Hacker News Reader

Comment by vinceguidry | Hacker News Reader

One does not even need jurisdiction in order to try someone for war crimes. The Kuala Lampur War Crimes Commission tried and convicted George W. Bush and Tony Blair for "crimes against peace" in 2011 under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Their sentence was to be entered into a register of war criminals to be published worldwide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commiss...

View on HN

The other guy said it more cynically, but how does this "trial" hold any weight? A backwater nation, trial held in absentia.. doesn't seem very legitimate, yknow?

The idea behind universal jurisdiction is that some crimes pose so much of a threat to the global order that no nation should give perpetrators safe harbor. The need for a way to try people for acts that would be considered horrific crimes elsewhere was quite pressing and universal jurisdiction was considered a way of dealing with it in a sort of vigilante style. The setting up of the International Criminal Court in 2002 alleviated much of the concern, though apparently not all of it.

Such questions as which crimes are sufficiently serious to warrant violation of sovereignty and what constitutes commission of them, the burden of proof required for conviction, due process rules such as whether in absentia trials are valid, and the like seem to get little consideration.

As a result, good-faith efforts like the KLWCC's to raise awareness wind up not being very convincing and are easy to dismiss as political posturing. The KLWCC was set up by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who has long been a strident critic of US foreign policy, even going so far to suggest that the 9/11 terror attacks were staged by the US Government. So you can guess as to the impartiality of the judicial proceedings. There's an interesting analysis here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105...

> One does not even need jurisdiction in order to try someone for war crimes.

Yes, one does.

> The Kuala Lampur War Crimes Commission tried and convicted George W. Bush and Tony Blair for "crimes against peace" in 2011 under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Ignoring the question of the legitimacy of the KLWCC (as others have addressed that issue effectively), the principle of universal jurisdiction is a basis under which to assert jurisdiction, so its use is an acknowledgement of the need to establish jurisdiction, rather than support for the claim that jurisdiction is unnecessary for such a trial.

> the principle of universal jurisdiction is a basis under which to assert jurisdiction, so its use is an acknowledgement of the need to establish jurisdiction, rather than support for the claim that jurisdiction is unnecessary for such a trial.

Ah. I stand corrected.

From the article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commiss... ):

    The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, has suggested the tribunal is a private enterprise with no legal basis and questions its legitimacy.[13] The tribunal does not have a UN mandate or recognition, no power to order arrests or impose sentences, and it is unclear that its verdicts have any but symbolic significance.[14]

The KLWCC seems to exist solely to bitch and moan about the United States and Israel. It reeks of strong anti-American and anti-Israeli (and very likely pro-Islamic) bias. This isn't to mention that its founder has a reputation for antisemitism - beliefs that make for a very handy explanation as to why the United States and Israel are the only countries which have been the subject of condemnations by this particular organization.

I hereby accuse Hackernews user vinceguidry of war crimes for the publishing of propaganda. His trial will be held in one paragraphs time.

In light over overwhelming evidence that vinceguidry has published news that is fallacious and quite frankly silly (The idea that GWB and Tony Blair are being held accountable for War Crimes because some self-appointed group of people in some backwards state can hold a war crimes tribunal and publish a document), I find him guilty. His sentence is execution, disembowelment, being kicked off the internet, and being tickled with many soft feathers. News of his sentence will be published to a registry of war criminals located here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9029804

I'm honestly failing to see why you're being downvoted and the parent comment isn't, considering that you're pretty much spot on as to why the KLWCC is pretty much irrelevant. Even the U.N. doesn't recognize them to be legitimate.

Because I used snark, which is no longer an acceptable means of communication as more companies introduce "No Jerks" (I.E. No dissent, no judgement) policies.

I suppose that means your comment was "Not Safe For Work" ;)

Oh come now. I never said the KLWCC was relevant. Or even legitimate for that matter. Certainly one could have figured that out from my post, which I admit to having a bit of fun with. I mean, who tries someone for war crimes and then sentences them to having their name put on a naughty list?

> who tries someone for war crimes and then sentences them to having their name put on a naughty list?

The 4th Prime Minister of Malaysia; that's who. ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com