Libya: ICC issues arrest warrant for Muammar Gaddafi

[papa_smurf]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Any bets on if similar charges are levied against the leadership in Syria? I bet no myself

There is no consensus from other Arab nations to remove him, unlike Libya where many Arab nations want him gone.

[Gerald]

This whole, is a game for the gallery,

[August]

Originally Posted by papa_smurf

There is no consensus from other Arab nations to remove him, unlike Libya where many Arab nations want him gone.

Are you saying that ICC actions are politically motivated?

If so i'm glad that President Bush wouldn't agree to make our people subject to that.

[papa_smurf]

Originally Posted by August

Are you saying that ICC actions are politically motivated?

If so i'm glad that President Bush wouldn't agree to make our people subject to that.

Did not say that, you took my words and twisted them. Should of never said anything.

[August]

Originally Posted by papa_smurf

Did not say that, you took my words and twisted them. Should of never said anything.

Sorry Smurf, nothing personal but you certainly implied exactly that. After all, what does Arab consensus have to do with an ICC arrest warrant? Courts are supposed to make their decisions on the law, not political consensus or popularity.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Several years ago, we seriously banged our heads over the ICC. I must admit I have changed my opinion on the ICC completely since then. Your initial doubts on the ICC's political neutrality were correct, my naivety over it's motives was wrong.

An honor returned.

That's mighty upstanding of you Sky and I thank you for your post, but to my thinking there is nothing wrong with expecting ones institutions to meet the standards that they're supposed to maintain. I could hardly blame you for doing something that I am all too willing to do myself.

[Platapus]

Since Libya, like the United States, is not a signatory to the ICC instruments, this decision resembles a pointed moot.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Are you saying that ICC actions are politically motivated?

If so i'm glad that President Bush wouldn't agree to make our people subject to that.

Several years ago, we seriously banged our heads over the ICC. I must admit I have changed my opinion on the ICC completely since then. Your initial doubts on the ICC's political neutrality were correct, my naivety over it's motives was wrong.

[Castout]

If Syria leadership have to be brought to justice through the ICC are you suggesting the Bahrain monarch and the Chinese due to Tianamen square massacre should too? Because if you don't you're a hypocrite since you're asking for the prosecution of the Syrian leadership and if you do suggest prosecuting the Chinese you're a mad man.

Are you guys so naive? Sometimes condemnation is the strongest action that an international community could do and they do just that. It is still much better than silence.

And who says Syria leadership isn't going to be prosecuted through ICC anyway? The whole thing takes time. Give them a year and if the situation in Syria becomes worse with more atrocities I wouldn't count bringing the Syrian leadership to ICC an impossibility. Right now there's even a 50:50 chance already.

You must realize that the ICC is like nuclear deterrent in the military. If you use it too much it would cease being a deterrent and instead become a destructive to ALL instrument and in the end it would destroy itself or get boycotted by the majority of nations.

[August]

Originally Posted by Castout

You must realize that the ICC is like nuclear deterrent in the military. If you use it too much it would cease being a deterrent and instead become a destructive to ALL instrument and in the end it would destroy itself or get boycotted by the majority of nations.

I'd submit that it is already beyond a deterrent.

Nuclear weapons have been used only twice, within days of each other and haven't been used in over a half century since. How many ICC warrants have been issued in their short existence?

Now it is being used against a dictator who is still in power. They just gave him another reason to go down fighting instead of giving up.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by August

I'd submit that it is already beyond a deterrent.

Nuclear weapons have been used only twice, within days of each other and haven't been used in over a half century since. How many ICC warrants have been issued in their short existence?

Now it is being used against a dictator who is still in power. They just gave him another reason to go down fighting instead of giving up.

It is like a nuclear deterrence but it is obviously NOT a nuclear deterrence.

The ICC arrest warrant is a clear message to Gaddafi and his followers that their regime is DEAD politically and is intolerable to the international community. That is they are erasing any possibility of a come back or holding on to power without being an ineffective and isolated leader of Libya.

In short the ICC is giving Gaddafi one less reason and less hope to hold on to power.

Now there's only need of more ground pressure on Gaddafi controlled territory.

[August]

Originally Posted by Castout

It is like a nuclear deterrence but it is obviously NOT a nuclear deterrence.

The ICC arrest warrant is a clear message to Gaddafi and his followers that their regime is DEAD politically and is intolerable to the international community. That is they are erasing any possibility of a come back or holding on to power without being an ineffective and isolated leader of Libya.

In short the ICC is giving Gaddafi one less reason and less hope to hold on to power.

Now there's only need of more ground pressure on Gaddafi controlled territory.

No, what it tells him is: "If you give up we will put you on trial as a war criminal so you might as well fight to the end"

Besides, even if he were to loose power and somehow get it back it wouldn't be by permission of the international community whatever that is.