should former POWs be able to sue their former captors? would it only be the victors who would follow it through? how far back could you go?

POWs sue Japanese govt

well, i don't believe in going back any farther than those directly involved.

for instance, sueing a government that was not in power at the time of an offence is bullshit.

another example: native rights issues and claims. fuck all that. indian roadblock my ass. get over it. that may come across as harsh but frankly i'm beyond pc for certain issues. and i'll gladly take flames for that.

_____________________________
Smoking makes you a better lover - His Majesty's Mistress

burn, charma, burn.

can't say i agree with you on the native title type issues. i do say that as an individual with no land titles at all, though.

take israeli settlers in the west bank. what happens then? the land that was taken last year (? when did the israelis last change govts?) stays as is, and the land taken today goes back to the palestinians?

of course it's all so difficult - i don't have a solution - but that's why i didn't take that path into politics.

yeah, i knew i shouldn't a said anything. whatever. what i'm saying can be undone using all kinds of examples in words, but not in heart and not in actuality.

here is the charmakarmacat's weakness. political and ideological debate. i don't have the patience or something. fuck. pft.

_____________________________
Smoking makes you a better lover - His Majesty's Mistress

Returning on-topic, the problem here is that there was already a series of processes after WWII to determine responsibilities and to assign compensations for crimes of war. So the ex-POWs probably should be better suing their own countries systems that did not compensate them adequately (while the penal system punished the guilty individuals of war crimes).

You could argue that the current Japanese government is not a direct descendant of the war government, but as the nation is the same, it could be taken the other way too.

The Chinese and the Koreans were not addressed, generally, in the post-war crimes investigation, which is why I believe their cases have more possibilities of prospering now.

Anyway, International law has countries interacting with countries, so probably the foreigners should have their own national courts accept their cases and present it as a national claim. Of course, here we have interactions with how independent the judicial system is, and how this will affect foreign policies.

As an example, a Spanish judge succesfully prosecuted former Chilean dictator Pinochet for crimes against Humanity, but he only was arrested in UK when there was proof Spanish citizens had been "disappeared". And finally the politicians arranged to have him returned to Chile due to "humanitary" reasons (bad health) and judged there (he was acquitted as unfit to be judged due to senility) instead of the potentially more hostile Spanish courts.

So the problem is what you do when your own country does not support your claims against another country. Considering the state of the International Courts, almost nothing. Unless the country you are claiming against is an international pariah without friends. And you probably will get some people convicted, but you still will not get money out of it.

José

All's Fair? Well, since these guys aren't suing for being help captive as POW's but for being mistreated in violation of international law while POW's, I think they've got a reasonable principle behind them.

I also think JRE's points about whether they've followed the appropriate channels are worth bringing up, tho I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to have opinions about just what form that should take.

If they were suing simply for being held captive, and I were the judge, I'd toss the case out summarily, however.

Bellham
~Arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.~

the fact they've remained silent for so long before airing grievances is ridiculous. why now? too late if you ask me.

i don't know exactly who the people are.

they're referred to as 'allied pows' is it possible that they may have been comfort women? dutch and australian women were among those taken prisoner by the japanese and forced to service their captors. it's an issue that's only really been spoken about in recent years.

and by the way, charma, i'm not fighting with you, or judging you harshly for your opinion. native title is a big issue for many aussies, and my partner actually did a degree in indigenous studies majoring in indigenous legal issues.

do you know, recently, indigenous australians in remote communities were found to have lower standards of living than people in bangladesh. if these people were considered true stakeholders in their traditional lands, many would have access to big $ from mining and other primary industries. money isn't a cure all, but it would presumably help families out of the cycles of poverty, violence and substance abuse. is the situation so very different in canada?

quote:

---

if these people were considered true stakeholders in their traditional lands, many would have access to big $ from mining and other primary industries. money isn't a cure all, but it would presumably help families out of the cycles of poverty, violence and substance abuse.

---

so would going to school and getting a fucking job.

quote:

---

is the situation so very different in canada?

---

in Canada, "indigenous" people don't pay tax and get large grants from the guvment towards school.
besides, they should get over it and do something else with their lives.

of course i know you're not fighting with me. it's just a conversation you old woman.

kids these days...