Letters to Globe re editorials Nov 12, 2011

1. No Consequences, no Justice

The case of Singh Saran indicates that our judges are two lax on sentencing. They seem to follow the current elitist philosophy that everyone is nice and it is better and easier not to punish wrongdoers. Unfortunately this philosophy has also leaked into our whole judicial system where we rarely punish cultural or religious wrongdoers who practice anything from polygamy to female circumcision. Even honour killings, although punished, seem to be prosecuted with some sympathy for the wrongdoers. Prime Minister Harper's attempt to stop some of the damage by having minimum sentences is a start. It would be better to change the lax culture of our legal system but that seems like a difficult if not impossible task.

2. Nukes on Notice

Despite dire predictions of enormous negative consequences, Israel has successfully destroyed nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria with only positive consequences. Similarly the U.S. has successfully attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, despite warnings of dire losses. The immediate attacks were both very successful although the long-term results remain to be determined.There is no indication that an attack on Iran now will have anything but positive consequences.There are always worries and worryworts, but the consequences of doing nothing and appeasementhave always been negative and should be avoided at all costs.

Letter to National Post - Online -Oct 16th

Wkipedia defines war crimes as follows
War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"
Nurenberg principle – planing, preparing, initiating or aging a war of aggression.
It also refers to the definitions in the Geneva and Hague Conventions There are obviously many definitions. Israel does not fit into any of them except perhaps the ill-treatment of civilians but the definition doesn't deal with the case of a war where civilians are being used as shields and participants by their own combatants.
However under the Nurenberg prnciples the leaders of Hamas, Fatah, and people like Ahmadinejad are clearly guilty of war crimes for "preparing and planning" war. These are the important war crimes criminals. They are the ones that should be tried at the Hague.
Lastly there must be a distinction between those that are defending themselves from a war started by others and those that commenced the war. The bar on what is a war crime should be much lower for the defender of a nation than for the aggressive attacking nation.