I actually come from Pakistan...

What's happening in Pakistan regarding Musharaf is not linked with Egypt at all....

After living in exile for few years, Musharraf has formed his own political party and he have a certain popularity in the people as the two other main parties (PPP and PML-N) are increasing viewed by people as corrupt..

And this is an election year in Pakistan due to the emerging political storms; so this is an attempt by the government (PPP) who is under pressure due to it's failings, and creating a political blockages. They can certainly do that as FIA is controlled by interior minister Rehman Malik...

This has no relationship to middle east or events in Egypt...

Oh thanks very much hyeomer. I see what you mean.

Rather than this having a relation to the Middle East, I was thinking more in line with holding heads of state accountable for crimes, which for the most of human history hasn't been the case because they have profited from immunity from courts and international criminal law was not even it its embryo until a couple of decades ago.

So you think that instead of this being an example of the positive accountability trend he is just being set up? But do you think he did it?

If he did it, I think we are entering into the Wikileaks rape charges debate: if he did it, shouldn't he be held accountable anyways, irrespective that this would serve a political purpose for some?

Ofcourse accountability is very important Ivet, but it can't be selective. It have to be across the board (both internationally) and in the context of Pakistan.

Regarding Musharraf, international criminal law or courts are not relevant either as he isn't a war criminal. He is former army chief who came to power through a blood-less coup-d'etat and enjoyed popular support since the previous government of Nawaz Sharif (PML-N) was not delivering to the people...

With in Pakistan, there are is a huge debate raging for accountablity and against corruption in the political establishment. The higher judiciary is very independent minded and have taken up very many high profile cases.

Musharaf is certainly been set up so that he couldn't participate in the election which will either take place this year or next year. This is a classical playbook tactic which Pakistani politicians plays against each other...Infact, there were tons of cases against President Zardari and he only managed to come back to Pakistan after he and Benazir (his wife) was granted immunity by Musharraf.

So it's ironic that now they are launching the cases against Musharraf for accountability when they are not themselves...

In any case; there is extensive debate, discussion and movement in public opinion, dynamic media and independent-minded high judiciary...so the rules of Pakistani law will eventually prevail and the local courts will follow up on it...

Ok I see your point.

Just to say: terrorism is one of the best established international crimes - international courts are not only for war crimes. Terrorism also triggers universal jurisdiction.

So let's see how the courts handle it.

I also don't buy the argument that only because not everyone is being held accountable you can't hold some accountable. If it's not across the board - then no one should face charges?

 Terrorism is one of the best established international crimes - international courts are not only for war crimes. Terrorism also triggers universal jurisdiction.

This may be relevant to international terrorism. 

Regarding Musharraf, its a domestic affair; the word terrorism is being put on him because its a local anti-terrorism court that issues his arrest warrant. The case itself is related to the assassination of Benazir who was a political leader; which is more of political nature rather then an act of terrorism. Any ways, the local anti-terrorism court issued his warrant because he failed to appear. His lawyer will appear on Feb 19, and he will get a security bail as it's not related to conviction or indictment but the case is in process.

Regarding accountability, in Pakistan; there is already Supreme Court following up on this. This takes time....and will eventually happen for every one (hopefully). 

That's what I mean though - terrorism irrespective of whether it is on national level or international level is an international crime.

The time when it could simply be branded as a 'domestic affair' is long gone.

That's the case also for torture, war crimes, piracy, crimes against humanity and genocide. Irrespective of terrotory, perpetrator, etc. it is an international crime.

Take a look at the international tribunal for the assasination of Hariri of Lebanon.

Again, what looks like a 'domestic affair' at first sight ...

Mushraff issue is domestic because its driven and movtivated by the politics of Pakistan. It's not linked to International law or international terrorism in that respect. And local courts are involved and following up any ways...

The reason anti-terrorism court moved to issue his arrest warrant because that's the most harshest court in the land; this is to reduce his leeway and political leverage.

Regarding war crimes, torture, piracy, human trafficking,  crimes against humanity and genocide; there exist UN's international law and of course it applies to the issues where its relevant (not in this case regarding Musharraf).

Just because prosecutors are moving the court in Rome against Berlasconi for having "bunga bunga parties" when minors were involved doesn't necessarily invoke international law/courts (I definitely don't condone Berlasconi). They only get involved when the local laws are not in place and are not sufficient to carry a fair trial.

There is a separation of domestic affairs of a state and it's politics from international law; every thing doesn't automatically become the subject of international law. 

Exactly...That's why it became an international affair as Lebanon, Syria and all the rest in the region and further were involved. Fingers were pointed to neighboring countries...

Maybe yes, maybe no.  How is that for equivocation?

Just a few examples: Pinochet got ot of England and the Spanish prosecution got nowhere.  Mugabe seems safely ensconced (for now).  Mbeki and crew made a mess of post-apartheid SA (see R.W. Johnson's 'South Africa's Brave New World) and are comfortable. War criminal Blair is jetsetting making tons sitting on corporate boards and boring us with his megalomaniacal and inane speeches.  Kissinger, Bush Jr. and co. might suffer some restrictions like not being able to eat Gruyere in Gruyere but otherwise are free to go and for example give his (Bush Jr.) first post-presidential speech in Calgary, Canada with the gullible paying about $500 a seat (perhaps expensable at their employers?).  Queen Elisabeth of the YUK has been head of state while Kenyans were herded into strategic hamlets during the Mau Mau uprising, trained Amin at Sandhurst and supported him during his reign of terror, while the YUK displaced the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean handing it over to the US for a military base to strike at Iraq etc., while the YUK provided Suharto with 'training helicopters, while 1//3 of the east Timorese (equivalent ratio of the dead under Pol Pot) were killed in the 70's and more recently.  She isn't threatened to be taken to the Hague.  Did Clinton not fire Cruise missiles into the Sudan destroying a key pharmaceutical manufacturing plant denying the people and animals of essential drugs like antibiotics.  Was not Clinton in power when Aristide was forced at gunpoint to sign his resignation and taken at gunpoint onto a plane and flown out of the country in the 90's.

So I don't know.  It's a bit like who gets prosecuted at the ICC - the little guys/criminals and not the big criminals.  Or who get's condemend for Human Rights abuses by the likes of former ICC prosecutor Louise Arbour  - the little guy like Guatemala and Milosovic and not the big criminals like NATO heads (including Clinton) who bombed Serbia escalating a war as was predicted beforehand and confirmed post hoc by some of the participant nation politicians like (I believe) YUK's Liberal Democrat former leader Lord Ashdown and US general and former Preidential aspirant Wesley Clark, not to mention the support for the KLA terrorists and Alija Izetbegovic and Franjo Tudman(http://www.google.com/search?q=Louise+Arbour&btnG=Google+Search&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org

What do you think?

I like Noam Chomsky's definiton of international treaties the likes of which set up the ICC.  He call s them paper barriers.  So if they're not enforced or only against the little guy they are not much of a barrier to crime.  Domestic laws are similar when for example in the US judges are elected in some places (read go to the highest bidder) or crack cocaine (read black people) is treated more severely than powder (read white people) or the SEC is cosy wiith Wall Street and doesn't enforce the laws governing financial institutions.

I'd rather see those banksters sweat in the docket than the puppet masters of our western 'civilisations'.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  A law that is unfairly and unequally applied is not a (good) law in my view and indeed 'sends a message' (I hate that cliche but it works sometimes) that the big guys can treat Human Rights with impunity.  So without too much further reflection I'd rather see no ICC prosecutions than selective prosecutions.  Can you convince me otherwise?

Terrorism is one of those propaganda terms despite numerous definitions by various international bodies, governments and departments within governments. Edward Herman make the distinction between retail terrorism (small scale) e.g. Ghadaffi and wholesale terrorism (large scale) e.g Reagan in Nicaragua etc.  Also we have their terrorism which is by definition terrorism and hence bad and our terrorism which is support for freedom fighters and hence not terrorism and in fact morally and poitically justified.  We are the policemen of the world and sometimes must destroy villlages to save them n'est-ce pas?

And a terribly politicised one by the US, Britain and Israel that would love to destroy Hexbollah in the eyes of the world if not literally and give an excuse to bring members/leaders before the ICC.  Again selective prosecution by a highly politicised comission (prodded on by the big guys against the little guys).

There are not a lot of things that can not be repaired by a walk in the fresh air

and then you will be looking at the world from another perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0kSpfAoyZs&feature=related