Post by Fred J. McCall Post by Jonathan Post by Fred J. McCall Post by Jonathan Post by Fred J. McCall Post by Jonathan Post by Fred J. McCall Post by Jonathan Post by Kerryn Offord Post by Jonathan Post by Byker
Ergodan is launching a major operation with the
anti-Assad Free Syrian army to take Idlib and
it's province from Islamic radicals, and this
is with the blessing of Putin.
Sooner or later Putin will be charged with the MH17
his troops shot down over Ukraine. Maybe one day
they'll both be able to chat between their
side by side jail cells~
Unless they can find evidence that Putin personally ordered the "rebels"
to fire upon a civilian airliner, then nothing is going to happen..
That's total bullshit. If I were to hand some criminal
a sawed off shotgun then told them to go into a liquor
store and rob it, and the robbers shot the poor kid
behind the counter, I would be guilty of murder
just as much as those that pulled the trigger.
Congratulations on once again exposing your ignorance by demonstrating
that you don't know the difference between domestic robbery laws and
the rules of armed conflict.
Show me the rules of war that allows a nation to pay
mercenaries, give then buks, and have them enter a
foreign nation and shoot down jets.
Show me any evidence that any of that happened.
How many links do you want, comrade Fred?
They have videos...
MH17: How investigators were able to prove rebels shot down
plane with missile from Russia
So fired by Ukrainians, not Russians. Thank you for showing that you
indeed are making things up.
Ya Fred, and the 9/11 jets were piloted by Saudis, so that
clears Osama, right? Can you show me a video of Osama
instructing them to fly those jets into the towers.
So he's snow white by your twisted Putin lovin' logic.
I can, however, show you videos of him after the fact admitting he was
behind it and it worked much better than they expected. So once again
you're a lying idiot.
~ Using your ignorant logic ~
But it's a perfectly legal 'act of war' to fly jets
into buildings, he might have thought the towers
were full of soldiers, right comrade Fred?
Just as you say it's perfectly legal to give
mercenaries buks and send them into a foreign
nation to shoot down any and all jets flying
Post by Fred J. McCall Post by Jonathan
Fact is MH17 was to the Netherlands like 9/11 was
to us, and it's being prosecuted in the Netherlands
so what do you think the odds are of a guilty verdict?
Who are they prosecuting and for what, Jonthy? It's not BEING
prosecuted. It WILL BE prosecuted in the Netherlands if they ever
figure out who to charge and what to charge them with. I figure the
odds of anyone actually being charged with anything are low, the odds
of anyone being charged with war crimes are near zero, and the odds of
Putin being charged with anything are zero. And you have to charge
them in order to find them guilty, so I figure the odds of anyone ever
being found guilty of anything are near zero and if anyone ever is it
will be "person or persons unknown" and the charge will be something
like "wanton disregard". That's the kind of charge that gets leveled
when there's no crime but someone wants to prosecute anyway.
Paid mercenaries entering a foreign nation and shooting down a
passenger jet is no crime?
You've completely lost any credibility to make such a claim.
Navigating the Legal Horizon: Lawyering the MH17
The US has implicated Russia for its involvement
in the MH17 crash, and sanctions have been imposed
by both Russia and Western States
Article 1 of the 1971 Montreal Convention highlights
that any person who ‘destroys an aircraft in service or
causes damage to such an aircraft which renders it
incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger
its safety in flight’ commits a criminal offence.
Central to any legal or diplomatic accountability remedy
will be establishing the facts regarding the extent to
which Russian Federation military and/or civilian officials
directed, trained, equipped or controlled
separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine.
2. Russia’s Obligations under the Civil Aviation Conventions
Russia’s obligations under the civil aviation conventions will
differ according to who actually committed the act of shooting
down Flight MH17. If evidence shows that Russian State agents
were somehow involved in shooting down Flight MH17, Russia
is accountable because acts of its State organs are attributable
to the State under Article 4 of the Articles of State Responsibility.
If evidence shows that rebels (or any other non-State groups)
shot down Flight MH17, the extent of the relationship between
these rebels and Russia (if such existed at all), will determine
whether these acts are attributable to Russia
If evidence shows that Russia can be held responsible for
providing the weapon that was used to shootdown Flight MH17,
this may amount to an additional violation of international law.
110 Russia has not ratified the Arms Trade Treaty that imposes
certain obligations upon States when supplying weapons to
non-State actors. However, if it can be shown that the
separatists have committed a war crime by violating IHL,
should the Russian State be attributable for having provided
or transported the weapon, they may have provided a
‘significant contribution’ to the rebels’ ability to
commit such a crime.
With regard to attributing the actual firing of the missile
to Russia, this will depend on whether evidence meets the
standards of attributability to indicate a relationship between
those that fired the missile and Russia. The same can be said
for the delivering of the missile to the principal perpetrators
Should evidence show that the perpetrators’ acts are attributable
to Russia (because State agents were involved or effective control
was exercised over non-State actors), it can be argued that Russia
would have violated Article 3bis of the Chicago Convention.
Article 3bis of the Chicago Convention provides that
‘the Contracting States recognise that every State must refrain
from resorting to the use of weapons against civilian aircraft
in flight’,91 unless in accordance with a State’s right to
self-defence, which is not a viable argument in the situation
For example, Bellingcat, a team of investigative journalists,
studied the situation on the ground for over a year and
compiled a report containing the names of 20 Russian nationals
they allege were involved in the downing.
On 28 September 2016, the JIT announced that they had
acquired sufficient evidence to uphold in court that
the weapon system was a BUK missile of Russian origin,
which was transported over Russian territory and into
Ukraine days before MH17 was brought down, that this
weapon was transported back into Russian territory days
after, that the location from where this missile was launched
was under control of pro-Russian separatists at the time of
the crash, and that they had identified a hundred individuals
that were involved in one way or another in what happened to MH17.
C. The Legal Qualification of Downing Flight MH17 under Criminal Law
1. Qualification as ‘War Crime’
The downing of MH17 may constitute a war crime. This is a
crime under the jurisdiction of the ICC as well
as most domestic legal systems, including Ukraine
and the Netherlands. In order for conduct to
potentially qualify as war crime, the situation in which the
conduct occurs has to qualify as an armed conflict.
While not binding on the ICC or other judges, and subject to
their own judicial determination, the International Committee
of the Red Cross has made a legal assessment that the
situation in Ukraine constitutes at the very least a
non-international armed conflict.24 Moreover, if it is
proven that Russian military were actively engaged in the
conflict in Eastern Ukraine, it may well qualify as an
international armed conflict.
The ICC is currently examining the involvement of Russian State
agents into the situation, for the purposes of assessing
whether it qualifies as international armed conflict.25
Whether the conflict qualifies as internal or an international
armed conflict affects the specific qualification of the
crime. Depending on the nature of the conflict and conduct,
the alleged crimes that may have been committed in relation
to downing MH17 include wilful killing under Article 8
(a)(i), intentionally directing attacks against civilians
under 8(b)(i), murder under Article 8(c)(i), and
‘intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population
as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part
in hostilities’ under Article 8(e)(i).
The key principle of IHL, the body of law that governs what
conduct constitutes as a war crime, is the
principle of distinction. This principle requires that a
combatant distinguishes between military and civilian
While other combatants are lawful targets, civilians who do
not partake in hostilities are not. Moreover, the
precautionary principle provides that parties to a
conflict must take all feasible precautions to
protect the civilian population and civilian objects
under their control against the effects of attacks.
It follows that IHL requires parties to the conflict to make
an effort to avoid civilian casualties from their otherwise
lawful use of armed measures. Therefore, if those that were
involved in firing the BUK missile have not taken
such precautionary measures to identify the target as a
legitimate military objective before launching the
missile, they may be guilty of committing a war crime.
The ICC’s Rome Statute as well as domestic criminal systems
require proof of knowledge and intent.
The clearest example of knowledge and intent is if the
attackers intended to kill civilians. If, for example, those
responsible believed the plane was part of the Ukrainian
air force, the conduct may not constitute a war crime
(although it can still qualify as murder under domestic law)
Moreover, in addition to prosecuting under the International
Crimes Act, individuals may also be prosecuted under the
(regular) Dutch Criminal Code (DCC). Article 168 DCC reads
that any person who intentionally and unlawfully causes an
aircraft to crash shall be liable for life imprisonment or
imprisonment not exceeding thirty years if it causes
Article 2 ECHR provides for a number of legal obligations that
Russia may have violated. Whether and to what extent this is
the case and can be proven in a court of law, remains to be seen
and, as in the previous discussion on State responsibility,
mostly depends on the role Russia may have had or not had in
relation to those involved in downing MH17.
The highest responsibility would exist if Russian State agents
were involved, for instance if military were complicit in
launching the BUK missile. Article 2(2) ECHR permits the
use of lethal force when absolutely necessary, and thus
‘strictly proportionate’ to achieve a legitimate aim.141
Where an individual has been killed by State agents, that State
must show ‘the absolute necessity’ of any killing, not only
in respect of the actions of the agents who actually carried
out the killing, but in respect of ‘all the surrounding
circumstances’, including the planning, control and organisation
of the operation.142 The ECtHR has also found that
the absence of ‘proper training and instructions’ in the use
of firearms for the police, can be a contributing fac-tor
leading to a violation of the duty under Article 2 to protect
the right to life ‘by law’.143 This would likewise
apply to the use of a BUK missile.
3. Obligations for Acts of Non-State Agents
Russia may also be held responsible for the unlawful actions
of non-State actors (of whatever nationality), provided
that a sufficiently ‘close link’ or relationship is
established between the actions of the non-State
agent and the State in question (Russia)