 |
||||||||
|
2/14/2003 07:19:00 PM | Timothy Addendum to the Addendum Belgium is certainly willing to try any case, even if its citizens, interests, or country was not affected at all. Brad says that is unique. I gave examples of suits against foreign leaders in the American courts, but they are civil suits: they result in fines, but I don't believe criminal action is pursued (unless we are talking when the U.S. invaded Panama to capture President Noriega in "Operation Just Cause"). My point was that Emmett was wrong to say "I never heard of any nation 'opting in' to another country's legal system." That ignores the many precedents of countries 'interfering' with other countries' legal systems. What is different with Belgium is that there seems to be no limit to that interference, and a willingness to impose criminal penalties on any war criminal. When I said what Belgium was doing "is hardly a completely new thing" I meant that other countries have done what Emmett might consider 'opting in' to another countries legal system. But I awkardly phrased it, and you can say there are new elements to what Belgium is doing in that its unlimited scope (Spain wanted Pinochet because of the murder of Spanish citizens in Chile, for example). Perhaps I shouldn't have screamed that Emmett was 'dead wrong' in the way I did and accordingly I have changed the title of my previously post. But still stand by him being merely 'wrong' and forgetful of things like the Pinochet affair. I am not saying you couldn't draw a line between Belgium's actions and other interferences, but we should realize that such interferences are NOT unprecedented. I have heard about debates over 'universal juristiction' long before I heard about the Belgian court. I am not saying you couldn't draw a line between Belgium's actions and other interferences, but I think from Emmett's perspective it would be one of degree rather than kind. Israeli officials have referred to Belgium's action as 'blood libel.' Here is why one Isreali lawmaker thinks Israel's judgment of Eichmann was different (from the Boston Globe): The matter of war criminals being tried in international courts has been a complex issue for Israel. Israel itself went so far as to abduct Nazi official Adolf Eichmann from Argentina in 1960 to stand trial in the Jewish state. He later was hanged. "The whole issue that there are no borders when it comes to crimes against humanity, I think, is a Jewish cause that stems in large party from the Jewish history and the Holocaust," said Michael Melchior, an Israeli lawmaker who until recently served as deputy foreign minister. But Melchior said that situation was different because Israel had a stake in seeing justice meted out to Eichmann, who engineered the murder of 6 million Jews - while Belgium has no stake in the Lebanon affair. Melchior is among the few Israeli officials who support the country's involvement in the International Criminal Court. But he draws a distinction between that institution and the courts in Belgium. "Belgium is trying to create its own international justice. It's not right," he said. This reminds of the controversy over Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jeruselem where she argued that Eichmann's trial should be seen not simply as a crime against the Jewish people, but as a crime against humanity committed on the body of the Jewish people. What do you think: does a country need a stake in the crime to give punishment in a crime against humanity? Does the 'internationa community' have such a stake? perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.