From the archives: the perils of bringing Gaddafi to trial
David Blackburn 6:02pm
Mustafa Abdel Jalil, the leader of the National Transitional Council, has indicated his hope that Colonel Gaddafi will be tried in Libya. But the far reaching tentacles of
the International Criminal Court may claim Gaddafi from the Libyan people. Judge Richard Goldstone, former chief prosecutor at The Hague, told the BBC World Service earlier this afternoon that
those who capture Gaddafi “will be under an obligation to put him on an airplane and send him to The Hague.” Meanwhile, the internationally renowned human rights lawyer
Philippe Sands was less certain. He told the World Service: “It shouldn't be assumed that anyone is automatically going to The Hague…There are still a range of different
possibilities.”
It is unclear what those different possibilities are, but perhaps one option is to try Gaddafi in Libya. The prospect of trial and retribution at The Hague usually hardens a dictator’s resolve to fight to the bitter end, as Gaddafi is now doing. Christina Lamb warned that it would be so when the ICC declared its intention to arrest Gaddafi at the end of May. Far better, she argued, that dictators, be allowed to retire and spare innocent life from slaughter. The whole piece is worth reading, but here is the key extract:
‘Once, dictators could just step down, and go off to enjoy their ill-gotten wealth in villas in the South of France. But for nine years now, the International Criminal Court has been scouring the planet for people to prosecute. It was intended to deter those in power from committing atrocities, but many argue that it has actually made it harder to end wars by removing a tyrant. For despots who already have blood on their hands — Gaddafi was indicted by the court last week — the threat of prosecution is a reason to fight until the bitter end.’
Of course, a vicious megalomaniac like Gaddafi probably sees a court in Tripoli and a court at The Hague as one and the same.
PS: The picture accompanying this blog shows a sign made of pre-Gaddafi Libyan flag lapel pins. They've been stuck to the front door of the Gaddafi family's house in Hampstead.
Previous
Paul Wolf
August 22nd, 2011 6:52pm Report this commentThey did the same thing in Iraq, after defeating them militarily, put the losing government on trial for war crimes that occured decades ago - in that case, in the Iran Iraq war in the 1980s. Ghadaffi, like Saddam, will get a show trial designed to justify the war and deaths of thousands of people. And Libya, like Iraq, will privatize its oil industry, and the proceeds will go to foriegn companies rather than to the Libyan people. History repeating itself down to the last detail.
Rhoda Klapp
August 22nd, 2011 7:05pm Report this commentPersonally I would not mind if he was shot out of hand. Maybe a few folk in the FCO, BP, the Scottish Parliament and the Labour party are of the same inclination.
Seriously, I wonder what good it does to try them, with the inevitable life sentence as an outcome. Probably more lives would be saved if this kind of dictator was allowed an escape plan, an Amin-style exile. Saves them all fighting to the last man and bullet.
Edward McLaughlin
August 22nd, 2011 7:17pm Report this comment'Judge Richard Goldstone, former chief prosecutor at The Hague, told the BBC World Service earlier this afternoon that those who capture Gaddafi “will be under an obligation to put him on an airplane and send him to The Hague.” '
How about we have mass murderer al Megrahi in the seat next to him?
bojimbo
August 22nd, 2011 7:28pm Report this commentSend him to the Hague and he will get off Scott free due to his Human Rights . And he will also keep the $Bns that belongs to Lybia .
TrevorsDen
August 22nd, 2011 7:33pm Report this comment'Gaddafi family's house in Hampstead.'!! ...Home of all the great thinkers.
toco
August 22nd, 2011 8:48pm Report this commentIt should not be forgotten the roles played by Tony Blair,Gordon Brown,Jack Straw and Mandy in bringing Gadfly in from the cold.They should be truly ashamed as should Red Ed who totally failed to support the Government's initiative to remove Gadfly in order to save countless lives and ongoing torture-could it be that Red Ed was brought up and has lived within spitting distance of Gadfly's London home-perhaps he was only being neighbourly?
anyfool
August 22nd, 2011 10:10pm Report this commentThe prospect of trial and retribution at The Hague usually hardens a dictator’s resolve to fight to the bitter end.
what proof or precedent do you have for this statement.
the Hague has not tried enough former leaders to draw conclusions of this nature
CBK
August 22nd, 2011 11:27pm Report this commentNow, the UN mandate says no Libyan citizen should be harmed. Will you put a rope against Gaddafi's and his sons' necks? Won't it be another breach against the UN mandate?
Richard of Moscow
August 23rd, 2011 12:30am Report this comment"Judge Richard Goldstone, former chief prosecutor at The Hague," ... you mean (as Kennybhoy and NeilC have pointed out to Speccie writers more than once) the laughing stock of the former Yugoslavia, the discredited cretin who - amongst other howlers - indicted a fictional character from a children's book for 'crimes against humanity.'
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/WarCrime/gruban/index.html
The only point of trying any political leader at the Hague is if they are innocent of participating in or ordering serious crimes. Any court with credibility would produce an embarrassing not guilty verdict.
Qathafi is surely guilty of supporting IRA terrorists.
revolution
August 23rd, 2011 2:28am Report this commentLibya, Sudan,Sri Lanka not signed up to the treaty of Rome but the Libya special adviser Tony Blair and his government were.
How many years before Blair faces trial on the war crimes or rendition and torture like Rumsfeld.
joe
August 23rd, 2011 4:21am Report this commentThis might be described as the utilitarian case against international courts and institutions generally.
But there is surely a far more important, and principled, objection to this Court. Why should I, or any other human being, be subject to a jurisdiction and a set of laws, to which I have been denied the right to assent ?
Our laws have to be the creations of the people bound by them. Without democratic legitimacy, they are no longer laws but just the imposition of political, and frequently, of military might.
Institutions like the International Criminal Court do not even seek a democratic mandate, nor can one easily conceive of any process by which they might.
Further, there is the confusion between the agreed laws of a society and "laws" which govern international behaviour. Churchill was set against the Nuremberg trials because he could foresee that in time, the myth would arise that we fought the Germans because they were "criminal" rather than because it was in our national interest to do so.
The imposition of law into areas of national defence may yet mean that a war of national survival will be deemed "unlawful" by a majority at the U N. Which would mean that the only "lawful" course would be abject surrender. Countries such as Israel might very well have been in this position already were it not for the veto power of the U S.
International "law" is quite simply a chimera. The Libyans are perfectly capable of dealing with Gaddafi, given the opportunity, and if they choose to retire him to Switzerland, that should be a matter entirely for them.
cuffleyburgers
August 23rd, 2011 7:44am Report this commentNo I do not believe that he should go to the Hague.
Whatever happned to countries dealing with their own dirty laundry.
This nonsensical idea of pan national "justice" is getting out of hand.
Put him on trial in Benghazi
Axstane
August 23rd, 2011 10:13am Report this commentFirst - catch your hare.
Back to top