Arbour must go

[Guest Warwick Green]

The absurdity and counterproductive nature of current international law was proven once again by a bizarre statement issued on Wednesday by Louise Arbour, The UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights and a former justice of the Canadian Supreme Court. She threatened "personal criminal responsibility" against Israeli generals and political leaders -- "those in positions of command and control" -- for the military actions they are taking to protect innocent civilians from Hezbollah and Hamas rocket and missile attacks.

Her theory of prosecution is that the shelling of cities could "constitute a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians," presumably even when the actual targets are terrorists and their rocket launchers, and when the Israeli air force takes extraordinary steps to minimize civilian casualties. She also erroneously stated that international law prohibits "the bombardment of sites with alleged military significance, but resulting invariably in the killing of innocent civilians."

Arbour's knowledge of international law is as questionable as her understanding of morality. Virtually every democratic nation has been forced to bomb cities during wartime, especially when the enemy locates crucial military targets near population centres. Under Arbour's erroneous criteria for criminal prosecution, U.S. presidents Bush, Clinton, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt, as well as British prime ministers Blair and Churchill, and numerous French, Russian, Canadian and other heads of state would be declared war criminals for causing the "foreseeable" deaths of civilians while bombing legitimate military targets. Moreover, terrorists would be encouraged to launch their missiles from cities, so as to induce democracies to violate international law by counter-attacking terrorists....

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...ad-c0dafe419125

[jdobbin]

Here was the Israeli reponse to Arbour:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ador060721.html

[Rue]

Arbour's comments are typical of intellectuals far removed from the actual conflict zone who talk about legal concepts and theories as if they are teaching in law school. In the real world, terrorists violate laws of any kind, and will deliberately use civilians as shields to hide behind. So what Ms. Arbour's postulations fail to address is the fact that if a terrorist breaks a law, murders, then hides behind a civilian when being shot back at, and that civilian dies, it is the terrorist morally and legally responsible for the death of the civilian both civily and criminally by placing that civilian in the direction and path of death.

Under international law, Israel has the right to defend and engage in hot pursuit to prevent the death of its citizens. No international law says, Israel can not defend itself from the imminent threat of death or destruction because international criminal terrorists hide behind civilians.

This concept of showing restraint is not based on any international law...its based on a misnomer from people who have never engaged or lived in a war, that you can have controlled and measured reponses when you go in hot pursuit of terrorists.

This is the same defective thinking that says when a police officer shoots someone who pulls a knife on them, that police officer is wrong because they didn't use reasonable force back and should have only shot the person in their foot or use pepper spray.

Its amazing how people love to second guess people for defending themselves from imminent danger and get all self-righteous and love to preach and depict criminals as victims in need of understanding.

If Louise Arbour had a gun in her hand and someone was trying to rape and kill her does she think she would not use the gun?

All I ask is that each and everyone of these intellectuals who lectures on restraint, is placed in a situation of imminent peril and see how they react.

It is precisely because these intellectuals open their idiot mouths and make such comments, that terrorists feel incited to carry on because they know such intellects will criticize Israel.

International crimes? Will Ms. Arbour call for the arrest and trial of each and every Hezbollah member, the Iranian government and the Syrian government, I doubt it.

This conflict is not a game. Its not a case in a legal text book. It is a little more complex then lecturing about law when you are thousands upon thousands of miles away from death and destruction and you can afford to be smug and self-righteous.

I personally think Ms.Arbour needs to travel to Israel and sit through a missile attack in Israel and then visit and talk to Muslim and Arab victims of Muslim terrorists as well.

[August1991]

I posted the following previously.

In Geneva, the top UN human rights official warned that the scale of civilian casualties inflicted in the current conflict could constitute war crimes, though she did not make specific accusations.

"The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control," said Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Boston Globe

So, Louise Arbour thinks Israeli leaders could be accused of war crimes. (I somehow doubt that she's referring to Hizballah although if she means it, she should openly say so.)

Louise Arbour is a product of the Liberal Party. She was named to the Supreme Court of Ontario by David Peterson and then to the Supreme Court of Canada by Chretien. She went to the UNHCHR under PM PM.

Like the Liberal Party and the UN, it's all bark and no bite.

[jdobbin]

I'd like to see a reponse from Arbour before passing judgement. If she has more specific, I'd be interested in hearing them.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I'd like to see a reponse from Arbour before passing judgement. If she has more specific, I'd be interested in hearing them.

And perhaps Arbour might well have waited until the hostilities were over and conducted an investigation before passing judgement.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

She is mistaken in her logic in my view. I cannot see how Israel can be charged with indiscriminant targeting of non-combatants. Each case of attack was in reponse to the perception of probable cause based on the inteligence estimates. Utilizing her logic George Bush is a war criminal for his actions in Iraq.

Whole I applaud her position on military aggression I reject her position of judgement. Her function in her present capacity as a commissioner of Human Rights is to ensure the preservation of ALL human rights to ALL citizens. This is not supposed to be a political position, it is supposed to be a apolitical position.

[Guest Warwick Green]

...Utilizing her logic George Bush is a war criminal for his actions in Iraq....

I think liberals already believe that.

Am I right that the ICC can only initiate legal action against "war criminals" with the approval of the Security Council? Obviously the US would never let that happen.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The UN is home to the most convoluted of all bureaucracies. It has legislative powers but no means of enforcement. Just because the UN does not sanction something does not mean that it will or will not happen. In the true sense of the word it is a home for international diplomacy to reside within, nothing else. I believe that the Security Council is capable of approving or vacating any decisions made in the comittee of the whole.

[Figleaf]

.

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf