"Nine dead not enough" Topic

'Fatou Bensouda said despite "reasonable basis" to believe war crimes had been committed, the ICC had to prioritise larger-scale events.' link

OK, wish I could post this without saying that the state concerned is Israel, because that's not relevant. The relevant part is that an organisation supposed to look into potential war crimes doesn't feel that nine dead is enough. So, exactly how many people have to die before it is worth investigating?

As I said, who may or may not be guilty doesn't matter, please don't turn this into a pro-Israel/anti-Israel thread – my rant, if you like, is aimed at the International Criminal Court.

'Israel and Turkey are not members of the ICC, which only has jurisdiction over its members and cases referred to it by the UN Security Council.

Ms Bensouda opened a preliminary investigation into the flotilla raid last year after the Comoros – an ICC member – filed a complaint as the Mavi Marmara, although Turkish-owned, was flying a Comorian flag.

She said her office would continue to execute its mandate "without fear or favour" where the court's jurisdiction was established.

But lawyers representing the Comoros vowed to appeal against the decision, saying it was a "struggle for justice, humanity and honour". '

Whether this is or is not the real reason for the case, I'm inclined to think that last sentence is important.

The size of the incident isn't actually relevant. It is just a face saving excuse which sounds much better than the truth – they aren't allowed to investigate. Government agencies really hate to admit they aren't allowed to do anything.

When people attack soldiers and then get killed, it is nothing at all like a war crime.

Even if "war crime" for the sake of argument, is going to be considered a legitimate concept.
-Kle.

the question that would make this a war crime was if the response was warranted at the level it was used. Tear gas and stun grenades work well against unarmed activists, but of course one could argue that so does 9mm rounds. It's a tragic overly heavy handed response by a military unit, but perhaps not at the level of other war crimes out there.

"unarmed activists"?

They had metal poles, clubs, and knives. They relied on the Israelies restraint to protect them But when they started seriously hurting the troops they defended themselves.

I think the original statement from the ICC could also have read, "The troops were defending themselves, but aren't popular in this office so we're making a vague statement that makes it sound like they might be guilty of something."

When someone does something patently moronic and dies as a result, it is their own damn fault.

This incident is not a "war crime", it is a Darwin Award.
-Kle.

I think a few people are missing the point of this.

When people attack soldiers and then get killed, it is nothing at all like a war crime.
the question that would make this a war crime was if the response was warranted at the level it was used.
"unarmed activists"?
When someone does something patently moronic and dies as a result, it is their own damn fault.
This incident is not a "war crime", it is a Darwin Award.

None of these are relevant to the issue. The issue is:

'Fatou Bensouda said despite "reasonable basis" to believe war crimes had been committed, the ICC had to prioritise larger-scale events.'

In other words, didn't matter whether a war crime had been committed or not. The organization itself felt that there was sufficient evidence to believe that war crimes had been committed. It just wasn't considered important enough to be investigated.

That is what I'm going on about.

I stand by the second part of my original post.

I think the original statement from the ICC could also have read, "The troops were defending themselves, but aren't popular in this office so we're making a vague statement that makes it sound like they might be guilty of something."

Again, nothing wrong with your statement. It may be correct, it may not.

A complaint had been made. The statement released by the body responsible for investigating it refused to investigate it because it wasn't important enough. At this point, there was a 'reasonable basis' to believe that war crimes had been committed, so it should have been investigated. Even if the case was thrown out, there should have been an investigation.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I believe they did an investigation, found there was nothing to it, but released a statement vaguely blaming the Israelies because of political considerations.

The ICC is essentially useless. They are so political as to be compromised. It took them so long to prosecute Slobodan Milosivic <sic>. (five years), that he died of old age. How long did the Nuremberg trials take? Trials started in November 1945, ended in October 1946 and those sentenced to death were hung by the end of October.

Nuremburg was victor's justice. How long has it taken to bring charges over Nagasaki?

As to 'soldiers defending themselves' they shouldn't have been where they were.

They were enforcing a declared legal naval blockade, commensurate with international law. They were therefore perfectly entitled to be there.

What charges are required over Nagasaki?