AC Grayling supports extraordinary rendition...
as long as it's for the right people.
The Evangelicals?
1 hour ago
Political
-
-
-
NHS Fail Wail4 years ago
-
Admin: The move is here, at last.12 years ago
-
Being Norman Tebbit must be marvellous12 years ago
-
The last post14 years ago
-
Science
-
-
-
-
A New Science Forum4 years ago
-
-
Never say you can't do something10 years ago
-
Administering a rebuke10 years ago
-
Radical Statistics conference 201311 years ago
-
-
She burns like the sun...13 years ago
Faith and atheism
-
Vignette5 years ago
-
The Jihadist10 years ago
-
Canon Andrew White deserves a knighthood10 years ago
-
HELP CROWD-FUND THIS VIDEO...10 years ago
-
Literature
-
-
The Rest of the Cruise1 year ago
-
-
15 comments:
Strictly speaking he supports ordinary rendition:
"arrest him, arraign him for human rights crimes, lock him up in the Netherlands while trial pends"
This implies due legal process.
Hello PJ,
It does imply due legal process, but no such process exists. Consider:
Mugabe enjoys sovereign immunity as a head of state. AC Grayling wants to "arrest him" - under what charge? "araign him" before what court? He is to be "lock[ed]...up in the Netherlands" while he awaits trial. He is to be rendered to the Netherlands (having, presumably, been arrested in Italy) - I can't see this as anything other than extraordinary rendition - redition through a make-believe legal process.
Further, I'm confused by the reference to the Netherlands: the press sometimes gives the impression that there is an International Court where all the Evil Human Rights Abusers and War Criminals can be tried and sentenced for their crimes. This is erroneous. The Hague is a center for international law and contains a number of courts, none of which is capable of trying Mugabe:
The ICJ aka the World Court adjudicates disputes between states : it cannot try individuals.
The ICTY can try - and imprison - individuals, but its jurisdiction runs only to crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia.
The ICC - which, I suspect, is what Grayling may have in mind - can try individuals. But
Zimbabwe is not a State Party to the Rome Statute [source] and so the the ICC can't deal with the matter. In any case, being a murderous bastard is not a "genocide, war crime, crime of aggression [or] crime against humanity" [Rome Statute, Article 5]
I broadly support the aim of those who want to replace war, war with jaw,jaw and law,law, but I don't think kidnapping -which, for all the pretensions of international law, is what Grayling proposes - is the answer to Zimbabwe's problems. I wish I knew what was.
I'm a bit of a Westphalian at heart - the alternative to the international order is international anarchy.
PS: I see your "anonymous" loony is restless :) I was going to pop a brief comment in yesterday, but I think he may be immune to reason: he appears to think repeatedly being rude is a substitute for actually engaging with your points.
Will knock up a Briffa post shortly.
No, being endlessly rude provokes me into being rude, at which point he can say:
"I see you still cannot provide the evidence.
It is insult time instead. We will soon see who can justify calling whom "stupid".
Still waiting ....... tick, tock."
I particularly love the calls for evidence which is then completely ignored and a new challenge or argument is put forward.
When I get bored I just block anonymous comments for a while, or add comment moderating (I dont censor though) and they tend to just go away.
As for Grayling, I think it would be uncharitable to assume that he means extraordinary rendition as a deduction from the lack of an existing legal process to use. That engages in a bit too much mindreading for my liking.
And, I'm no expert on international law, but I think the ICC can deal with cases outside it's signatories if they're referred by the UN, and I believe a number of countries, including the UK, have legal provision for bringing prosecutions against non-nationals for crimes committed abroad.
Re: anonymous loon
He seems to have evaporated. You're much more tolerant that I am.
I don't allow anonymous comments because (a) they make conversations bloody hard to follow, and (b) I think people are uncivilized enough on the Internet without someone "anonymous" name calling.
I also think if he was Miller he should have declared an interest.
Re: Grayling. You write that
[1] I think it would be uncharitable to assume that he means extraordinary rendition as a deduction from the lack of an existing legal process to use. That engages in a bit too much mindreading for my liking.
and [2]
And, I'm no expert on international law, but I think the ICC can deal with cases outside it's signatories if they're referred by the UN, and I believe a number of countries, including the UK, have legal provision for bringing prosecutions against non-nationals for crimes committed abroad.
In reverse order:
I, too, am not an expert on international law, but I occasionally impersonate one on the internet.
The ICC can have cases referred to it by the Security Council of the UN under chapter VI [assuming, for the sake of argument, that China or Russia didn't veto] but Mugabe could only be tried for the four offenses - genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression - committed after the 1 July 2002. I think the "widespread and systematic" test would stop any of these succeeding. [The genocide in Matabeleland could probably be demonstrated, but was finished long before 2002].
The UK and other countries do have provisions for trying non-nationals for crimes committed abroad (the classic example is piracy) but that can't apply in the case because of state immunity (as the Pinochet case demonstrated)
I may be being unfair to Grayling ('tho I actually quite like him) but I he does call for Mugabes arrest, for which no law exists. If he were calling for the law to be changed so Mugabe could be arrested, on the other hand...
Ah re:head of state immunity, very true (wasn't there an actual case referring to Mugabe at some point?) but that only applies as long as he's head of state - which I imagine becomes a rather vexed question in his case given the current state of play election wise.
Hello PJ,
"Ah re:head of state immunity, very true (wasn't there an actual case referring to Mugabe at some point?)
but that only applies as long as he's head of state - which I imagine becomes a rather vexed question in his case given the current state of play election wise."
That's fascinating; I hadn't thought of that.
I think Peter Tatchell tried to make a "citizens arrest" of Mugabe when he was in the UK, and got beaten up for it.
[As an aside,I thought this was brave, but foolish: "Citizen's arrest" is not a term in UK law, and although "any person" can make an arrest [under the PACE 1984 and subsequent, or the CLA 1967] it must be for an indictable offense, which this was not, or "committing or being about to commit" a breach of the peace, and the person making the arrest must be a witness.
Monbiot's recent attempted "citizen's arrest" of Bolton was neither brave nor foolish, but completely surreal]
UK recognizing him as head of state
is related to our recognition of the government in Zimbabwe; in doing so, regardless of the fraudulent "election*", we recognize him too: we could break off diplomatic relations, but even that means we escort diplomatic personnel our of the country. This is refered to as being PNG'd (rendered Persona Non Grata). I suspect this would apply to HoS as well.
However, what if there were a coup in Zimbabwe and the gov't changed? They could take him back and try themselves.
BTW, 51 comments on your Briffa post - is that a record? :)
* Zimbabwe has the "One Man, One Vote" system. Mugabe is the Man. He has the Vote. [pinched from Pratchet]
It is indeed a record - the last was 39 comments, again driven by a troll, on a post about repealing the blasphemy laws.
It is funny to think that governments in some sense endorse heads of state who are there through coups and other non-democratic means and thus give them immunity from prosecution. Probably a relic of the days when we really preferred a good military dictator or monarch to run those foreign climes.
It makes you wonder how they decide which government to endorse, and when they give up.
Oh, classic. I'll let you reply to this gem:
"For political scientist
"I've just re-read this entire comment thread, and I'm afraid I can't find where I "attacked" anonymous - let alone "unpleasant" or "evidenced" "attacks" which "didn't even muster reason [sic]".
I’m not sure which ‘Mr Smith’ you refer to, as it was I who made the comments. I will respond.
Your
“Further, might it not be appropriate to answer some on the criticisms made of your reasoning prior to introducing new - and apparently entirely random – information”
‘Attacks’ anonymous by suggesting he/she is not acting appropriately.
You ‘fail to evidence’ that attack.
Accusing one of failing to act appropriately is an ‘unpleasant’ act."
Mr. Smith has a quite unique mind, doesn't he?
On the case.
You've done some great stuff nailing him down - will be along shortly
PJ, and still it goes on!
Although I think you're right - it doesn't appear that John "I can't believe it's not Smith!" is Miller.
The plan seems to be to quote larger and larger irrelevant chunks of WHO mission statements at you, until you concede that that the WHO, UNESCO, and UN General Assembly are
"a private company".
It's true what they say: the stupid really does burn.
I ought to stop feeding this particular troll but it is a fascinating spectacle to see where he'll go next. He seems to have lost track of what his argument was in the first place.
It's like picking a scab - you know you ought not to, but...
It is providing a source of much innocent merriment to me, anyway.
Perhaps the way forward is to stick to asking him to provide evidence for his claim that the WHO is a "private company", as you are doing?
I assume he'll get board eventually. Mind you, I thought that about 20 comments ago.
Right, we need to make this interesting. I propose:
TROLL BINGO!
The aim is simple: to make john/john smith/anonymous post as much as possible, whilst we post as little as possible. The metric should be the ratio of his post length to the post that provoked it.
I've kicked off with a one word response - let's see what happens.
Ordinarily I'd be in favour of chasing the bugger down point-by-point, but if he's not going to accept that the WHO is part of the UN, I don't think we're going to get anywhere with vaccination.
I note in passing that he's now trying to bring up "Geier et al (2008)", which refers to the "thimerosal>autism>OMG! Govt Kills babbies!!!" chain. I was going to point out MMR does not now, and has not ever, contained thimerosal so it isn't terribly relevant to a post about MMR, but then I saw
"adds inevitable weight to the already tremendously compelling chain of evidence demonstrating the vaccine links to autism and numerous other pandemic childhood neurological disorders."
So it's not just MMR and autism - it's all vaccines and all "pandemic" childhood neurological disorders. It amazing, the stuff I learn on the internet.
Alternatively, you could ban him, but then he'll crow about his glorious LOLpwnage.
Post a Comment