penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 What constitutes 'due jurisdiction' to kill? i'm not a lawyer or magistrate but my understanding is giving defendant a fair trial in a recognised law court followed by a fitting punishment if found guilty...not bombing anyone and everyone with death from above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 George Bush isn't a war criminal. (So far as the UK is concerned) Also, what exactly are the government doing to 'push' these plans? i'm sure the families of his victims will disagree... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 i'm not a lawyer or magistrate but my understanding is giving defendant a fair trial in a recognised law court followed by a fitting punishment if found guilty...not bombing anyone and everyone with death from above That's a different view on things. So war isn't OK, but killing because someone is convicted is? So WW2 wasn't justified in your eyes then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 That's a different view on things. So war isn't OK, but killing because someone is convicted is? So WW2 wasn't justified in your eyes then? .... we're getting into a pretty messy area of discussion now - like i said i'm not a lawyer so can't make the distinction based on the legalities in place FYI: there were a lot of people in hitlers ranks who were captured and tried under this VERY LAW.. ironic isn't it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 .... we're getting into a pretty messy area of discussion now - like i said i'm not a lawyer so can't make the distinction based on the legalities in place The irony for me is that you seem to be campaigning for more war crime legislation, yet chucking out war crime allegations without a second thought about the connotations of what you're saying in the bigger picture. I agree though, it's a messy subject Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abz Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Do you know what the purpose of the law change is? Surely they are doing it for a reason (no doubt some dodgy one). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 both war criminals... Oh really, says who, I am willing to listen and learn but this is the first I have heard of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 Please sign EDM 108 below to stop changes in Universal Jurisdiction being put in place to allow WAR CRIMINALS escaping prosecution/arrest when entering the UK. http://psc.iparl.com/lobby/51 So if you think Bush is a war criminal then so is everybody who served there is? is that right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 It's a difficult subject for the layman to get into. The OP's argument has a lot more substance than some of the previous "please sign this petition" threads on here (the one petitioning for Harry Patch, the WWI soldier, to have a memorial (or was it a state funeral, I can't remember) when even he didn't want one, springs to mind). I don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce the OP's feelings on the Middle East. I'm trying to think whether this is politically motivated by pro-Palestinian lobbyists in the hope that those involved in the US-Israeli pact are one day convicted of War Crimes. It seems a long stretch so maybe it's not... I don't know the reasoning for the intention to change the law so that evidence needs to be presented to the DPP. There must be a reason, surely. To make an informed decision I'd need to know that reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 this may clarify things for some of you: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/11/201011501831140762.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 So if you think Bush is a war criminal then so is everybody who served there is? is that right? if they have a gun and shoot/bomb innocent people - YES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 if they have a gun and shoot/bomb innocent people - YES. What about the people that support them? Ie Logistics, support, admin etc? You're dangerously close to accusing many of our serving members of being war criminals. BTW, I think you'll find the vast majority of members here are proud of those who serve in our armed forces If you have a problem with the UK, kindly bugger off somewhere else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 What about the people that support them? Ie Logistics, support, admin etc? You're dangerously close to accusing many of our serving members of being war criminals. BTW, I think you'll find the vast majority of members here are proud of those who serve in our armed forces Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 "Activists in Britain have sought the arrest of Israeli officials under the principle, which allows courts to prosecute alleged war crimes from elsewhere in the world". I am a bit confused by this and so maybe the OP could clarify what the above actually means? I read that as if I go to a magistrate and accuse someone of war crimes, then they have to decide on whether or not to issue an arrest warrant? Or do they make an official complaint to the police asking them to investigate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 What about the people that support them? Ie Logistics, support, admin etc? You're dangerously close to accusing many of our serving members of being war criminals. BTW, I think you'll find the vast majority of members here are proud of those who serve in our armed forces If you have a problem with the UK, kindly bugger off somewhere else oh.. you're one of "those" people.... in that case i'll break it down for you.... first i need to understand if you know the value of human life, and secondly if you know what a gun is... if britain was in a state of war with say... france, and some french soldier killed YOUR family in their own home for no reason (using either a missle, guns or what ever ..... they posed no threat to him) would you call him a criminal or would you just go with the "oh he's doing his job" and get on with your life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 "Activists in Britain have sought the arrest of Israeli officials under the principle, which allows courts to prosecute alleged war crimes from elsewhere in the world". I am a bit confused by this and so maybe the OP could clarify what the above actually means? I read that as if I go to a magistrate and accuse someone of war crimes, then they have to decide on whether or not to issue an arrest warrant? Or do they make an official complaint to the police asking them to investigate? HI Cj, "I read that as if I go to a magistrate and accuse someone of war crimes, then they have to decide on whether or not to issue an arrest warrant" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 The Aljazeera article makes a fairly convincing case that the UK is trying to change the law just so that visiting Israeli officials with questionable records don't get arrested. On the surface, I don't think that's a good reason to change the law. However... is reading that in Aljazeera a bit like reading from one of the anti-speed campaigners that speeding is bad for you? If the current legislation isn't open to abuse by activists crying wolf just to make life difficult for visiting officials, then I think the law should stay as it is and I support the EDM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 What about the people that support them? Ie Logistics, support, admin etc? You're dangerously close to accusing many of our serving members of being war criminals. BTW, I think you'll find the vast majority of members here are proud of those who serve in our armed forces If you have a problem with the UK, kindly bugger off somewhere else YEA that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 HI Cj, "I read that as if I go to a magistrate and accuse someone of war crimes, then they have to decide on whether or not to issue an arrest warrant" And that decision will be based on what? One sided evidence from the accuser? And which magistrates are these? Those who have "normal" 9-5 jobs and who are usually involved in "lesser" crimes i.e those offences not deemed serious enough for Crown Court? Now, if that isn't open to abuse then I don't know what is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 tony/j_jza80 .... you guys have a problem with free speech? i.e. if someone disagrees with you he/she has to "bugger off somewhere else"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 And that decision will be based on what? One sided evidence from the accuser? And which magistrates are these? Those who have "normal" 9-5 jobs and who are usually involved in "lesser" crimes i.e those offences not deemed serious enough for Crown Court? Now, if that isn't open to abuse then I don't know what is! it's not been abused though... and it's not just case of making an accusation - you have to have substantial proof a war crime(s) have taken place for the magistrate to consider it... on the other hand, if the law is changed and ONE PERSON makes the decision - surely that adds a massive political angle to the whole thing which is open for abuse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 :eyebrows:No course not, could just charge you with treason instead:eyebrows: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 :eyebrows:No course not, could just charge you with treason instead:eyebrows: .... follow the process of the Universal law which I support (... and by your replies you don't seem ) and we'll see each other in court but try to understand that the the right of universal law is being TAKEN from YOU if you don't support EDM108... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted November 5, 2010 Share Posted November 5, 2010 it's not been abused though... and it's not just case of making an accusation - you have to have substantial proof a war crime(s) have taken place for the magistrate to consider it... on the other hand, if the law is changed and ONE PERSON makes the decision - surely that adds a massive political angle to the whole thing which is open for abuse? The DPP is not political though is he? If the DPP is more qualified to consider War Crimes cases (which, I think we all agree, can be hideously complex) than local magistrates, then maybe it's a change for the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted November 5, 2010 Author Share Posted November 5, 2010 The DPP is not political though is he? If the DPP is more qualified to consider War Crimes cases (which, I think we all agree, can be hideously complex) than local magistrates, then maybe it's a change for the better. how do we know he's not? delay a "case" presented to him for a few weeks and the person against whom the charge is being bought against can visit and leave in a given time frame.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.