One of the best Americans I've met, politically speaking, is actually ex-USAF married to an old friend of Mrs Turr. They met when he was based here.
Many dead in coordinated Paris shootings and explosions
- Thread starter mod
- Start date
- Status
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Daeshbag Island and Paedo Island - God help anyone who got shipwrecked there
Fuckit can't we just put them all on the same one? Normal nonces no doubt do it in an Islamic way so they'd spend more time debating paedo ethics and less working it how to get off the island for a bit of jihad/paedophilia.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You could say the same for the British Legion.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Is there any precedent of sending undesirable convicts away to an island which doesn't result in their coming back and beating us at the sports we had so carefully invented?
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
i bet IS have got better beer than the British Legion.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
IMO it's a question of scale. I believe that Daesh would still exist, but very much as a small group of religiously-motivated whack-jobs among other such small groups. The ground conflicts In Iraq and Afghanistan gave nourishment to such groups, rather than creating them.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
So hoppy it blows your head off etc
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
tbh, if it doesn't taste like watered-down, stale piss it would be better beer than the BL...
Their mates in the Taliban have got better poppies!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Oh well, that's part of Oxbridge's annual output for this year catered for, jobs-wise.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Not talking about 'suspending the democratic process' or supporting any State of Emergency that bans the demos or actions, just querying whether for numerous reasons it's politically wise to go ahead with the idea of running about Paris causing aggro as had been planned before the attacks.
Like I said, I'm open to being convinced, but at the moment the idea of a Climate Games in Paris seems not the best plan for a number of reasons.
I also think that those people that have invested lots of time and energy in organizing this and are quite tangled up in it all as not always the ones best placed to see clearly about what to do.
E2A: Let's move any discussion of the COP talks in Paris to the thread in the dierct action forum to avoid clogging up the discussion here.
Cheers.
Last edited:
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Why are you assuming that they'll all be desk officers?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
intern them at alexandra palace, as was done with germans in the first world war.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
only in Languages or Maths, rest of the Russell Group prefered otherwise. i'd think about SIS if it didn't mean us moving to London. GCHQ is something of a mystery to me...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh. it's in cheltenham, so handy for the gold cup.
hot air baboon
Well-Known Member
...rather alot...I'm asking from a position of minimal to non-existent technical knowledge what the implications are of the well advertised legal objections to international courts aswell as other practical limitations to their legitimacy being regarded as a form of hypocritical "victor's justice" & therefore their effectiveness as a vehicle for drawing a line under conditions of atrocious war-crimes, bringing justice to & at the same time discrediting and demonstrating the wrong-doing of the transgressors, landing the big-fish and not just the tiddlers, offering closure to the victims and "truth & reconciliation" to all those left to pick up the shattered pieces is all ......if you don't know that's fine .....where's Diamond when you need him though ?
for example :
The trial of any one already labelled a terrorist cannot, by definition, be fair.
the US refuses to bend the knee to any transnational legal authority
we can assume Mr Blair won't come quiety when ever he gets a knock on the door
even if ISIS are on the receving end of the mother of all military defeats and extirpated from the land then we can probably assume that the Sunni areas in whose bosom the ISIS viper is currently nesting will reject the legitimacy if ISIS are singled out for their atrocities whilst those perpetrated in cellars and dungeons by Shia death squads in the aftermath of the fall of Sadam go unremarked upon so we just end up the next generation of martyrs
the considerable body of criticism of the legal basis of previous such actions addressed by critics of the Milosevic trial by people like John Laughland - as reviewed :
Travesty: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the Corruption of International Justice
A key element in the prosecution case was the belated charge that Milosevic was involved in a “joint criminal enterprise” with Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia to get rid of non-Serbs by violence, looking toward that Greater Serbia.
The concept of a JCE is not to be found in prior law or even in the ICTY Statute. It was improvised to allow the finding of guilt anywhere and anytime. You are part of a JCE if you are doing something bad along with somebody else, or are attacking the same parties with somebody who does something bad. With that common end you don’t even have to know about what that somebody else is doing to be part of a JCE.
Laughland has a devastating analysis of this wonderfully expansive and opportunistic doctrine, and his chapter dealing with it is entitled “Just convict everyone,” based on a quote from a lawyer-supporter of the ICTY who finds the JCE a bit much. Milosevic probably would have been convicted based on this catch-all, or catch anyone, doctrine.
Why the Hague is not Nuremberg
But these criticisms of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are minor in comparison to the criticisms now made of the Nuremberg International Criminal Tribunal that was set up after the Second World War. UK human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson describes Nuremberg as ‘a showtrial’, where the odds were stacked against the defendants (2).
The fourth Nuremberg charge of ‘war crimes’ was at least grounded in the attempt to outlaw the worst excesses of war. But the accused were denied a proper right to defend themselves from this charge, because the defence of tu quoque (‘I did it, but you did it too’) was ruled irrelevant. As a matter of law, tu quoque evidence should have been central to assessing whether a mode of warfare - such as the bombing of cities - was justified and therefore lawful.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
its easily commutable from me - in fact its nearer than my current crust-provider - however its the whole 'whatever the hell they do in that cauldron of witchcraft' that probably rules it out. my maths fails when i run out of fingers and toes...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yours or someone else's?
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
depends on how many underlings i can find...
eoin_k
Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music
I spent a car journey with a highly-principled, criminal barrister who drew the conclusion from Nuremberg that they should have just put the senior Nazis against a wall and shot them. Summary 'victors' justice would have been more honest than imposing judicial trappings on what could never have anything other than a show trial.
As it was, the Nazis escaped with all the gold to South America, disguised as priests on jets.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
This show trial trope - there was lots of evidence of them being nazis and doing horrible things.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
The question is perhaps whether the "obeying orders" defence had any chance of flying. It didn't, and that's a good thing, and personally I think the judicial trappings added to the occasion. But the barrister had a reasonable point of view.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i think you'll find that show trials traditionally involve the accused being charged with something outlandish which beggars belief yet to which they plead guilty. given the tons (literally) of evidence of e.g. goering, seyss-inquart, speer doing appalling things it was no great surprise they were found guilty. yet speer, despite his role in maintaining germany's ability to fight, was out by 1956 and i remember him dying in c.1980. cf the trials of the likes of bukharin.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
"Imprisoned" kind of assumes a successful prosecution. These chaps and chappesses likely won't even be picked up by the Old Bill a la internment, they'll just be grabbed, black-bagged, and then interrogated. They won't have access to lawyers, or to any of the few decencies awarded to convicted or remanded prisoners.
Why is the above "likely" in my opinion? Because the current UK legal system can't be rationalised to make such action "legal" (remember the law lords' decision on "control orders"?), so it'll need to be extra-legal - handy for the government, as they can disclaim any responsibility for what the intelligence services might do.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The show trial trope is more about why the victors were not on trial rather than establishing a useful precedent on following orders. That's what we're talking about - the popular use of the show trial stuff rather then the actual legal stuff.
- Status
Similar threads
