Saddam arrested?

You know who objects to Saddam being tried by the Iraqi people? Human Rights Watch. They think that Saddam should be tried by an international jury, otherwise the Iraqis will use the trial to have their revenge on him :roll:

 

I think they are right, but more to set the precedent. The international courts need power, and the only way to give it to them is to allow them priority over all international war criminals. This is actually a move by Bush to weaken the ICC, which he opposes out of fear that Americans (like Kissinger or even himself) will be tried for war crimes. Of course, Solaris, you'd be minus one prime minister if Israel signed the ICC treaty, so I get your country's opposition.

 

Not really. The Belgians had already attempted to try Sharon- and had to revoke the law that allowed them to try non-Belgians for things done outside Belgian territory when their courts immediately got flooded with charges against lots and lots of world leaders. There was even a group of lawyers in Israel that prepared a case against former members of Belgian government for crimes committed in the Belgian Congo in 1960-s, including the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. The ICC will be doomed to the same fate. Too many countries are suspicious of its political bias, too many groups of interessants are looking forward to making political gain through ICC. As soon as charges against Bush and Putin will be brought up (and they will be), the ICC will be in more trouble than its worth.
Besides, Sharon had already been tried for Sabra and Shatilla case, and as far as I remember, the ICC by its own rules cannot put on trial someone who has been tried in his own state for the same crime.

 

The difference between Belgium and the ICC is that in Belgium it was way too easy to bring a case. Any individual can do it. The ICC, at least theoretically, has safeguards against that. Also, a country has to sign the ICC treaty for its citizens to be ICC jurisdiction. So Bush and I think Putin can't be tried.

I didn't know Sharon had already stood trial. Was it in a military or civil court? That might have jurisdictional bearance.

 

My dad, my borother and I went to see it but it took so damn long. Just when I thought it had finished it turned out it was an interval, and had two and a half hours remaining. I walked home.

 

Which means that no country engaged in an ongoing conflict will sign the treaty- judt in case. Besides, Israel, given our traditional distrust in "international" structures, is even less likely to sign the treaty than most other states. Which leaves Sharon out of reach of the ICC.

Yep, he did. He was tried by the Israeli Supreme Court and found "indirectly responcible" for not preventing the Sabra and Shatilla massacre (contrary to what seems to be the popular belief, it wasn't the Israeli army, but the Lebanese Christian militia under the command of Elias Hbeika, who committed the massacre as an act of revenge on the Palestinians. The accusations against Israel are that IDF soldiers were close by and did not interfere). Sharon was banned from defense minister position and can never be Israeli defense minister again. They would probably ban him from taking prime minister position too, if it wasn't for the fact that, until recently, Sharon was completely un-electable.