If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
well can't believe noone else posted this...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
basically 2 of the top 100 wanted rwandans for the genocide of 1994 are living in this country, yet they are not being investigated for extradition or charges of war crimes under international law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1774083,00.html
we don't have an extradition treaty with rwanda, should we deport these people for trial back home of henious crimes, or charge them for the hague to try them?
what say you? nothing will happen i bet much like thay scumbag pinochet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1774083,00.html
we don't have an extradition treaty with rwanda, should we deport these people for trial back home of henious crimes, or charge them for the hague to try them?
what say you? nothing will happen i bet much like thay scumbag pinochet
0
Comments
2. Have we an extradition treaty with the country where the crimes were committed
if as i suspect the answers to both of these questions are no, then i dont see why theres a problem here, yes; what they did was terrible and wrong, but who am i to argue with the law of this land, where we are at least a few steps ahead of rwanda
Link
yes, an international arrest warrant was issued for these people in january
they have commited a crime under international law, thus should be charged as such....
we should negoiate a 'temporary' extradition agreement, such that they will recieve a fair trial etc or suffer our terrible wrath
The Rwandan genocide was the very definition of decimation - a reduction in the population by a tenth. A truly staggering figure. And all because of the European (Belgian) classification of Hutu and Tutsi according to physical characteristics (allegedly).
by the way ...no one seems to be arresting another guy living in this country who has commited war crimes ...he's called tony.
problem is, ive yet to be shown an international statute book of international law
common law is something that is developed and created throughout the passage of time in a particular state, where it evolves and changes, the rights and priveleges should and are to an extent respected by any other nation, common law on an international scale is a very dodgy thing, laying down law and rule and thumb, sometimes where it is not wanted, nor needed
and as for an international arrest warrant, theres many instances where US soldiers have been served with them for their actions in iraq, especially where spanish citizens were killed by US soldiers who wrongly fired on a hotel
Truth is pretty much anyone who is anything in a judicial system anywhere can issue an international arrest warrant, its basically nothing more than a request or a demand to other countries, while id be happy to send the scum back to rwanda, i dont and have not seen adequate documentation within the form of a binding arrest warrant or extradition request, to allow it to happen
and remember, as soon as we start fragrancing the law with air freshner to quell the bad smelly bits we dont like, we become places like rwanda
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=klintock&meta=
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList320/F4607C74CA18E5F5C1256B66005C27D5
State consent regime vs. Universal jurisdiction
thats the reason why they shouldnt be tried in or sent back to rwanda
while i stand by what i have said in above posts, and also in a few of my posts tonight, the general theme of what makes us different to plaxces like rwanda, and places without the due process of law etc etc
i coudlnt do it myself, but id get someone to pop a cap in their collective ass
2) where were you?
2) Holiday/Futility of repeating myself kept me away.
i nearly fucking choked on my cornflakes!
Just a thought, should these be issues for the Hague anyway?
Why can’t they be tried in Rwanda? It would be nice too to see them brought to justice sometime within the next 15 years. I also think the UN could think of better ways to spend hundreds of millions. (The budget for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 2004/5 was over $270m). Wikipedia. A fair trial surely can be delivered without spending hundreds and hundreds of millions...And the Nuremberg Trials didn't take decades...
i was thinking that perhaps this should be an issue for the UN because they were crimes against humanity and not just individuals.
I agree that the Hague doesn't have a good reputation for "economic" justice though.
then we can effectively stop admitting any asylum seekers, as we could legitimately then send them back to the country they were escaping political injustice and torture (the genuine ones i mean)
yeh but we all knew what the outcome would be of those trials before they even started
as much as we all hated them and knew the truth
its all a bit presumptious and dangerous to abandon the due process of law and a proper non show trial, as and when you see fit
Isnt that basically a justification for using torture ourselves?
so in basic terms, because the big by in class does it, then its ok for everyone else to?
Because we dont believe in the use of torture or the death penalty.
hell we would waste more taxpayers money on sending them back to rwanda, after all i dont think easyjet do routes into that part of town
So we should use torture then? A bit of nail pulling, electrodes on the balls.... do you have any moral objections to that sort of thing?