UK mulling 'war crimes arrest' curb

[Savonarola]

Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion:

UK mulling 'war crimes arrest' curb 


An arrest warrant was issued for Tzipi Livni last December, sparking outrage in Israel [AFP] 

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, has said he plans to block private groups from seeking arrest warrants against visiting foreign officials, following a dispute with Israel.

Last December Tzipi Livni, Israel's former foreign minister, was said to have cancelled a visit to the UK after a court issued an arrest warrant for war crimes committed during the Gaza war.

But Brown, writing in the Daily Telegraph, said that Britain could not "afford to have its standing in the world compromised for the sake of tolerating such gestures".

He said that the country's principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows judges to issue warrants for any visitor accused of war crimes, was being abused.

"There is now significant danger of such a provision being exploited by politically-motivated organisations or individuals who set out only to grab headlines," he wrote in the article published on Thursday.

Opposition to change

Human rights groups and British Muslim organisations have voiced their opposition to any change.

Benjamin Ward, deputy director of Human Rights Watch in Europe, said his organisation "would be concerned with any proposal that would effectively
abolish private prosecutions for these crimes".

The London court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Livni, who is now the leader of Israel's opposition Kadima party, over her role in Israel's 22-day war against the Hamas-rule Gaza Strip, launched at the end of 2008.

A UN fact-finding mission to Gaza last year said both Israel and Palestinian groups were guilty of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during the war that ended on January 18, 2009 with mutual ceasefires.

Following December's spat Israel demanded the Britain change the law, which was described as "absurd" by politicians in the Jewish state.

Livni welcomed the proposed changes on Thursday, saying: "The current situation ... enables the more cynical elements to take advantage of the system.

"The warrant that was issued against me according to the legislation was an absurd use of this law," she told the newspaper.

The exact nature of the reform has not yet been made clear by the government, but parliament would have to approve the rule change before it became law.

Under the current law, heads of state and senior ministers enjoy immunity, but pro-Palestinian groups have used the principle to try to arrest former or retired Israeli officials, including Livni and retired general Doron Almog, who narrowly dodged arrest at Britain's Heathrow Airport in 2005.

Out of curiosity has this British law ever been used against anyone besides Israelis?  And, if so, have there ever been sucessful prosecutions?

[Drakken]

Rejoice greatly O daughter of Zion:

UK mulling 'war crimes arrest' curb 


An arrest warrant was issued for Tzipi Livni last December, sparking outrage in Israel [AFP] 

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, has said he plans to block private groups from seeking arrest warrants against visiting foreign officials, following a dispute with Israel.

Last December Tzipi Livni, Israel's former foreign minister, was said to have cancelled a visit to the UK after a court issued an arrest warrant for war crimes committed during the Gaza war.

But Brown, writing in the Daily Telegraph, said that Britain could not "afford to have its standing in the world compromised for the sake of tolerating such gestures".

He said that the country's principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows judges to issue warrants for any visitor accused of war crimes, was being abused.

"There is now significant danger of such a provision being exploited by politically-motivated organisations or individuals who set out only to grab headlines," he wrote in the article published on Thursday.

Opposition to change

Human rights groups and British Muslim organisations have voiced their opposition to any change.

Benjamin Ward, deputy director of Human Rights Watch in Europe, said his organisation "would be concerned with any proposal that would effectively
abolish private prosecutions for these crimes".

The London court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Livni, who is now the leader of Israel's opposition Kadima party, over her role in Israel's 22-day war against the Hamas-rule Gaza Strip, launched at the end of 2008.

A UN fact-finding mission to Gaza last year said both Israel and Palestinian groups were guilty of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during the war that ended on January 18, 2009 with mutual ceasefires.

Following December's spat Israel demanded the Britain change the law, which was described as "absurd" by politicians in the Jewish state.

Livni welcomed the proposed changes on Thursday, saying: "The current situation ... enables the more cynical elements to take advantage of the system.

"The warrant that was issued against me according to the legislation was an absurd use of this law," she told the newspaper.

The exact nature of the reform has not yet been made clear by the government, but parliament would have to approve the rule change before it became law.

Under the current law, heads of state and senior ministers enjoy immunity, but pro-Palestinian groups have used the principle to try to arrest former or retired Israeli officials, including Livni and retired general Doron Almog, who narrowly dodged arrest at Britain's Heathrow Airport in 2005.

Out of curiosity has this British law ever been used against anyone besides Israelis?  And, if so, have there ever been sucessful prosecutions?

Wouldn't Lord Haw-Haw enter that category? After all, he was Irish and had an American citizenship (plus German naturalization through his work during the war), and as far as I remember he wasn't a British citizen.

[Savonarola]

Wouldn't Lord Haw-Haw enter that category? After all, he was Irish and had an American citizenship (plus German naturalization through his work during the war), and as far as I remember he wasn't a British citizen.

I think he was tried for treason, not war crimes.

[Drakken]

Wouldn't Lord Haw-Haw enter that category? After all, he was Irish and had an American citizenship (plus German naturalization through his work during the war), and as far as I remember he wasn't a British citizen.

I think he was tried for treason, not war crimes.

How can one be tried for treason in a country he or she isn't citizen of? 

Yeah, he was a despicable git of a nazi mouthpiece, but being despicable is hardly ground for being accused of treason.

[Savonarola]

Wouldn't Lord Haw-Haw enter that category? After all, he was Irish and had an American citizenship (plus German naturalization through his work during the war), and as far as I remember he wasn't a British citizen.

I think he was tried for treason, not war crimes.

How can one be tried for treason in a country he or she isn't citizen of? 

Yeah, he was a despicable git of a nazi mouthpiece, but being despicable is hardly ground for being accused of treason.

The Limeys got him on a technicality: http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/william_joyce.htm

The Trial
On 17 September in the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey, before Mr. Justice Tucker and a jury, William Joyce was charged with three counts of High Treason:

1. William Joyce, on the 18 September 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 29 May 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.

2. William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort the King's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.

3. William Joyce, on 18 September 1939 and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.

The trial lasted three days: 17,18 and 19 September 1945. The main arguments in the case concerned whether the defendant had a duty of allegiance to the King. If there was no duty of allegiance, then Joyce could not be found guilty of treason. William Joyce did not deny carrying out the alleged acts, he just denied that he owed any allegiance to the King.

The prosecution accepted that under counts 1 and 2  Joyce did not owe allegiance as he was an American citizen. However, they argued that as he held a British Passport and left the U.K on this passport he had the protection given to passport holders. As protection demands allegiance, Joyce broke this allegiance and committed treason. This point in law was accepted by Mr. Justice Tucker, who ruled that the prosecution's point in law was valid. The judged also directed the jury to find Joyce not guilty of counts 1 and 2.

Following the judge's ruling, the jury was left with the question of whether Joyce had made the broadcasts between the dates of 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 (the period when Joyce's British Passport was valid). They decided that Joyce had made the broadcasts, and they found him guilty of count 3.

As High Treason carried a mandatory capital sentence, the judge sentenced William Joyce to death by hanging.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I always thought that the law was out of order when they executed Lord Haw-Haw for treason.

He provided a lot of entertainment during difficult times and, as an Irish citizen, had no particular loyalties to the UK 

[Neil]

and, as an Irish citizen, had no particular loyalties to the UK 

They should have executed every Irishman in the Republic for treason.

[grumbler]

I always thought that the law was out of order when they executed Lord Haw-Haw for treason.

He provided a lot of entertainment during difficult times and, as an Irish citizen, had no particular loyalties to the UK 

Had he not traveled on a British passport, he would not have been executed.