• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libya to Face War Crimes Probe

Temporal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
3,691
Reaction score
2,243
Location
Everywhere and Nowhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/02/libya-gadhafi-world.html said:
The International Criminal Court will open an investigation Thursday into alleged crimes against humanity in Libya, the chief prosecutor's office has announced.

Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Campo will work with the United Nations, the African Union and the Arab League, the office said Wednesday. He will also request information from other sources, including Interpol.

Moreno-Ocampo will deliver a report to the UN Security Council within two months.

Look at how fast things happen when a nutty dictator kills his own people and causes oil prices to go up.

Two months seems like a long time though.
 
With respect to possible war crimes/crimes against humanity, an article in today's edition of The New York Times concerning the battle for Brega highlights another possible war crime: human shielding. The newspaper reported:

In a fierce day-long battle, rebel forces in this strategic oil town successfully repelled an attack on Wednesday by government-aligned mercenaries backed by artillery and war planes, witnesses in the town said. At least five were confirmed dead and 16 wounded in the fighting, the witnesses said, citing firsthand reports from the hospital...

The mercenaries attacked at dawn, the witnesses said, arriving in a convoy of cars and pickups and armed with rifles and aging anti-tank guns. They quickly took the airport and a university in the town, an oil-exporting terminal on the Libyan coast around 500 miles east of Colonel Qaddafi’s stronghold in the capital, Tripoli. Witnesses said they took hostages at the university and used them as human shields.


It should be noted that mercenaries, who are essentially hired killers, do not enjoy the extent of protections granted to other combatants under the Geneva Conventions. Hence, it is entirely legitimate for captured mercenaries to be tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with their crimes.
 
With respect to possible war crimes/crimes against humanity, an article in today's edition of The New York Times concerning the battle for Brega highlights another possible war crime: human shielding. The newspaper reported:

In a fierce day-long battle, rebel forces in this strategic oil town successfully repelled an attack on Wednesday by government-aligned mercenaries backed by artillery and war planes, witnesses in the town said. At least five were confirmed dead and 16 wounded in the fighting, the witnesses said, citing firsthand reports from the hospital...

The mercenaries attacked at dawn, the witnesses said, arriving in a convoy of cars and pickups and armed with rifles and aging anti-tank guns. They quickly took the airport and a university in the town, an oil-exporting terminal on the Libyan coast around 500 miles east of Colonel Qaddafi’s stronghold in the capital, Tripoli. Witnesses said they took hostages at the university and used them as human shields.


It should be noted that mercenaries, who are essentially hired killers, do not enjoy the extent of protections granted to other combatants under the Geneva Conventions. Hence, it is entirely legitimate for captured mercenaries to be tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with their crimes.

If the mercs are Muslims, they're going to say they were there for jihad and there won't be any trial. There were all kinds of mercs captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and we've been told all this time that they have rights. Now, suddenly, they don't have those protections anymore?
 
I want to know who is going to bring Gadhafi out to face the music?

This should be done by the UN if they were worth a damn which they are never going to be.

Then there is NATO since one of the new crimes Gadhafi personally accused of is the Lockerbie plane bombing and people on the plane live in NATO Countries.

Obama could get that rolling if he wasn't a gutless march mallow milk toast.

270 fatalities most from the US.

OB-EH217_Locker_G_20090820193143.jpg
 
I want to know who is going to bring Gadhafi out to face the music?

This should be done by the UN if they were worth a damn which they are never going to be.

Then there is NATO since one of the new crimes Gadhafi personally accused of is the Lockerbie plane bombing and people on the plane live in NATO Countries.

Obama could get that rolling if he wasn't a gutless march mallow milk toast.

270 fatalities most from the US.

Good point, Councilman. We need to get ourselves a real leader with the balls to call them out on their war crimes. George W. Bush isn't doing anything at the moment, is he?
 
Good point, Councilman. We need to get ourselves a real leader with the balls to call them out on their war crimes. George W. Bush isn't doing anything at the moment, is he?

Awww, didn't get a Bush or Cheney indictment for Christmas again this year?

Maybe next year. Be a good boy and don't forget to tap your heels three times.
 
It should be noted that mercenaries, who are essentially hired killers, do not enjoy the extent of protections granted to other combatants under the Geneva Conventions. Hence, it is entirely legitimate for captured mercenaries to be tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with their crimes.

What is going unnoticed and unacknowledged in this forum and even outside in the media. Is the Mercenary role and the change in Libya.

I lost any and all sympathy for the Libyan rebels the second they started targeting the indigenous Black population in Libya for lynching and murdering.
 
If the mercs are Muslims, they're going to say they were there for jihad and there won't be any trial. There were all kinds of mercs captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and we've been told all this time that they have rights. Now, suddenly, they don't have those protections anymore?

There is a difference between being a mercenary and being a regular enemy combatant. It's a distinction that the Bush administration worked very hard to define, so that they could create a pretext for the prison at Gitmo.

And no, saying that they are fighting a jihad will not save them from prosecution. You need to stop getting your facts from Glenn Beck.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between being a mercenary and being a regular enemy combatant. It's a distinction that the Bush administration worked very hard to define, so that they could create a pretext for the prison at Gitmo.

I know there's a difference and here's the difference:

United Nations Mercenary Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And no, saying that they are fighting a jihad will not save them from prosecution.

Worked for the foreign fighters that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You need to stop getting your facts from Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck said that? He must have been reading my posts.
 
Look at how fast things happen when a nutty dictator kills his own people and causes oil prices to go up.

Two months seems like a long time though.

I'm not defending him, but who are we call it war crimes when Libya's putting down what amounts to a civil war? Does it depend whose side you're on?
 
What is going unnoticed and unacknowledged in this forum and even outside in the media. Is the Mercenary role and the change in Libya.

I lost any and all sympathy for the Libyan rebels the second they started targeting the indigenous Black population in Libya for lynching and murdering.

Three quick points, Laila:

1) Not every non-Libyan African is a mercenary. Many are migrant workers who are innocent victims caught up in the conflict. Indiscriminate punishment should not be meted out.
2) Any individuals who carry out indiscriminate punishment are, themselves, committing war crimes.
3) Mercenaries can and should be tried. If convicted, then the appropriate sentence should be be given.
 
There is a difference between being a mercenary and being a regular enemy combatant.

One is covered by the GC and the other is not.


It's a distinction that the Bush administration worked very hard to define, so that they could create a pretext for the prison at Gitmo.

We have to keep them somewhere. Why not Gitmo?

When has the US needed a 'pretext' to capture and imprison the enemy’s men? It's spelled out in the GC what's to be done with them.

What part of the GC guarantees protections to Islamic jihadis?


And no, saying that they are fighting a jihad will not save them from prosecution. You need to stop getting your facts from Glenn Beck.

The GC has been in effect long before Beck.
 
Last edited:
One is covered by the GC and the other is not.

They are both covered by the Geneva Conventions... Read Article 47. They are both considered combatants until a competent tribunal says otherwise.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm not defending him, but who are we call it war crimes when Libya's putting down what amounts to a civil war? Does it depend whose side you're on?

I don't think it's defending Qadaffi to point out that the ICC and the convocation of war crimes trials are commonly used as a propaganda tool.
 
Even 0bama's Attorney General doesn't believe Islamic jihadis are covered by the GC:

Eric Holder (Barack Obama's choice for Attorney General), on the question of whether unlawful combatants captured in the war on terror are entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention. From an interview on CNN, January 2002:

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.

Notable & Quotable - WSJ.com
 
Depending on the type of contract mercenaries have with the government of the country they are operating in, they may very well be able to act with legal impunity, as what happened with Blackwater and the Iraqi government.
 
Depending on the type of contract mercenaries have with the government of the country they are operating in, they may very well be able to act with legal impunity, as what happened with Blackwater and the Iraqi government.

Blackwater operated in Iraq with "legal impunity"? They did?

Where did you hear or read that?
 
Maybe you should read Article 47?

More reading comprehension fail from the usual suspects. Go on reading your link:

All the criteria (a – f) must be met, according to the Geneva Convention, for a combatant to be described as a mercenary.

According to the GC III, a captured soldier must be treated as a lawful combatant and, therefore, as a protected person with prisoner-of-war status until facing a competent tribunal (GC III Art 5). That tribunal, using criteria in APGC77 or some equivalent domestic law, may decide that the soldier is a mercenary. At that juncture, the mercenary soldier becomes an unlawful combatant but still must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", being still covered by GC IV Art 5. The only possible exception to GC IV Art 5 is when he is a national of the authority imprisoning him, in which case he would not be a mercenary soldier as defined in APGC77 Art 47.d.


How sad you don't even bother to read something you use as a citation. Typical.
 
How sad you don't even bother to read something you use as a citation. Typical.

Yes, it is sad and typical.

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


Mercenaries fighting in Libya intentionally killing innocent civilians do not fall under any category of Article 4 of the GC.
http://www.mineaction.org/downloads/Emine Policy Pages/Geneva Conventions/Geneva Convention III.pdf
 
Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

That is correct. But a tribunal or similar competent process must determine based on evidence that a captured individual is, in fact, a mercenary. One can't automatically designate a captured individual as a mercenary in the absence of competent process.

Once the determination is made, however, then mercenaries do not enjoy the full range of protections that are available to lawful combatants/prisoners of war e.g., mercenaries can be prosecuted for their crimes and, if convicted, sentenced appropriately.


Mercenaries fighting in Libya intentionally killing innocent civilians do not fall under any category of Article 4 of the GC.
http://www.mineaction.org/downloads/Emine Policy Pages/Geneva Conventions/Geneva Convention III.pdf[/QUOTE]
 
That is correct. But a tribunal or similar competent process must determine based on evidence that a captured individual is, in fact, a mercenary.

That's true, no doubt. Their status as defined by the GC does need to be determined if and when an organized military force captures a 'mercenary' in Libya.

Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The paid killers fighting in Libya, and Islamic jihadis killing innocent people all over the world, are conducting themselves in such a manner that they have forfeit their 'protected person' status in accordance with the GC.
 
That's true, no doubt. Their status as defined by the GC does need to be determined if and when an organized military force captures a 'mercenary' in Libya.

Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The paid killers fighting in Libya, and Islamic jihadis killing innocent people all over the world, are conducting themselves in such a manner that they have forfeit their 'protected person' status in accordance with the GC.

We agree about mercenaries. It's the intermediate step of establishing through tribunals or other competent processes that they are mercenaries that needs to be carried out. Once the suspected mercenaries are captured, it would make sense to proceed with the tribunals as quickly as reasonably possible (in Libya, combat needs take precedence right now) and then hold any mercenaries fully accountable for their crimes. Under no circumstances do I believe that the mercenaries should be freed at the end of hostilities. Otherwise, the incentive for people to serve essentially as killers-for-profit would be strengthened.
 
Back
Top Bottom