International Criminal Court says it has jurisdiction in Palestinian territories

[Sujo]

37 minutes ago, Nout said:

There is a wealth of crimes against humanity carried by Hamas and other agents of Islam. Crimes against women, the cruel and inhuman brainwashing of vulnerable children..Justice is a double edged sword. Perhaps the court could operate in Saudi and Iran too. LOL

Could say the same about any religion, but it still has nothing to do with the topic.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

No not much of a legal expert. 20 years as a prosecutor but gave it away about a decade ago.

 

icc is a court that decides criminal matters.

 

if a party fails to cooperate then decisions are made on the facts provided. Thats how all courts work.

 

If you say so. Can't say I'm much impressed by the level of arguments presented, or the supposed knowledge represented.

 

It still doesn't change the fact that the ICC deals with issues of international law, whereas you refer to criminal law. Not same same.

 

Decisions made on partial evidence and material, with investigators having no access to witnesses or scene carry less weight than those based on more than that. Consult previous similar reports, and you'll the majority of cases could not be verified decidedly enough to prosecute.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, I'm not. You're just butting in without reading the topic, probably.

I have addressed the issue on this topic, and certainly on many past ones.

The borders issue, especially those specifically mentioned is not much on topic.

Yawn, It certainly is, that will be part of the investigation. They can look at provocation and response, which the issue of the border can be used.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

they are doing their job, thats fact. Failure to investigate would not be doing their job.

 

I'm suggesting that there's fair chance political points of view are intertwined with such investigations. Certainly if previous reports, investigations and people associated with them are something to go on. You wish to claim it is just doing the job, fine.

 

There would have been no 'failure to investigate'. If the court was to rule it does not have jurisdiction there would have been no investigation, and it would still be doing it's job. Just that then, you and the usual suspects would cry foul about political interference etc., that's all.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Yawn, It certainly is, that will be part of the investigation. They can look at provocation and response, which the issue of the border can be used.

 

No, and unless mistaken, already said that's not what the investigation is about. You seem to alternate between stressing the professional/legal merits of the investigation and the hopes that it would serve to further bash Israel or something like that.

 

 

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you say so. Can't say I'm much impressed by the level of arguments presented, or the supposed knowledge represented.

 

It still doesn't change the fact that the ICC deals with issues of international law, whereas you refer to criminal law. Not same same.

 

Decisions made on partial evidence and material, with investigators having no access to witnesses or scene carry less weight than those based on more than that. Consult previous similar reports, and you'll the majority of cases could not be verified decidedly enough to prosecute.

Im not trying to impress anyone, im stating facts. As you are not experienced in such matters your acceptance of facts is irrelevent.

 

not international law, international criminal law. There are some procedural differences but still follows criminal law principles.

 

Your last paragraph means nothing. They are going to investigate because that is their job. Whether they get enough evidence to prosecute  is a completely matter.

 

If they get enough evidence they do, if not, they dont. But that is no reason not to do their job.

 

If they do find enough evidence then those charged and, or, sentenced cannot complain of a witch hunt or such.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Israel controls 100% of Palestinian lives right down to their birth register. Nothing can happen between the Jordan river and the Sea without Israel's permission. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

 

 

 

That is a false comment, or at the very least an exaggeration. According to your opinion, then, the Palestinian Authority does nothing? Controls nothing? Manages nothings? The Hamas doesn't rule the Gaza Strip either?

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm suggesting that there's fair chance political points of view are intertwined with such investigations. Certainly if previous reports, investigations and people associated with them are something to go on. You wish to claim it is just doing the job, fine.

 

There would have been no 'failure to investigate'. If the court was to rule it does not have jurisdiction there would have been no investigation, and it would still be doing it's job. Just that then, you and the usual suspects would cry foul about political interference etc., that's all.

If, but, etc. facts, they determined they have jurisdiction to do it, so are going to do their job. Fact.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Im not trying to impress anyone, im stating facts. As you are not experienced in such matters your acceptance of facts is irrelevent.

 

not international law, international criminal law. There are some procedural differences but still follows criminal law principles.

 

Your last paragraph means nothing. They are going to investigate because that is their job. Whether they get enough evidence to prosecute  is a completely matter.

 

If they get enough evidence they do, if not, they dont. But that is no reason not to do their job.

 

If they do find enough evidence then those charged and, or, sentenced cannot complain of a witch hunt or such.

 

You do not try to impress, and you succeed. As for stating facts, no - your making an unverifiable claim. Your  posting history does not support it much.

 

You can spin words all you like, but the bottom line is this, criminal law has local variations, international law (or international criminal law, whatever), less so. So it's not really same same much.

 

And you can keep insisting that people are just doing their job, not letting political views effect them and such. Doubt you truly believe that.

 

Not getting your repeated comments about "cannot complain" when reality shows parties complain regardless of rejecting these investigations.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

If, but, etc. facts, they determined they have jurisdiction to do it, so are going to do their job. Fact.

 

Yes, they did. Now, can you honestly say you and the usual suspects wouldn't be up in arms on here if the decision was different? You're not impartial or objective when it comes to these topics, why do you assume that the ICC staff is different?

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, and unless mistaken, already said that's not what the investigation is about. You seem to alternate between stressing the professional/legal merits of the investigation and the hopes that it would serve to further bash Israel or something like that.

 

 

You havent investigated anything to determine if a crime has been committed have you. The border issue can be used as a provocation which they can use as a defence. It can also be used by israel in their defence. It could be quite central to the issue of the severity of any response to attacks. There can be many factors that need to be investigated before a decision can be made to prosecute or not.

 

i have not stated any side will be guilty. I have stated that there should be an investigation and all should cooperate. If not, then no crying foul if a decision is made against them.

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, I'm not. You're just butting in without reading the topic, probably.

I have addressed the issue on this topic, and certainly on many past ones.

The borders issue, especially those specifically mentioned is not much on topic.

Yes, you addressed it and so do others. And sometimes others answer questions, Israel'sborders seem very much on topic. Disagree, feel free to report to a moderator, but calling others out because you disagree with an answer is not done. And you know better.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

You havent investigated anything to determine if a crime has been committed have you. The border issue can be used as a provocation which they can use as a defence. It can also be used by israel in their defence. It could be quite central to the issue of the severity of any response to attacks. There can be many factors that need to be investigated before a decision can be made to prosecute or not.

 

i have not stated any side will be guilty. I have stated that there should be an investigation and all should cooperate. If not, then no crying foul if a decision is made against them.

 

I'm not the one claiming to be an experienced prosecutor. I do know that the ICC already said it is not its place to decide these sort of issues (borders etc.) between the sides. Allow me to remain skeptical of your legal take on these matters.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, you addressed it and so do others. And sometimes others answer questions, Israel'sborders seem very much on topic. Disagree, feel free to report to a moderator, but calling others out because you disagree with an answer is not done. And you know better.

 

So you're playing moderator yourself now?

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You do not try to impress, and you succeed. As for stating facts, no - your making an unverifiable claim. Your  posting history does not support it much.

 

You can spin words all you like, but the bottom line is this, criminal law has local variations, international law (or international criminal law, whatever), less so. So it's not really same same much.

 

And you can keep insisting that people are just doing their job, not letting political views effect them and such. Doubt you truly believe that.

 

Not getting your repeated comments about "cannot complain" when reality shows parties complain regardless of rejecting these investigations.

You have no experience at all so its not surpising you struggle to comprehend that the court decided it has jurisdiction so will do its job.

 

politics is a non issue, the court will follow its process.

 

 

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not the one claiming to be an experienced prosecutor. I do know that the ICC already said it is not its place to decide these sort of issues (borders etc.) between the sides. Allow me to remain skeptical of your legal take on these matters.

Yawn, where did i say the icc will determine borders.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

You have no experience at all so its not surpising you struggle to comprehend that the court decided it has jurisdiction so will do its job.

 

politics is a non issue, the court will follow its process.

 

 

 

I do not struggle with anything of the sort. You just keep posting the same inane, meaningless lines over and over again - "just do their job", "cannot complain"...whatever.

 

Politics is a non-issue in relation to a UN/International body? And you expect people to take you seriously?

[Sujo]

Just now, Morch said:

 

I do not struggle with anything of the sort. You just keep posting the same inane, meaningless lines over and over again - "just do their job", "cannot complain"...whatever.

 

Politics is a non-issue in relation to a UN/International body? And you expect people to take you seriously?

And you refuse to accept facts and keep going on about what ifs.

 

Politics would be if they said they had jurisdiction but failed to investigate.

 

can you indicate in their reasoning to investigate where it was political?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Yawn, where did i say the icc will determine borders.

 

Oh, I see. You're commenting on the the issue of the Gaza Border without having a clue as to facts, background and significance. May wish to read up on how the border's location, and zones next to it changed over the years. Then, maybe, your comments would be somewhat more relevant.

[Sujo]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Oh, I see. You're commenting on the the issue of the Gaza Border without having a clue as to facts, background and significance. May wish to read up on how the border's location, and zones next to it changed over the years. Then, maybe, your comments would be somewhat more relevant.

Why should i. I never said where the borders should be. I said it can be central to any defence of actions.

 

perhaps you should check for mistake of fact for how the border can be relevent.

 

i never once said the icc will determine where the border is. So you are wrong.

 

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So you're playing moderator yourself now?

Naw, just calling you out.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

You do not offer any facts, you make claims.

Politics could be construed as pushing on with the investigation, accepting/excluding certain issues, ignoring usual procedures when accepting cases, etc. That you confine it to a single aspect is cute, but meaningless.

Given past record of investigations, reports and various UN bodies reports etc. - how can it be claimed that politics got nothing to do with it?

 

You're welcome to reference my comments on the previous topics where this was discussed (back when you weren't claiming to be a legal expert).

 

Trolling now. I never said i was a legal expert.

Fact, they decided they have jurisdiction.

Fact, they will investigate.

 

Conspiracy, it is political.

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Basically, your saying nothing, then. You claim the border issue would be central, and yet do not seem familiar with the facts related to this specific 'border', nor do you explain what you're on about. I would have expected a self-proclaimed legal expert to be able to make his point.

I never said the border issue would be central. I said it can be central to a defence. I said both sides can use it as a defence.

 

i have already explained it. Mistake of fact.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Sujo

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Trolling now. I never said i was a legal expert.

Fact, they decided they have jurisdiction.

Fact, they will investigate.

 

Conspiracy, it is political.

 

You claimed to have been an experienced prosecutor. I'm sure that there's some nonsense argument coming up about it having nothing to do with the label of 'legal expert'.

 

I have no doubts that there were political pressure for and against opening the investigation, the jurisdiction issue, and that there will be such with regard to the investigation itself. I have no doubts whatsoever that the people involved have political views, and that to some extent (at the very least) these will effect the proceedings.

 

For pretty much each and every investigation or report, there was a similar preamble. With most of them, the bottom line was effectively politically biased. There's no particular reason to assert this one would be different.

 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I never said the border issue would be central. I said it can be central to a defence. I said both sides can use it as a defence.

 

i have already explained it. Mistake of fact.

 

Yeah, I saw that. That's why I posted the bit about being out of touch with the reality of the border area there. I seriously doubt your comment applies much.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You claimed to have been an experienced prosecutor. I'm sure that there's some nonsense argument coming up about it having nothing to do with the label of 'legal expert'.

 

I have no doubts that there were political pressure for and against opening the investigation, the jurisdiction issue, and that there will be such with regard to the investigation itself. I have no doubts whatsoever that the people involved have political views, and that to some extent (at the very least) these will effect the proceedings.

 

For pretty much each and every investigation or report, there was a similar preamble. With most of them, the bottom line was effectively politically biased. There's no particular reason to assert this one would be different.

 

So you were wrong, just admit it. I never proclaimed to be a legal expert.

 

So you have no doubts there there was political pressure. Sounds like trump, fraud, lots of fraud. Evidence? 

 

All you are giving is an opinion on what you think is happening instead of looking at the facts.

 

Now if they said they would only investigate one side you may have better standing. But on the facts, nope.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, I saw that. That's why I posted the bit about being out of touch with the reality of the border area there. I seriously doubt your comment applies much.

It applies to what force was used in relation to a mistake of fact. How much it applies is up to the court.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Sujo

[onebir]

When someone from the United States, China, or India shows up at the ICC, wake me up. Worst case a few Israelis will have to be careful where they go on holiday.

[Mavideol]

10 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the decision, saying in a video statement: "When the ICC investigates Israel for fake war crimes, this is pure antisemitism."

 

with Trump gone, now your chances of wining anything are all gone down the pipes, Benjamin you better get ready for some roller coaster rides, the international community will no longer close their eyes to your war crimes, illegal settlements and occupation

 

10 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Bensouda had found in December 2019 that "war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip."

 

"The Court's territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine ... extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem," they said.

 

people have been saying it for quite sometime but Ben with Don's help playing it as a oax....as the old saying goes " sooner or later truth always prevails/comes out"

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

That is a false comment, or at the very least an exaggeration. According to your opinion, then, the Palestinian Authority does nothing? Controls nothing? Manages nothings? The Hamas doesn't rule the Gaza Strip either?

Israel totally controls land sea and air transport. Israel can 100% approve or reject what comes into and out of the illegally occupied Palestinian territories: people, food, medicine, building materials, money, commercial goods. 

Israel controls the law along apartheid lines - Palestinians are subject to draconian military laws, while the illegal settlers on the hill are subject to Israeli law.

Israel controls visas, birth registrations, building permits, roads, communications, where Palestinians can live, where they can work, right of residence, and movements of Palestinians in their own land with hundreds of checkpoints, right down to denying parents the right to visit their sick children in hospital, if the bureaucrat isn't feeling very compassionate that day.

 

Israel can send its troops with impunity to any home in any area, any time day or night.

 

I'd call that 100% control of Palestinian lives.

 

To witness the war crime of every day life for a Palestinian under illegal occupation, view..

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-06/occupied-lives-palestinians-israel-military-control/8578368?nw=0

 

And before you nitpick, ...true, the Egyptian dictator Sisi has a small role to play on the tiny strip of border with Gaza. 

Edited February 6, 2021 by dexterm