NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.etherzone.com/cgi-bin/news-now/jump.cgi/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4460871.stm


What burns me is not the fact that this man is being punished- he definitely deserves it- but the fact that he was put on trial, not in the nation where he committed the crime, but in a foreign country. Without question, he should have been put on trial in Argentina, and been tried by Argentinans, not tried in Spain by the Spanish. What the hell is this world coming to!?

No thoughts?

It is sad that Argentina doesn't have the political will to punish him, and others like him. However, many of the dictatorships at the time changed laws to expressly stop any charges from ever being brought against them. Perhaps this sort of thing is needed to get around that.

He was tried, and he'll be punished for the rest of his life. What more do you want? What difference does it make if Argentinians try him or not? Sure, his crimes were commited against Argentinians, but we that doesn't mean he has to be tried by Argentinians. After all, we don't force the families of murder victims to serve on the murderer's jury.

There's really a crappy choice here:

If the host country won't try the person for the crimes, he gets completely off the hook.

If a person is subject to being tried by any nation for crimes not committed in that nation, then can every country have its own standards for trying other non-citizens people for crimes committed in foreign countries?

CHances are, the Argentinians would have stormed the courthouse and beaten his ass to death like an ugly piñata.

Not that I'd complain. :p

It is sad that Argentina doesn't have the political will to punish him, and others like him. However, many of the dictatorships at the time changed laws to expressly stop any charges from ever being brought against them. Perhaps this sort of thing is needed to get around that.

Dictators should be punished by their own countries, not by foreign countries. Just as criminals in the U.S. are punished in the state they committed the crime by the state in which they committed the crime, so too should dictators be punished in the country they committed their crimes in.

I think the fear here is, who defines the criminal? In some circles Henry Kissinger is considered a war criminal...so if he happens to travel to a country whose government agrees, could be be tried? (PLEASE, PLEASE YES!)

He was tried, and he'll be punished for the rest of his life. What more do you want? What difference does it make if Argentinians try him or not? Sure, his crimes were commited against Argentinians, but we that doesn't mean he has to be tried by Argentinians. After all, we don't force the families of murder victims to serve on the murderer's jury.

It makes a big difference where he gets tried. The fact that countries can try foreigners for crimes that weren't even committed in said countries is a danger to national sovereignty and a big boost toward world government.

Dictators should be punished by their own countries, not by foreign countries. Just as criminals in the U.S. are punished in the state they committed the crime by the state in which they committed the crime, so too should dictators be punished in the country they committed their crimes in.
Then stop taking Colombian drug lords and 'dealing' with them in the US.

It makes a big difference where he gets tried. The fact that countries can try foreigners for crimes that weren't even committed in said countries is a danger to national sovereignty and a big boost toward world government.
Which I consider to be a good thing:) But I'm evil that way.

I think the fear here is, who defines the criminal? In some circles Henry Kissinger is considered a war criminal...so if he happens to travel to a country whose government agrees, could be be tried? (PLEASE, PLEASE YES!)

Yes, Kissinger should be tried. He's not only a war criminal, but a Soviet agent and a traitor.

It makes a big difference where he gets tried. The fact that countries can try foreigners for crimes that weren't even committed in said countries is a danger to national sovereignty and a big boost toward world government.
I have no problem with world government as long as the USA gets to run it.

so whats to stop a country without the death penalty exporting its criminals for trial and execution in a country that allows it?

Then stop taking Colombian drug lords and 'dealing' with them in the US.

Hey, I don't shape U.S. foreign policy. I think Colombian drug lords should be dealt with by fellow Colombians, not anyone else.

Hey, I don't shape U.S. foreign policy. I think Colombian drug lords should be dealt with by fellow Colombians, not anyone else.
Ok. I thought you DID control US foreign policy. My mistake:)

Ok. I thought you DID control US foreign policy. My mistake:)

If I did, there'd be no U.S. troops in Iraq right now.

Roach, I agree that it's unfortunate that he was not tried and punished in Argentina. But without the ability to try people in a foreign country, such criminals can get off the hook just for living in a foreign country.

Would you not have liked to see Idi Amin put on trial in Saudi Arabia? He never paid the price for his genocide, simply because he decided to live in Arabia.

I think the fear here is, who defines the criminal? In some circles Henry Kissinger is considered a war criminal...so if he happens to travel to a country whose government agrees, could be be tried? (PLEASE, PLEASE YES!)
Did you know that Spain considers Kissinger a war criminal? :D

I don't mind this kind of thing as long as there's no practical legal difference between the two countries. What ticks me off is when countries try to arrest people for something that isn't a crime in the country where it's been "committed" - example in point, people being arrested in Europe for violating American copyright laws.

Did you know that Spain considers Kissinger a war criminal? :D
I KNEW there was a reason I liked the Spanish besides La Mala Rodriguez...

Did you know that Spain considers Kissinger a war criminal? :D

For being a Soviet agent?

He can't be tried in Argentina because he didn't break the laws of Argentina. What he did was perfectly acceptable under the government he was under. He was tried internationally because the laws he broke were international laws.

I have no problem with world government as long as the USA gets to run it.

I think the whole point of having a world government would be that representatives from nearly all countries would have a say.

I think the whole point of having a world government would be that representatives from nearly all countries would have a say.

It would be tyranny by majority. Considering the fact that dictatorships vastly outnumber non-dictatorships, world government would most likely be tyrannical.

I think the whole point of having a world government would be that representatives from nearly all countries would have a say.
In that case I'm against it. Unless the USA had veto power and the ability to unilaterally pass international laws while other countries are having their say.

It would be tyranny by majority. Considering the fact that dictatorships vastly outnumber non-dictatorships, world government would most likely be tyrannical.

So you prefer the tyranny by one to the tyranny by majority?

So you prefer the tyranny by one to the tyranny by majority?
I do. If that one is a fairly democratic and ethical nation.

So you prefer the tyranny by one to the tyranny by majority?

I'd prefer no tyranny at all, which is one of the reasons I oppose world government.

For being a Soviet agent?
I'm not entirely sure, but it's probably more an objection to his work for Nixon than his work for Stalin, Kruskchev, Brezhnev, etc.