babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Louise Arbour decries 'massive' rights violations in Gaza

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Louise Arbour decries 'massive' rights violations in Gaza
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 20 November 2006 10:40 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Massive" human rights violations are being committed in the Gaza Strip, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said Monday as she kicked off a tour of the region.

The former Supreme Court of Canada justice, on a five-day trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories, toured the area of Beit Hanoun, a northern Gaza town where 19 members of the Al Athamna family were killed earlier this month in an Israeli artillery attack. Israeli officials have claimed it shelled the town in error.

A member of the Al Athamna family cries as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, left, stands in the house where relatives were killed earlier this month in northern Gaza Strip. A member of the Al Athamna family cries as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, left, stands in the house where relatives were killed earlier this month in northern Gaza Strip.
(Khalil Hamra/Associated Press)

"I'm basically here to express my concern and bring some comfort, I hope, by showing these victims that the world has not abandoned them," Arbour told reporters.


Arbour decries 'massive' rights violations in Gaza

While it's good to see Louise Arbour decry the human rights violations in Gaza, she has stopped short of holding Israel responsible for the situation in Gaza. She also has not decried the 'massive' rights violations that also take place in the West Bank. It's a weak symbolic victory at most for thhe Palestinian people and their supporters. Louise Arbour's comments will not change the situation on the ground. Louise Arbour has no power to force Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. She has not even acknowledged that Irael needs to leave the West Bank and the Gaza Strip alone if the human rights abuses are to end.

[ 20 November 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 21 November 2006 04:18 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Is this the same Louise Arbour who when she was a Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal acquitted Hungarian Iron cross nazi Imre Finta on a "just following orders" defence?

quote:
Arbour's appointment also encountered hostility from Jewish war crimes activists, who complained that her only judicial decision on a war crimes case sided with an accused war criminal. In 1992, Arbour co-wrote the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment that limited the jurisdiction of Canadian courts to try alleged war crimes committed by Hungarian Imre Finta, who was accused of sending 8,617 Jews to death camps during the Second World War. "She took a narrow, procedural view that showed no sensitivity to war crimes justice," contends Montreal lawyer Irwin Cotler. Jews were shocked by the decision, adds Bernie Farber, community relations director for the Canadian Jewish Congress. "Her ruling made it virtually impossible for the Crown to get a conviction and brought war crimes trials in this country to a grinding halt. It is ironic," says Farber, "that this is the person the United Nations has chosen to prosecute war crimes."


Louise Arbour


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 21 November 2006 04:57 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nothing like an ad hominem attack on the messenger.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 21 November 2006 05:15 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
""I'm basically here to express my concern and bring some comfort, I hope, by showing these victims that the world has not abandoned them,"

Sorry Louise. The world HAS abandoned them. Not deliberately, of course. Priorities.

Maybe it would be better if you didn't bother bullshitting them. Its not like they're going to believe you or anything. If you're lucky.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 05:25 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Is this the same Louise Arbour who when she was a Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal acquitted Hungarian Iron cross nazi Imre Finta on a "just following orders" defence?

Louise Arbour


You are getting rusty and lazy Ohara, there is more than enough room in Arbour's statement to allow for you to claim any hardship experienced by Palestinians is their own fault.

You should have stuck to windging about the rain of Palestinian home made fireworks, or something -- didn't one of them finally kill someone, after a whole year of trying. Deflection is far more the meat of Zionist apoligia, than the smear. Though of course the smear is a good last resort.

Why so desperate?

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 21 November 2006 05:25 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Is this the same Louise Arbour who when she was a Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal acquitted Hungarian Iron cross nazi Imre Finta on a "just following orders" defence?

You appear to be mistaken. In R. v. Finta the defendant did not lead any evidence at trial. Despite this, the jury acquitted. Juries don't provide reasons for acquittals.

At international law, the defence of superior orders is only valid if the orders were not manifestly illegal. Arbour, O and Doherty JJ.A. upheld the trial judge's charge on the issue.

The Ontario Court of Appeal decided 3:2 in a nearly 150 page decision, and the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed 4:3, on the case as a whole.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 05:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ohara mistaken? Not in the least! Even demonstratably falsifiable slander taints the accused. The CJC bunch even bought new paint brushes for the job.

We'll see how long Arbour lasts now that she making even vague murmurings about those on the "friends" list. Slobo was easy.

Note the difference between this statement and her 1999 statement about Milosovic: "I have an iron clad case for genocide against Slobodan Milosovic," in Kosovo.

Even named someone as responsible.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 21 November 2006 05:47 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

You are getting rusty and lazy Ohara, there is more than enough room in Arbour's statement to allow for you to claim any hardship experienced by Palestinians is their own fault....[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


hey. don't mean to hijack the thread or anything but since "rule of law" has come up, anybody have a layman's reader on how judicial reform is "progressing" in Kandahar? I've been wondering about it lately. The silence is deafening.

funny how it matters in the Gaza but gets also-ran status when NATO is on the nut.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 21 November 2006 05:50 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From CBC News Archives

quote:
The case was appealed and rejected before the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1992 and the Supreme Court of Canada in 1994. The Supreme Court also unanimously ruled that the Criminal Code legislation used to prosecute Finta was unconstitutional.

quote:
"Even where the orders are manifestly unlawful, the defence of obedience to superior orders and the peace-officer defence will be available in those circumstances where the accused had no moral choice as to whether to follow the order," Mr. Justice Peter Cory wrote in his decision to acquit Finta.

Ohara, if you're going to smear Arbour you'll have to also apply the same brush to the entire 1994 Supreme Court of Canada as they ruled unanimously to uphold lower court decisions, including that of the Ontario Court of Appeal on which Arbour sat.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 21 November 2006 05:51 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oops. meant to edit.

I found the glossies and everything but they just look like a bunch a promises and best I can figure out they're (the Afghanis) still basically under martial law and that's about the size of it.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: BitWhys ]

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alberta Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13419

posted 21 November 2006 09:53 AM      Profile for Alberta Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From what little I know, I would hazard a guess that both sides are committing a number of human rights violations. They both target civilians. One side uses rockets, the other side uses cluster bombs. Neither side is lily white and blameless.

What it is going to take to make them stop is beyond me.


From: Fort McMurray | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 November 2006 10:20 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It would seem that much is beyond you. I'm grateful that Mme. Arbour is more discerning in her judgments.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alberta Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13419

posted 21 November 2006 10:27 AM      Profile for Alberta Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would it have been more correct for me to say everthing done by Isreal is evil and the nation is spawn by the devil and every Palestinians heart is filled with good and they are all completely rightous in their actions?

Come on now, give your head a shake.


From: Fort McMurray | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 November 2006 10:30 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 21 November 2006 10:39 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Alberta Guy: What it is going to take to make them stop is beyond me.

It's quite simple really. The occupying power, which is Israel, is primarily responsible for everyone in the occupied territories. This is recognized in international law. The outdoor prison that is Gaza I include here as well. Gaza is, for all intents and purposes, still occupied. You could also say that the stronger power has the greater duty. That's Israel again.

Was there anything there you didn't understand? Is it really "beyond" you?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 November 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey folks. Let's not jump all over Alberta Guy with personal attacks, okay? His original post was recognizing that Israeli rockets are just as violent as anything the Palestinians do, something that the right-wing media and even some people on babble refuse to recognize. And no one has yet discovered a way to make peace, so his last sentence is true enough. Sure, we can say Israel SHOULD make peace, but obviously they don't really want to or they would have by now.

He didn't write anything that would require people to attack him personally. So cut it out.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 21 November 2006 11:11 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Alberta Guy: They both target civilians. One side uses rockets, the other side uses cluster bombs.

A number of babblers have pointed out that this is not really true. The Stalin-era technology of the rockets being used to rain down on Israel are indiscriminate. They can't be aimed with the precision of the US-supplied munitions of the Israelis. When the latter kill civilians it's much more deliberate. In fact, in the case of the unarmed Canadian soldier killed in Lebanon ... it's clear that his UN post had called the Israelis many times ... to no avail.

Further, it is abudantly clear that in the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon the "indiscriminate" rockets somehow managed to find a much higher percentage of ([military/civilian]x 100%} targets than the "precise" Israeli weaponry did. This has led many observers to conclude that the Israelis were targetting civilians. Indeed, the expressed aim of Israel in that conflict was to force the Lebanese government to drive Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon; the way to do this was to kill as many Lebanese civilians as possible and blame Hezbollah. This strategy succeeded in boosting Hezbollah's public support in Lebanon to its highest level in history.

The type of weapons used really need to be paid attention to here. Israel has used cluster bombs, phosphorus weapons, depleted uranium bunker-buster weapons, and so on. The injuries sustained by civilians make it clear that these were used. Furthermore, many cluster bombs do not detonate and succeed in killing many people long after they are dropped.

The numbers of dead and the machinery of death need to be looked at. And the latter also includes the Israeli practices of torture, targetted assassinations, running bulldozers over living protestors, bombing the water supply at the height of summer heat, the general methods of collective punishment, and so on. These are actions directed at civilians which the occupied have no real equivalent.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
evernon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12360

posted 21 November 2006 11:27 AM      Profile for evernon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
From CBC News Archives

Ohara, if you're going to smear Arbour you'll have to also apply the same brush to the entire 1994 Supreme Court of Canada as they ruled unanimously to uphold lower court decisions, including that of the Ontario Court of Appeal on which Arbour sat.


Well if in fact the entire Court accepted the "I just followed orders" defence they should all be tarred with the same brush. Shame on them. It flies right in the face of Nuremberg!!


From: Cumberland | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 11:32 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does it? As far as I can tell the mostly convicted Nazi leadership at Nuremberg, the rest were de-nazified with Werner von Braun going to the US, and people like Field Martial von Paulus, of Stalingrad fame, becoming the first commander of the Army of the DDR.

But what has history got to do with anything, when we are interested in scoring polemical points?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 11:38 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Hey folks. Let's not jump all over Alberta Guy with personal attacks, okay? His original post was recognizing that Israeli rockets are just as violent as anything the Palestinians do, something that the right-wing media and even some people on babble refuse to recognize. And no one has yet discovered a way to make peace, so his last sentence is true enough. Sure, we can say Israel SHOULD make peace, but obviously they don't really want to or they would have by now.

He didn't write anything that would require people to attack him personally. So cut it out.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


Just a violent? Why would any one recognized that? If I were to cut someone with a knife and they were to blow my head off with a shotgun I don't think anyone would say that I was being just as violent.

Were the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto "just as violent" as the Nazi's because a few of them decided to fight back?

Fact: one person has been killed by Palestinians firing home made rockects out of the Gaza, while the number of Palestinians killed in gaza over the last years is in the hundreds.

I suppose one could make the case that "violence" when looked at as morally as a 'paradigm' could suggest that all violence is equally morally at some level, but that would amount to mystification... ney, I mean Mishification.

Mostly this idea that Palestinians and Israelis are equally violent, is a product of the western media, which reports every single incident where and Israeli loses a fingernail in depth, while acounting for Palestinians casualties as if they are part of the score of last nights hockey game.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 November 2006 11:46 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I can see it's not equivalent. I agree with you.

So argue that without making personal attacks and I'm happy.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 11:47 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't attack AG, did I?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 November 2006 11:50 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Argh! I know you didn't! You were responding to my post where I asked people not to attack AG personally for what he wrote. You said what he wrote was wrong. I said that I agree with you, and as long as people point that out without attacking him personally, I'm happy.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 11:55 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I trump your "arrgh" with an "eek.' So there.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alberta Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13419

posted 21 November 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for Alberta Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No attack from you that I could see Cueball. All of the replies, save one, were quite sensible.

I am interested in the comment about phosphorus being used. I was under the impression that phosphorus weapons were pretty much banned. Cluster bombs are not banned, but they should be.


From: Fort McMurray | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 12:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well it turns out that in Fallujah, though phosphorous weapons are theoretically banned for use against people, they are not banned entirely. Hence, apparently, US artillery officers were able to justify using phosphorous against insurgent "equipment," and claim any personel hit were collateral.

Targetting the mortar, not the operator so to speak.

Lovely!

But, I personally, don't know of any instances where the IDF has used phosphorous, but they did litter Lebanon with millions of unexploaded cluster bombs for no apparent reason other than salting the wounds.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alberta Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13419

posted 21 November 2006 12:02 PM      Profile for Alberta Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since when did the enemy start putting soldiers in the vicinity of their artillary pieces?
From: Fort McMurray | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 21 November 2006 12:07 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Alberta Guy: I am interested in the comment about phosphorus being used. I was under the impression that phosphorus weapons were pretty much banned.

The Israel "Defence" Force (IDF) admitted to the use of phosphorus bombs in the recent invasion of Lebanon.

Jewish Voice for Peace - links

There is a link to the Haaretz story.

quote:
Israel has acknowledged for the first time that it attacked Hezbollah targets during the second Lebanon war with phosphorus shells. White phosphorus causes very painful and often lethal chemical burns to those hit by it, and until recently Israel maintained that it only uses such bombs to mark targets or territory. ....

During the war several foreign media outlets reported that Lebanese civilians carried injuries characteristic of attacks with phosphorus, a substance that burns when it comes to contact with air. In one CNN report, a casualty with serious burns was seen lying in a South Lebanon hospital.

In another case, Dr. Hussein Hamud al-Shel, who works at Dar al-Amal hospital in Ba'albek, said that he had received three corpses "entirely shriveled with black-green skin," a phenomenon characteristic of phosphorus injuries.

Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud also claimed that the IDF made use of phosphorus munitions against civilians in Lebanon,


Further,

quote:
The International Red Cross is of the opinion that there should be a complete ban on phosphorus being used against human beings and the third protocol of the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons restricts the use of "incendiary weapons," with phosphorus considered to be one such weapon.

Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Third Protocol.



From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 12:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know! Absurd isn't it.

One expects Arab militants to go into combat au naturale ready for the delousing bath in the POW camp.


Here US marines in Fallujah run from shells accidentally dropped on their position. The official story is that they are used to provide smokes screen, as if smoke canisters aren't available and the phosphprous doesn't produce a noxious smell, which no one wants to be near.

Not for the weak stomached -- picture of Phosphorous victim

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 November 2006 12:11 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by evernon:

Well if in fact the entire Court accepted the "I just followed orders" defence they should all be tarred with the same brush. Shame on them. It flies right in the face of Nuremberg!!


No, the court(s) all followed the actual Nuremberg principle, which was as follows:

quote:
"The provisions of this article are in conformity with the law of all nations. That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law of war has never been recognized as a defense to such acts of brutality, though, as the Charter here provides, the order may be urged in mitigation of the punishment. The true test, which is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations, is not the existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible." (Trial of Major War Criminals (Nuremberg 1947) vol.1, p. 224).

By the way, the text which I linked to is the Eichmann decision.

In Finta's case, the courts found that the "no moral choice" defence was available to him. If you want the legal definition, read the decision or Google it. But the principle is part of international law and stems directly from Nuremberg.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 21 November 2006 12:16 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alberta Guy:
Since when did the enemy start putting soldiers in the vicinity of their artillary pieces?

I think it was the Canadians that started the practice in WWI with the rolling barrage, where the artillery moved to keep just ahead of advancing troops. Of course, since then artillery has become more accurate, and can be targetted closer to your own troop positions.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 12:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right on it in fact, as can be seen in the picture I posted above.

On point of fact, I don't think it was the Canadians that invented the rolling barrage:

The creeping barrage was first used by Bulgarian artillery crews during the siege of Adrianople in March 1913,

More effective, in any case was the reogranization of artillery command and control.

As far as I know it was the Germans who first devolved command and control of artillery batteries to local unit commanders, while the allied powers still held to the general principle that artillery would be attached and commanded at the corps level. This meant the Germans were much more able to bring artillery into play in support of tactical situations as they presented themselves, rather than relying on timed (and often mis-timed) set piece operations such as the rolling barrage that relied on the bravery and trustingness of whatever cannon fodder was on the slaughtering block.

This is at least the way it is according to John Mosier in his book The Myth of the Great War."

A facinating piece of work, because it attempts to undermine the idea that the Germans were applying the same play book as the French and English, something which is widely assumed and was also asserted by French and English commanders of the war. This belief seems to have caused the allied untold grief, due to the fact that massivley overestimated the number of German casualties which were resulting from thier often very succesful campaigns, because they based their estimates on the type of losses they recieved using human wave tactics.

It turns out that the Wermacht even in 1914, had given up this silly means of assault in favour of more situation specific tactics involving fire teams and sappers.

The French didn't even have a proper howitezer capable of indirect fire in 1914.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 21 November 2006 12:30 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For those of you who don't check the NY Times (and I don't blame you) this is more or less a breaking story and very much related.

Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land

out of the box its something like 39%. probably a good chunk of that would be strategic. of course it'll get glossed over. and the beat goes on.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 12:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is most funny about that is that the New York Times seems to think this is breaking news. This fact alone indicates how extremely deaf much of the North American press is when considering this issue.

I mean, to whom did they think it belonged?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 21 November 2006 12:39 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
what's breaking about it is the evidence is coming out of Israel's own records.
From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 12:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course its in their records. It is in fact very much the fact that Israel legalizes the theft of Palestinian land. they don't just take it, but claim it first as state property, miraculously abandoned by its real owners for some unkown reason, as far as the Israeli state aquistions people are concerned, as if they have absolutely no clue that it is the IDF or settlers who drove off the owners.

The myth of course is that Palestine was just a bunch of camel humping shepards riding around like so many Jawa on Tantooine. The reality is that their are records in the Ottoman archives in Istanbul with complete title registration going back centuries. Their were similar records in the Musuem in Baghdad, but those no doubt are no doubt kindling used by Iraqis to light their wood fires when the power goes out, if not long disposed of by GI's as battlefield TP.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 21 November 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I await Ezra Levant's well-reasoned response to this development with baited breath.

like he'd even have to bother


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 21 November 2006 01:35 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Do I understand Cueball correctly? Because Hamas uses a weapon that is more unnaccurate than the Israeli's, have they less culpability? If I was to shoot at someone with a smooth bore musket would I be less guilty of attempted murder than if I used a rifle (assuming I missed in either case)?
From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. What I am saying is that contrary to the popular conception, it is not the case that the German army used the same type of tactics used by the French and the English during the Great War, and that as a consequence the allied joint command severly understimated the amount of loses being incurred by the Germans.

By 1918, according to British estimates, even including the return of troops from the East front, the Germans should not have been able to mount an offensive as large as the the Kaiserschlacht organized by Eric Ludendorff, simply for lack of men and material.

But the evidence contradicts this, and in fact, like almost every other operation conducted by the Wermacht in the First World War it was an smashing success, eating up almost all of the territory lost to the British and Canadians in the summer before and breaching the British line on a broad front and advancing 20 miles beyond the start line of the previous summer.

Completely the opposite of British offensives which usually counted their success in terms of a mere kilometer if not meters.

The hypothesis is that this largely has to do with more modern organizational and operational system used by the Wermacht.

As for the Palestinian thing, I am saying that what Israel is doing amounts to a schoolyard bully sitting on top a toddler, and demanding the toddler say uncle in just the right tone of voice. Should the toddler strike out even in the mildest way, the bully screams for the teacher saying that it is all the toddlers fault and begins the beating anew.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 November 2006 02:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone interested in finding out why it is they see very few pictures like this one in the press, might want to check out this documentary featuring interviews with Noam Chomsky, the Women in Black, Rabbi Lerner (Tikun) and even an IDF reserve major.

Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 November 2006 03:09 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, Cueball, I liked the 'pointy pencil' analogy better.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 23 November 2006 11:37 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

By the way, the text which I linked to is the Eichmann decision.

In Finta's case, the courts found that the "no moral choice" defence was available to him. If you want the legal definition, read the decision or Google it. But the principle is part of international law and stems directly from Nuremberg.

[ 21 November 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]



That is just the point the Court bought into an argument that no other Court on Nazi war crimes has in such cases. Basically Finta's argument was that the times in Hungary were so anti-semitic that it was perfectly reasonable to kidnap, steal valuables and deport Jews to Auschwitz where they would be put to death. Arbout wrote the original decision and yes our high court upheld it to their utter and complete shame!!

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 11:48 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"Finta's argument was that the times in Hungary were so anti-semitic that it was perfectly reasonable to kidnap, steal valuables and deport Jews to Auschwitz where they would be put to death."

Really. Finta said that and then Arbour agreed along with the rest of SC?

I think we are recieving messages form the Zionoshpere again. Perhaps you want to link to the exact quote from the polemic expressing this idea in Judeaoscope, so that we can aprise its value in terms of the real world.

For instance my real world spidey sense is tingling and telling me that it was Mr. Justice Peter Cory who wrote the decision not Arbour. But that is the Zionosphere for you.

You are saying that a no point during the defence the idea arose that people disobeying orders would be summarily shot, or anything like that?

[ 23 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 23 November 2006 12:58 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
Do the research. And BTW Arbour wrote the decision for the Ontario Court of Appeal and Cory was a Supreme Cout Justice. But I guess that too is from the "Zionisphere", more loose and flaming language from the king of FLAMES Cueball!!
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 01:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahh, I see. My mistake.

So where does Arbour argue in support of the idea that: "it was perfectly reasonable to kidnap, steal valuables and deport Jews to Auschwitz where they would be put to death," a position that was later re-affirmed by Cory.

It would seem to me that to argue that any kind of co-operation with Nazi power amounted to war crimes, would more or less put the entire Jewish adminstration of the Warsaw Ghetto into the docket with Mr. Finta. Would you argue for that as well? Some have I know. Or would you say that it is possible for persons to find themselves in position were they are obliged to co-operate with authority under duress, and that simply being a party to war crimes is not the sole factor of determining guilt or innocence?

[ 23 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 23 November 2006 01:17 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
For you Cueball:

Finta 1

Finta 2
Finta 3


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 01:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for the case in question this seems to be the sailent issue:

quote:
The trial judge ruled that, although the evidence was of a hearsay nature, it was admissible. He also stated that, together with other evidence, it could leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about the responsibility of respondent for confinement and brickyard conditions. The trial judge warned the jury in his charge about the hearsay nature of the evidence.

Respondent was acquitted at trial and a majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal from that acquittal. This judgment was appealed and cross‑appealed.


There is nothing in this judgement which asserts that the court, or any of the consequent appelant courts found that it was "perfectly reasonable to kidnap, steal valuables and deport Jews to Auschwitz where they would be put to death," the lie you are propounding here today.

It is in fact slander of a most grevious kind, against someone whom I don't like very much, but it is slanderous nonetheless, and obviously so.

Now you were about to offer an opinion on the level of culpability of the Jewish adminstration of the Warsaw Ghetto, who you know were obliged to draw up lists of people to be "transfered" to extermination camps, or were you not.

[ 23 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 23 November 2006 01:33 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:

That is just the point the Court bought into an argument that no other Court on Nazi war crimes has in such cases. Basically Finta's argument was that the times in Hungary were so anti-semitic that it was perfectly reasonable to kidnap, steal valuables and deport Jews to Auschwitz where they would be put to death. Arbout wrote the original decision and yes our high court upheld it to their utter and complete shame!!

No. The post-WWII Nazi cases accepted that the argument could work in narrow circumstances, but rejected it's application on the facts at hand.

Arbour's decision was assessing the law, not the facts. The law is that the defence is available. That has been consistently true since WWII.

Arbour's decision was not about whether the facts made out the defence. That decision is for the jury. We don't know whether the jury bought it, because juries don't give reasons. The judge at trial couldn't override it. Judges at the appeal level most certainly couldn't override it.

You've confused the role of judges and juries in our legal system. That confusion makes your argument fundamentally flawed.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 01:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frankly it sounds like the original trial judge bent over backwards to try and get a conviction by allowing a lot of people to come into court and recount the gossip they heard, about someone (a liutenant not a captain) who they could not identify. More or less the whole case was based on the physical evidence that established that Finta was in the command structure of the camp.

[ 23 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 23 November 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
As for the case in question this seems to be the sailent issue:

There is nothing in this judgement which asserts that the court, or any of the consequent appelant courts found that it was "perfectly reasonable to kidnap, steal valuables and deport Jews to Auschwitz where they would be put to death," the lie you are propounding here today.

It is in fact slander of a most grevious kind, against someone whom I don't like very much, but it is slanderous nonetheless, and obviously so.

Now you were about to offer an opinion on the level of culpability of the Jewish adminstration of the Warsaw Ghetto, who you know were obliged to draw up lists of people to be "transfered" to extermination camps, or were you not.

[ 23 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


you really dont get it. The Courts did accept the acquittal on the basis of only following orders. That is what it came down to.

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 01:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where does it say that in any of the court documents. This issue may have been raised at some point by the defence, but the problem seems to be reasonable doubt, not the defence arguement.

Just because a court does not convict, does not mean it accepts the entirety of the defence arguement.

See this is what you just do not seem to understand, Appelant courts do not make a determination as to wether a prevous court decision is right or wrong, it makes a decision on wether or not the proper procedure and the law was followed by the court in making the decision.

Arbour, Cory and the rest are merely saying the previous courts did not fail in their obligation to hold a fair trial basicly. What the defence did or did not say does not enter into it, nor does the reasons why the jury made the decision that it did -- those things are completely irrelevant to the Appeal court.

If you are going to take issue with any of the findings about the decision, you have to go to the original trial judge and the jury who are responsible for the arguements as to why innocence was proved.

[ 23 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 23 November 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
you really dont get it. The Courts did accept the acquittal on the basis of only following orders. That is what it came down to.

You are guessing what the jury's reasons were. You don't know what the jury's reasons were. You can't know what the jury's reasons were.

Judges set out the law. Juries determine the facts. Juries apply the facts to the law.

You disagree with what you think the jury's reasons were. You don't seem to understand that neither the trial judge, nor the appeal judges, were in a position to evaluate the jury's reasons or to compel them to enter a conviction.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 03:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is pretty amazing that we move from the issue of some Canadian jurist going to Gaza and saying pretty much that wiping out whole families of non-combatants is a human rights violation, something which should be a no-brainer with anyone with any kind of a moral compass, to discussing how that person must be an anti-semite, because they failed to break the law by second guessing a decision by a jury, essentially.

[ 23 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 23 November 2006 03:29 PM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post
Getting back on topic, I'm surprised no one else has mentionedthis:

quote:
Militants in Gaza fired rockets into a southern Israeli town on Tuesday during a visit by the UN Commissioner for Human Rights.

Witnesses said one person was critically wounded in the attack which hit a chicken slaughtering plant, just 200 metres from Commissioner Louise Arbour's convoy which was en route to the town of Sderot.

But Arbour's team received an angry reception. Workers at the plant were clearly angry and shouted curses when Arbour insisted on seeing the result of Palestinian rocket fire firsthand.

Mackey Frayer said one worker began screaming and walking towards the convoy. The worker picked up some pebbles, one large rock and threw them toward the convoy before police restrained her.

"There is a real frustration among people there that this sort of thing happens almost every day and nobody -- not the government, not the UN, not the international community -- is doing anything about it," said Mackey Frayer.

Arbour has urged Israel to act in accordance with international law in the face of Palestinian militant attacks.

The former Canadian Supreme Court justice and chief prosecutor for UN war crimes tribunals said Israel "has a responsibility to defend its citizens, but has to do so only by legal means."


The man hit by the rocket later died in hospital. Would Ms. Arbour have chosen to call such rocket attacks a war crime, had she been 200 m to the left and been hit herself?

And, if she believes Israel is the only side committing war crimes, she should've used a little tougher language and outlined some of the history and underlying issues regarding occupation that have caused the current situation.


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 03:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"There is a real frustration among people there that this sort of thing happens almost every day and nobody -- not the government, not the UN, not the international community -- is doing anything about it," said Mackey Frayer.


Bollocks. Various Palestinian organizations and even the PA has specifically called for UN intervention and the placement of UN peacekeepers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and Israel has balked.

Israel itself insists on having free reign to stir shit up.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 23 November 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post
Well why shouldn't they be worried of a UNIFIL-type presence there, Cueball? UNIFIL in Lebanon has ensured that Hezbollah is better-armed than before last summer's confict.

The UN has done nothing to enforce the many resolutions it's passed in the area, whether hey are condemning Israel, or militant groups.


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You keep talking about this as if it is the Israelis who are really having the problem. Its truly stunning that Palestinians kill 2 Israelis with their stupid home made rockets in a year, and the Israelis can kill 160 Palestinians, yet all that seems to occur to you is that the Israelis have a security problem.

Its like that the Palestinians don't have security issues? The myopia is grand!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 23 November 2006 04:09 PM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, I am totally against the Israelis' actions in Palestine and would never state that Palestinians don't have a security problem.


My point is that both sides do. I don't care if a rocket is homemade and if only 1/1000 rockets lodged kills civilians. The point is that both sides appear to be targetting civilians, using the means available to them. Someone has to step up and be the side that stops using violence. I would support Israel if they decided to stop attacking Palestinian targets. If they attempted to restart the peace process and come to some agreement on Palestinian sovereignty and borders acceptable to elected leaders on both sides. Calling for the assassination of elected Hamas leaders does nothing to further peace.

If someone from Maine lodged 1000 rockets a year into NB and occasianally people were killed and injured, Canadians would demand action. Just as if the state of Maine was essentially an occupied refugee camp that was feeling "disproportiate response" (to use media-speak) on a daily basis, its people would demand action. Someone has to stop the violence and it should be Israel. The UN human rights commissioner should've taken a firmer position, and at the same time condemned rockets lodged at civilians (whether homemade or state of the art) as a war crime as well.


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 04:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did you watch this?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 23 November 2006 04:21 PM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post
I promise to watch it later, I am at work right now.

I think most posters here desire the same things for the middle east, an Israel that's less theocratic with defined/reduced borders and a Palestinian state that's recognized as sovereign by the international community, with an agreement from both both to recognize the other's peace and security.

The question is, will Israel elect a leader who will make the first move to get there? Will the UN ever act to enforce resolutions?


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 November 2006 04:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 November 2006 04:37 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well if in fact the entire Court accepted the "I just followed orders" defence they should all be tarred with the same brush. Shame on them. It flies right in the face of Nuremberg!!


Please people, if you don't know anything about a topic, don't make wild accusations.

The Supreme Court accepted that obedience to orders can be a valid criminal defence IF NO MORAL CHOICE IS POSSIBLE. That is, you are a soldier, you are ordered to do something unlawful, and the guns of your fellow soldiers will be pointed at you if you don't.

If you do it, you are not a war criminal, because your own life was at risk. As someone said, "criminal law does not function at the level of heroism".


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 November 2006 05:04 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

The Supreme Court accepted that obedience to orders can be a valid criminal defence IF NO MORAL CHOICE IS POSSIBLE. That is, you are a soldier, you are ordered to do something unlawful, and the guns of your fellow soldiers will be pointed at you if you don't.


Quite correct. In fact, I believe I already said as much two days ago in this very same thread, along with the relevant quote from the Nuremberg tribunal. But I suppose repetition is a key element in learning.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 November 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are evidently a very wise person.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 23 November 2006 05:41 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, just a person who scans a 3-day-old thread before popping in to say hello.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 24 November 2006 04:03 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Please people, if you don't know anything about a topic, don't make wild accusations.

The Supreme Court accepted that obedience to orders can be a valid criminal defence IF NO MORAL CHOICE IS POSSIBLE. That is, you are a soldier, you are ordered to do something unlawful, and the guns of your fellow soldiers will be pointed at you if you don't.

If you do it, you are not a war criminal, because your own life was at risk. As someone said, "criminal law does not function at the level of heroism".



Many years ago CTV did a special on the life of Finta. It was clear that Finta was not forced to kidnap Jews and transport them to Auschwitz. Finta sued CTV for defamation on this matter and he lost. I agree that the Supreme Court erred shamefully.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 November 2006 06:03 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whether or not you agree with the appelate decision, Ms. Arbour and her colleagues applied the law correctly. Doing so should not open her up to the all-to-common ridiculous smears that we see here.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 24 November 2006 07:06 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
There is applying the law and there is interpreting the law. The Courts, originally initiated by Arbour, applied the law while misinterpreting its intent. There is no record historically of any Hungarian police officer or Iron Cross member being forced at the risk of their lives to kidnap and deport Jews to death camps.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 November 2006 07:55 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My point is that even if she misapplied the intent of the law (your opinion, not shared by lawyers on Rabble, by the way, and not a point I will concede without reading the case), that action in no way should open her up to the ugly smear that Ohara and you are so fond of overusing.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 November 2006 10:03 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

Many years ago CTV did a special on the life of Finta. It was clear that Finta was not forced to kidnap Jews and transport them to Auschwitz. Finta sued CTV for defamation on this matter and he lost. I agree that the Supreme Court erred shamefully.

CTV supplants the courts! Amazing, Ohara argues that trial by media should be made a principle of law.

Finta losing a civil case as the plantiff does not mean the original criminal proceeding trial erred.

It does not prove that the original Finta trial erred in finding, as an example, that there was reasonable doubt, the benefit of that doubt going to the accused. But that does not mean that the CYV does not have the right to voice an "opinion" on the matter, contrary to that of the jury. For one thing the onus of proof is reversed, so that it is now Finta who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

For instance you are not engaging in libel by stating here that you think Finta is guilty based on the evidence that you have seen. It only becomes a problem when people start saying things that are manifestly not true, (as in having no basis in fact) such a that Louise Arbour confirmed in her review of the Finta trial that it is "perfectly reasonable to kidnap, steal valuables and deport Jews to Auschwitz where they would be put to death."

That is libel.

What she said was that 'she found no error in law' in the original case.

[ 24 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 November 2006 10:14 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
There is applying the law and there is interpreting the law. The Courts, originally initiated by Arbour, applied the law while misinterpreting its intent. There is no record historically of any Hungarian police officer or Iron Cross member being forced at the risk of their lives to kidnap and deport Jews to death camps.

Absolutely wrong there are plenty of examples of soldiers being shot for disobeying order in these circumstances.

According to you the Pope should be dragged out of the Vatican in leg irons. You are basicly asserting a principle which would mean that any member of the armed forces of Germany, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Italy should be tried, unless they can prove that they acted heroically to defend the lives of Jews who came into thier custody.

Its not as if the these armies took matters of breach of disipline lightly, and execution for disobediance has been recorded numerously.

[ 24 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 24 November 2006 10:20 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
I dont see why Arbour on any Judge who makes or accepts such decisions are not open to extreme criticsm. Babblers are nor shy about criticizing virtually anyone sometimes in language that has been far more ugly and offensive than what appeatrs here re the Judges.

I can only surmise the reaction has more to do with who posted the criticsm of Arbour than anything else. As I recall even former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler,was highly critical of her on this matter.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 24 November 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


Well then, the Pope should be dragged out of the Vatican in leg irons.



The Pope has answered to his higher authority.

One question Cue, why are you so passionately defending Finta aand a Court that found a way to diminish his atrocities? He was a Hungarian Iran Cross fascist who helped to murder almost 10,000 Jews.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 November 2006 10:24 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am defending Arbour, whom is someone who everyone here knows is not my favourite person from being slandered, that is all. I hate lies.

If we are going to seriouusly discuss these issues, lets stay within the boundaries of the truth. There is nothing in Arbours written judgement which diminishes the attrocities, at all.

[ 24 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 24 November 2006 10:29 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

For instance you are not engaging in libel by stating here that you think Finta is guilty based on the evidence that you have seen. It only becomes a problem when people start saying things that are manifestly not true, (as in having no basis in fact) such a that Louise Arbour confirmed in her review of the Finta trial that it is "perfectly reasonable to kidnap, steal valuables and deport Jews to Auschwitz where they would be put to death."

That is libel.

What she said was that 'she found no error in law' in the original case.

[ 24 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



Here is what I said:


quote:
That is just the point the Court bought into an argument that no other Court on Nazi war crimes has in such cases. Basically Finta's argument was that the times in Hungary were so anti-semitic that it was perfectly reasonable to kidnap, steal valuables and deport Jews to Auschwitz where they would be put to death. Arbout wrote the original decision and yes our high court upheld it to their utter and complete shame!!
I did not say that the Court upheld that it was reasonable to kidnap and murder Jews. I said it was Finta's argument that it was rerasonable based on the pervasive anti-Semitism of the day. I wrote that the Court bought that argument. It is you Cueball that is libeling me. But that is par for your course.

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 November 2006 10:32 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It does not matter what Finta argued in the trial. The jury did not convict. They might have not convicted on the basis of "reasonable doubt," because most of the evidence was "hearsay."

Arbour upheld the proceeding of the court saying they were handled in a lawful and fair manner.

[ 24 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 24 November 2006 10:39 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It does not matter what Finta argued in the trial. The jury did not convict. They might have not convicted on the basis of "reasonable doubt," because most of the evidence was "hearsay."

Arbour upheld the proceeding of the court saying they were handled in a lawful and fair manner.

[ 24 November 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


No, read the decision. If that was all she said the decision would have been half a page long.

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 24 November 2006 10:54 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Deflection is far more the meat of Zionist apoligia, than the smear.

This thread and the CJC's actions prove that they can be one and the same. The discussion of human rights violations in Gaza descended into an ad hominem about Arbour way up the page.

Mission Accomplished?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 24 November 2006 11:30 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Clearly so.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 24 November 2006 11:33 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
What does cjc have to do with this?????
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 24 November 2006 11:37 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

This thread and the CJC's actions prove that they can be one and the same. The discussion of human rights violations in Gaza descended into an ad hominem about Arbour way up the page.

Mission Accomplished?


I am confused here. IIRC other than in an article from Macleans or Time linked to at the top where Farber is quoted.

Where is CJC even mentioned in this thread?

What is the great CJC conspiracy?


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 November 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They were mentioned in the article in the opening post, and their position on Arbour has been discussed throughout the thread, with some agreeing and some not. Anyhow, this thread is obviously not about the thread topic anymore. Feel free to start a new one if you feel like discussing the actual subject of the thread again.

P.S. B.L.Zeebub, as you well know, trying to publicly guess people's identities or "out" them on babble is not allowed. Do it again, and I'll ban this account of yours as well.

[ 24 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca