.
The German constitution outlaws warmongering and requires that it shall be punished (article 26). The respective laws are §80(a) in the criminal code and §13 in the Code of crimes against international law.
It's obvious what's missing by now: We need to illegalise
- support for ongoing war of aggression
- support for the country that commits a war of aggression (including any kind of trading)
- as well as HARSHLY punish (which in Germany means 15 years prison time) those who take money from a country that's waging a war of aggression or from their agents/intermediaries
The burden of proof needs to be set to an achievable level.
The punishment for individuals should be set to "lebenslänglich" (de facto 15 years), explicitly with no chance of parole. The punishment for corporations should be set to an extremely painful level (such as equivalent to profits of past 10 years or 50% of last year's turnover or average yearly turnover during last 10 years - whatever is the highest), preferably to be paid by seizing all profits, voiding all top and involved managers' bonuses and 'golden parachutes' and limiting manager pay until the punitive payment has been completed. The corporate punishment should also apply to political parties if their politician commits the offence in office (revenue instead of turnover then).
To support a war of aggression such as the Russian one against Ukraine or the American-British aggression against Iraq or the American aggression against Panama or the American aggression against Grenada or the Iraqi aggression against Iran should become UNTHINKABLE, well outside the political, business and even pub talk repertoire. A total no-go area. Even such a thing as Schröder's support to the American aggression against Iraq behind the scenes would send people to jail.
And most importantly; the politically NOT independent federal top prosecutor must be prohibited from seizing the indictments (to then let them fail). We should even bypass the ordinary state attorneys; people form outside the legal system ought to be able to launch an indictment against warmongers and their supporters!
S O
.
If such a law is passed, it will punish Israel acting in self-defense and never mess with the Americans. You aren't flexible enough to be given much authority to make decisions in this world and your suggestions show this. Such a law is an invitation for misuse.
ReplyDeleteDifficult to claim self-defense when it has been imposing a naval blockade on the Gaza strip for more than two decades, let alone the occupation of the west bank for even longer against international treaties. Frankly, if you consider any sort of boycott/lack of aid/support to aggressor nations to be going too far, then you simply aren't for any peaceful international order or law, as you are against even the most basic effective enforcement mechanism.
DeleteIt has already messed with Americans. France and Germany did not participate in Iraq.
DeleteAh, and about Israel. It's not a democracy Netanyahu has been in charge since 1996. That's longer than Erdogan, Lukashenko or Putin. It's not free it has as many jailed journalists as Iran (now do per capita). It sponsors terrorism and false flags, look up Lavon Affair, USS Liberty and FLLF. It has zero respect for Jewish lives, look up Hannibal Directive, USS Patria and John Gunther Dean. Hopefully this makes Israeli shills zip it forever. Sven, if you're reading this please spread the word.
There are two things about this proposal, that IMHO need further explanation:
ReplyDelete1. How do we define "support for ongoing war of aggression"?
Showing understanding for the aggressor? Justifying the war of aggression? Whataboutism? Spreading lies about the conflict? Asking for negotiations that would give the aggressor what he wants?
2. Who should be the people outside of the legal system that can launch an indictment against the warmongers?
Under which conditions could these people -possibly without any legal education nor experience- lead the indictment?
The courts decide, but legislators can write their intended interpretation into the law's preamble.
DeleteIMO to go into a TV show and argue in favour of the aggressor is worth 15 years prison. To aid a murder is worth 3...15 years today, war of aggression is murder times thousands to millions. 15 years ONLY is being nice to the perpetrator.
Same with a newspaper article doing the same. It wouldn't happen often, of course. You can't legally do the same with Nazi contents nowadays, either.
More difficult is to draw the line at legislator actions. Trade policy that helps the aggressor country politically, for example. I suppose a renewed Nordstream2 would qualify (including all politicians and companies and employees who would do something for it). The politcians would de facto go to jail after leaving parliament (or losing the majority) only, though.
We have the "Verbandsklagerecht" in Germany, which gives NGOs the right to sue in cases where they're not suffering. Lawsuits in favour of environmental protection, for example.
I suppose a NGO with sufficient lawyer services available should be able to indict. The restrictions should serve only the purpose of preventing that a guilty defendant escapes because the prosecution was too incompetent.
We do not need to guard against fraudulent indictments here because the courts only accept cases where they think a guilty verdict is 50+% likely.
would you back date this to include Turkey invasion and occupation
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't quite a war, but yes, support for it should be illegal. This includes any votes in the EU that aid specifically Turkey or mostly Turkey.
DeletePersonally, I wonder why the Turks don't simply have a referendum there. The Turkish-speaking North Cypriots should outnumber the Greek-speaking Northcypriot diaspora easily by now. It would take ten years of efforts to boost the local economy & infrastructure and then they could safely have a referendum and annex it legally.
The Annan plan referendum 2004 had a 2/3 majority in the North, so I maybe the North doesn't want to be Turkish due to neglect.