Arbour backs wrong horse at UN

quote:

---

"I do believe that on the basis of evidence that is available in the public domain there are very serious concerns that the level of civilian casualties, the indiscriminate shelling of cities and so on, on their face raise sufficient questions that I think one must issue a sobering signal to those who are behind these initiatives to examine very closely their personal exposure," she told the BBC.

---

Not quite: "I have an iron clad case against PM Olmert for genocide," but hey, probably enough to make her tenure at the UN insecure.

How long before, before Louise Arbour is drummed out of the UN?

quote:

---

The war inflicted many casualties. Yugoslavia claimed that NATO attacks caused between 1,200 and 5,700 civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch counted a minimum of 500 civilian deaths in 90 separate incidents. NATO acknowledged killing at most 1,500 civilians. The majority of deaths appear to have been within Kosovo itself; there were up to 5,000 military casualties according to NATO estimates, while the Serbian figure is around 1,000. The exact number of Albanian civilians killed is unclear.

---

quote:

---

Since its birth six decades ago, Israel has always been officially “going after the terrorists”, but its actions have invariably harmed civilians in an indiscriminate manner.

The roll call of dishonor is long indeed, but its highlights include: the massacre of some 200 civilians in Tantura, as well as large-scale massacres in at least a dozen other Palestinian villages, during the 1948 war that established Israel; Ariel Sharon’s attack on the village of Qibya in 1953 that killed 70 Palestinians; the Kfar Qassem massacre inside Israel when 49 farm workers were gunned down at an improvised army checkpoint; a massacre in the same year in the refugee camp of Khan Yunis, in Gaza, in which more than 250 civilians were killed; attacks on dozens of Palestinian, Egyptian and Syrian villages during the 1967 war; the killing of six unarmed Arab citizens of Israel in 1976; the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in the Lebanese refugee camps of Sabra and Chatilla in 1982; the unremitting use of lethal force by the army against unarmed Palestinians, often women and children, during the first intifada of 1987-93; the aerial bombardment of Qana in south Lebanon in 1996 that killed more than 100 civilians; and the endless “collateral damage” of Palestinian civilians during the second intifada, including a half-ton bomb that killed a husband and wife and their seven children a week ago.

---

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

"Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians," Ms Arbour said.

"Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians, is unjustifiable."

Ms Arbour expressed "grave concern over the continued killing and maiming of civilians in Lebanon, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory".

Without pointing to specific individuals, she suggested that leaders could bear personal responsibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
Cueball, I read this BBC piece as Arbour condemning the actions of all participants who are shelling cities; Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Seems to me this is Annan's view also, so drummed out of the UN?

---

I fully agree with Cueball. When the U.S. needed cover for its bombing of Serbia, Arbour was installed in its pantheon of saints. Now that she has uttered some inaudible and incomprehensible caution about civilian casualties and war crimes -- even if she is warning both sides -- she will be demonized by the U.S. (and, I predict, by Harper), because the monolithic imperial mentality brooks no dissent. Of course she won't be attacked by the U.N., if that's how you took Cueball's comments (I didn't).

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
Cueball, I read this BBC piece as Arbour condemning the actions of all participants who are shelling cities; Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Seems to me this is Annan's view also, so drummed out of the UN?

---

She supported the killing of at least 1500 Serb civilians in 1999, and the destruction of their bridges, power plants, communications systems, factories, and other essential infrastructure obstensibly to prevent an 'ethnic cleansing' that only began to tak the shape of a mass exodus of refugees from Kosovo, after NATO bombs began falling.

I find it highly ironic that Arbour would support a NATO operation which claimed that it was enforcing UN resolutions, and then attack Israel for doing more or less the same thing?

Is not Israel demanding that the Lebanese government and Hezbolah comply with UN Resolution 1559, regarding the dismantling of volunteer militias?

More to the point, I fail to see how NATO has any special relationship to the UN as an enforcer of its resolutions, and how NATO has any more authority than Israel to take it upon itself the right to break the sovereignty of indpedent nations to effect compliance with UN resolutions without an explicit use of force resolution from the UN.

To wit: If NATO can interpret and enforce UN resolutions, why not Israel?

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I fully agree with Cueball. When the U.S. needed cover for its bombing of Serbia, Arbour was installed in its pantheon of saints. Now that she has uttered some inaudible and incomprehensible caution about civilian casualties and war crimes -- even if she is warning both sides -- she will be demonized by the U.S. (and, I predict, by Harper), because the monolithic imperial mentality brooks no dissent.

---

I was out of the country and didn't follow Serbia/Kosovo.....

On the current issue -- no arguments from me, unfortunately. Of course Arbour will be demonized for being seen to criticise Israel, regardless of the fullness (and correctness) of her comments. She probably would have been anyway -- a serving of "activist judge" and "uppity feminist" anyone?

quote:

---

Of course she won't be attacked by the U.N., if that's how you took Cueball's comments (I didn't).

---

quote:

---

Arbour took pains to identify both Israel and Hezbollah as potentially guilty parties. Nevertheless, there was little doubt that her target was Tel Aviv, and her warning that liability for war crimes is not restricted to the military, but extends to politicians who approve their operations was also meant to be heard by Israel’s political backers in Washington and London.

Her reference to the “scale of killings in the region,” and “the supreme obligations to protect civilians” under international law could only be directed at Israel, given the massive and disproportionate violence it has meted out.

No one would suggest that the UN has any intention of considering prosecution against any senior or military figure in Israel, let alone from the United States or Britain.

There has been speculation as to whether or not Israel can be brought to trial because it does not recognise bodies such as the International Criminal Court and is not a signatory to Treaty of Rome. It hardly needs adding that Washington demonstrates a similar disdain for such international institutions.

But the fact remains that millions throughout the world believe that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should face war crimes charges. And Arbour is fully aware of the outrage and disgust that has been aroused internationally by the appalling destruction heaped upon the Lebanese people by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) with the unconditional backing of the US and Britain.

---

quote:

---

Her reference to the “scale of killings in the region,” and “the supreme obligations to protect civilians” under international law could only be directed at Israel, given the massive and disproportionate violence it has meted out.

---

Hmmm...Just because Hezbollah has crappy rockets and lousy aim,they should not be excluded from blame or prosecution.

If Hezbollah had the means,they would most willingly mete out massive and disproportionate violence.

Without a care for civilian casualties,child or adult.

The grand poohbah of Hezbollah himself has hinted that there is much more fun and games in store.Iranian Revolutionary Guards are in Lebanon instructing Hezbollah in the finer points of using sophisticated anti-tank missiles.

quote:

---

No doubt Iran will assist in as much escalation of massive and disproportionate violence as it can achieve.

---

Can't you ever get beyond simple assertions of one side is more, or less, evil and do any analysis. This whole idea that politics is actually driven in the real world by the moral consideration of whom is the gooder, or the eviler, is about as informative as reading tea leaves.

We get it. You think Hizbollah are evil evil evil evil and must be stopped. Very interesting.

Not.

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The roll call of dishonor is long indeed, but its highlights include: the massacre of some 200 civilians in Tantura, as well as large-scale massacres in at least a dozen other Palestinian villages, during the 1948 war that established Israel; Ariel Sharon’s attack on the village of Qibya in 1953 that killed 70 Palestinians; the Kfar Qassem massacre inside Israel when 49 farm workers were gunned down at an improvised army checkpoint; a massacre in the same year in the refugee camp of Khan Yunis, in Gaza, in which more than 250 civilians were killed; attacks on dozens of Palestinian, Egyptian and Syrian villages during the 1967 war; the killing of six unarmed Arab citizens of Israel in 1976; the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in the Lebanese refugee camps of Sabra and Chatilla in 1982; the unremitting use of lethal force by the army against unarmed Palestinians, often women and children, during the first intifada of 1987-93; the aerial bombardment of Qana in south Lebanon in 1996 that killed more than 100 civilians; and the endless “collateral damage” of Palestinian civilians during the second intifada, including a half-ton bomb that killed a husband and wife and their seven children a week ago

---

Terrible as Spector's tale of Israeli transgressions is,the Israelis are mere pikers in the disproportionate use of mayhem.

Let us put this use of violence in perspective by comparing it to the reaction of one Hafez al Assad when he became annoyed with the Muslim Brotherhood in the late 70s....

quote:

---

In the late 1970’s, members of the Sunni majority associated with the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood and rose in armed opposition to the secular Assad regime. As the resistance gained strength Assad sent government troops into the town of Hamas in 1982 to crush the rebellion, slaughtering over 20,000 Syrian citizens, leveled Hamas and put an end to internal dissent. The insurgents reportedly received support from Iraq and Jordan. Syria closed its border with Iraq, which responded by closing the Kirkuk-Banius oil pipeline

---

But of course, that is irrelevant when one is only interested in pointing out Arab brutality.

What are you suggesting? That the Syrains should have waited for the Americans or the Israelis to come along an do it for them?

See how effective they have been at stamping out Islamic Fundamentalism, in Iraq and in Gaza. But you, genius that you, are would no doubt welcome the destruction of the regieme which actually achieved the so called aims of the US war on terrorism.

Brilliant.

And now you want to whine because the Syrians wiped out the Muslim Fundamentalists.

One day you call for their erradication as poltical force, and the next you use their erradication as tool to vilify other Arabs.

Fucking Liberals!

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB]

Can't you ever get beyond simple assertions of one side is more, or less, evil and do any analysis. This whole idea that politics is actually driven in the real world by the moral consideration of whom is the gooder, or the eviler, is about as informative as reading tea leaves.

We get it. You think Hizbollah are evil evil evil evil and must be stopped. Very interesting.

[QUOTE]jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
posted 21 July 2006 08:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes,I'll agree with you ,Erik.
Only a blinkered fool would not see that Israel is using the 3 soldier's kidnappings as an excuse to pursue strategic aims.

Hezbollah,as well as Hamas is democratically elected in Lebanon,forms part of the government and is popular with the Shiite population it represents.

I normally avoid the Israeli issue because every thread descends into entrenched pointlessness.

While I understand that there are geopolitical interests at play and that Israel has the same right to self defense as any other sovereign nation,the destruction of Lebanon and the attendant civilian casualties are far beyond self defense and are not the actions of a responsible member of the world community.

My point,as usual,is that if a protest is not balanced and factual,it is self defeating because it is easily dismissed.By aligning with one side in the dispute,the protesters weaken the impact of their actions and also lose moderate support.

---

Just providing some balance to your one-sided anti-Israel soapbox,cue.

No. Of course not.

Goof.

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 23 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Then you went on to point a rather unconvincing acusatory finger as Syria for the brutal attack against the Muslim Brotherhood in Hamma. Brilliant, coming from someone who spends most of his time posting about how we should wipe out the Islamic fundamantalists!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
. Brilliant, coming from someone who spends most of his time posting about how we should wipe out the Islamic fundamantalists!

---

Another unsubstantiate smear.Is this sort of innuendo your fall back position?Unsupported smears and juvenile name calling?

Please include a quote of mine to back up your scurrilous soapbox rhetoric?

quote:

---

But of course, that is irrelevant when one is only interested in pointing out Arab brutality.

---

Oh... according to you pointing out Israeli brutality makes one a peace activist but pointing out an even larger act of brutality by the Syrians makes one anti-Arab.

quote:

---

And now you want to whine because the Syrians wiped out the Muslim Fundamentalists.

---

Decrying the massacre of 20,000 people is whining?

And this is only true if you avoid uncomfortable details of the bombing of the city of Beriut by the IAF and the consequent slaughter of 10,000 Lebanese by air, aside from the outright massacre of as many as 1500 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila by the Israel's allies the Christian felange.

quote:

---

It is estimated that around 17,825 Arabs were killed during the war. There are different estimates of the proportion of civilians killed. Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that 5,515 people, military and civilian, were killed in the Beirut area during the conflict, and 9,797 military personnel (PLO, Hezbollah, Syrian, and others) and 2,513 civilians were killed outside of the Beirut area.[6] Approximately 675 Israeli soldiers were killed.

---

wikipedia

So please don't cry to me about 20,000 dead members of the Muslim Brotherhood, when you seem perfectly content to use that slaughter only to excuse similar massacres by Israel.

Especially when the truth is the Hama massacre was also an outright rebellion, intended to bring about an Islamic Regieme in Syria.

quote:

---

Calls for vengeance grew within the brotherhood, and bomb attacks increased in frequency. Events culminated with a general insurrection in the conservative Sunni town of Hama in February 1982. Islamists and other opposition activists proclaimed Hama a "liberated city" and urged Syria to rise up against the "infidel". Brotherhood fighters swept the city of Ba'thists, breaking into the homes of government employees and suspected supporters of the regime, killing about 50. The goal of the attack on Hama was to cease the rebellious activities of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. The assault began on February 2 with extensive shelling of the town of 350 000 inhabitants. Before the attack the Government called for the city's surrender and warned that anyone remaining in the city will be considered as a rebel. Robert Fisk in his book "Pity the Nation" described how civilians were fleeing Hama while tanks amd troops were moving towards the city's outskirts to start the siege.

---

Arabs rulers do not merely massacre their subjects for the fun of it, although the way you write it it would seem that you would believe this is so.

[ 24 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

So you see, this is not meant to be a tit-for-tat statistical comparison of attrocity statistics, between Arabs and Israelis, or Israelis and the Chinese (as if Chinese behaviour in Tibet somehow puts Israeli or Arab behaviour into a good light) this is actually a thread abou Louise Arbour, and a moral, legal and ethical comparison between her previous support for the NATO war in Kosovo in 1999, and her present rejection of Israel present war in Lebanon.

You see, I find Arbour's stand to be hypocritical, in the in 1999, she, when she as special prosecutor for the ICTY, supported a war against Serbia, a war that was mostly acted upon in a similar manner to Israel air campaign in Lebanon. That war resulted in the deaths of as many 5,700 Serb civilians, and included airial attacks upon most of Serbia's civilians infrastructure, including communications, power plants, bridges, car factories, vacuum cleaner factories, etc etc. That war was predicated upon the idea that NATO had the right to enforce UN resolutions unilaterally and without a supporting UN "use of force" declaration.

I am asking, how is her support for that venture legally morally and ethically different from Israel assuming that it has the right to enforce UN resolution 1559, (theoretically at least) unilaterally and without a supporting UN "use of force declaration."

Do you have any comment on that, other than "Hezbollah: bad, bad, bad."

[ 24 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Arabs rulers do not merely massacre their subjects for the fun of it, although the way you write it it would seem that you would believe this is so.

---

So, you can't find any quotes to back up your empty smears and innuendo and resort to manipulating my words to attempt to paint me as anti-Arab?

I may not be Eric Margolis but I do not consider my words ambiguous.

Bully and insult to your heart's content,cueball but I will counter your sly bias with facts.

The reality is, however, that if the law were ever to be applied in accordance with her substantially accurate outline of it, we all know that it would never be the Israelis standing in the war-crimes dock, but rather Arabs and Palestinians being subjected to victors' justice.

quote:

---

I am asking, how is her support for that venture legally morally and ethically different from Israel assuming that it has the right to enforce UN resolution 1559, (theoretically at least) unilaterally and without a supporting UN "use of force declaration."

Do you have any comment on that, other than "Hezbollah: bad, bad, bad."

---

Firstly,My comments on Hezbollah are balanced and factual.If you bothered to read them,I have stated that Hezbollah and hamas are representative of their constituencies and have been democratically elected.

I spose the concept that your humble rube is non-partial and fact driven does not suit your agenda.

Louise Arbour,in my humble,rustic opinion is not hypocritical enough to survive in the rarified environment she presently occupies.

I believe that the international institutions need more people like her rather than more compliant lapdogs who allow themselves bullied about.

I doubt she is hypocritical vis-a-vis previous positions as much as she is constrained by the political ramifications of her words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
On their face, Arbour's remarks appear to be even-handed, although the serious Israel-apologists seem to take them as a major affront.

The reality is, however, that if the law were ever to be applied in accordance with her substantially accurate outline of it, we all know that it would never be the Israelis standing in the war-crimes dock, but rather Arabs and Palestinians being subjected to victors' justice.

So in the context of what is realistically probable in the present situation, Hizbollah has more to fear from Arbour's justice than does Israel.

---

I am not well versed on this issue but to me,her words provoke the pro-Israel side by what she did not say rather than what she did.

To me,the world's salvation lies in the ability of international institutions to intervene reasonably and justly in conflicts.

Furthur to that,a rogue nation is IMHO,any nation that does not adhere or ratify international agreements negotiated to limit or prohibit the ability of rogue nation's predations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
To me,the world's salvation lies in the ability of international institutions to intervene reasonably and justly in conflicts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

I believe that the international institutions need more people like her rather than more compliant lapdogs who allow themselves bullied about.

I doubt she is hypocritical vis-a-vis previous positions as much as she is constrained by the political ramifications of her words.

I admire her for her willingness to go down with the ship.

---

I don't get it.

I do not see how NATO has any more legal or moral authority to take it upon itself the duty of enforcing international law within the territory of foreign nation than Israel does?

Even now we see Rice asserting that NATO has some special relationship to the world, that it (not the UN) should be used as an international peace-keeping force in Lebanon, just like Albright asserted the same in the case of Kosovo. NATO is not sanctioned as an international intevention force by the UN, and has no authority on the world stage, other than that which it asserts for itself as determined by the wills of the individual partners.

Likewise Israel has no mandate from the UN to intervene in Lebanon, but if an alliance founded on a partnership between states, such as Germany, the US, Great Britan et al can summarily define how international law is to be applied, willy-nilly, why not Israel?

Prior to Clinton intevention in Kosovo even George Bush, the first, thought it necessary to win a "use of force" mandate at the UN, in order to effect Iraq's removal from Kuwait in 1991.

So, given that she has sponsored non-UN interventions in the past, inteventions that resulted in considerable loss of life and damage to infrastructure, how can she point an accusatory finger at Israel for doing the same, by intervening in Lebanon?

[ 24 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

While Cueball has pointed out that

quote:

---

...this is a thread about the fate of Louise Arbour ...

---

... a more interesting question might be to look at other possible initiatives for the country as a whole.

What if Canada, among a group of nations, inside NATO and outside, with some backing from the Non-Aligned Movement, which still exists and has taken a firm position against Israel's terrible atrocities that continue to this day, ... what if Canada could manage to lever a consensus, in the spirit of Pearson, to blunt the Israeli killing rampage, turning beautiful Lebanon into a desert?

One look at our current Prime Minister, Minister of Nothing In Particular, and it is pretty clear that he couldn't lead a thrust for peace if it slapped him in the face. A Conservative leader's lack of imagination. There ya' have it. Another reason,

hey hey
ho ho
Stephen Harper
has got to go

He's really an excellent small dogs of imperialism. Some Canadians, however, would rather be big dogs of kindness, peaceableness, and carry the firm honour that comes from defending the weak and those outnumbered in a just cause.

As Cueball notes, "If NATO can interpret and enforce UN resolutions, why not Israel?"

Why not Canada? Why is there such a complete lack of imagination in our political leadership in this country? The Conservatives won't fight for peace and that is what Canada needs, what the whole world needs, right now, more than anything else.

She is someone to be proud of.

Of course, by showing her independence now, she undermines one of the narratives of the pro-Milosevic group here at babble, which was that she was a lackey of the US when she prosecuted him. The alternative, that he probably committed war crimes and deserved prosecution is heresy.

Instead of admitting they were wrong about her, they still dump on her even when they agree with her comments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
This is yet another example of the fact that Arbour is perfectly willing to criticize the Americans and their allies when the facts warrant it.

---

Well Jeff, I'm no fan of Milosevic although I had a hard time distinguishing war criminals from "victims" in that whole bloody chapter of which we haven't yet seen the end.

quote:

---

As for Arbour, I'll be more impressed when she recommends issuing a warrant for the arrest of Olmert, as she did with Milosevic in 1999. Or George W. Bush, for that matter, in connection with Iraq or Afghanistan.

---

I know this is a mere detail to some, but Arbour has no power, in her present job as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to issue a warrant.

Her power is basically the power of the soapbox.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

I know this is a mere detail to some, but Arbour has no power, in her present job as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to issue a warrant.

---

I pointed out to you back when she got this appointment that she has been kicked upstairs to this largely ceremonial post, only after she had served her tenure as useful clown for Madeline Albrights campaign against Serbia.

Do you think she is going to lobby for the creation of an ICTME, or not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
This is yet another example of the fact that Arbour is perfectly willing to criticize the Americans and their allies when the facts warrant it. She did it recently about torture in Iraq, and her comments here cannot be good news for Israel.

She is someone to be proud of.

Of course, by showing her independence now, she undermines one of the narratives of the pro-Milosevic group here at babble, which was that she was a lackey of the US when she prosecuted him. The alternative, that he probably committed war crimes and deserved prosecution is heresy.

Instead of admitting they were wrong about her, they still dump on her even when they agree with her comments.

Swift-boating is not the preserve of Republicans.

---

Rather, it is the fact that she announced the indictments of Milosevic and other Serbs even while NATO was in the middle of pursuing its air war on Serbia, by heavily targetting civilian infrastructure for destruction.

Arbour's announcement, coming at a time when there was growing worldwide criticism of NATO's intervention, helped to provide justification for the attacks and their subsequent escalation. Madeleine Albright seized on the announcement to crow on CNN that the indictments "make very clear to the world and the publics in our countries that this [NATO policy] is justified because of the crimes committed, and I think also will enable us to keep moving all these processes [i.e., bombing] forward."

Arbour admitted that the information on which the indictments were based came entirely from sources in NATO, which was a major party in the conflict and had a definite agenda to pursue. This served to emphasize the fact that the Tribunal was set up to support the NATO agenda, despite its theoretical impartiality on paper.

To say that Arbour is "perfectly willing to criticize the Americans and their allies when the facts warrant it" would be funny if it weren't such a bald-faced lie. She (and the other Tribunal prosecutors) never criticized the NATO bombings and strafings of civilians and civilian infrastructure. They even refused to investigate when presented with prima facie evidence of NATO war crimes.

Nevertheless there are still some people who ignore the facts and prefer to equate criticism of Arbour's role with support for Milosevic, because to them, that puts an end to what could otherwise become an embarrassing discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

I know this is a mere detail to some, but Arbour has no power, in her present job as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to issue a warrant.

Her power is basically the power of the soapbox.

---

It's not a detail to me. That's why I carefully said "recommends" both times I've posted this point. If she won't "recommend" arresting war criminals from her "soapbox", then she is an unprincipled coward.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

To say that Arbour is "perfectly willing to criticize the Americans and their allies when the facts warrant it" would be funny if it weren't such a bald-faced lie. She (and the other Tribunal prosecutors) never criticized the NATO bombings and strafings of civilians and civilian infrastructure. They even refused to investigate when presented with prima facie evidence of NATO war crimes.

---

Not even that. Arbour is a well meaning dupe who is just now discovering what a naive idiot she was thinking that she was somehow advancing the cause of human rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Not even that. Arbour is a well meaning dupe who is just now discovering what a naive idiot she was thinking that she was somehow advancing the cause of human rights.

But yes, shocking that she should turn a blind eye to NATO doing precisely what Israel is doing now in Lebanon.

---

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

Someone writes that Arbour was "kicked upstairs" to the powerless position of UN Human Rights Commissioner.

I'll say. Instead of having former Yugoslavia as her jurisdiction, for prosecution decisions only, she now can direct worldwide attention to any human rights abuse anywhere in the world.

Our gang of Milosevites will never forgive her for prosecuting His Leadership, but more adroit political people would be moving on to deal with what is going on in the world today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
the pro-Milosevic group here at babble

...Our gang of Milosevites

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

It almost seems like there has been a decision, somewhere, not to give up on the same old tunes.
So everybody just keeps singing along.

---

You know you're being a bit paranoid and foolish, don't you? This thread is about Arbour and her comments about the Middle East situation. You seem to think she did something highly courageous and principled. I personally think she's amoral (just a feeling I get in my spine). Worse, as a jurist and a U.N. employee, if she sees prima facie war crimes being committed and doesn't identify the culprits, I consider her to be rather on the useless side (I'm being as generous as I can possibly be here).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
You want to watch that? I'm not sure I've seen anyone praising Milosevic on babble, although I'm open to correction. There is a bit more nuance to your opponents' position than that.

---

quote:

---

Jeff is convinced that anyone who opposes NATO's criminal assault on Serbia and criticizes its apologists is a Stalinist, robotically following orders from, from, - wherever Stalinists supposedly get their orders from these days. It's a ridiculous cold-war caricature that he drags out and dusts off every time the subject comes up, because facing the facts is apparently just too painful for him.

---

There's not much evidence of Serb war crimes in Kosovo. 100 000 dead Kosovars, the NATO media claimed were killed by Milosevic. The real number of dead before the NATO bombing is now estimated at several hundred. Most of them may have been KLA militants. Racak massacre is almost sure to have been a KLA hoax. Regardless, almost as many Albanian civilians were killed during NATO bombing(and by NATO bombs) than by Serb forces.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

While Ms.Arbour may be an expert in her field,the ability to navigate the political landscape in pursuit of lofty goals requires a different skill set.

---

Well then perhaps she should have stayed out of it, rather than taking the stage with British Foreign Secretary Cook, and saying things like: "I have an Iron clad case for genocide against Slobodan Milosovic."

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Ah yes, such brilliant commentary here.

Someone writes that Arbour was "kicked upstairs" to the powerless position of UN Human Rights Commissioner.

---

Didn't you just confirm a few posts up that Louise Arbour "Has no power"? Weren't you actually defending her here by pointing out this not so suprising fact?

quote:

---

It almost seems like there has been a decision, somewhere, not to give up on the same old tunes.
So everybody just keeps singing along.

---

I thought you and the others who attempt to defend the ICTY, did so on the basis that it was to serve as a "model" for the ICC and other future institutions that were to be guardians of a new, and more comprehensive, effective and just world order, supervised by the UN.

But now that you failed at this, and we are now pointing out that Arbour naively pursued a course which has had completely the opposite effect of what she intended, you think we should forget about that and move on?

What are precedents Jeff, other than "the same old tunes"?

[ 25 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
This is yet another example of the fact that Arbour is perfectly willing to criticize the Americans and their allies when the facts warrant it. She did it recently about torture in Iraq, and her comments here cannot be good news for Israel.

She is someone to be proud of.

---

Her record on torture is not quite stellar (from June 29 Globe):

Arbour's role in torture case under fire

quote:

---

Human-rights activists grimaced when UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour marked yesterday's International Day in Support of Victims of Torture by urging an absolute ban on torture.

They saw grim irony in the fact that Ms. Arbour -- speaking at a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday -- said that governments are bound by international prohibitions against sending individuals back to countries where they face the risk of torture under any circumstances.

Ms. Arbour was a member of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2002, which ruled 9-0 in favour of deporting people to face a substantial risk of torture "in exceptional circumstances."

---

I guess we should be "proud" that Arbour almost always opposes torture, eh Jeff?

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Didn't you just confirm a few posts up that Louise Arbour "Has no power"? Weren't you actually defending her here by pointing out this not so suprising fact?

---

This comment has made me decide to give up on this topic. Either people are obtuse, or are being dishonest.

In the first post, I said that Arbour had no power
to ISSUE AN INDICTMENT against Bush as UN High Commissioner.

In the second post, I said the UN High Commissioner's post is an extremely powerful one, worldwide. The idea that obtaining that position is being "kicked upstairs" is laughable.

So, have I contradicted myself by saying Arbour
1. Is extremely powerful and

2. Could not prefer an indictment against George Bush?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:

And where was the liberal left then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Only in the smallest of minds. I think I'll just leave the "Better Red Corner" to stew in its own bile.

---

I thought, as a lawyer you would stick to the argument... but i guess when the ad hominem red-baiting is the only defence...

As for the rest of your reply, yes and that was my point about her being kicked up to an ineffectual post.

[ 26 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The case was not directly about torture, but about deportation. It dealt with a person found to be a gang member, and with a lengthy criminal record in Canada as well. Normally, such people, if they are not citizens, face deportation to their home countries.

But what if that person comes from a country which practices torture on a relatively frequent basis (but not in every case)?

Here is what the Supreme Court said:

quote:

---

Canadian law and international norms reject deportation to torture.

Read that line again.

"Canadian law and international norms reject deportation to torture."

Continuing....

"Canadian law views torture as inconsistent with fundamental justice. The Charter affirms Canada’s opposition to government‑sanctioned torture by proscribing cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in s. 12. Torture has as its end the denial of a person’s humanity; this lies outside the legitimate domain of a criminal justice system. The prohibition of torture is also an emerging peremptory norm of international law which cannot be easily derogated from. The Canadian rejection of torture is reflected in the international conventions which Canada has ratified. Deportation to torture is prohibited by both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which on its face does not categorically reject deportation to torture, should not be used to deny rights that other legal instruments make available to everyone. International law generally rejects deportation to torture, even where national security interests are at stake.

In exercising the discretion conferred by s. 53(1)(b) of the Immigration Act, the Minister must conform to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7. Insofar as the Act leaves open the possibility of deportation to torture (a possibility which is not here excluded), the Minister should generally decline to deport refugees where on the evidence there is a substantial risk of torture.

---

The court went on to say that there might be "exceptional cases" in which deportation might occur in the face of a substantial risk of torture.

I think the Suresh decision is a reasonable one. The alternative would be to allow those who come from "torture risk" countries like Sri Lanka, Turkey, Syria, etc. to remain in Canada no matter what crimes they commit here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
It dealt with a person found to be a gang member, and with a lengthy criminal record in Canada as well.

---

para. 16 of the decision:

quote:

---

Donald Gautier, an immigration officer for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, considered the submissions and recommended that the Minister issue an opinion under s. 53(1)(b) that Suresh constituted a danger to the security of Canada. Noting Suresh’s links to [the Tamil Tigers organization], he stated that “[t]o allow Mr. Suresh to remain in this country and continue his activities runs counter to Canada’s international commitments in the fight against terrorism”. At the same time, Mr. Gautier acknowledged that Mr. Suresh “is not known to have personally committed any acts of violence either in Canada or Sri Lanka” and that his activities on Canadian soil were “non-violent” in nature.

---

In quoting from the headnote, jeff house has omitted the first paragraph:

quote:

---

Deportation to torture may deprive a refugee of the right to liberty, security and perhaps life protected by s. 7 of the Charter. Section 7 applies to torture inflicted abroad if there is a sufficient causal connection with Canadian government acts. In determining whether this deprivation is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, Canada’s interest in combating terrorism must be balanced against the refugee’s interest in not being deported to torture. [my emphasis, of course]

---

Paragraph 78:

quote:

---

We do not exclude the possibility that in exceptional circumstances, deportation to face torture might be justified, either as a consequence of the balancing process mandated by s. 7 of the Charter or under s. 1. ... Insofar as Canada is unable to deport a person where there are substantial grounds to believe he or she would be tortured on return, this is not because Article 3 of the [Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment] directly constrains the actions of the Canadian government, but because the fundamental justice balance under s. 7 of the Charter generally precludes deportation to torture when applied on a case-by-case basis. We may predict that it will rarely be struck in favour of expulsion where there is a serious risk of torture. However, as the matter is one of balance, precise prediction is elusive. The ambit of an exceptional discretion to deport to torture, if any, must await future cases.

---

Her colleague Kent Roach has quite rightly written (.pdf, at p. 2194):

quote:

---

British attempts to grapple with the difficult cases of terrorist suspects who cannot be deported at least have attempted to respect the absolute obligation not to deport to torture. The same regrettably cannot be said about a rightly controversial passage in the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Suresh v. Canada, which suggested that while it would generally violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deport a person to a substantial risk of terrorism, it might not violate the Charter to do so in otherwise undefined “exceptional circumstances.” The idea that deportation to torture could ever be legal runs counter to the most basic rights in domestic and international law. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has pointedly reminded Canada that the right against torture is absolute, and the New Zealand Supreme Court recently rejected the Canadian Court’s approach with respect to exceptional circumstances. One member of the Suresh Court, Louise Arbour, now the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, has spoken that there should never be exceptions from the right not to be tortured. The Suresh exception for deportation to torture is not only morally abhorrent and in violation of international law, but questionable as an effective strategy for combating terrorism. [my emphasis, of course]

---

[ 27 July 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Both unionist and Spector link to an article about the Suresh decision, as if it says something negative about Arbour. I don't think it does.

---

I'm no lawyer, but I have to read and interpret collective agreement clauses, arbitration awards, and yes, court decisions frequently in order to do my work in the union.

When I read this decision, I can only explain it as an exceptional exercise in post-911 hysteria. I don't think it says anything negative about Arbour in particular (except that her qualities are the subject of this thread) -- I think it is shameful for the court as a whole.

Where the hell did the court derive Canada's "interest in combatting terrorism" and set that against international conventions?

But of course, we are not talking here about deportation to torture, but deportation to a place where there is a RISK of torture.

Unfortunately, in this world, there is a risk of torture in many places, ie. China, India Turkey, Iraq, Iran, etc.

Where the risk is "substantial", the Court says the government should generally NOT deport.

It does leave open the "exceptional" possibility that someone might be deported, even where the risk is substantial.

This is similar to the position that the Court has taken on escaped alleged murderers. Canada won't deport them,to face the death penalty EXCEPT in exceptional cases. Normally, the extradting power will have to promise not to seek the death penalty.

The court held in Burns:

quote:

---

A review of the factors for and against unconditional extradition therefore leads to the conclusion that assurances are constitutionally required in all but exceptional cases.

---

The Burns situation is different from Suresh, though. In an extradition case, Canada is somewhat complicit in the result, because it knows that a trial is to be held with consequences certain to occur upon conviction.

In a deportation case, Canada is simply removing a person from Canada. It is not as a result of a request from another government.

-------
Spector makes a number of points about Suresh. I agree that I was conflating the details of his case with that of another person.

It is true that Suresh was found to be a Convention Refugee in 1991, as Spector mentions.
I see from the case, though, that the Federal Court Judge reviewing the case found that:

quote:

---

Suresh obtained refugee status “by wilful misrepresentation of facts” and lacks credibility;

---

----------
Unionist wonders "Where the hell did the court derive Canada's "interest in combatting terrorism?".

The Immigration and Refugee Act states:

quote:

---

19. (1) No person shall be granted admission who is a member of any of the following classes:
. . .

(e) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe
. . .
(iv) are members of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe will

(C) engage in terrorism;

---

There is also a list of "objectives" of the Immigration and Refugee Act which Parliament has included. There are several relevant ones, for example:

quote:

---

h) to promote international justice and security by denying access to Canadian territory to persons, including refugee claimants, who are security risks or serious criminals.

---

So, the Supreme Court has to give weight to those clauses, as well as the ones Suresh relied upon. That's where the balancing comes in. It was mandated by Parliament when it wrote the law.

[ 28 July 2006: Message edited by: jeff house ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
But of course, we are not talking here about deportation to torture, but deportation to a place where there is a RISK of torture.

---

Yeah, kinda like saying when we threw the dude out into the four lane highway, we aren't really responsible as there was only a RISK of the dude getting run over.

quote:

---

Even if such an "interest" exists, terrorism can surely be "combatted" without deportation of any kind, let alone to torture.

---

Involvement in a terrorist organization constitute far stronger grounds for deportation than the routine immigration violations that get people deported from Canada
every day of the week.

SOA Watch

quote:

---

SOA Manuals Index

On September 20, 1996, under intense public pressure, the Pentagon was forced to release training manuals that were used at the School of the Americas for years. These manuals advocated torture, extortion, blackmail and the targeting of civilian populations. A Washington Post article by Dana Priest broke the story.

The release of these manuals proved what SOA Watch, thousands of Latin Americans and numerous human rights organizations had been saying for years: that U.S. taxpayer money had been used for the teaching of torture and repression.

---

[ 28 July 2006: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Suresh obtained refugee status “by wilful misrepresentation of facts” and lacks credibility

---

Oh, well then.

Fetch the pliers and heat up the electrodes.

quote:

---

It is not a crime to be listed. However, one of the consequences of being listed is that the entity’s property can be the subject of seizure/restraint and/or forfeiture. In addition, institutions such as banks, brokerages, etc are subject to reporting requirements with respect to an entity’s property and must not allow those entities to access the property nor may these institutions deal or otherwise dispose of the property. It is an offence to knowingly participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group. This participation is only an offence if its purpose is to enhance the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity.

---

Why hasn't Arbour called for Israel to be charged with war crimes and/or crimes against humanity?

[Yes, Jeff, I understand she has no power to prefer such charges. But if she had the power to warn unnamed persons about war crimes, why does she lack the power to name names and use her moral authority to spur some action?]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John K:

I personally think that the definition is overly broad, particularly the knowingly contributing 'indirectly' to the activity of a terrorist group. But that's different than saying there's no such thing as a terrorist group.

---

"Terrorism" is a completely meaningless category. It is the expression of a kind of tactic, nothing more. According that defintion Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would all be terrorist.

I can't believe we are perpetuating the absurdity of this obscene abuse of language by using the term "terroist."

"Terrorism" is not a political movement.

Indeed, it has been part of military law for centuries that civilians deaths must be avoided whenever possible.

That doctrine was certainly part of the Nuremberg prosecutions of Nazi war criminals.

"Terrorism" has a core of meaning having to do with the purposeful targetting of civilian lives for political gain.

Beheadings and hostage taking are just as real as torture, and just as reprehensible.

Is it a tactic? Well of course it is. It is a criminal tactic.

Is membership in a group deemed "terrorist" enough to justify deportation?

During the Nuremburg prosecutions, certain groups were deemed to be criminal, in and of themselves. They included certain SS Divisions implicated in the holocaust. So mere membership was enough to create criminal liability.

The Suresh case actually modifies this. Here what it said:

quote:

---

Section 19 must therefore be read as permitting a refugee to establish that his or her continued residence in Canada will not be detrimental to Canada, notwithstanding proof that the person is associated with or is a member of a terrorist organization. This permits a refugee to establish that the alleged association with the terrorist group was innocent.

---

[ 31 July 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

In any event, Parliament included concern about terrorism in the Act itself, which the Supreme Court has to interpret.