with the human rights that YOU enjoy - and if you believe others don't deserve them, well, hand 'em over. On the other hand, in this same society, we have a hypocritical and unrealistic ideal of a "clean war" that does not and cannot exist. That's just a fact of life. We often go on pretending that there's "good wars", but in fact all of it is terrible business and no matter how you slice it, illegal killing and revenge are all part of it from the start. In any war, at that.
You'll never be able to reconcile those two, but the best you can do is avoid hypocrisy. I think saying that Gaddafi somehow deserved a knife in the butt and being beaten to death by a mob fundamentally threatens your own way of life. So don't throw the allegation around lightly, or you might just have to live with the consequences of it one day.
mookiemookie
12-16-11, 01:29 PM
Yeah, in other words, here we have a basic contradiction at play: on the one hand, in civil society (that we HAVE to stand for, or else you may as well surrender your American, British, or other first-world Western country's passport) we have to defend ideals of due process, and abhor violent retribution and violence in general. That goes with the human rights that YOU enjoy - and if you believe others don't deserve them, well, hand 'em over. On the other hand, in this same society, we have a hypocritical and unrealistic ideal of a "clean war" that does not and cannot exist. That's just a fact of life. We often go on pretending that there's "good wars", but in fact all of it is terrible business and no matter how you slice it, illegal killing and revenge are all part of it from the start. In any war, at that.
You'll never be able to reconcile those two, but the best you can do is avoid hypocrisy. I think saying that Gaddafi somehow deserved a knife in the butt and being beaten to death by a mob fundamentally threatens your own way of life. So don't throw the allegation around lightly, or you might just have to live with the consequences of it one day.
Very well said, and an excellent post. Bravo, sir.
Tribesman
12-16-11, 01:32 PM
It may very well be a war crime, but how do you prosecute a mob of irregulars?
Like prosecutions what came out of the former yugoslavia mess? or like the baltic police auxilliaries on the eastern front or like the russian partisans who got brought up for attacking the auxiliaries on the eastern front?
Yeah, in other words, here we have a basic contradiction at play: on the one hand, in civil society (that we HAVE to stand for, or else you may as well surrender your American, British, or other first-world Western country's passport) we have to defend ideals of due process, and abhor violent retribution and violence in general. That goes with the human rights that YOU enjoy - and if you believe others don't deserve them, well, hand 'em over. On the other hand, in this same society, we have a hypocritical and unrealistic ideal of a "clean war" that does not and cannot exist. That's just a fact of life. We often go on pretending that there's "good wars", but in fact all of it is terrible business and no matter how you slice it, illegal killing and revenge are all part of it from the start. In any war, at that.
You'll never be able to reconcile those two, but the best you can do is avoid hypocrisy. I think saying that Gaddafi somehow deserved a knife in the butt and being beaten to death by a mob fundamentally threatens your own way of life. So don't throw the allegation around lightly, or you might just have to live with the consequences of it one day.
Oh, I fully agree with you, and I don't think Daffy deserved it, not at all, I would have been happier to have seen him brought before the Hague but I think we all knew from the start that that was not going to happen.
Oh, I fully agree with you, and I don't think Daffy deserved it, not at all, I would have been happier to have seen him brought before the Hague but I think we all knew from the start that that was not going to happen.
I know, I was just adding to what you already said :yep:
mookiemookie
12-16-11, 02:07 PM
Like prosecutions what came out of the former yugoslavia mess? or like the baltic police auxilliaries on the eastern front or like the russian partisans who got brought up for attacking the auxiliaries on the eastern front?
I have to admit my knowledge of that time and place in history is sketchy at best.
nikimcbee
12-16-11, 02:31 PM
The investigation is a waste of time, money and energy IMO.
It's job security for everybody involved in the process.
Tribesman
12-16-11, 02:44 PM
I have to admit my knowledge of that time and place in history is sketchy at best.
Former Yugoslavia is very recent and is still ongoing in the courts(a friendwho went from local hero to accused war criminal in an instant recently had charges dropped and is now free to go home if he wants) and while the post war prosecutions of the nazi collaboration forces are old news the more recent attempts to prosecute some soviets for WWII actions against the irregulars in the re-emerged Baltic states are pretty current.
It's job security for everybody involved in the process.
That's probably the real underlying motive for this. The ICC is trying to keep itself relevant.
Jimbuna
12-16-11, 05:50 PM
Good post CCIP but tbh I can't see the Libyans taking much notice of whatever findings the ICC come up with, if in fact they come up with anything.
Fundamental human rights should be applied to everyone regardless of their past wrongdoing.
I'm not shedding any remorse or regret for Gadaffi but simply thought the question was worth posting.
Great debate peeps :yeah:
I think what's more unfortunate is that Gaddafi's fate was probably not unique. I don't doubt that there's been more of that happening against his staff and supporters elsewhere. Heck, other people caught with him seem to have suffered the same fate.
Even if Gaddafi's death is investigated, I think the unfortunate thing is that a lot of war crimes no less severe will in the end be overlooked because the victors are now everybody's friends. The world is going to want to forget it as soon as possible so we can all do business with them.
Jimbuna
12-16-11, 07:44 PM
Yeah, I hear Sarkozy is going to invite them into the eurozone....they're the only friends of France right now who appear to have any money going spare :DL
Platapus
12-17-11, 09:57 AM
I don't think this will fly. Libya is not a member of the Rome Treaty. In order for the ICC to have jurisdiction, one of the following three elements must be true.
1.The person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. The alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court)
3. The situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.
I do not believe any of these three criteria has been demonstrated yet.
Since Gaddafi was a citizen of Libya and the "crime" was committed in Libya, elements 1 and 2 are not valid. I don't believe the UNSC has raised the issue of Gaddafi's death yet.
Based on this, I don't believe the ICC has jurisdiction at this time.
I don't think this will fly. Libya is not a member of the Rome Treaty. In order for the ICC to have jurisdiction, one of the following three elements must be true.
1.The person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. The alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court)
3. The situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.
I do not believe any of these three criteria has been demonstrated yet.
Since Gaddafi was a citizen of Libya and the "crime" was committed in Libya, elements 1 and 2 are not valid. I don't believe the UNSC has raised the issue of Gaddafi's death yet.
Based on this, I don't believe the ICC has jurisdiction at this time.
I assume that there are laws in Libya that prohibit murder. With that big assumption out of the way, Platapus brings up the two most important points, sovereignty and the severity of the action. Its their backyard, let them clean it up.
I think what's more unfortunate is that Gaddafi's fate was probably not unique. I don't doubt that there's been more of that happening against his staff and supporters elsewhere. Heck, other people caught with him seem to have suffered the same fate.
Even if Gaddafi's death is investigated, I think the unfortunate thing is that a lot of war crimes no less severe will in the end be overlooked because the victors are now everybody's friends. The world is going to want to forget it as soon as possible so we can all do business with them.
Wasn't NATO bombing Gaddafi's troops? If that is not endorsement, not sure what is.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.