COPS! Of Dubai:
QuoteDubai: Israeli premier faces arrest
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.aljazeera.net%2Fmritems%2FImages%2F%2F2010%2F2%2F18%2F2010218155142279580_5.jpg&hash=dab893f85aef731ee68e49a3c8ed4f016d485a37)
Tamim said he was 'almost certain' Israeli agents plotted the murder of al-Mabhouh [File: Reuters]
The head of the Dubai police is planning to seek the arrest of the prime minister of Israel and the head of the country's secret service, Mossad, over the killing of a Hamas leader.
Dhahi Khalfan Tamim told Al Jazeera he would ask the Dubai prosecutor to issue arrest warrants for Binyamin Netanyahu and Meir Dagan this week.
Tamim said he was "almost certain" Israeli agents were involved in the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a Hamas commander, at a Dubai hotel in January.
Israel has has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in al-Mabhouh's murder.
The police chief said Mossad had "insulted" Dubai and Western countries whose fraudulent passports were used by suspects in the assassination.
Investigation expanding
And a UAE newspaper reported that Dubai had also asked the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to look into prepaid credit cardsissued by the Meta Financial Group's MetaBank which the suspects used.
Citing an FBI source, The National newspaper said the investigation would look into any Israeli involvement in the killing.
Quoting Dubai police, the newspaper said: "Thirteen of the 27 suspects used prepaid MasterCards issued by MetaBank, a regional American bank, to purchase plane tickets and book hotel rooms."
MetaBank said it followed proper procedures when it issued the cards.
Authorities told the bank that the suspects appeared to have used stolen passports to get employment with US companies, MetaBank said in a statement on Tuesday.
Dubai police have published details of 26 suspects together with passport photographs, and claim to have DNA evidence of the identity of at least one of the killers.
As a consequence of the assassination, UAE officials say they will prevent Israeli citizens travelling on foreign passports from entering the country.
Dubai police last Sunday issued a statement saying the "killers used the drug succinylcholine to sedate al-Mabhouh before they suffocated him" and that "assassins used this method so that it would seem that his death was natural".
Al-Mabhouh's killing has led investigators to Britain, Ireland, Australia and Germany - countries whose passports the assassins allegedly used.
Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do?
What you gonna do when they come for you?
And who will put any Head of Government in service under arrest, exactly? :rolleyes:
Might be disgusting to bleeding hearts, but even nowadays Raison d'État still applies. Next time, don't send agents; send bombers. And if Dubai agents dare to enter Israel to try to apply this farce, have them hanged as enemy agents and send back their corpses as a warning. That's the only language they get.
And oddly enough, I don't see him ask for the arrest of the heads of both Hezbollah and Hamas for ordering the murder of Israeli civilians throughout rockets and suicide bombings.
Derka derka
Hilarious. :D
I guess they'll have to cancel their plans to get stuck in Burj Dubai elevators
Quote from: Drakken on March 04, 2010, 10:53:42 AM
And who will put any Head of Government in service under arrest, exactly? :rolleyes:
I thought in a case like that, with one country wanting the arrest of another's head of state, that the ICC had to issue the warrant. :unsure:
I'm baffled, does this mean that if Netanyahu actually arrived in Dubai the police would fight of the mob for the right to kill/arrest him?
Quote from: Drakken on March 04, 2010, 10:53:42 AM
And oddly enough, I don't see him ask for the arrest of the heads of both Hezbollah and Hamas for ordering the murder of Israeli civilians throughout rockets and suicide bombings.
I haven't heard about these Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against Israeli citizens
in Dubai.
I know they must have happened in Dubai, because not even you would whine about Dubai failing to try to arrest people for crimes not within the jurisdiction of Dubai.
Quote from: Malthus on March 04, 2010, 11:01:34 AM
Hilarious. :D
yeah, but pretty much inevitable. This is the only way the mouse can roar, and it takes some of the pressure off the financial news in Dubai.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 04, 2010, 12:16:38 PM
Quote from: Drakken on March 04, 2010, 10:53:42 AM
And who will put any Head of Government in service under arrest, exactly? :rolleyes:
I thought in a case like that, with one country wanting the arrest of another's head of state, that the ICC had to issue the warrant. :unsure:
And he or she will accept peacefully to be arrested? After all, to capture the head of government, you need to fend of his secret service bodyguards - whose job is to protect the integrity of their boss with their lives.
And it is tantamount to a declaration of war, anyway. He basically states "we will use any power at our disposition to grab your freely democratically-elected leader, have it captured and thrown in jail for taking a morally reprehensible decision, yet reasonably limited in scope, to defend your country's interest and survival".
And for what crime? Murder? So now espionage and csecret services are now banned from working clandestinely? What do you think UAE, or any Islamic country for that matter, don't have agents who commit murder as part of their job?
And the guy is not exacly without conflict of interest. He is a Muslim in the United Arab Emirate, and by default anti-sionist and anti-Israel.
And it is a ludicrous concept anyway for its far-reaching implications for diplomacy. After all, Heads of Governments derive the same privileges of immunity as their ambassadors from the Fountainhead, i.e the Head of State. They are the boss of their country's ambassadors and diplomat corps, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he or she chooses.
So if Heads of Government are not immune from prosecution for taking decisions which enter the doctrine of
Raison d'État (and eliminating terrorists and enemies of the State certainly enter that one, by default), it directly attacks the diplomatic immunity of any official government agent or diplomat for whatever reason the host country might deem to be an offense.
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
I haven't heard about these Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against Israeli citizens in Dubai.
I've certainly heard of Hamas and Hezbollah committing attacks against Israeli citizens in Israel, though. And certainly with explicit orders coming from the top.
Quote from: Drakken on March 04, 2010, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
I haven't heard about these Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against Israeli citizens in Dubai.
I've certainly heard of Hamas and Hezbollah committing attacks against Israeli citizens in Israel, though. And certainly with explicit orders coming from the top.
Why would Dubai call for their arrest though?
The reaction from Dubai while outrageous in that it is unrealistic and unlikely to ever happen, is not completely unreasonable. The US would not take kindly to Israeli hit squads killing someone in Los Angeles either.
To be honest Drakken, your entire argument seems to be quite weightless. There must be respect for international law. I will not argue that Israel should be prosecuted for what it did in Dubai, but it is quite clear the heads of state do not enjoy diplomatic immunity.
Or have you not been paying attention to world history? Certainly many men were pursuing what they thought were their best national interests and found themselves on the courtroom or standing on the gallows..
Quote from: Drakken on March 04, 2010, 10:53:42 AM
And who will put any Head of Government in service under arrest, exactly? :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.sohh.com%2Fnyc%2FNoriega_mug.jpg&hash=3ec5f90444e021d9f59656c842a45e82929f6eb8)
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 12:52:24 PM
To be honest Drakken, your entire argument seems to be quite weightless. There must be respect for international law. I will not argue that Israel should be prosecuted for what it did in Dubai, but it is quite clear the heads of state do not enjoy diplomatic immunity.
Or have you not been paying attention to world history? Certainly many men were pursuing what they thought were their best national interests and found themselves on the courtroom or standing on the gallows..
Respect for international law? It wasn't a war crime or a crime against humanity, it was the eliminination of individuals who are, by their own works, committing acts both against international law (the murder of civilians, which are protected by a gazillion treaties and international law) and committing aggression against a sovereign state, which is stated in black and white in the UN charter as ground for use of force.
And no one will argue that the act wasn't limited in scope and proportional to the danger. It's not like the Israelis bombed a whole skyscraper and leveled it to the ground to eliminate only one enemy agent.
I have no problem with the prosecution of the Israeli agents, there are precedents (the French bombing of the
Rainbow Warrior in Auckland, for example). But the Head of Government? The ministers? Come on... :bleeding:
After their mandate is over - yeah sure why not when they become private citizens again. During their mandate, no. They have immunity while they reign and rule, period.
And yeah, Noriega is the exception rather than the rule, but Panama had to actually be invaded and his rule toppled before arrest. That dude is talking about actually sending policemen cuff the Israeli PM in any country he might walk in.
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2010, 12:29:15 PMThis is the only way the mouse can roar
I thought that was by declaring war on the US. :cool:
Quote from: Viking on March 04, 2010, 12:19:21 PM
I'm baffled, does this mean that if Netanyahu actually arrived in Dubai the police would fight of the mob for the right to kill/arrest him?
It's a moot point. I don't think Israeli citizens are allowed in Dubai.
Now I'm quite sympathetic to Israel in this affair even if I do think killing someone on foreign soil is a bad thing(tm). But:
Quote
And it is tantamount to a declaration of war, anyway. He basically states "we will use any power at our disposition to grab your freely democratically-elected leader, have it captured and thrown in jail for taking a morally reprehensible decision, yet reasonably limited in scope, to defend your country's interest and survival".
Not really. Indictments against Mladic and Karadzic did not amount to declarations of war, unless you want to argue that the EU and USA have been in a state of armed conflict with Republika Srpska since 1995? Good luck with that one.
QuoteAnd for what crime? Murder? So now espionage and csecret services are now banned from working clandestinely?
Yes. Yes they are. The game is tolerated, but if you're busted you're out. I'm surprised you even think otherwise.
QuoteWhat do you think UAE, or any Islamic country for that matter, don't have agents who commit murder as part of their job?
What a fantastically irrelevant statement divorced from any legal or diplomatic principle.
QuoteAnd the guy is not exacly without conflict of interest. He is a Muslim in the United Arab Emirate, and by default anti-sionist and anti-Israel.
Actually you'd be surprised.
QuoteAnd it is a ludicrous concept anyway for its far-reaching implications for diplomacy. After all, Heads of Governments derive the same privileges of immunity as their ambassadors from the Fountainhead, i.e the Head of State. They are the boss of their country's ambassadors and diplomat corps, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he or she chooses.
You are quite wrong on this.
Diplomats derive their "immunity" from the host nation respecting the Vienna Conventions. And they are just that: conventions. There is nothing binding about them. Further, it is the role of the host government to accredit individuals with diplomatic status. This is why, for example, who gets diplomatic status varies from state to state; in Israel, British Council staff (separate to the Embassy and Consulate) get diplomatic status. They do not in Indonesia. Likewise, staff of international organisations can be awarded diplomatic status. Or not. Depends on what the
host government decides is appropriate respect for what is essentially a gentleman's agreement between states.
In short, the host state, through its law-making processes, decides who is "immune" or not.
QuoteSo if Heads of Government are not immune from prosecution for taking decisions which enter the doctrine of Raison d'État (and eliminating terrorists and enemies of the State certainly enter that one, by default), it directly attacks the diplomatic immunity of any official government agent or diplomat for whatever reason the host country might deem to be an offense.
Yes. Yes it does. And that is how it should be.
Of course, I would bet my savings that if this thread was actually about the UK issuing an arrest warrant for Putin after the emergence of hard evidence that he signed Litvinenko's assassination order, you'd be banging the drum on the other side. :lol:
Quote from: Drakken on March 04, 2010, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 04, 2010, 12:28:07 PM
I haven't heard about these Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against Israeli citizens in Dubai.
I've certainly heard of Hamas and Hezbollah committing attacks against Israeli citizens in Israel, though. And certainly with explicit orders coming from the top.
What does that have to do with Dubai? You were whining that the po-po in Dubai weren't issuing warrants for the arrest of Ham and Hez leaders. They wouldn't do so for crimes committed in Israel because
they lack jurisdiction.
I would have thought that rather obvious.
Quote from: Drakken on March 04, 2010, 01:03:09 PM
That dude is talking about actually sending policemen cuff the Israeli PM in any country he might walk in.
Link?
Greatest Generation, indeed. :cool:
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2010, 02:12:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 04, 2010, 12:19:21 PM
I'm baffled, does this mean that if Netanyahu actually arrived in Dubai the police would fight of the mob for the right to kill/arrest him?
It's a moot point. I don't think Israeli citizens are allowed in Dubai.
Dual citizenship :contract: I believe all the "mossad agents" had dual israeli citizenship
Quote from: Warspite on March 04, 2010, 02:57:30 PM
Not really. Indictments against Mladic and Karadzic did not amount to declarations of war, unless you want to argue that the EU and USA have been in a state of armed conflict with Republika Srpska since 1995? Good luck with that one.
`
Out of power and hiding, doesn't count. Even Milosevic was served his warrant after he was ousted of power.
What part of "HoG in exercise" is hard to understand, really?
QuoteYes. Yes they are. The game is tolerated, but if you're busted you're out. I'm surprised you even think otherwise.
Like I said, I don't oppose the agents' prosecution. Put the warrant on their heads, then. On a State's leader in service, however, is total nonsense.
Quote
What a fantastically irrelevant statement divorced from any legal or diplomatic principle.
No. As Israel is not the only power with assassination stooges on their payroll. Some of them Islamic countries who kill Israeli citizens in the streets and in cafés.
Why single out Tel Aviv? Why not send warrants in Washington, Moscow, London, Paris, etc.? Was a warrant served to François Mitterand when the DGSE sunk the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland in 1985? And it is known he actually gave the go-ahead personally. :wacko:
Quote
Actually you'd be surprised.
Point taken. Color me Saint Thomas, then, I'll believe it when I see it coming from an autocratic Islamic oil-igarchy.
Quote
You are quite wrong on this.
Diplomats derive their "immunity" from the host nation respecting the Vienna Conventions. And they are just that: conventions. There is nothing binding about them. Further, it is the role of the host government to accredit individuals with diplomatic status. This is why, for example, who gets diplomatic status varies from state to state; in Israel, British Council staff (separate to the Embassy and Consulate) get diplomatic status. They do not in Indonesia. Likewise, staff of international organisations can be awarded diplomatic status. Or not. Depends on what the host government decides is appropriate respect for what is essentially a gentleman's agreement between states.
In short, the host state, through its law-making processes, decides who is "immune" or not.
If it is not binding, then, why diplomats are routinely shielded from prosecution when commiting felonies in host countries and recalled back to the mother country instead, rather than their status simply ignored and the diplomat arrested?
Because it is not a mere convention to be ignored at a whim. It is enshrined in international law, it is the basic diplomacy ruleset. Countries who don't respect these conventions and who refuse to abide by their rules will be put to the ban of the international community as a rogue state. It is a basic convention that allows international politics to be conducted in an organized, peaceful fashion even when total war is raging.
And we are not talking about some Hitler or Pol Pot ordering genocide here. The action was limited and justifiable for self-defense.
If leaders of countries begin to be sent arrests warrants left and right for taking decisions that, while morally discutable, are certainly viable to help the survival of a threatened, dogged country like Israel, what's stopping, say, Iran for serving an arrest warrant on Barack Obama for sinking down Iranian coast-guard seedoos in their national waters in the Persian Gulf? After all, under command responsability, as C-in-C of the American Armed Forces the President is liable for decision taken under his command, no?
Or is it, rather, because as Israel is an acceptable target of deridation, serving an arrest warrant on the Israeli PM rubs both people who hate Israel and those who believe any action outside signing treaties and demining fields should be outright banned as crime against humanity in a good way, enough at least to make such a porpostruous idea suddenly acceptable because it targets Israel and not some gonzo country like North Korea?
Quote
Of course, I would bet my savings that if this thread was actually about the UK issuing an arrest warrant for Putin after the emergence of hard evidence that he signed Litvinenko's assassination order, you'd be banging the drum on the other side. :lol:
Nope, not really. You owe me your savings. The analogy is worthless, because Livinenko was murdered because he was PITA for Putin, not a threat to national security. And I am still waiting for the UK to emit this warrant, which they won't because they very well know that this idea is beyond stupid and nonesensical.
The analogy I used for the Rainbow Warrior is much more comparable, and as we know, David Lange never went as far as to ask the arrestation of the French President of the Republic.
As a Realist, I believe in
Raison d'État. The ends justifies the means if the end is moral in itself, and protecting one's citizens directly from lethal aggression certainly is moral in my eyes.
I predict that within the next three posts or so, you will invoke the "Jack Bauer paradox". :lol:
And by moral, I mean not the petty morality invoked to serve an agenda like that Dubai dude, coming from a country which doesn't even know the meaning of "rule of law", but know the meaning of "arbitrary rule". But for Islamics, any dubious move to blast the Israelis while appealing to the bleeding hearts in the West's hatred of Israel is a good PR move.
Quote from: Warspite on March 04, 2010, 02:57:30 PM
Not really. Indictments against Mladic and Karadzic did not amount to declarations of war, unless you want to argue that the EU and USA have been in a state of armed conflict with Republika Srpska since 1995? Good luck with that one.
Well, they were bombing the shit out of them.
When is a war not a war?
:hmm:
Isn't it moral for Dubai to seek an end of attacks on individuals on their soil without their knowledge or consent? It seems their method of attack is to not only go for the puppets but the puppeteer as well. PR stunt as it may be, I see their cause as no less justified or righteous as that of the Israelis.
Quote from: Jaron on March 04, 2010, 03:36:54 PM
Isn't it moral for Dubai to seek an end of attacks on individuals on their soil without their knowledge or consent? It seems their method of attack is to not only go for the puppets but the puppeteer as well. PR stunt as it may be, I see their cause as no less justified or righteous as that of the Israelis.
It is proper for Dubai to wish to control their territory. However, because the actions of the Israeli PM were taken in his capacity as head of government, criminal charges are incorrect and laughable. Dubai can retaliate against Israel, but it is improper to attempt retaliation against individual Israeli politicians, unless Dubai defeats Israel militarily.
Quote from: Drakken on March 04, 2010, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Warspite on March 04, 2010, 02:57:30 PM
Not really. Indictments against Mladic and Karadzic did not amount to declarations of war, unless you want to argue that the EU and USA have been in a state of armed conflict with Republika Srpska since 1995? Good luck with that one.
`
Out of power and hiding, doesn't count.
What part of "HoG in exercise" is hard to understand, really?
Milosevic was indicted while sitting. So has Omar Al-Bashir.
Oh and by the way, Karadzic was indicted while still serving as leader of Republika Srpska -
after the Dayton Peace Accords. ;)
QuoteLike I said, I don't oppose the agents' prosecution. Put the warrant on their heads, then. On a State's leader in service, however, is total nonsense.
Not really. The precedent that orders can be prosecuted has been around for some time. ;) It's the principle what many genocide trials are based on.
QuoteWhy single out Tel Aviv? Why not send warrants in Washington, Moscow, London, Paris, etc.? Was a warrant served to François Mitterand when the DGSE sunk the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland in 1984? And it is known he actually gave the go-ahead personally. :wacko:
If the Kiwis wanted to do that, then I wouldn't criticise them for it aside from the fact that it wouldn't be worth it. I certainly wouldn't hold them in violation of any sacrosanct principle of domestic or international law. But they wouldn't because they have no need of gesture politics.
Quote
Point taken. Color me Saint Thomas, then, I'll believe it when I see it coming from an autocratic Islamic oil-igarchy.
Not every Gulf leader wants Israel wiped off the map, I'll leave it at that.
QuoteIf it is not binding, then, why diplomats are routinely shielded from prosecution when commiting felonies in host countries and recalled back to the mother country instead, rather than their status simply ignored and the diplomat arrested?
Plenty of times a diplomatic immunity is waived. And nothing is stopping arrest by the host nation. Believe me, if an Albanian diplomat commited treble homicide in New York, there is nothing Tirana can do to stop his arrest and trial by Americans.
QuoteBecause it is not a mere convention to be ignored at a whim. It is enshrined in international law, it is the basic diplomacy ruleset.
This is international law:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomagallerysf.com%2Fwork%2FKarlHaendel%2Fp7ssm_img_1%2Ffullsize%2FRippedPaper_fs_fs.jpg&hash=13964d722f69e813858ed1c80bcf5f1b72577e31)
It's a piece of paper.
QuoteCountries who don't respect these conventions and who refuse to abide by their rules will be put to the ban of the international community as a rogue state. It is a basic convention that allows international politics to be conducted in an organized, peaceful fashion even when total war is raging.
And we are not talking about some Hitler or Pol Pot ordering genocide here. The action was limited and justifiable for self-defense.
Thank you for accepting my point about the viobility of international convention. I'm sure Dubai will be positively reeling from this warrant.
QuoteIf leaders of countries begin to be sent arrests warrants left and right for taking decisions that, while morally discutable, are certainly viable to help the survival of a threatened, dogged country like Israel, what's stopping, say, Iran for serving an arrest warrant on Barack Obama for sinking down Iranian coast-guard seedoos in the Persian Gulf? After all, under command responsability, as C-in-C of the American Armed Forces the President is liable for decision taken under his command, no?
Nothing at all is stopping them except their own national calculations.
QuoteOr is it, rather, because as Israel is an acceptable target of deridation, serving an arrest warrant on the Israeli PM rubs people who hate Israel in a good way, enough at least to make such a porpostruous idea acceptable because it targets Israel?
Shock horror, governments will play gesture politics in diplomacy. This is truly a unique precedent.
Quote
Nope, not really. You owe me your savings. The analogy is worthless, because Livinenko was murdered because he was PITA for Putin, not a threat to national security.
So what? He was still murdered by agents of a foreign power outside of their own jurisdiction. Can you find me the statute in the UK that says we allow anyone to be bumped off in our territory? (excepting that they are an immediate threat to life, that is)
QuoteThe analogy I used for the Rainbow Warrior is much more comparable, and as we know, David Lange never went as far as to ask the arrestation of the French President of the Republic.
The Rainbow Warrior is now equivalent to a terrorist gun runner? You're reaching. I very much doubt a bunch of dreadlocked hippies were in any way a threat to French independent nuclear deterrent. They were the most minor of pains in the ass, and a bunch of well-meaning idealists to boot.
QuoteAs a Realist, I believe in Raison d'État. The ends justifies the means if the end is moral in itself, and protecting one's citizens directly from lethal aggression certainly is moral in my eyes.
And by moral, I mean not the petty morality invoked to serve an agenda like that Dubai dude, coming from a country which doesn't even know the meaning of "rule of law", but know the meaning of "arbitrary rule". But for Islamics, any dubious move to blast the Israelis while appealing to the bleeding hearts in the West's hatred of Israel is a good PR move.
Realists don't base 80% of their argument on diplomatic convention :lol:
Quote from: Warspite on March 04, 2010, 02:57:30 PM
Milosevic was indicted while sitting. So has Omar Al-Bashir.
Oh and by the way, Karadzic was indicted while still serving as leader of Republika Srpska - after the Dayton Peace Accords.
Then I was factually wrong on this one, there are cases.
I won't move the goalpost. It is only fair that I concede this point to you.
Quote
The Rainbow Warrior is now equivalent to a terrorist gun runner? You're reaching. I very much doubt a bunch of dreadlocked hippies were in any way a threat to French independent nuclear deterrent. They were the most minor of pains in the ass, and a bunch of well-meaning idealists to boot.
Well, didn't a bomb explode in an Auckland port? Wasn't a Greenpeace militant killed in the explosion, and Neo Zeelanders wounded?
They weren't a mere PITA in French Polynesia, the French were testing nuclear bombs there and they were bad publicity worldwide in a growing world of anti-nuclear consciousness.
They were enough of a nuisance for France's prestige, at least, to be deemed a threat to French's interests, and Mitterand approved the plan to have it bump off the face of the planet, in a port of an allied nation no less.
Quote
Realists don't base 80% of their argument on diplomatic convention :lol:
I do it here, because this attacks the security of leadership in countries when morally-disputable decisions ought to be taken, and it will be taken seriously enough by hippies, anti-Israel folks, and pacifist bleeding hearts to make mileage on it and expand this idea further at the expense of immunity in matters of national security. And use of diplomatic conventions is to shield leaders by putting, well, emissaries.
And besides, most Realists recognize that international dynamics are played via international diplomacy, which has its own set of rules respected for the sake of all parties. Even Morgenthau recognized it (implicitely) - even if it was reduced to posturing and playing Prestige politics.
And Realists would argue, like me, that HoGs are shielded from judicial prosecutions for crimes committed under Raison D'État unless the aims are grossly criminal, and that any judiciarisation (thus introduction of a value weight to the validity or not of a policy-making decision) of decisions which can argued as fair in method, but questionable in moral, with any other use than posturing and playing gesture politics is laughable.
On that, finally, we are in agreement.
Quote from: Drakken on March 04, 2010, 03:33:00 PM
If leaders of countries begin to be sent arrests warrants left and right for taking decisions that, while morally discutable, are certainly viable to help the survival of a threatened, dogged country like Israel, what's stopping, say, Iran for serving an arrest warrant on Barack Obama for sinking down Iranian coast-guard seedoos in their national waters in the Persian Gulf? After all, under command responsability, as C-in-C of the American Armed Forces the President is liable for decision taken under his command, no?
I kinda wonder whether, when you hit the send button after assembling a line of blather like this, you actually think you are making a point. You should learn, first of all, to eschew obfuscation. Second, you should learn to use active voice except where not possible. Third, you should make your examples meaningful. Barack Obama has sunk no "Iranian Coast Guard Seedoos." For that matter, neither has the US Navy under his term (nor, I believe, in any term).
Quote from: DGuller on March 04, 2010, 02:12:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 04, 2010, 12:19:21 PM
I'm baffled, does this mean that if Netanyahu actually arrived in Dubai the police would fight of the mob for the right to kill/arrest him?
It's a moot point. I don't think Israeli citizens are allowed in Dubai.
Johns Hopkins Medicine has a lot of big and expensive cooperative projects in Dubai and Abu Dhabi; they're sending people over all the time--project managers, physicians, technicians, faculty. The Jewish ones, however, have been politely asked to stay home. By both parties.
Doesn't stop the Derka Derkas from coming here, though.