Body & Soul1 min ago
Regardless Of His Human Rights Should We House And Feed War Criminals?
16 Answers
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We had Pinnochet over for medical treatment didn't we?
Reading this article carefully it doesn't seem that he has been convicted or even charged with war crimes although he is suspected of involvement clearly.
Seems to me the proper course of action is, if there is evidence against him, to charge him rather than deport him to another country where he might escape prosecution.
If he's convicted of war crimes I think we can well afford to feed and clothe him in Belmarsh Prison
Reading this article carefully it doesn't seem that he has been convicted or even charged with war crimes although he is suspected of involvement clearly.
Seems to me the proper course of action is, if there is evidence against him, to charge him rather than deport him to another country where he might escape prosecution.
If he's convicted of war crimes I think we can well afford to feed and clothe him in Belmarsh Prison
jake-the-peg
/// Reading this article carefully it doesn't seem that he has been convicted or even charged with war crimes although he is suspected of involvement
clearly. ///
He is a self confessed war criminal.
/// Seems to me the proper course of action is, if there is evidence against him, to charge him rather than deport him to another country where he might escape prosecution. ///
Why should we spend taxpayer's money on a trial and then on keeping him in prison? Because I doubt very much that he would escape prosecution in Sudan, after all isn't that why he was granted asylum under the Human Rights Act?.
*** Last year a court ruling said he could not be deported to Sudan because his life could be at risk if he returned. He was then granted asylum under the Human Rights Act. ***
/// Reading this article carefully it doesn't seem that he has been convicted or even charged with war crimes although he is suspected of involvement
clearly. ///
He is a self confessed war criminal.
/// Seems to me the proper course of action is, if there is evidence against him, to charge him rather than deport him to another country where he might escape prosecution. ///
Why should we spend taxpayer's money on a trial and then on keeping him in prison? Because I doubt very much that he would escape prosecution in Sudan, after all isn't that why he was granted asylum under the Human Rights Act?.
*** Last year a court ruling said he could not be deported to Sudan because his life could be at risk if he returned. He was then granted asylum under the Human Rights Act. ***
another piece of trash we dont need here, but we give him a home and benefits
makes you want to cry
we are a frikkin joke in this country, as has been said *** him off and the echr at the same time, we should be able to decide for ourselves who should and shouldnt be living here.
I couldnt care less what happens to him if we got rid of him (fat chance of that happening) back to the sudan, not my problem, he should have thought of that.
why do people think these scumbags all have this as no 1 on their list of places to go to !?
We are nothing but mugs over here
makes you want to cry
we are a frikkin joke in this country, as has been said *** him off and the echr at the same time, we should be able to decide for ourselves who should and shouldnt be living here.
I couldnt care less what happens to him if we got rid of him (fat chance of that happening) back to the sudan, not my problem, he should have thought of that.
why do people think these scumbags all have this as no 1 on their list of places to go to !?
We are nothing but mugs over here
//He is a self confessed war criminal. //
In an anonymous TV interview?
That's a potential start for a prosecution, but not enough.
I respectfully suggest the question you should be asking is why there has been no prosecution of him for war crimes seeing as this interview was 7 years ago.
If the answer is insufficient evidence then you have your answer.
In any case deporting him is the wrong answer - if he's guilty of this he needs to stand trial
The message it sends out is that the UK is a safe haven for war criminals when they catch up with you you just get kicked out not sent to gaol.
In an anonymous TV interview?
That's a potential start for a prosecution, but not enough.
I respectfully suggest the question you should be asking is why there has been no prosecution of him for war crimes seeing as this interview was 7 years ago.
If the answer is insufficient evidence then you have your answer.
In any case deporting him is the wrong answer - if he's guilty of this he needs to stand trial
The message it sends out is that the UK is a safe haven for war criminals when they catch up with you you just get kicked out not sent to gaol.
No Jake, the questions we should be asking are why did he come here (as if this is the only “safe haven between Sudan and here) why was he allowed to remain here, why is he housed, fed and clothed at taxpayers’ expense and why should we be concerned what happens to him should he be returned to his homeland.? As far as I am aware he has committed no crime here and prosecuting him here is unnecessary. If he is kicked out (or still better, if he had been denied entry in the first place) the message would not be that the UK is a safe haven. Quite the opposite in fact, it would demonstrate that it is no haven at all.
So NJ - you're telling me that we don't prosecute war criminals just because they commit no crime in the UK?
Frankly that is the whole point of the war crimes process is it not?
Would you have just deported Ratko Mladić ? because the massacres he was behind didn't happen in the UK?
Anthony Sawoniuk was convicted under the 1991 war crimes act for the murder of Jews in Poland - no crime on British soil.
I think you seem to have a bit of a shakey grasp on this war crimes thing!
Frankly that is the whole point of the war crimes process is it not?
Would you have just deported Ratko Mladić ? because the massacres he was behind didn't happen in the UK?
Anthony Sawoniuk was convicted under the 1991 war crimes act for the murder of Jews in Poland - no crime on British soil.
I think you seem to have a bit of a shakey grasp on this war crimes thing!
I don't have a shaky grasp, Jake. I just have a different view on how they should be dealt with.
The gentlemen you mentioned should not have been allowed into the UK in the first place and that would have been the ideal solution. However, since they were here the best solution would have been to ship them off to the nation against which they had allegedly committed their atrocities.
With so many conflicts going on around the globe we cannot undertake to prosecute miscreants on behalf of other nations. If they want them to assist in their enquiries then we should let them have them. That would be far more effective in keeping such people out. At present once they gain entry here they know there is scant chance of prosecution, no chance of deportation and so we find ourselves in the situation such as that with Mr Salim. Kicking them out (or better still preventing their entry) may nor stop them committing atrocities or punish them for their misdemeanours and it may also infringe their so-called "rights". But it would keep them out of the UK which is really all I am concerned about.
The gentlemen you mentioned should not have been allowed into the UK in the first place and that would have been the ideal solution. However, since they were here the best solution would have been to ship them off to the nation against which they had allegedly committed their atrocities.
With so many conflicts going on around the globe we cannot undertake to prosecute miscreants on behalf of other nations. If they want them to assist in their enquiries then we should let them have them. That would be far more effective in keeping such people out. At present once they gain entry here they know there is scant chance of prosecution, no chance of deportation and so we find ourselves in the situation such as that with Mr Salim. Kicking them out (or better still preventing their entry) may nor stop them committing atrocities or punish them for their misdemeanours and it may also infringe their so-called "rights". But it would keep them out of the UK which is really all I am concerned about.
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.