BF2S Forums Israel fury over British war crimes warrant for Tzipi Livni

ghettoperson wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Since when do the UK courts have jurisdiction over issues that occur in the Levant?

Are you suggesting that US courts have no jurisdiction over all those Gitmo inmates you keep trying?

Gitmo is US territory.

Only the International Criminal Court (ICC) can charge people for war crimes.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Since when do the UK courts have jurisdiction over issues that occur in the Levant?

If they are war crimes they have jurisdiction, since they signed up to the ICC, or ICJ, one of the two.

Cybargs wrote:

Only the International Criminal Court (ICC) can charge people for war crimes.

But anyone can bring them before the court.

You won't see many Israelis travelling around Europe in the near future, and I reckon Blair will decamp to the US soon too.

Well if the ICC requests Israel to hand over someone... they legally have to afaik. When the ICC tells Israel to hand people over for war crimes, then start bitching about it. British courts have no international jurisdiction, kinda like a Spanish court wanted to put Kissinger on trial. It's all for show to make themselves feel better.

I'm curious as to what the reaction would be if Britain had thought about and then failed to put out a warrant on Bin Laden. I somehow doubt you'd be debating legalities.

ghettoperson wrote:

I'm curious as to what the reaction would be if Britain had thought about and then failed to put out a warrant on Bin Laden. I somehow doubt you'd be debating legalities.

If there were an uproar (and no corresponding ICC warrant), I'd say that those in an uproar have a point.

However, since UBL is linked to the London bombings, I'd say the British courts would be well within their rights to issue an arrest warrant for him tied to that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its funny, Team America reckon they can travel the world and kill whoever they like based on guesswork.
When a war criminal enters Britain the British aren't allowed to arrest them?

Only if the ICC requests it, and they didn't. Therefore the British government has no legality to arrest him for crimes not even committed on British soil. Ever watched shooter?

Even with 100% evidence, it is not under the jurisdiction of British courts. However the ICC or Israeli courts have 100% legality in this matter.

So what are you bitching about? Its like trying to arrest a US gang member in Britain for crimes committed in Mexico.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

However, since UBL is linked to the London bombings

No he isn't.

However if Bin Laden passed through the UK and they didn't think to arrest him on behalf of the US no doubt they'd be pissed.

Same goes for Zippy Livni and the ICC.

Its called the UN Al-Qaeda and Taliban Consolidation list. And yes it is legally binding as only the SC is the only UN body to issue anything legally binding. Go study more about how the UN works k.

Last edited by Cybargs (2009-12-16 04:28:21)

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

However, since UBL is linked to the London bombings

No he isn't.

Funny. I thought AQ was behind the London bombings.

Dilbert_X wrote:

However if Bin Laden passed through the UK and they didn't think to arrest him on behalf of the US no doubt they'd be pissed.

That's because the two countries have agreements regarding fugitives.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Same goes for Zippy Livni and the ICC.

If there were an ICC warrant...which there isn't.

FEOS wrote:

Funny. I thought AQ was behind the London bombings.

You thought wrong.

The current situation is anyone can go to court and apply for an arrest warrant.
Hard luck if you don't like it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Funny. I thought AQ was behind the London bombings.

You thought wrong.

On 1 September 2005, it was reported that al-Qaeda officially claimed responsibility for the attacks in a videotape aired on the Arab television network al Jazeera. But an official inquiry by the British government reported that the tape claiming responsibility had been edited after the attacks, and that the bombers had no direct support from al Qaeda.[44] Zabi uk-Taifi, an al-Qaeda commander arrested in Pakistan in January 2009, may have had connections to the 7 July 2005 bombings, according to Pakistani intelligence sources.

That must've been what confused me.

Source

Dilbert_X wrote:

The current situation is anyone can go to court and apply for an arrest warrant.
Hard luck if you don't like it.

But you have to have probable cause or charges levied...neither of which is the case here.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But you have to have probable cause or charges levied...neither of which is the case here.

The UN report saying war crimes were committed would be the probable cause, charges usually come after arrest and questioning.

It might be probable cause for the troops involved, not for Livni.

Did the Brits put out any war crimes warrants for any Hamas nutters? They were called out in the UN report as well.

What is it about Livni that is different than Hamas...hmmm. That's a tough one.

Certainly no historical record in Europe to point towards anything in particular there.

Dilbert_X wrote:

What is it about Livni that is different than Hamas...hmmm. That's a tough one.

No its easy, no-one in Hamas was due to travel to the UK.
Livni gave the orders remember? Pretty sure few of the Nazis tried at the Hague actually personally killed anyone.

Its all in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 apparently, someone accused of war crimes can be arrested anywhere by anyone.

And where was Livni accused of war crimes again? She was Foreign Minister. She didn't "give the orders". /facepalm

Edit: Interesting that the Brits selectively apply Universal Jurisdiction, since

On 14 February 2002 the International Court of Justice in the ICJ Arrest Warrant Case concluded that State officials did have immunity under international law while serving in office. The court also concluded that immunity was not granted to State officials for their own benefit, but instead to ensure the effective performance of their functions on behalf of their respective States. The court stated that when abroad, State officials enjoy full immunity from arrest in another State on criminal charges, including charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Livni--even if charges were levied (they haven't been)--has immunity from arrest, per the ICJ as she is a serving State official.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-12-16 20:53:27)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Palestine.

Rrrriiiggghhhttttt.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Livni--even if charges were levied (they haven't been)--has immunity from arrest, per the ICJ as she is a serving State official.

Not any mroe she's not.

Yes, she is.

You're so well informed, you could serve on the British judiciary, apparently.

Israel didn't have to follow the Geneva conventions, since Hamas has broken it so many times. Not to mention they love using kids as shields.