NationStates Jolt Archive

Saddam's chemical supplier faces genocide appeal

AMSTERDAM — The Public Prosecutor's Office (OM) has lodged an appeal against the decision in December to acquit businessman Frans Van Anraat of complicity in genocide by Saddam Hussein.

The trial court jailed Van Anraat in December for 15 years for complicity in war crimes in relation to poison gas attacks carried out by Saddam's forces in Iraq and Iran.

The OM wants an appeal court to rule whether Van Anraat was an accomplice to genocide by providing some of the chemical compounds used to manufacture the gas. Van Anraat is also appealing against his conviction and sentence.

The trial court accepted evidence that Van Anraat, 63, delivered a large amount of raw materials for chemical weapons to Saddam's regime. The dictator used the poison gas from 1984 to 1988 in the war with Iran. Thousands of men, women and children were killed when the weapons were used on Kurdish villages in the north of Iraq in 1988.

The court cleared Van Anraat of the genocide charge because the prosecution failed to prove Van Anraat knew the chemicals would be used for that purpose.

Seems like a fair verdict to me. The appeal will probably turn out the same, seeing as convicting people for genocide will be very very hard if they did not actually participate or order it.

Soon there will be a new crime: aiding and abetting genocide.

That way, in the future, you'll be able to convict the middleman - the people who sold weapons or chemicals.

Excellent.

Here's to hoping he gets convicted and his case will serve as precedence for taking on all those German, French, American, Russian etc companies and militaries who were quite happy to supply people like Saddam with weapons.

Perhaps the CIA too.

Soon there will be a new crime: aiding and abetting genocide.

That way, in the future, you'll be able to convict the middleman - the people who sold weapons or chemicals.

I suppose that would be the same as the "complicity in genocide" for which he was being charged now, no?

He's bascially an accomplice to a crime, should be easy enough to prove...

He's bascially an accomplice to a crime, should be easy enough to prove...

Unless you have a memo or recording or something similar of him saying "I know he's gonna kill those $population_group with these guns I'm selling him and I don't care," then it'll be quite difficult to prove he knew what Saddam would do with them.

Aye. If I sell you a knife and you then use it to stab someone I would not automatically consider myself an accomplice, really.

Aye. If I sell you a knife and you then use it to stab someone I would not automatically consider myself an accomplice, really.

And this is why knives need to be banned.

I suppose that would be the same as the "complicity in genocide" for which he was being charged now, no?
I am thinking that in his case, they would have to prove he intended to be complicit in genocide. I think they should rewrite the law, and just note that they sold it. They should be more careful with selling certain items - gas centrifuges, certain chemicals, certain biologicals.

I am thinking that in his case, they would have to prove he intended to be complicit in genocide. I think they should rewrite the law, and just note that they sold it. They should be more careful with selling certain items - gas centrifuges, certain chemicals, certain biologicals.

So, you are in favour of punishing gun store owners for the crimes committed with the guns they've sold, even if they didn't know that the guns would be used to commit a crime? Because that's what you seem to be in favour of here - punishing salesmen for the use of their merchandise if that merchandise happens to be used for illegal purposes without their prior knowledge that it would have such a use.

So, you are in favour of punishing gun store owners for the crimes committed with the guns they've sold, even if they didn't know that the guns would be used to commit a crime? Because that's what you seem to be in favour of here - punishing salesmen for the use of their merchandise if that merchandise happens to be used for illegal purposes without their prior knowledge that it would have such a use.

And Kimchi puts his foot in his mouth again. *shakes head*

Heck, I could see this coming off miles away the moment he posted here.

So, you are in favour of punishing gun store owners for the crimes committed with the guns they've sold, even if they didn't know that the guns would be used to commit a crime? Because that's what you seem to be in favour of here - punishing salesmen for the use of their merchandise if that merchandise happens to be used for illegal purposes without their prior knowledge that it would have such a use.
Only in the case of genocide.

Only in the case of genocide.

I don't know. Has IBM, gone under from that whole "providing punch card and card sorting system to Nazi Germany" business? I know it made a big stink when it came out.

I mean, the goods sold were specifically designed to aid in automation of the industrial murder purpose. So how come you aren't asking for IBM to be punished?

Especially since you can't sell punchcards without working together with the customer to exactly find out what they are used for and manufacture them accordingly.

"Corporation" or some documentary, was it? A bit one-sided, but they are right. My dad used to program punchcards at uni - and without knowing exactly what they are used for, you can't make them.

I don't know. Has IBM, gone under from that whole "providing punch card and card sorting system to Nazi Germany" business? I know it made a big stink when it came out.

I mean, the goods sold were specifically designed to aid in automation of the industrial murder purpose. So how come you aren't asking for IBM to be punished?

I actually wrote a paper suggesting that back in 1997.

And this is why knives need to be banned.
My sarcasm server is currently down. Are you serious?

Seems like a fair verdict to me. The appeal will probably turn out the same, seeing as convicting people for genocide will be very very hard if they did not actually participate or order it.

"Your honor, I didn't know those chemicals were going to be used to kill people. I thought they were going to be used in the creation of illicit drugs!"

"Your honor, I didn't know those chemicals were going to be used to kill people. I thought they were going to be used in the creation of illicit drugs!"

The problem my dear Lunatic Goofballs, is that we don't really know what those chemicals were and what other uses they had. This person didn't sell poison gas per se. He only sold chemicals that could have been made into it. What else they could be used for, I don't know, but I doubt poison gas was the only alternative.

The problem my dear Lunatic Goofballs, is that we don't really know what those chemicals were and what other uses they had. This person didn't sell poison gas per se. He only sold chemicals that could have been made into it. What else they could be used for, I don't know, but I doubt poison gas was the only alternative.

Well, I'm assuming the court knows more about that. If he sold all the components for making nerve gas in one shipment, that's a pretty big indicator, right there. Especially if they have few(if any) other uses.

On the other hand, if those same chemical can be used to make toilet bowl cleaner, I can concede that we can't really prove the intentions of the chemicals. Clean toilets are their own reward. :)

Since the chemicals were sold when Iraq was engaged in hostilities, or planning to be, with Iran. Even if they were known to be chemical weapon precursors, it's very believable that Saddam's regime would claim that they were for defense against Iran. I don't know NBC weapons laws, but I think that, in itself, is illegal. Not grounds for genocide complicity, but indictable all the same.

The problem my dear Lunatic Goofballs, is that we don't really know what those chemicals were and what other uses they had. This person didn't sell poison gas per se. He only sold chemicals that could have been made into it. What else they could be used for, I don't know, but I doubt poison gas was the only alternative.

Not like selling someone Russian-made T-72 tanks, or Russian Hind ground attack helicopters, or hundreds of thousands of AKM rifles, or billions of rounds of 7.62x39mm Russian assault rifle ammunition.

Not like selling someone Russian-made T-72 tanks, or Russian Hind ground attack helicopters, or hundreds of thousands of AKM rifles, or billions of rounds of 7.62x39mm Russian assault rifle ammunition.

For gun collectors. :)

For gun collectors. :)
Just remember that war crimes trials are usually run by the victors, who can charge anyone they like with war crimes.

After all, people are always offended when people get hurt. In a war.

Only in the case of genocide.

That makes no sense. Why should genocide carry a lesser burden of proof?

Excellent.

Here's to hoping he gets convicted and his case will serve as precedence for taking on all those German, French, American, Russian etc companies and militaries who were quite happy to supply people like Saddam with weapons.

Perhaps the CIA too.
Good point how would a law like this apply to governments that supply or support one faction that turns out try’s genocide later on using the materials supplied by that country.

My sarcasm server is currently down. Are you serious?

Wouldn't it ruin the mystery between us if I told you?