Now, I’m not calling this evidence in any way. But it’s certainly an indication that it might be possible that North Korea did something that wasn’t normal. And might, perhaps, even be against international law.
Sure, anything’s possible. But keep in mind that the ICC recently investigated US actions in Iraq to determine whether they constituted the kind of war crimes that would fall under the Court’s jurisdiction. It ultimately concluded that yes, thousands of civilians had been killed, many of them intentionally, but this wasn’t outrageous enough to trigger the “war crimes” category.
Given this precedent, I really doubt that this preliminary investigation will go any further. The last thing the beleaguered Court needs is a blatant display of hypocrisy.
Possibly because the US had at least a fig leaf of cover wrt the invasion of Iraq based on previous UN resolutions, while the NK’s bombing a target in Sk and killing both civilians and military personnel is a direct violation of the GC rules of war? If you are saying that the ICC’s rulings were a white wash then you’d need to demonstrate how the US was guilty of war crimes as defined by the international court.
This has nothing to do with whether or not you think invading Iraq was right or wrong…it’s a legal argument. I’d be interested in seeing evidence that the US committed war crimes as defined by the ICC, and how that excuses NK from committing war crimes by their actions.
-XT
Through the International Law of Tu Quoque, naturally.
What I am saying is that the ICC has interpreted its own mandate in such a way as to require that war crimes prosecutions concern only sufficiently serious war crimes (the “gravity” requirement). Here is what the chief Prosecutor had to say about one of the Iraq killings he had been asked to investigate:
“For war crimes, a specific gravity threshold is set down in Article 8(1), which states that “the Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes”. This threshold is not an element of the crime, and the words “in particular” suggest that this is not a strict requirement. It does, however, provide Statute guidance that the Court is intended to focus on situations meeting these requirements. According to the available information, it did not appear that any of the criteria of Article 8(1) were satisfied. Even if one were to assume that Article 8(1) had been satisfied, it would then be necessary to consider the general gravity requirement under Article 53(1)(b). The Office considers various factors in assessing gravity. A key consideration is the number of victims of particularly serious crimes, such as wilful killing or rape. The number of potential victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court in this situation – 4 to 12 victims of willful killing and a limited number of victims of inhuman treatment – was of a different order than the number of victims found in other situations under investigation or analysis by the Office. It is worth bearing in mind that the OTP is currently investigating three situations involving long-running conflicts in Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Darfur. Each of the three situations under investigation involves thousands of wilful killings as well as intentional and large-scale sexual violence and abductions. Collectively, they have resulted in the displacement of more than 5 million people. Other situations under analysis also feature hundreds or thousands of such crimes. Taking into account all the considerations, the situation did not appear to meet the required threshold of the Statute. In light of the conclusion reached on gravity, it was unnecessary to reach a conclusion on complementarity. It may be observed, however, that the Office also collected information on national proceedings, including commentaries from various sources, and that national proceedings had been initiated with respect to each of the relevant incidents.” [emphasis added]
The gist of it is this: when you have conflicts in which many thousands get killed, a handful of deaths is not something that the Court will waste its time on. I don’t agree with this position, personally, but that’s the line that the Prosecutor has taken so far. If he changes his tune in this case, it would be a tremendous reversal of position.
I agree that the famine is the result of or at least exacerbated by the government policies in NK but once again, theya re not sitting on bags of rice and withholding it from the general population to keep them submissive. If NK could pursue all of its other ambitions while still fedding everyone, i suspect they would do it but if they must make a choice between developing nukes and maintaining a disproportioantely large military, on the one hand and adequately feed their population on the other hand, they will choose to let their people starve.
I was at a party this weekend with some Korean diplomats and there apparently has been a spike in defections from NK. At first they thought thsi might have been the result of the sunshine policy and the interaction between reunioted Sk adn Nk relatives but apparently its the result of Korean soap operas that are being picked up by the TV equivalent of ham radio operators in NK. The differences are too stark to ignore.
This is a distinction without a difference.
They’re hoarding food for preferred political classes and for the military. They’ve got compulsory land use and command economics in place so that the country spends its lifeblood on the military and not on supports its own people.
It, very deliberately, has set up a situation where the people starve in order for the military to flourish. That they don’t starve their people (in all cases) to punish them and (generally) simply because they view human beings as expendable raw materials for building an absurdly over inflated military doesn’t change the fact that NK starves its own populace.
Also, have you found a definition of “self defense” that you feel NK was using?
I think there is a difference between saying that NK is deliberately starving their population in order to subjugate them and saying that Nk is allowing their people to starve by allocating resources to the military and developing nuclear weapons. NK has a horrible government but we don’t need to make stuff up about why their peoplea re starving to make them look bad.
I thought I explained the difference between "I was in fear of my life’ self defense and the kind that NK was talking about.
Well let’s look at simpler version. Let’s say North Korea was a family of four. The head of house hold makes $100 per month. Of that $100, mirroring North Korea’s economy, $80 is spent on a broad sword, and $20 is left for food. Naturally it isn’t enough and the family starves part of the month. Did the head of household choose for their family to starve?
I say yes, if you intentionally allocate resources needed for food, in full knowledge of the consequences, then you are choosing the resulting famine.
I apologize if this is a dumb question, but did they come over thinking it was action packed and dramatic like a soap, or because of the well fed life style presented?
No, you didn’t. What you said was:
It’s probably hard to define what you claim NK really meant because there is no other kind of self defense than the kind that one engages in for individual or collective self defense. Unless, of course, you’re using “self defense” to mean something other than “defending one’s self”. And rather obviously, NK used the phrase in exactly the way it’s understood in international law, eg in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
In no context and with no bit of nuance does “self defense” even possibly mean using lethal force in response to military force that was never a threat to your citizens at all. It can’t be defense if you’re not *defending *against anything.
So what definition of “self defense” are you using in order to claim that NK’s statement was not a deliberate misuse of terminology in order to morph their unprovoked act of naked and indiscriminate aggression into “self defense”.
Ah, but it’s better than that! The whole family doesn’t starve —the head of the household decides that the least favourite child will starve. And s/he will sometimes be punished for finding food on his/her own.
I mean, just to clarify the analogy.
That is not a very good analogy at all, seeing as it completely glosses over the central question of intent.
So, let’s expand your example: we keep the same set-up, but add some details. Rightly or wrongly, the head of household is completely convinced that his neighbor means his family grave bodily harm. In good faith, he believes that the neighbor will break down their front door one of these nights and slit the throats of all members of the household. The head of household sincerely believes that an investment in weaponry is the only way to protect himself and his dependents.
In this scenario, it’s no longer irrational to go ahead and buy the sword. Sure, food will be tight, and one or two members of the household may even suffer because of it, perhaps even to the point of death. But the alternative, in the head of household’s mind, is assured death for all four. In this scenario, he did not “choose” to let anyone starve; he chose the best of the bad options, which was investment in self-defense.
You can view North Korea in this light. Assuming that there truly is a lack of sufficient food in the nation, this alone does not prove ill intent on the part of the government. The much more likely explanation is that, for the benefit of the entire nation, the army must come first. When it comes to a choice between feeding the masses and having the enemy slaughter everyone or letting people go hungry so the foes can be kept at bay, the latter becomes a logical and considerate choice. Once again, you can argue that the analysis of the situation is mistaken, but not necessarily that it reflects some nefarious secret goal.
I’m sure you’ve ignored and/or responded with deceptive redirection several times because you really do have answers but just don’t want to share them, but perhaps now it’s time for you to share. Ya know, property is theft and all that.
-Found that cite yet to prove your claim that under international law or custom, NK’s military response was “justified” or “appropriate”, seeing as how that was your claim and you’ve never provided any proof for it?
-Found that cite yet to prove that North Korea routinely (or ever) refers to territories that are claimed by SK as “disputed” rather than simply North Korea’s territory?
-Found that cite yet to prove that I have made assertions, that I did not then cite, about any of the things you’ve invented and claimed I’ve said?
Okay, who’s the genocidal army ready to slaughter North Koreans?
It certainly isn’t the South Koreans, it certainly isn’t the US who’s been sending them food aid to help stop them from dieing, it certainly isn’t China who likes them as a buffer against the west. Japan doesn’t have an offensive army.
So who?
Who is this army of boogie men?
From the North Korean perspective, both the US and South Korea present clear and present dangers to their continued existence. This is not as absurd as you may think. The Empire has not exactly been known for its restraint, and tends to invade several nations a decade. As you may or may not have heard, it’s currently engaged in two wars of aggression… One of those wars (Iraq) came shortly after Little Bush lumped it into an “axis of evil” together with Iran and… wager a guess? Yes, North Korea. And it goes without saying that the Empire’s Southern lapdog will jump into action at a single Imperial command. Hence, it is not unreasonable for the North to build up its military deterrent so as to to be able to fight off a capitalist invasion.
This good faith position contradicts your baseless allegation that the North is slyly pretending to be afraid of the vicious Empire and its puppet as a pretext for starving its own people. Such convoluted scenarios are more likely to be found in a James Bond movie than in the real world. At the very least, you would need to back this hypothesis up with some concrete evidence of a nefarious North Korean master-plan.
No you said:
You’re being disingenuous.
Please show me a cite that the US would realistically slaughter everyone. It can’t be North Korean since they’re lying assholes who murdered a South Korean shipping crew, and civilians on an island. Also explain why the US would send food aid to a people it wanted dead.
Further explain why North Korea outlawed people procuring their own food when the state couldn’t provide.
Assuming it was just a resource issue, why did those monstrous evil pieces of subhuman shit outlaw people procuring food on their own?
The North Korean government deserves a slow, brutal, and painful death for all actors in these crimes against humanity.
Hey, it’s your own analogy; I’m simply fixing it to make it more realistic. Don’t blame me if it’s not perfect (i.e. the real expected death rate will not be 100%) - I’m limited by the material you’re giving me to work with.
Your statement is confusing. What “can’t be North Korean?” Also, I must point out that you’re once again making the mistake of presuming to know all relevant facts. It has not been conclusively established by neutral experts that North Korea had anything to do with the unfortunate (and likely accidental) sinking of the warship.
Because it’s the Empire we’re talking about; it’s nothing if not bi-polar. Remember Afghanistan, for example? Sure you do. Received over $1 billion in US aid over two decades (including lots of food). This kept going right up to the point that the bombs started falling:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_6_134/ai_n18612735/
I have not previously heard of any such allegations. You’re sure of the veracity of the claims, right? Oh, who am I kidding… You’re likely just repeating some mindless Western propaganda you picked up somewhere. Well, let’s have a cite anyway.
I think this is a good example of your overall problem. When it comes to North Korea, you’re just one tightly-wound ball of hate, and your strong emotions make it impossible for you to be objective when it comes to these conversations. You likely imagine the North Korean government prancing around with pitchforks and smelling strongly of sulfur… The world is not that black and white. And, you know what, I strongly hate the US government, and yet even I wouldn’t advocate executing everyone in it, much less “painfully.” That’s a very fanatical and worrying stance on your part; and people think that we Marxist-Leninists are the bloodshed-loving ones…
Say, speaking of things you say that are fictional:
-Found that cite yet to prove your claim that under international law or custom, NK’s military response was “justified” or “appropriate”, seeing as how that was your claim and you’ve never provided any proof for it?
-Found that cite yet to prove that North Korea routinely (or ever) refers to territories that are claimed by SK as “disputed” rather than simply North Korea’s territory?
-Found that cite yet to prove that I have made assertions, that I did not then cite, about any of the things you’ve invented and claimed I’ve said?
Anyways, on to fact checking.
Here readers should note the type of Pravdaesque twisting of reality that has to go o0n to support Commissar’s screeds. The US was providing Afghanistan with roughly a billion dollars worth of humanitarian aid. When a terrorist organization that they had given safe haven to and made a part of their Ministry of Defense attacked the US, we retaliated. While still giving the people of Afghanistan humanitarian aid. (note, as well, that Commissar’s cite is a dumbed-down gloss meant specifically for school children, made byScholastic.. I guess we can be glad he’s actually finally provided a cite, but…)
Commissar, naturally, having an argument that can’t stand on its own, has to pretzel this up in order to make his case. If we hadn’t been giving them humanitarian aid, we’d be greedy and selfish and blah blah. If we’d stopped giving them aid when we had a legitimate casus belli that we were responding to, we’d be starving them and we’d be monsters. If we keep giving them humanitarian aid while responding to a legitimate casus belli, well, we must be bi-polar.
It’s a rhetorical trick worth about a nickle, I suppose. But its use is elucidative.
Already quoted and cited in this thread. You know, cites? The things you’ve steadfastly refused to provide for your claims on subjects ranging from international law to things you’ve made up about what other people in the thread have said?
Yes the likely accidental locking up a ship with a firing solution and having a torpedo home in on it. Totally by accident. Or perhaps you mean that modern ships just spontaneously break in half and kill dozens of naval personnel, by accident. Nice ad hom fallacy though, perhaps you could’ve added some ranting about “the Empire” in order to gainsay legitimate factual inquiry?
Of course, your claim about a lack of neutral experts is about as true as most of your factual claims..
How about you provide cites for all the claims you made and then quickly dishonestly changed the subject once caught? Here, let me remind you as you seem to accidentally have forgotten to provide proof of any of your claims, at all.
-Found that cite yet to prove your claim that under international law or custom, NK’s military response was “justified” or “appropriate”, seeing as how that was your claim and you’ve never provided any proof for it?
-Found that cite yet to prove that North Korea routinely (or ever) refers to territories that are claimed by SK as “disputed” rather than simply North Korea’s territory?
-Found that cite yet to prove that I have made assertions, that I did not then cite, about any of the things you’ve invented and claimed I’ve said?
Any time now, since cites for those really do exist.
Really.
Interesting how most of your responses center around attempting to twist my words and/or invent new ones altogether. My response to The Tao’s Revenge is meant to demonstrate one thing only - that the Empire has, in fact, given food aid to people right before carpet-bombing them. It’s a simple concept, really, so you have little excuse for not grasping it.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of “neutrality.” Your cite links to an article with the following subheading: “South Korea officially concludes that a North Korean torpedo sank the Cheonan — Where do we go from here?”
In a South/North dispute, do you really think that a statement by one of the Koreas can be said to be neutral? Really? So you’re back to your black-and-white worldview, then. Everything that South Korea asserts is true by default, while all North Korean statements are inherently false. That’s an easy theory to use, to be sure, but I think I’d still rather stick with logical thought, if you don’t mind.
You’re not allowed to say another poster is lying in this forum, and as I’ve had to note several times, personal insults aren’t allowed here. I’m giving warnings to Damuri Ajashi and Commissar, and everybody else needs to tone it down now.