Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (4485)	2/21/2003 1:17:34 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Sorry if my meaning was not clear. I meant you questioning how they can possibly judge Sharon. "other countries do similar things, so its OK for Belgium too". To the best of my knowledge, that's how law evolves - with precedent. Remember all those TV series where law students cite "People versus Mc Grant" etc? As the Israeli court so aptly put, the particularly universal nature of crimes against humanity begs universal jurisdiction, especially in cases where the criminal's country does not try him. Is that now how it usually happens? You need to be pretty high up in the government to be responsible for such crimes against humanity or crimes of war anyway, and then of course your own state does not judge you. I agree with the author of the article. Israel found Sharon guilty but did not prosecute. What were the victims supposed to do?