Afghan warlord awaits sentencing
An Afghan warlord convicted over a “heinous” campaign of torture and hostage taking in his homeland is due to be sentenced at the Old Bailey. Faryadi Zardad, 42, of Streatham, south London, was found guilty at a retrial on Monday of pursuing a reign of fear at checkpoints between 1991 and 1996.
It is thought to be the first time a foreign national has been convicted in a UK court for crimes committed abroad.
…but not the first time for the EU, as we have recently seen in Spain, where courts have tried to exert jurisdiction over Pinochet (and have successfuly imprisoned others involved in his regime). And in 2003, left-wing groups unsuccessfully tried to bring war crimes charges against Donald Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks in Belgium and Germany.
This is totally insane. First: modern liberal internationalists are too hip to respect the only worthwhile aspects of [old school] international law: sovereignty.
“Mr Zardad was found in England. An international convention and English law allow the trial in England of anyone who has committed torture or hostage-taking, irrespective of where those crimes were committed.”
Sorry, you guys just don’t have legal jurisdiction over what happens outside your borders, no matter how morally righteous you want to be.
Second: the waste of resources boggles the mind.
Police then mounted an investigation, which involved officers making several trips to Afghanistan under armed escort to track down the warlord’s victims.
Great. London has one of the highest crime rates of any Western European capital—but who needs cops on the beat when they could be out combing the Afghanistan wilderness for evidence for what a current resident of Britain may or may not have done in a foreign country!
Third: the morality imbalance here is galling beyond belief. Europe has been infected by the Left-wing virus. They feel that getting the real bad guys like Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein, i.e. stopping crimes against humanity while they’re actually happening is a distant concern to exerting jurisdiction over what has already happened. While Europeans preach “never again,” in truth they only want to get preachy and feel good about the past: Afghan warlords, Chilean thugs, and Bosnian war criminals are no longer issues, so they feel they can now do something. The same goes for their view of North Korea and Sudan, which they will only care about when they’re over.
Personally, I think these twerps need to get their moral compass fixed. If Afghanistan wants to try Zardad, extradite him. If Kissinger is guilty of war crimes, bring it to court in the United States, not Spain or Germany. Same for Pinochet and his ilk. If you want to do some proactive good, give more than two figs about the other human rights abominations taking place now.

An Afghan warlord convicted over a “heinous” campaign of torture and hostage taking in his homeland is due to be sentenced at the Old Bailey. Faryadi Zardad, 42, of Streatham, south London, was found guilty at a retrial on Monday of pursuing a reign of fear at checkpoints between 1991 and 1996.
Comments to this entry
Eddie
July 19, 2005
12:01 pm
I do not know what Zardad was up to in London at the time. I do know that there are several high-profile SOB's that continue to cause troubles for their former victims. Charles Taylor is in Nigeria enjoying the good life while still assisting renegade warlords and militias (and the UN! has accused him of working with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah).
Mladic in the Balkans, who is known to enjoy the support of (and advise and assist) violent organized crime elements in Serbia needs to be arrested.
There are literally thousands of Hutu Power leaders and key players on the loose in Congo, where after slaughtering 800,000 of their countrymen, they set up shop in the Congo and helped fuel a war that has killed perhaps more than 4 MILLION people in the last decade.
These jokers need to be in a courtroom or execution chamber ASAP. Their continued freedom (some of the Hutu Power leaders have been known to visit Europe and the Middle East since the 94 genocide) is a threat to regional stability and the lives of countless people. The same goes for Afghan warlords, Pakistani militants, Indonesian generals, Sudanese intelligence officials and numerous others who are enjoying freedom and prosperity while their victims and their families continue to live in fear or in poverty.
Britain's (Europe) way is definitely not the most appealing option. At this point though, its about the only thing in use. At times I think we should emulate the Israeli hit squad program and start eliminating most of these monsters. Otherwise, they roam free, searing examples of an international community that by and large refused to do something about their crimes when they committed them and refuses to do anything to punish them afterwards.
Nathan
July 19, 2005
12:56 pm
If I recall my international humanitarian law, they actually do. I'm a little hazy on the particulars, but I kind of remember that this only deals with serious crimes against humanity and that parties to whatever UN agreements involved can try someone if his home country (or the country where the crimes took place) shows no intention of bringing the case to trial.
I do think it is pretty silly because it's so politically applied. And therein lies my beef with the International Criminal Court. I can't trust an institution that will be run by people who believe sovereignty is an absolute right when it comes to the behavior of (some) third world dictators but not when it comes to us.
Anonymous Coward
July 19, 2005
3:36 pm
If? What, I thought that's clear - also Rumsy should be put in jail forever for selling those weapons of mass destruction to the dictator he _ironically_ helped to topple afterwards. Also, your president is pressing it hard to be indected for numerous human rights abuses taking place in Cuba. I just wait for him to arrive in Europe, he'll sit next to Milosevic in no-time.
The ICCJ works the way it works, if the US weren't pressing so hard that they don't want *their* nationals put to trial and used all their influence to make this not happen, Rumsfeld and other war criminals would long been impeached. And yes, it doesn't matter where you committed war crimes, there are countries who even judged war criminals without the law forbidding it (see Nuremberg trials, worked then, should work now, to). In that case, it was correct as well and (political and economic) dependence on good relations with the US is the only reason why Bush is still running around. I don't get it - the ppl there impeached the other president Clinton for (not) having sex with an ugly intern, but if this one lies to the ppl about the reasons why to burn another country to the ground, topple its (frankly speaking dictatoric and unjust) regime, but just make a hellhole out of the country and a melting pot for terrorist all over the world, approve for tortoure in his armed forces and take lots other of unilateral decisions - and nothing happens!? Where's the Democrats, no impeachment for anything of this? How come?
By the way, where was the important concept of your so called *soverneignity* in the case of Yugoslavia or Iraq? You loop and change positions just to confirm your idea of what's right and what's not when it suits you.
I can't say that under this circumstances I'm surprised to read that even *representatives* (reps, of course, who else would come up with something completely *insane* as this) in the US think that "nuking religous centres of other cultures ":http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3935487,00.html is a "response" to whatever. Gives a very, very poor impression of the state of democracy and common sense in the US.
Chirol
July 19, 2005
4:34 pm
And second of all, you'll recall it was the UN that intervened in Yugoslavia NOT NOT NOT the US. We just spearheaded it. If you're talking about the US bombing of Serbia much later (99 I think), then we did that without the UN but WITH international support such as Germany who also (surprise surprise) bombed Serbia too.
Curzon: They feel that getting the real bad guys like Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein, i.e. stopping crimes against humanity while they're actually happening is a distant concern to exerting jurisdiction over what has already happened.
If that's not the most perfect summary of what's wrong with Europe then I don't know what is! Preach it friend!
snow
July 20, 2005
2:27 am
Grendel
July 20, 2005
3:43 pm
That Germany participated in the later bombings was - for the German government as well as for the German people - a very big leap forward in taking responsibility on the international stage and hotly debated back then.
Snow, the US acting unilaterally didn't achieve much and raised lots of problems instead - compare international cooperation in regard to Afghanistan and with Iraq. There's a big difference, and the US government actually did notice it...
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Hutu Impotence
April 11, 2006
10:13 am
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » French Judge issues warrant for Rwandan President
November 23, 2006
2:58 am
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Lest I be criticized for being soft on Nazis…
February 18, 2007
9:35 am