Palestinian-American boy, 14, locked up in Israeli military jail

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Then, in your obsessive quest for accuracy, you should have referred to them as "accussed/alleged war criminals"

The Rome Statute is very clear.

2. For the purpose of this statute, 'war crimes' means:

...

(b) (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

Either you'd have to argue that Israel does not in fact transfer its civilian population into the occupied West Bank, or you'd have to argue that there is in fact no occupation.

Good luck with either one.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Ya, the kid is an anchor baby for the parent's retirement. It's just as simple as that.

Unfortunately, the parents decided to NOT remain in the USA, and somehow they had residency status IN the usa.

I don't care about the Palestinian country problems with Israel. I focus solely on the parents' decision to not be in the USA.

Sure, technically, he is an anchor baby, comparative to same technique the chinese use for their retirement plans.

I admire WOM much, and she knows that - so I pray I not spar with her over the COUNTRY issues, as I've no dog in that race, at all.

If his family wanted to live in the USA, they could be here right now. They don't need an "anchor baby" to come here. You're not making any sense.

[erynaught 43]

The Rome Statute is very clear.

Yes, it is. The Rome Statute not only establishes the Court and its jurisdiction, it also defines the various crimes for which it has jurisdiction. The criteria you quote are expressly for the purposes of the Statute.

The Rome Statute does not contain provisions for anyone outside of the Court to label someone a war criminal.

Either you'd have to argue that Israel does not in fact transfer its civilian population into the occupied West Bank, or you'd have to argue that there is in fact no occupation.

Good luck with either one.

I don't have to argue either point. Without a conviction, they remain accused/alleged of war crimes.

Personally, I think there are Israelies who should be arraigned/tried/convicted of war crimes/crimes against humanity. Various entities and individuals within Palestine have previously been accused/tried/convicted and rightfully so.

[erynaught 43]

If his family wanted to live in the USA, they could be here right now. They don't need an "anchor baby" to come here. You're not making any sense.

How do we know that? Perhaps I missed it somewhere earlier, but that would require a valid visa/residency permit. All I know is that they lived in the US at one point in time and their son was born in the US, hence his US citizenship.

The 'anchor baby' concept is very, very common and that is why Darnell's statement makes a lot of sense.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Yes, it is. The Rome Statute not only establishes the Court and its jurisdiction, it also defines the various crimes for which it has jurisdiction. The criteria you quote are expressly for the purposes of the Statute.

The Rome Statute does not contain provisions for anyone outside of the Court to label someone a war criminal.

I don't have to argue either point. Without a conviction, they remain accused/alleged of war crimes.

Personally, I think there are Israelies who should be arraigned/tried/convicted of war crimes/crimes against humanity. Various entities and individuals within Palestine have previously been accused/tried/convicted and rightfully so.

The International Court of Justice has already ruled that Israel's settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory are a grave breach of the 4th Geneva Convention:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6

The 4th Geneva Convention describes such grave breaches as "war crimes."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079

[erynaught 43]

The International Court of Justice has already ruled that Israel's settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory are a grave breach of the 4th Geneva Convention:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6

The 4th Geneva Convention describes such grave breaches as "war crimes."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079

Your reference is to an Advisory Opinion which is NOT a binding legal judgement NOR a conviction of a war crime.

Your 'war criminals' remain alleged/accused war criminals and nothing more. (I do believe the allegations, though.)

Edited April 17, 2013 by erynaught

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Your reference is to an Advisory Opinion which is NOT a binding legal judgement NOR a conviction of a war crime.

Your 'war criminals' remain alleged/accused war criminals and nothing more.

It's clear as per the Geneva Convention that Israel's settlements are war crimes. The ICJ reaffirmed it. These will both be legal precedents that the ICC will cite in making its determination that yes, the settlements are war crimes.

The Israeli government is already preparing its defense for that inevitable day, a defense which seems to hinge on claiming that there actually is no occupation.

Edited April 17, 2013 by wife_of_mahmoud

[erynaught 43]

It's clear as per the Geneva Convention that Israel's settlements are war crimes. The ICJ reaffirmed it. These will both be legal precedents that the ICC will cite in making its determination that yes, the settlements are war crimes.

The settlements are not war crimes.

The establishment of said settlements may be determined to be a war crime, based in part on the advisory opinion issued by the ICJ. Agreed.

Edited April 17, 2013 by erynaught

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The settlements are not war crimes.

The establishment of said settlements may be determined to be a war crime, based in part on the advisory opinion issued by the ICJ. Agreed.

Good luck with that in front of the ICC

[erynaught 43]

It's clear as per the Geneva Convention that Israel's settlements are war crimes. The ICJ reaffirmed it. These will both be legal precedents that the ICC will cite in making its determination that yes, the settlements are war crimes.

The Israeli government is already preparing its defense for that inevitable day, a defense which seems to hinge on claiming that there actually is no occupation.

An Advisory Opinion is not a legal precedent, it would be an advisory precedent. A legal precedent is a rule or principle established in a previous legal case; neither of your citations qualify.

Edited April 17, 2013 by erynaught

[erynaught 43]

Good luck with that in front of the ICC

I have no plans to be in front of the ICC.

An excellent lawyer presenting to ICC would be accurate in their description.

Glad to see your obsession with accuracy doesn't have the concomitant complication of obsessive precision.

Edited April 17, 2013 by erynaught

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

An Advisory Opinion is not a legal precedent, it would be an advisory precedent. A legal precedent is a rule or principle established in a previous legal case; neither of your citations qualify.

The International Court of Justice's advisory opinions are the official determination of whether or not a particular issue is a violation of international law. "Non-binding" does not mean that ICJ rulings have no effect or don't matter or are "just opinions;" it means that it is not the body with the jurisdiction to enforce those findings. Its role is to advise the body that does have the jurisdiction to enforce.

ICJ determinations and the 4th Geneva Convention are certainly legal precedents that the ICC will cite in making its rulings.

Edited April 17, 2013 by wife_of_mahmoud

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Now if I may interrupt to give an update on the topic...

Israeli army court sentences American-Palestinian teenager to 2 weeks prison for rock throwing

JERUSALEM — An Israeli military court sentenced a Palestinian-American teenager on Wednesday to two weeks in prison for throwing rocks at Israeli forces, the military said, in a case that has drawn attention to Israel’s system of military detention of Palestinian minors.

Israel’s military said a juvenile military court convicted 14-year-old Mohammad Khalek for throwing stones, along with other Palestinians, at Israeli security forces on April 2. It said Khalek confessed to the stone throwing and reached a plea bargain for a fine of about $830 and a total of 31 days in jail, including the time he was held awaiting sentencing.

Mahmoud Hassan of the Palestinian prisoner rights group Addameer said Khalek that taking into account the time Khalek already spent in prison, he will likely be released on Sunday.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israeli-army-court-sentences-american-palestinian-teenager-to-2-weeks-prison-for-rock-throwing/2013/04/17/ec3839e8-a769-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_story.html

Seems Israel realized this one was getting too much publicity.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Gotta step out now... have fun

[erynaught 43]

The International Court of Justice's advisory opinions are the official determination of whether or not a particular issue is a violation of international law. "Non-binding" does not mean that ICJ rulings have no effect or don't matter or are "just opinions;" it means that it is not the body with the jurisdiction to enforce those findings. Its role is to advise the body that does have the jurisdiction to enforce.

Correct. Glad to see you're catching up on the process.

ICJ determinations and the 4th Geneva Convention are certainly legal precedents that the ICC will cite in making its rulings.

Incorrect. Rules of jurisprudence define a legal precedent as a rule or principle established in a previous legal case.

The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties/protocols that establish standards for International Law as it relates to humanitarian treatement during war/armed conflict. There is much case law resting on these standards, but the Conventions themselves are not legal precedent.

As noted above, the previously referenced Advisory Opinion is not a legal case therefore cannot be a legal precedent. If the body having jurisdiction to act on the opinion makes a legal ruling, then that could be used as a legal precedent. Otherwise, it remains an advisory precendent which, while not useless, carries much less legal weight.

Edited April 17, 2013 by erynaught