On Courts and Justice

On that : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23946945

Daneydzaus : They are pursuing a lot in Africa because, elsewhere, you have ressources and the economy. This court is just a joke to make sure things go right.

Šaupneles : Not sure where you're getting your information Ugo, but it's not based in reality. The Court has taken cases that were referred to it by African states or one referred by the Security Council. Again, note -- most case before the Court were brought to it be AFRICAN states themselves. There are now investigations, again brought it by the states involved, on other continents and cases may proceed there if the investigations determine there is evidence of crimes against humanity.

Daneydzaus : I do however understand the Kenyan case well, there was some violence going on, people got killed. Someone should be held responsible. Justice isn't just about prosecuting people : I read the article, and in it, they said they actually formed a coalition because nothing else is going well. How do the people feel in the country now? The United States didn't do much better 200 years ago, in a certain Civil War, and yet, they were more than able to get over it. That what they have been doing.

Also, do you think anyone will receive any punishment for the deportation of Acadians almost 300 years ago? The British Crown litterally destroyed a whole people, denying them as much as being able to live, at some point. Canada, only a few years ago, gave a rather empty apology for the whole thing. When I read it, I was actually depressed at the whole matter.

You wish for International Justice, and so do would I, but countries vary in culture and, also, in ways of life. We all think in the West that living peacefully and not killing each other is good thing, but it's novelty that is barely less than 100 years old. Perhaps it is the right solution, to live peacefully. But right now, in some countries, it is not the right time.

People will die, or might : in that case, have these people come over here in peaceful countries and let the others kill each other as much as they want. This world has gone way to far in trying to control everything, and it's going nowhere : in the "peaceful countries", people are getting poorer each passing day; in the countries that aren't part of that, horrible things might be going on that we don't know of. It is a shame that people die, and that is why we created the whole refugee program. And goddammit, use that instead of trying to control the whole world.

Also, for Kenya, according to this site, the case was brought in by the prosecutor himself. It is his right; but maybe, maybe, Kenya wasn't ready after all for it. I can even say that, maybe, they weren't even fully understanding what laws they were actually accepting when joining it. And maybe, perhaps, their solution to form a coalition will lead somewhere.

http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=kenya&lang=fr

Šaupneles : Your point about the Acadians or suggesting that some countries are ready for the modern world is both uninformed and bordering on racism. All countries have the sovereign right to participate in the global community or not. Those in Africa, including Kenya, went through their own sovereign processes to decide whether to adhere to the Rome Statute. Just because indicted war criminals later joined forced and won an election does not invalidate those negotiations anymore than had a Hutu and Tutsi joined forces and won an election in Rwanda. The victims are still dead and the criminals winning an election doesn't transform them into statesmen. Shame on you!

You're disgusting. How dare you suggest Kenyans were incapable of understanding what laws they were accepting they ratified the Rome Statutes. Perhaps you think they aren't capable of governing themselves, and the British need to come back in and take care of them. Go away!

Daneydzaus : 1. What am I wrong about the Acadians? I know there is a region of Acadia, the people still exists but they are rather on the poor side of Canadians, but it has been a disaster for a society that should have been thriving today if it wasn't for the Deportation : Port-Royal could have been at last an awesome Acadian city.

2. All countries have a sovereign right to do or not, and indeed, Kenya found out it may have been a wrong choice, at least for them, at least at the moment, and IS actually using its sovereign rights to get out of it.

3. Yes, they went through their own sovereign process. But hey, people can and do make mistakes sometimes.

4. People being killed and later joining forces does not negate that the killings happened. I am not suggesting that; the people should be mourned. However, sometimes, Justice does things in other ways. Justice is not just about bringing people to courts and having them prosecuted for the pleasure of our anger and our desire for vengeance. Justice, as best as can be describe, is to make sure that whatever mistakes have been done, we learn from it, we try as much as we can to repair it, and then we move on. Yes, you cannot bring dead people back, but, at least a little, as far as I can tell from their coalition, they seem to have learned for it, are trying to do as much as they can to repair it, and they are moving on. What YOU are asking for, as far as I can see, if for Revenge, a Revenge for those people who are killed. I understand the feeling, more than what you think; but Revenge is not Justice.

5. Have I suggested they were uncapable of understanding what laws they were accepting. Reread what I wrote : "I can even say that, maybe, they weren't even fully understanding what laws they were actually accepting when joining it." (I quote myself verbatim here.) I didn't say that "they couldn't", I said straightforwardly that "they probably didn't"; nowhere in any English dictionnary does it say that what I said mean that they couldn't. I am pretty sure that they could, like any other human being can; I just said that they maybe made a mistake in its understanding. It happens to everyone.

6. They are fully capable of governing themselves; their freaking damned coalition is a proof that they really can. No need for the British to come in, and really, it would be the crapiest thing to do, they were actually able to solve the whole thing on their own, and I find the the ICC is just going in to find some sort of Revenge for the dead people, just in the British stead.

Indeed, if I may add, I will suggest that YOU think that Kenya cannot take care of its own affairs on its own. The case was not brought to the court by any African Country; its was brought in the prosecutor himself, using his write to meddle in a country.

Both sides made mistakes, they are trying to make up for it, and they will try to do things better next time. The very definition of learning from one own's mistakes, and the very goal of most justice systems, I believe.

And yet, you want some outsider to come in, take out both dudes, perhaps wrecking their whole efforts to actually repairs things and do better. Who is the colonialist one, I am entirely free to wonder now.

Šaupneles : If the Deportation took place 300 years ago and there were laws or treaties in place about it, then by all means, the remaining Acadians need to take action. Like all tribunals, the ICC has jurisdiction only from when the Court came into existence in 2002 for crimes defined at the time. This is ICC 101. If you can't grasp that basic fact, you have no business talking about the Kenya case.

Kenya can indeed remove themselves from the Court statutes. That does not invalidate the indictments made when they were willingly subject to its jurisdiction. This is a matter of law, not revenge. You just believe that the criminals can shake hands, make up and don't have to answer for their crimes. That is not justice. Demanding they be held accountable under a system of justice they accepted is not revenge. If they preferred another avenue to justice, they could have chosen not to ratify. If they withdraw, justice for any further crimes against humanity can be handles however they wish. But they can't UNDO their obligations since it's inconvenient.

And yes, your comment "maybe, they weren't even fully understanding what laws they were actually accepting when joining it" means that participating in the ACTUAL WRITING of the Statute, all the months and years of studying the Rome Statute, having legal and legislative debates domestically, and working with experts about the implications of ratification, and you STILL think they did not understanding what laws they were agreeing to? Are you fucking crazy? If they didn't, who did? You absolutely are stating they it was beyond them. They even have every opportunity to present defense against the allegations. They even took it to the Security Council. No one believes that Kenya is doing anything except trying to avoid justice.

The Prosecutor's "right" to meddle just shows your ignorance of the Court. Once again, Kenya KNEW the Prosecutor could take evidence to a Pre-Trial Chamber and had to prove his case before THREE judges who could reject his claims. The Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor (who is now the Prosecutor and happens to be an African) and three judges looked at the evidence before a SINGLE indictment was handed down. This was not someone meddling in a country. You commit a crime, you can't get out of it by apologizing and just say you're "try to do things better next time." That's the most idiotic and uninformed view I've ever read. The Court is not some outsider -- it's a legal tribunal who's jurisdiction the government of Kenya accepted over itself. The two war criminals are not trying to fix things -- they avoiding justice.

Learn something about the Court before you run your mouth like an idiot. Until then, Fuck off!

Daneydzaus : 1. I am aware of what the ICC can do. And I am not saying it should touch the Acadian case; but what I am saying is that many countries did idiotic things.

2. This might be the case; I am not fully aware of how those two dudes are feeling themselves. Perhaps, as you say ("The two war criminals are not trying to fix things -- they avoiding justice."), they are just trying to avoid the court itself without doing anything else. This may be the case. If it is, I can all go for them prosecuted on the spot. But there is nothing in the article that speaks about that, or nothing in the other link that speaks about that as well. Also, I haven't heard about how the Keynans feel themselves about the whole thing. However, the very fact they actually did vote for such a coalition of murderers is kind of telling. Unless you tell me that that election is worthless, in which case you are telling that democracy failed.

3. I can still think that it could have been the case, that they didn't. You can work on years on something, making sure all the details are right and yet, it the end, it can be a complete failure. No matter how much expertise you put in, it can always turn out to be a mistake.

4. First, let us be straight, I do not see courts as the paramount of Justice with a capital J at all. Indeed, Justice is something that is way harder than simply a matter of "following courts" or some easy definition. You're not being for Justice, you're simply being Lawful. Courts are merely an institution, an institution some societies created to try to give Justice to the people. While you might find my view on the Court to be uninformed and idiotic (though I am aware of the basics of the procedures); I find your view on Justice to be quite narrow. Do the words "Turn the other cheek" tell you anything?

If you take the right of telling me to learn something about the Court before I run my mouth like an idiot (using words that are rather insulting while I stayed quite polite), I will take the right to tell you to learn something about Justice before you equate Justice with Court.