Harpo accuses UN of anti-semitism.....
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
None of which logic you dispute, correct? Because if you had a point to make you would have made it.A crystal clear example of Fuzzy Fuji Logic.
The point of bringing up Semrau was to demonstrate, via a reasonably current issue with which we're all familiar, that when a host country brings a war crimes trial against one of its own wayward soldiers it brings a murder trial. The charge is murder. Now Semrau was not guilty of murder, but what I'm point out to you is that murder is the charge that is brought, not some other fancy war crimes charge--it's a regular plain old murder trial.
They only time you get into fancy international courts prosecuting anybody for war crimes is when the host country won't or can't prosecute them itself. Then you get into some stranger laws with all sorts of interesting jurisdiction and fairly high standards to meet.
But a garden variety war crime ordinarily should be prosecuted by the host government using its ordinary courts and ordinary laws. Murder, attempted murder, etc., are already crimes in every country on this planet, it's just a matter of whether or not the government has a will to apply its own existing laws.
Sure but you've now conceded that ordinary criminal law relating to murder, attempted murder, etc., are what's applicable here. That means the case law opens up to include all those cases of people who went down for murder or attempted even though they shot at the wrong person, or shot at what they believed to be a person but wasn't, etc.The victim in Samaru was a protected person. The crown led evidence to prove same. Sorry, try again.
It also means you were flat out wrong to assert that the crime is only analogous to murder. It is murder, or in the hypothetical example we're discussing, attempted murder.
In the hypothetical we're discussing the crown would have to prove that the accused was trying to kill people who were protected--that's not in dispute. The fact that the accused was mistaken about the identity of the target is just as irrelevant here as it is in any other murder or attempted murder trial.
Last edited:
Except that the case law and texts I have posted above say differently.Sure but you've now conceded that ordinary criminal law relating to murder, attempted murder, etc., are what's applicable here. That means the case law opens up to include all those cases of people who went down for murder or attempted even though they shot at the wrong person, or shot at what they believed to be a person but wasn't, etc.
It also means you were flat out wrong to assert that the crime is only analogous to murder. It is murder, or in the hypothetical example we're discussing, attempted murder.
In the hypothetical we're discussing the crown would have to prove that the accused was trying to kill people who were protected--that's not in dispute. The fact that the accused was mistaken about the identity of the target is just as irrelevant here as it is in any other murder or attempted murder trial.
Show me one case on a war crime or class based crime that supports your theory. Just one legal scholar.
Sorry but it's not a class based crime. It's plain old garden variety murder. As in any murder trial the prosecution has to show that there was no lawful ground for the homicide--it wasn't self defense, a lawful wartime attack, the accused was of sound mind, and so on.Except that the case law and texts I have posted above say differently.
Show me one case on a war crime or class based crime that supports your theory. Just one legal scholar.
Until you come up with a case, text, article or expert who supports your opinion you are just a non-lawyer blowing hot air. Feel free.Sorry but it's not a class based crime. It's plain old garden variety murder. As in any murder trial the prosecution has to show that there was no lawful ground for the homicide--it wasn't self defense, a lawful wartime attack, the accused was of sound mind, and so on.
