ICC says Muammar Gaddafi killing may be war crime

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

Mussolini was a victim of war crimes as well then.

Yes he was.
Does it matter, no.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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.

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?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The investigation is a waste of time, money and energy IMO.

It's job security for everybody involved in the process.

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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]

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

[CCIP]

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]

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

[Platapus]

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.

[1480]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.