×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

N. Korea Could Face Prosecution For 'Crimes Against Humanity'

timothy posted about a month ago | from the well-that-would-be-an-accurate-move dept.

Government 325

An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Telegraph: "North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, has been warned that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity after a United Nations inquiry accused him of some of the worst human rights abuses since the Second World War. In some of the harshest criticism ever unleashed by the international community against the Pyongyang regime, a UN panel branded it 'a shock to the conscience of humanity.' Michael Kirby, a retired Australian judge who has spent nearly a year taking testimony from victims of the regime, said much of it reminded him of atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Yesterday his team published a 374-page report detailing allegations of murder, torture, rape, abductions, enslavement, and starvation, describing North Korea as a dictatorship 'that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.' In a bid to put pressure on Kim Jong-un, 31, Mr Kirby has taken the unusual step of writing to the North Korean leader to warn him that both he and hundreds of his henchmen could one day face prosecution." More at the BBC, including a cache of the report.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

325 comments

first (-1, Offtopic)

doti (966971) | about a month ago | (#46275975)

da!

Re:first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46275993)

War with N. Korea sounds like fun! Let's do this!!

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276353)

fun? maybe if we all take turns driving the one drone this problem could be solved with.

Re:first (0, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a month ago | (#46276377)

Add to list of criminals "Saudi Arabia" and "Israel".

Then? I might believe that this is generated by higher human considerations.

Remember, when Governments and Billionaires urge you to care for the welfare and rights of others, far away and isolated? You are being set up for a con.

Re:first (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a month ago | (#46276405)

As much as we can criticize many regimes for their ill conduct, I have a hard time imagining that what the Saudis or Israelis do is anything close to the North Korean regime's abuses.

Re:first (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276675)

As much as we can criticize many regimes for their ill conduct, I have a hard time imagining that what the Saudis or Israelis do is anything close to the North Korean regime's abuses.

So you are poorly informed AND you have a weak imagination.

Are the rest of us supposed to be persuaded because YOU are a fool ?

Re: first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276763)

No, you are poorly informed a and refuse to see the truth over your own agenda. Evil comes in shades and the North Korean regime is one of the darkest, deepest shades of black the world has seen in generations. You might try learning a bit more about the world outside of your myopic viewpoint of anger and ignorance.

Re:first (3, Informative)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a month ago | (#46276781)

So you are poorly informed AND you have a weak imagination.

Hey Anonymous Coward, pull your head out of the sand.

Can Saudis leave their country?
Are Saudis starving to death?
Are mothers of Saudi newborn Saudi babies forced to drown them?
Is crystal meth the only medicine available to a sick Saudi?

Is Saudi Arabia a paradise? No damn way - But to suggest Saudi Arabia is as bad as North Korea is an INSULT to your fellow humans in North Korea, including children for christ's sake, who are suffering and dying.

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276701)

Have you been to Syria lately?

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276783)

Add to list of criminals "Saudi Arabia" and "Israel".

Then? I might believe that this is generated by higher human considerations.

Remember, when Governments and Billionaires urge you to care for the welfare and rights of others, far away and isolated? You are being set up for a con.

Asinine, obnoxious hyperbole!

Way to fucking make your case!

They're finally going to do something. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46275991)

Issue a sternly worded warning.

That'll teach him.

Re:They're finally going to do something. (3, Insightful)

master_kaos (1027308) | about a month ago | (#46276037)

Exactly, what exactly are they going to do? Shake their first harder? Wave their finger in shame longer? I know Dennis Rodman could go down again and sort everything out!

Re:They're finally going to do something. (2, Interesting)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a month ago | (#46276081)

Certainly cheaper than marching in there and slapping some cuffs on him (or a noose on his neck)!

Anyway I'm sure they're bad, but someone else can take the reigns on this one. Team America, World Police needs to retire.

Re:They're finally going to do something. (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a month ago | (#46276437)

I'm sure the thoughts going through the regime's heads is "You and what army."

So long as China sees fit to shield North Korea, there's precious little to be done, and even if China walked away, this nightmarish regime has at least some nuclear capacity, enough to turn good portions of the peninsula into Armageddon. I'm afraid there is no practical or safe way for external force to be applied, and one only hopes that eventually, somehow, those who live within this hell on Earth find a way to depose the Kims and their underlings.

Re:They're finally going to do something. (4, Interesting)

bhcompy (1877290) | about a month ago | (#46276623)

Well, that's the thing. Kim killed the family member that had the tightest ties with China, so the only reason this letter got out is probably because China said they would go along with it

Re:They're finally going to do something. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276095)

I bet you support bombing the shit out of the country like the US did with the other ones, right? Committing similar crimes against humanity. Great!

Re:They're finally going to do something. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276137)

Issue a sternly worded warning.

That'll teach him.

Sadly this strong medicine will be harshly overturned by feigned outrage from China who is concerned that somebody is nosing about in other people's business. Oh the humanity.

Re:They're finally going to do something. (1)

imikem (767509) | about a month ago | (#46276249)

No way. Since when has a stern warning had such an effect? It will have to be a REALLY stern warning. With multiple exclamation points and everything!! Then and only then will they see the error of their ways and repent.

Re:They're finally going to do something. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a month ago | (#46276259)

Why, it's almost like isolationists didn't want the UN to have substantial power when they crafted it. And now neo-isolationists use that lack of power to justify ignoring the body.

Re:They're finally going to do something. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276733)

Modern anti-UN sentiment is neither isolationist, nor does it oppose the UN because of the lack of power.

The UN is disliked because it tries to act like a governing body when it was never chartered to be one. It was chartered to be a discussion forum, mainly between the world powers of the time, but also with seating for every nation willing to participate. UN consensus was to mean simply that the governments of the world pretty much agree about something.

Now we have people trying to defer to the UN as if it were a government and we have people mocking the UN for making declarations like it were a government. The mocking is not (unless the mocker is an idiot) about the UN being too weak of a government, but that the UN mistakes itself for a government. We mock the egos, not the limits. We also mock the fools who want to see the UN as a functional global authority.

If only they'd had oil (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276313)

If only they had huge oil reserves, then those poor people would have a chance of being rescued.

Weapons of mass destruction like Iraq supposedly had? - check.

Brutal dictator like Iraq? - check.

Oil? - Nope.

No invasion, no gassing Re:If only they'd had oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276379)

It's been a while since North Korea invaded anyone though, and they haven't used chemical weapons against large segments of their population (because their control is tight enough they haven't had to).

And how will they bring him to justice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276017)

And how will they bring him to justice?

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276115)

They'll send Dennis Rodman indefinitely. After a few months Jong-Un will come waltzing into our open arms.

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a month ago | (#46276165)

. . . and if that doesn't work. . . .send Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber. . .

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? (5, Funny)

gnalre (323830) | about a month ago | (#46276393)

Send a fleet of C-130 Hercules filled with lawyers and drop them on Pyongyang at 10000 ft.

If that doesn't work send another fleet and drop more lawyers, but this time give them parachutes

Re:And how will they bring him to justice? (4, Informative)

mrvan (973822) | about a month ago | (#46276317)

Even ignoring the problem of getting him from power, ICC has no jurisdiction as Korea isn't a signatory and the UN security council is needed either to refer the case to the ICC or to create an ad hoc tribunal. Even if China might as some point decide to stop propping up its neighbour, it is not very likely that they will allow them to be tried in court.

Henchmen (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276033)

I always find it interesting that a regime we like has "officials" and a regime we don't like has "henchmen." I don't mean to imply that North Korea has a good government, just that the use of language itself is supposed to sway you, like the facts are not enough.

Re: Henchmen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276093)

I think there's a fair distinction. Officials control henchmen, who are not themselves necessarily official.

Re:Henchmen (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276105)

> "I always find it interesting that a regime we like has "officials" and a regime we don't like has "henchmen."

You think that's the dividing line? Whether "we like" them or not? That the difference between, lets say, England and South Korea is simply that "we like" England?

What a sophomoric simpleton. Using pejorative terms to refer to members of a government which is committing what any moral person would consider crimes against humanity is proper usage of a full-featured and expressive language.

Re:Henchmen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276209)

> I don't mean to imply that North Korea has a good government, just that the use of language itself is supposed to sway you, like the facts are not enough.

I see you missed that second sentence. That's OK, I quoted it again for you.

Re:Henchmen (2, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a month ago | (#46276685)

I always find it interesting that a regime we like has "officials" and a regime we don't like has "henchmen."

How about the fact that a country that we're friends with has a government, and the others have regimes? I don't think I've ever seen a US newspaper talking about the Tony Blair regime, or the Francois Hollande regime.

Why now? (3, Insightful)

Terminaldogma (765487) | about a month ago | (#46276063)

These atrocities have been known for a long time, and there are already several good books on the subject (which hopefully some Slashdotters with more time can link). What I don't understand is why this report came out know? Is there some political timing involved in it coming out now as opposed to a decade ago?

Re:Why now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276073)

America needs war to keep its decrepit empire alive. N. Korea is just one of many on the list.

Re:Why now? (1, Informative)

Oligonicella (659917) | about a month ago | (#46276293)

If you believe the UN is favorable towards the US in any way, shape or form, all I have to say to you sir or madam is YAAFM.

Re:Why now? (4, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | about a month ago | (#46276385)

Actually the UN is very definitely favourable towards the US, the US has veto power, you hardly give that to someone you aren't favourable towards. The problem with the UN is that they are favourable towards TOO MANY people and gave out veto power to several countries who never agree. This ensures that the UN can never actually accomplish anything because they must get all veto powered countries to agree (something that simply doesn't happen)

For the UN to be effective they have to stop the idea of ANY country having veto power, it just means that those countries are immune to the UN rules.

Re:Why now? (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#46276077)

Is there some political timing involved in it coming out now as opposed to a decade ago?

Obviously, since not saying precisely the same shit about China in the same breath is rampant hypocrisy. But China is still buying things, so let's keep endorsing organlegging and slavery.

Depends on China (5, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about a month ago | (#46276085)

North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, has been warned that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity after a United Nations inquiry accused him of some of the worst human rights abuses since the Second World War.

Not as long as China protects him he won't. For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power. (I know they want a buffer from South Korea but there has to be more to it than that) They don't even seem concerned about North Korea possessing nuclear weapons.

If China decides to withdraw support, the North Korean regime will be gone pretty quick most likely. Until then, nothing will happen unless a war starts between North and South Korea.

Re:Depends on China (4, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month ago | (#46276283)

Aren't they still at war?

Re:Depends on China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276445)

Only in a way that doesn't matter. They're not shooting at each other or maneuvering to shoot at each other. They're not at war.

Re:Depends on China (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a month ago | (#46276727)

Only in a way that doesn't matter. They're not shooting at each other or maneuvering to shoot at each other. They're not at war.

Actually they still do shoot at each other in various ways. This happened only a few years ago.

'North Korean torpedo' sank South's navy ship - report [bbc.co.uk]

This is just a sample, there are other incidents that happen in the DMZ or other places that aren't covered here.

Timeline: North Korean attacks [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Depends on China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276833)

Only in a way that doesn't matter. They're not shooting at each other or maneuvering to shoot at each other. They're not at war.

BULLSHIT [wikipedia.org]

Re:Depends on China (3, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about a month ago | (#46276455)

Aren't they still at war?

Technically yes. The Korean war theoretically never actually ended. There was an armistice but never any permanent peace agreement. $Diety knows what they think they still have to fight about...

Re:Depends on China (1)

Ryanrule (1657199) | about a month ago | (#46276399)

I imagine china will drop the support when they think they can move in and assume control. They dont want a revolution on their border. Stability over all.

Re:Depends on China (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a month ago | (#46276441)

I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power

Because the minute China stop supporting that dictatorship half a dozen country, the first of them being the US of A, go get rid of that family, and a reunited US-friendly Korean is reborn. And China doesn't want another US friendly country near by..

Re:Depends on China (2)

uffe_nordholm (1187961) | about a month ago | (#46276449)

I think China's support of NK started out as supporting a political ally: China and NK had vaguely similar political ideas and government. After the Korean War China and NK developed into different countries, and I think China no longer sees NK as a political ally.
However, they probably still see USA as a potential enemy. And if NK were to collapse and get absorbed into South Korea, there could be US troops right on the Chinese border (there are a number of US troops in South Korea right now). If I were a Chinese general, I would not like that possibility. The cheap and easy way to see to it that it doesn't happen is to keep the NK govenrment in power.
As for NK having nukes, I don't see why China would worry: they are not the target. They might very well suffer some consequences of NK nuking SK, but even NK ought to realise that nuking SK would mean open war with a country (USA) that could wipe them off the map. NK might therefore actually have nukes, but using them seems very improbable. At least until they can be successfully delivered to mainland USA...

Re:Depends on China (5, Interesting)

j-turkey (187775) | about a month ago | (#46276459)

You nailed it, DPRK is very much dependent on China for support. I don't fully understand why China wants to keep DPRK in power either, but I can shed a bit of light on the issue. You mentioned China's desire for a buffer between their borders and a westernized and America-friendly South Korea, this is a major issue. Another huge issue is that if the North Korean regime fails, China will have millions of refugees crossing its eastern border into areas that are already less stable than they would like. These areas have not developed at a rate consistent with the larger Chinese cities, and millions of Korean refugees would be a huge burden on those areas, threatening the regional stability - which is a hot-button issue for China.

I can't say that any country is immune from supporting regimes where atrocities exist when it supports their interests...but it doesn't stop me from being frustrated with China for supporting a failed regime like DPRK.

Re:Depends on China (1)

hey! (33014) | about a month ago | (#46276503)

Well, I think the issue with China is that it's a regime that's even more touchy than governments usually are about admitting mistakes. They don't like North Korea's nuclear program, or being associated with North Korean atrocities, but a public admission of a mistake they like even less. It's seen as weak, and weak governments leading to chaos is the number one lesson a student of Chinese history learns. Being Pyongyang's *only* ally puts China on the spot; the more embarrassing those ties are the harder they are to cut.

Re:Depends on China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276567)

Regarding possible reasons:

Reading on the history of Taiwan, and the Korean war that happened around that time, it looks to me like revenge disguised as support. Wikipedia on Taiwan [wikipedia.org] says "Initially, the United States abandoned the KMT and expected that Taiwan would fall to the Communists. However, in 1950 the conflict between North Korea and South Korea, which had been ongoing since the Japanese withdrawal in 1945, escalated into full-blown war, and in the context of the Cold War, US President Harry S. Truman intervened again and dispatched the 7th Fleet into the Taiwan Straits to prevent hostilities between Taiwan and mainland China.[64]"

So, Taiwan isn't part of China because of these idiots who couldn't keep their guns holstered. Well then, my friends, you shall suffer for the sins of your fathers. Sincerely, your best friend, China.

Re:Depends on China (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a month ago | (#46276793)

Not as long as China protects him he won't. For various reasons I don't entirely understand China has elected to keep this family in power.

NK is China's insurance policy. As long as North Korea is around China and their abuses look a lot better by comparison. At the same time, if they ever need some international good will, they can just go along with UNSC resolutions against North Korea, or get them to open up or release some political prisoners or something. At the same time, they have a market for domestically produced entertainment, goods, and weapons because no one should be exporting things to North Korea, and North Korea cannot have a significant manufacturing capacity of their own. The relationship between China and North Korea is very similar to that of Russia and Syria, if you need another example of this type of relationship.

Sure you are a kind sir. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276103)

I don't deny SK doing all that, but what about Guantanamo Bay Summer Camp? ;)

Re:Sure you are a kind sir. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276133)

I don't deny SK doing all that, but what about Guantanamo Bay Summer Camp? ;)

You know I meant NK... fuck this dyslexia

Irrelavant and inept. (1, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about a month ago | (#46276117)

It goes to show how irrelevant and inept the UN is. Since it has no Army or Navy, it can't enforce anything and expects member nations to toe the line. Sure, we all know the PRK is a repressive regime and the leadership is corrupt and brutal but they have a powerful ally with a permanent seat on the Security Council, meaning that nothing will ultimately come of trying to rein in Pyongyang or force the regime to collapse. This is a nation that has no problems starving its own people and putting them unwavering cruelty to make their dreams come true. Do you think they care what the UN says?

If you want to bring about change to the PRK, embargo all trade with the PRK. This means China will have to stop trading and propping them up. Stop their arms trading business by seizing cargo wherever possible. Sanction any trading partners who still continue to do business with them.

They're atheists... (-1, Troll)

dtjohnson (102237) | about a month ago | (#46276131)

From their point of view, people are nothing but cogs in their machinery of state to be used and abused as necessary to keep the machinery turning. A person has no more value to them than a horse or a cow...maybe even less. Moreover, this is not new. The North Koreans were doing the same thing to pows during the Korean War, many of who never returned. They invented 'brainwashing' which was basically continuous torture until the target was mentally broken. They are still holding the USS Pueblo that they illegally seized from the US Navy in 1968. The captain of the Pueblo provided graphic descriptions of the torture he witnessed while held in captivity. President Bush termed them part of the 'Axis of Evil.' They recently threatened us with thermonuclear devastation and have repeatedly launched missiles over international waters. The UN is still technically at war with the North Koreans. The latest UN report on atrocities is just another in a mountain of paper describing how wicked people do wicked things.

Re:They're atheists... (0)

jheath314 (916607) | about a month ago | (#46276285)

Because religious folks would never do anything morally objectionable, like fly planes into buildings, or start wars of choice, or use atomic bombs on cities. Nope... it's only atheists who do awful things.

Re:They're atheists... (1)

green1 (322787) | about a month ago | (#46276419)

In fact this report directly compares the leader of North Korea to a specific devout Christian who committed many atrocities just under a hundred years ago...

Re:They're atheists... (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about a month ago | (#46276431)

Because religious folks would never do anything morally objectionable, like fly planes into buildings, or start wars of choice, or use atomic bombs on cities. Nope... it's only atheists who do awful things.

Tu quoque!

Re:They're atheists... (4, Insightful)

QilessQi (2044624) | about a month ago | (#46276309)

You can be an atheist and still behave morally, ethically, and decently towards other human beings.

Likewise, you can believe in a god (or gods) and still be a murderous psychopath. Heck, as long as you fervently believe those gods are on your side, you can pretty much do anything you like... including interpreting scripture to suit your own purposes.

   

Re:They're atheists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276343)

As someone who is borderline atheist, I'd wager that I value all life more than you because I don't think there's some fairy tale ending in store for it after it's gone.

Atheist or theist there's no shortage of narcissists in this world.

Re:They're atheists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276355)

Morality has nothing to do with "god". So a big FUCK YOU to you.

Re:They're atheists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276423)

Fine, but what does it to do woth atheism?
We have seen many horrific regimes in the past, both religious and atheists. The best regimes seem to be secular in practice (with least suppression to both religious and atheists), although reversed implication is not true - secular regimes might be horrific too.

The world will respond sharply!! (or not at all) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276143)

We're going to go after Kim Jong A**hole just like the world is going after Bashar Al Assad (another a**hole)... it's not going to happen. Brutal dictators would rather see their whole ship sink (the country) rather then let power slip from their fingers and conversly the world would rather see these attrocities then risk a large scale war. It's a really pathetic lowest common denominator.

Wait Wait!!! Isreal is going to go to war with North Korea to stop these attrocities because the jews know the awful consequences of the holocaust right? I thought the Jewish state was never going let another holocaust happen.

Elephant in the room (-1, Offtopic)

gmuslera (3436) | about a month ago | (#46276155)

When will be US turn? Basically stripping the entire mankind of a basic human right according with the UN should worth something. Droning thousands of people in a lot of countries, including schools, weddings, funerals, rescuers or just being close enough to the wrong phone should be pretty bad too. And kidnapping, jailing, and torturing people (even minors) in Guantanamo is worth mentioning too. And i bet that that don't even qualifies as the tip of the iceberg.

Probably never (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276303)

Because they'll rank the countries in the world from total psychos to decent governments and find that the decent government pool is unsurprisingly empty.

I'm not denying that America hasn't been a total asshat about a lot of things. Only an idiot would deny that the US hasn't fucked up a lot in its history. But, Americans are more middle of the road fuck ups when you stack us against most other respected countries. Americans look like saints when you stack us up against countries like North Korea.

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

melikamp (631205) | about a month ago | (#46276347)

And i bet that that don't even qualifies as the tip of the iceberg.

I agree completely. We get closer to the iceberg if we consider the invasion and the ongoing occupation of Iraq, which is a war of aggression and a war crime, and carries with it a tremendous toll on the civilian population.

If UN is going to police the world, they should start with interstate conflicts, and the rogue state number one, instead of meddling with the internal affairs of a state so week that it will collapse on it own without humanitarian help.

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

Teancum (67324) | about a month ago | (#46276375)

If you really want the people in the U.S. military to be held accountable for this kind of thing, you need to convince the American people that it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. It needs to become a campaign issue and something that becomes commonly hated. Unfortunately, if this stuff is happening on another continent upon people that don't speak the same language or share the same culture and those same people have threatened "Death to America" including no regard for killing civilians in America.... the best you are going to get from ordinary Americans is "Meh?"

Re:Elephant in the room (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276395)

Yep, no mention of the many more who have suffered at the hands of Muslim hate and extremism - thousands of years of atrocities.

Id rather send drones into hell than our people.

I agree - we shouldn't interrogate terrorists in GITMO, we should just shoot them and be done with it.

Re:Elephant in the room (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#46276407)

Dude, its puff puff pass. Others want some of what you are smoking so don't bogard the shit.

The UN? LOL. (1)

mandark1967 (630856) | about a month ago | (#46276173)

This is the same organization that took 10 friggin years to define the term "genocide" as it applied to the Rwandan massacres that took place unimpeded for a decade.

So...which nations will ante up to remove KJ-u from NK to stand trial?

Re:The UN? LOL. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276759)

Maybe it had something to do with the US getting the upper hand after it installed it's puppet Kagame (trained at Ft Leavenworth). Worked out good for the US, even made a whole bunch of people feel sorry for the Africans who apparently have no real political structures and can't take care of themselves, which is why we are there today ....

Think of all those poor starving kids that AFRICOM helps to save.

What about the USA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276179)

Are they also going to be prosecuted for all their drone killings and spying and guantanamos? I'm just wondering...

United Nations eh? (1, Insightful)

Krojack (575051) | about a month ago | (#46276207)

My grandma was more threatening than the United Nations. This is nothing more than a joke.

if only they had oil (0)

zaroastra (676615) | about a month ago | (#46276229)

we could just wait for good old usofa to go there and democratize the hell out of them...
Z

Re:if only they had oil (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a month ago | (#46276331)

Maybe you haven't heard but the US did fight a war there to keep North Korea out of South Korea. The US still has tens of thousands of troops there. That kind of shoots a hole in the whole "blood for oil" thing, huh?

Re:if only they had oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276555)

That kind of shoots a hole in the whole "blood for oil" thing, huh?

If the facts the US-Iraq war parts 1 and 2 did not shoot a hole in that whole "blood for oil" thing, nothing will, ever. It has gone beyond speculation, beyond meme, into antifactual dogma.

Re:if only they had oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276801)

he who controls the spice

Re:if only they had oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276467)

USA would not if someone else had the balls to step up.

Like your country..

Throwing stones (-1, Offtopic)

jodido (1052890) | about a month ago | (#46276233)

Let the country without sin cast the first stone. US? Can you spell Guantanamo, napalm? UK? Ask Gandhi. Etc.

Re:Throwing stones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276505)

You forgot Canada allowing the US military to secretly expose Gagetown to Agent Orange.

You insensitive clod!

The US should LOVE North Korea for how they treat humans. What a great model to build on.

Re:Throwing stones (1)

jratcliffe (208809) | about a month ago | (#46276541)

Let the country without sin cast the first stone. US? Can you spell Guantanamo, napalm? UK? Ask Gandhi. Etc.

That's an utterly absurd comparison. Guantanamo is shameful, and a blot on the US. It embarasses and outrages me. That said, comparing it to North Korea is like saying that someone who got a parking ticket can't judge Charles Manson.

I'm sure he's quivering in his boots... (2)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about a month ago | (#46276241)

I'm sure Kim Jong-un is just quivering in his boots at this "strongly worded condemnation" by the UN. After all, the UN has such a strong record of following up such condemnations with action...

What's pathetic about this is such UN declarations just serve to reinforce what an absolute joke the whole organization is. The UN has no power whatsoever to do anything to North Korea and Dear Leader knows this.

Re:I'm sure he's quivering in his boots... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276391)

I'm thinking this is just the necessary documentation needed before more meaningful escalation can happen. If China can sign-off on this, then perhaps, hopefully, increasing pressure can be applied...but dealing with a nuclear threat, obviously, is not so easy...S Korea I'm sure will be the first to give their input on any steps that the world should take.

Re:I'm sure he's quivering in his boots... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276507)

It's about the same as a AI denunciation in Civilization... (all words, no action)

How Bowel-Liquifyingly terrified he must be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276351)

from such an horrific Wrist-Slapping!

The UN is not a government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276367)

The UN has no sovereign rights over North Korea. International prosecution is made possible by treaty and cannot be retroactive. Some of the staff at the UN need a lesson on their legal status. Give them a short version, "its a talking shop...that has limited control granted through treaties with members". Anything outside of that is just a protection racket by a consortium of mafias from veto wielding nations in the Security Council.

UN will send a mean letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276371)

Strongly condemning their vile behavior!

NK has never done anything to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#46276415)

And it's been worse under Pol Pot in his country than under the current leader in NK.

Ergo, nothing to see!

Of course, to those who the above arguments are "killer arguments" against USA being a bad guy or for climate change being unproven, the above "arguments" do not hold against a regime that is anti-USA and not capitalist.

Other places are worse, and if you don't live there, you have no right to complain (and, as a lovely little fork, if you DO live there, then you shouldn't complain, you should leave) only work in defending The Land Of The Free.

At least NK doesn't claim to be the leader of the free world.

China (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a month ago | (#46276473)

IMO the path to taking down North Korea is via China.

North Korea only exists due to the largesse of China.

If the world really cared, China would be publicly shamed everywhere on the planet - Pictures of starving Koreans in front of every embassy, consulate and trade mission. Protests in front of the offices of every state-run businesses - Huawei, Lenovo, the lot.

Basically deeply embarrass China into realizing propping up this criminal state isn't worth it - Babies are being drowned? China's fault. If / when they let NK go, it will tumble down like a house of cards.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...