News1 min ago
One Year On From Mh17, Is An International Tribunal Appropriate?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/// Ukraine and many in the West have accused pro-Russian separatists of shooting down the plane, saying they may have used a surface-to-air missile supplied by Russia. ///
/// The Netherlands, whose citizens made up the majority of those killed in the July 17, 2014 disaster, is working with Malaysia, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine on setting up an international court to bring prosecutions. ///
Can anyone see a fair and unbiased outcome from this 'international court'?
/// The Netherlands, whose citizens made up the majority of those killed in the July 17, 2014 disaster, is working with Malaysia, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine on setting up an international court to bring prosecutions. ///
Can anyone see a fair and unbiased outcome from this 'international court'?
sandyRoe
/// Would it need the Russians to agree? They seem to have supplied the weapon to the Ukrainian rebels so they're hardly going to put their friends in the dock. ///
As you must be aware that I am not one of your 'Anti-British, Anti-West ABers, but I must ask, where did that evidence come from?
/// Would it need the Russians to agree? They seem to have supplied the weapon to the Ukrainian rebels so they're hardly going to put their friends in the dock. ///
As you must be aware that I am not one of your 'Anti-British, Anti-West ABers, but I must ask, where did that evidence come from?
@ichkeria
Which is the operative word in your question - tribunal or international?
@beso
//
an airline traded safety for profit by flying across a war zone.
//
Several other airlines flew that route but did respond to changed circumstamces either immediately when the conflict broke out or at later stages, as and when Ukranian military transports were shot down. On the day, planes from two other airlines were ahead and behind MH17, on the same airway.
//
The true culprits are the Malaysian airline bosses.
//
The airspace authorities set a minimum cruise ceiling. Airlines met that requirement. There was no time to respond to the sudden arrival of the BUK launcher and we now know its capabilities (FL330 and above). The authorities had neither knowledge nor time to respond, if they had known.
A more inflexible regional ban & re-routing, enforced by the authorities, from the outbreak of the first "trouble", in Ukraine might have prevented the whole thing.
Having said that, there are no crystal balls and excessive recourse to "anticipated dangers", which may not be there, are annoying and timewasting to us all. Diversions and cautious routes burn more fuel, so more expensive airline tickets.
Blame us all, for being such bargain-seeking cheapskates.
Which is the operative word in your question - tribunal or international?
@beso
//
an airline traded safety for profit by flying across a war zone.
//
Several other airlines flew that route but did respond to changed circumstamces either immediately when the conflict broke out or at later stages, as and when Ukranian military transports were shot down. On the day, planes from two other airlines were ahead and behind MH17, on the same airway.
//
The true culprits are the Malaysian airline bosses.
//
The airspace authorities set a minimum cruise ceiling. Airlines met that requirement. There was no time to respond to the sudden arrival of the BUK launcher and we now know its capabilities (FL330 and above). The authorities had neither knowledge nor time to respond, if they had known.
A more inflexible regional ban & re-routing, enforced by the authorities, from the outbreak of the first "trouble", in Ukraine might have prevented the whole thing.
Having said that, there are no crystal balls and excessive recourse to "anticipated dangers", which may not be there, are annoying and timewasting to us all. Diversions and cautious routes burn more fuel, so more expensive airline tickets.
Blame us all, for being such bargain-seeking cheapskates.
sandyRoe
/// Didn't the BBC programme, Newsnight, show footage of motorised rocket launchers in the area that the missile must have been launched from? ///
Doesn't prove that they were the actual ones that committed the heinous crime.
/// Western intelligence sources were quoted as saying that soon after the downing of the plane the same vehicles withdrew into Russia. ///
Perhaps they didn't want to be blamed, which it now seems obvious that they were.
Just look at the negative implementations, if it was actually Eastern Ukraine who shot down the plane?
Having watched the video entitled 'One year on, MH17 evidence against separatists appears overwhelming', did that woman convince you?
/// Didn't the BBC programme, Newsnight, show footage of motorised rocket launchers in the area that the missile must have been launched from? ///
Doesn't prove that they were the actual ones that committed the heinous crime.
/// Western intelligence sources were quoted as saying that soon after the downing of the plane the same vehicles withdrew into Russia. ///
Perhaps they didn't want to be blamed, which it now seems obvious that they were.
Just look at the negative implementations, if it was actually Eastern Ukraine who shot down the plane?
Having watched the video entitled 'One year on, MH17 evidence against separatists appears overwhelming', did that woman convince you?
Why is Britain backing a UN Tribunal when they know perfectly well that Russia will veto any such move?
Last week Britain insisted on a vote on the Srebrenica massacre being classed as genocide, again knowing the Russians would veto it.
Seems like the UK is more interested in cold war politicking than anything constructive.
Last week Britain insisted on a vote on the Srebrenica massacre being classed as genocide, again knowing the Russians would veto it.
Seems like the UK is more interested in cold war politicking than anything constructive.
Malaysia has been calling for a tribunal since 8th July possibly earlier.
http://
The lengthy Dutch investigation should be completed to establish if anybody is accused.
http://
The lengthy Dutch investigation should be completed to establish if anybody is accused.
Yes I agree that a UN sponsored anything is going to be a waste of time as the Russians will veto it as always
On the other hand it does serve to highlight the fact that the Russians are out on a limb here. I don't see anything so very wrong with that. Odd really: they have cooked up several alternative explanations as to what happened and you would think they might like the opportunity to have them properly investigated
There was no 'operative word' in my post by the way
On the other hand it does serve to highlight the fact that the Russians are out on a limb here. I don't see anything so very wrong with that. Odd really: they have cooked up several alternative explanations as to what happened and you would think they might like the opportunity to have them properly investigated
There was no 'operative word' in my post by the way
There is stacks of evidence to back up the claim that the aircraft was shot down by a buk SAM fired from rebel territory
The Netherlands investigation will almost certainly back that up
It might make sense to establish the tribunal now before the report is released to eliminate accusations of bias.
Furthermore it would perhaps you'd think be in Russia's interests to go along with this. They could at the very least act responsibly and distance themselves from the people who actually fired the thing. Most people don't after all believe that the plane was shot down deliberately because it was an airliner It was a tragic error albeit perpetrated by people who effectively are terrorists
But then again the Russian govt would be exposed as sponsors of terrorism I guess so maybe not
The Netherlands investigation will almost certainly back that up
It might make sense to establish the tribunal now before the report is released to eliminate accusations of bias.
Furthermore it would perhaps you'd think be in Russia's interests to go along with this. They could at the very least act responsibly and distance themselves from the people who actually fired the thing. Most people don't after all believe that the plane was shot down deliberately because it was an airliner It was a tragic error albeit perpetrated by people who effectively are terrorists
But then again the Russian govt would be exposed as sponsors of terrorism I guess so maybe not
Something similar has happen before. There were no tribunals, no apologies. Expect similar this time...
// The United States government did not formally apologize to Iran. In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...". As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. //
// The United States government did not formally apologize to Iran. In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...". As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims. //
@Ichkeria
//There was no 'operative word' in my post by the way//
Oh. I was merely trying to establish whether your question was about why a tribunal had to be an international one at all, as if a single-nation tribunal would be inadequate.
From your replies, I get the sense that Russia has such a high opinion of itself that, like America, they will not accept the jurisdiction of some UN or international court, not accept culpability and the best anyone could hope for is the goodwill gesture.
We have no powers of chastisement over them, basically.
It's things like this which help me understand why people want there to be karma, cosmic justice, or the ability to haunt those who killed you and so on.
//There was no 'operative word' in my post by the way//
Oh. I was merely trying to establish whether your question was about why a tribunal had to be an international one at all, as if a single-nation tribunal would be inadequate.
From your replies, I get the sense that Russia has such a high opinion of itself that, like America, they will not accept the jurisdiction of some UN or international court, not accept culpability and the best anyone could hope for is the goodwill gesture.
We have no powers of chastisement over them, basically.
It's things like this which help me understand why people want there to be karma, cosmic justice, or the ability to haunt those who killed you and so on.
I was just asking if the suggested tribunal was appropriate. Personally I think it would be, but I also accept that it will never happen.
The best we can hope for is disclosure of a package of evidence that leaves the world in no doubt that, at the very least, this was a civilian airliner downed by terrorists supplied with weapons by a foreign government.
The best we can hope for is disclosure of a package of evidence that leaves the world in no doubt that, at the very least, this was a civilian airliner downed by terrorists supplied with weapons by a foreign government.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
Film, Media & TV11 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.