senojekips
Active member
War Crimes should be an Internationally judged moral issue and not have to rely on previously defined rules and treaties. There should be the ability to frame new retrospective "Rules" as needs be, because the legislators cannot foresee all possible eventualities.
These issues should be judged case by case rather than trying to rely on a few rules that try to cover everything. This leaves too many "legal" loopholes.
What is the difference between "revenge" and "punishment" No doubt most criminals would say that their punishment is no more than society's revenge upon them.
I'm not saying I know the answer, but what do you think?
I feel that most of the better known War Criminals could be judged and sentenced under a moral code, in a few minutes based on "Scienter" (previous knowledge) rather than the years often taken now. e.g. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein etc. This is no different to judging them "In Absentia".
"Scienter" is already an acknowledged legal principle, and has been for over a hundred years.
Summary justice??... maybe,... but that's all some people need and deserve.
These issues should be judged case by case rather than trying to rely on a few rules that try to cover everything. This leaves too many "legal" loopholes.
What is the difference between "revenge" and "punishment" No doubt most criminals would say that their punishment is no more than society's revenge upon them.
I'm not saying I know the answer, but what do you think?
I feel that most of the better known War Criminals could be judged and sentenced under a moral code, in a few minutes based on "Scienter" (previous knowledge) rather than the years often taken now. e.g. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein etc. This is no different to judging them "In Absentia".
"Scienter" is already an acknowledged legal principle, and has been for over a hundred years.
Summary justice??... maybe,... but that's all some people need and deserve.
Last edited: