Why here, and also at our expense?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....l-expected-today.html

/// The 64-year-old was found criminally responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity - and is likely to serve his sentence in a high-security British prison, costing taxpayers around $100,000 per year. ///

[Gromit]

Britain is just one of many countries that could be used to detain him. It is not definite that he is coming here.

Sirra Leone is a British Protectorate, which means his crimes happened on our patch.

[anotheoldgit]

Sierra Leone is a republic and is no longer a British protectorate and hasn't been so since 1961.

[Gromit]

You are right AOG.

So because it is an ex British colony then that is why there is a possibility of him being detained here.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

Are you saying that not only are we responsible for all our old colonies, but we are also responsible for all of their criminals?

I will ask my question again:

"Why here, and also at our expense"?

[ludwig]

America's an ex-british colony. I hope we don't have to house any of their criminals.

[Brenden]

A quarter of the world once belonged to us - where are we going to put them all - absolutely ludicrous.

[Gromit]

It is only a possibility he will end up here. No decision has been made.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// It is only a possibility he will end up here. No decision has been made. ///

Taking past experiences into consideration, we can only expect the worst scenario.

[SeaJayPea]

Because the British government proposed, and the Houses of Parliament passed, a law that would allow it to happen. See below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10930834

[pdq1]

Must be something to do with having an English name and being able to speak English. Its always been said that the worlds criminals would come here either for sanctuary or imprisonment but we cannot get rid of those like Qatada or those that don't belong here.

[anotheoldgit]

They were discussing this on the radio this morning, and the radio presenter happened to say to her guest, "this is the first war crimes trial since the Nuremberg Nazi war crimes trials".

Obviously trying to make some point however, the guest said yes and why are they always Africans, why aren't they any Europeans?

I thought excuse me but the presenter had already said that this was the first such trial since Nuremberg, and if I am not mistaken weren't all the Nuremberg criminals European?

What was he trying to say, that we only pick on Africans?

[FredPuli43]

Yes, AOG, maybe the person was saying, in effect, 'we' were only picking on Africans.If they did mean that, it's incorrect as fact but their statement is liable to be misunderstood if they didn't. Why do you think they would mean such a thing?

The last man who would have been jailed here for war crimes, though the trial was in the international court, was white and European, but he died before his trial was completed .

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// Why do you think they would mean such a thing? ///

Who knows Fred, but personally I suspect it is the old chestnut, 'why do they only pick on black people'.

[Zeuhl]

and why are they always Africans, why aren't they any Europeans?

what about Milosevic and the other Serbs?

weren't they europeans?

[anotheoldgit]

Zeuhl

Yes I also thought that, but according to the person on the radio this was only head of state convicted by an international tribunal since Karl Doenitz, a naval officer who briefly led Germany after Adolf Hitler's suicide, and who faced justice at Nuremberg.

/// Ex-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was tried at the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal for fomenting the Balkan wars of the 1990s. But he suffered a fatal heart attack in his cell before the case reached a conclusion. ///

[Zeuhl]

That seems like a slim technicality to base a 'they only pick on africans' case doesn't it?

I think one could do better with a 'they only pick on little guys and the big boys get away with it' argument.

e.g. US supplying weapons and training for south american death squads or the 'saddam atrocities' committed with chemical weapons and good-will from Mr Rumsfeld

[Zeuhl]

Or (to be fair) similar charges against Russian and Chinese leaders

[anotheoldgit]

Yes I can see where you are coming from, saddam did get his comeuppance and so did Gaddafi, but what particular heinous crimes against humanity have the leaders of the Russians or the Chinese recently committed?

[Zeuhl]

Well Taylor was convicted of supplying weapons etc to militias committing atrocities.

I was thinking that is probably a charge that could be levelled at any of the 'superpowers'.