How many are you cognizant of Col. Kumar Lama's arrest in UK?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20914282
I am sure most have heard by now, but this case needs more thought than Piers Morgan - Alex Jones feud IMO.

What's your take on this?

 I do not know if he is Nepali or British but all I know is he should be punished if he had committed crime. On top of that other political leaders  should be taken behind the bar too. Bottom line we need some bureau above the government agency which can provide the justice equally to all citizens. And, I can not stand these leaders f*****ing up our country in the name of rulling it. 

I don't think you guys (last few posts) get it.

It's not about what crimes have been committed by the individual; it's about taking over the rights of a country to decide upon its case for its citizen. You all know Kim Jong, Assad and Ahmadinejad are guilty of so many crimes have you seen any country laying their hands on them when they are in UN summit or visit to another country? If the person is guilty, UK should turn over the accused to Nepali government, At the very least, consult Nepal before making the arrest. If Col. Lama is a citizen of UK, then, like rethink said, this is understandable. Did UK even verify what his status is?

Country's sovernity is one issue. It's getting to the point when PARAS fired at RUBEL CHAUDHURY and he was coined a hero as he fired at an outsider favored by the shamless b****h K Koirala. But did Parase really do anything that was praiseworthy back then?

Well this is a case where a complaint was filed by an institution operating from Nepal against someone whom the Govt of Nepal should have punished, rather decided to leave him as colonel (karnel). Everyone knows that he is just a small fish in the pool and now probably big fishes in the pool are worried about themselves if the course of action taken against this small fish shapes into something real, then their turns are not too far or they should forget about visiting other countries.

Cases like these always brings the issue of sovereignity. But hasn't Nepal's sovreignity already been handed over to India by mo**er f***king leaders? Is it really about the sovreignity or just another bid to save the faces of big fishes who killed common people are rebel leaders in the past and are still doing it on top of protecting the killlers??

No, Nepal's sovreignity has not been handed over to India yet, regardless of what everybody else thinks. So your whole argument is a wash.

Uk is just trying to find the scapegoat before they can start to big ones.
Well if they start with maoist , then it can be big issues so they started with the government forces  to whom they have provided financial and logistics support at that time
 , now this has kept the maoist mum, coz later when they tried on maoist, will do that later for sure, its just a matter of time., they will pinpoint see we have started with your enemy, they will say, we dont see you as ours neither they as ours, we believe in human rights and thats our duty, so we are trying you as well.

This news may interest you: www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/05/us-bush-torture-idUSTRE7141CU20110205 

 An interesting perspective on this in nepali times:

Transboundary jurisdiction 
http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2013/01/9/GuestColumn/19930#.UO3hIuQR5c4

Kiddo isnt it enough to prove that Nepal's sovreignity has been handed to India by leaders that Nepal's people can go to vote, but then their votes do not decide who becomes the prime minister of the country. The leaders of big three parties still visit dhoti duwatas to garner blessing before the run for govt leadership (not the election) and they visit their mecca Delhi to pay homage to their saviours right after forming govt for it's long life? Aaru kura tyastai ho, India says left turn, Nepali leaders do left turn, India says right turn, Nepali leaders do right turn. And the whole country and those who want to stay untouched by all this f**kin mess are affected by this.

Ok, Gwach, assume you are right and Nepal's officially been given to India; then what about India's sovreignity? Shouldn't UK respect that? I am having a nonsensical argument here over the hypotheticals. What you're saying is something we say satirically; those hyperbolies should not be used as basis of an argument.

Snurp, good share. I don't agree with Mr. Pradhan who tends to think a person, and the case against him, is over a nation. I am not okay with another country taking our people and punishing them in whatever way they think is right. If Ram Kaji sues David Cameron for some kind of war crime, should we have the right to arrest the UK PM when he visits Nepal?

Kiddo,

We have the right to arrest UK PM, the same way european nations are trumpeting how they would arrest Bush when he visits for his war crimes. I don't think it is a moral question, the question we should be asking is "Are we able to?"

That's where I agree with Mr. Pradhan that "weak nations must do as they MUST". A tragic truth!

You know Nepali politicians - they can, have been, and will continue doing anything from making new laws to plotting mass murders in order to stay in power and rich. I am glad that UK arrested the accused. And all these talks about sovereignty of Nepal are nothing but bs. These suckers are just worried that their turn might come soon.

I don't see how this incident has anything to do with Nepal's sovereignty. When India directly puts its nose in Nepali politics, encroaches into Nepali land, builds dams to submerge villages in Terai, and so on... where the hell were these so called patriots? Why didn't /don't anyone give two shits about issues alike that really threaten our sovereignty?

I would support any authority that punishes these blood suckers. Good to see some JAAI KATAK NAGARNU, JHIKI KATAK GARNU in practice.

yes nepali politician  talks abt sovreerigty during election time as the way politician in usa talks about immigration during election time.

@Snurp
No we don't have right to arrest and sentence UK PM for crimes committed in his country. About Bush getting arrested; first of all certainly not for the crimes he did in US (but the ones that affected other countries) and second I will tell you to sell your horse and sleep knowing he won't be arrested.

Not sure what part is not clear folks, but, its not about crime here. You guys are so hell bent on seeing it as a tragedy committed by or against maoist, you fail to see what else is at stake. You visit Ireland and next thing you know you are arrested and sent to prison for a case brought up by your neighbor in Nepal against you.

What happens in the country is our problem. We don't need another country to penalize our people. Might as well give your passport and citizenship if you think otherwise.

 Kiddo,
According to your logic the war crimes committed in Darfur for instance, shouldn't have any bearing in the world. Because it is another country's problems?  If what happens in your country is ONLY your problem, doesn't it make easy for certain tyrants to stick to power  hen they know they can easily rule by the barrel of the gun forever? How many examples do you want of that around the world?

I also agree with you that Bush won't be arrested, but it is not because he's hiding in US, but the "world police" aka USA won't let it happen (remember the notion of weak and strong (militarily in this case) . But look at how conveniently they have placed embargo against Russia's human rights' abusers but cry foul when russia uses a similar ploy in adoption.

Perhaps you're talking about every citizen has the right to a due process in his own country, which I agree with you. But when you have a PM of a country like ours who is openly condemning the probe into human rights abuses, then you know the judiciary in YOUR country is powerless and all the probes merely seem sham. It is easy to sit back and say you can't continue to pick on old wounds, but try telling that to the family of those abused/killed who had no link to the war whatsoever.

 This is exactly the reason why we need an international group(not a single country) to probe into these, especially in a country like ours, which I support wholeheartedly. Yes, I do understand it is not a perfect or a fair system, but its a start!

Snurp
You are only looking it from a crime's perspective and I am trying to tell you that a country's sovereignty is at stake.

"How many examples do you want of that around the world?" Where is the example?? Give me an example of where a criminal is prosecuted and sentenced in a country for a crime he committed in a different country that he is a citizen of. Heck, even Saddam was hung in Iraq and that country was all screwed up. Nepal wasn't even given this much of respect?

Since our government is so inept, why don't we also let our economic, domestic and legal process be controlled by another country? Sure India has a big influence but on paper we are a sovereign nation and no country has the right to take our rights away from us.

 Kiddo,

Fundamentally, there are crimes that transcend the boundary of the origin of the place where crimes were/are committed. As such, there are a plethora of Universal Jurisdictions that most of the countries have ratified and duly accepted its legality and scope of prosecution of an individual and an organization who have committed crime that falls under those statures. These statures mostly came as a response to moral obligation of the world to fellow human beings. Principally, they act as an assurance to enforce laws at elements egregiously violating the universal human rights (there are many inequitable cases that don’t verily translate to aggression, but we can be fairly certain when there is genocide, tortures, and persecution of dissidents etc). The perpetrators have an utter disregard to their own constitution and a universal right is least of their worries, especially in third world countries where human rights violation is rampant and casual! These statures are a weak form of deterrence, but deterrence nevertheless. Nonetheless, they make sure (at least in paper) where an intervention is needed and specify objective cases for trying a person/organization for alleged human rights violation, and strip them of the immunity they might otherwise enjoy in their home country.

I see that your primary issue is about the sovereignty of a nation, and conversely the right of a nation to prosecute an individual of crimes committed outside of that nation. Mostly, the nations that detain and try individuals who were/are in a position of higher authority and had direct accountability of the crimes committed under their guardianship. There is no arbitrary reason to detain an individual, and if he/she is wrongly detained, there is a due process that is to be followed and as a result, a possible restitution is paid to the person wrongly tried. As had been mentioned earlier, even the powerful nations mostly fry the big fishes of small nations- but that’s a about enforceability and willingness to trade for the bilateral relationship with the counterpart nation.

And yes, Bush had been accused of crimes against humanity for certainly committing crimes in U.S. among others; Guantanamo Bay: although it is a territory of Cuba, U.S. leased from them and is technically a U.S. territory. 

Alternate
I am glad somebody brought up the topic of Universal Jurisdictions (UJ). This is a valid argument.

While, I support the idea behind UJ, I believe it has to be a charter motion in UN and all states need to ratify it before any one state starts blatantly enforcing it. This is no where close to an universally accepted charter, see pointers from various delegates regarding this:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gal3442.doc.htm

Let's talk legality. From what I have read, while Human Rights group advocate torture as one of the criterion where UJ can be invoked, UK law doesn't say so. It includes such things as terrorism, Fraud, Dishonesty etc. They might bring up another angle to fight this case, but the bottomline is it is not black and white.

Last time UJ was discussed in the context of UK, was when an Israeli citizen was about to be charged for some war crime. The case had to be dismissed because the person was not in UK territory, but also because of Israel's powerful pressure against this. Israel was pretty much miffed up about it and UK took heed.


Once UJ has been acknowledged and accepted, I think it will serve good for the mankind. Otherwise, the big fish will keep punishing the small fish. Nepal, as a sovereign nation, should continue pressuring UK on this particular issue.

As had been noted in different media, there is a provision of Universal Jurisdiction in the UK which has been recently passed and rarely used.  http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-releases/moj/pressrelease150911a

It is understandable why many countries including U.S. are opposed to Universal Jurisdiction (most of the nations opposing are countries with poor human rights record). They fear they could be detained and prosecuted while on a foreign soil or could be tried in absence. This is nothing but a copout. Although there are international tribunals that look only into serious cases of human rights violence, they are very slow in delivering justice.

If the judiciary in all countries were powerful and efficient, you would hardly have a case for a tribunal or implementation of UJ. Alas! it’s not the case right now; hence a need of UJ.

Re Kumar Lama, Nepal government needs to provide him logistics support just like it would support other citizen. They failed at home to prosecute individuals who committed crime at home. I don’t see a moral standing of this government to preemptively defend the allegation of human right violence because they know they are next.

I only hope he gets a fair trial. 

This definitely shows the legal ground for UK to prosecute him; I wasn't sure about torture being one of them and thanks for the link.

This still seems very "super-power"-ish; like the old Great Britain. So, David Cameron comes to Nepal and we arrest him saying we have this law in our country which grants us the authority to arrest the leader of any nation that had any part, even a small involvement, in a public crime. Your involvement in Murdoch scandal grants us right to arrest you under our law. How fair is that?

The reason I don't agree with this is that we are surrendering our citizens to a judicial proceedings that our citizens have never approved of. Sure we don't elect our supreme court, but we elect the president and Constitutional council which sends the chief Justice there. WHAT IS OUR SAY IN ALL THIS? Until and unless, nations ratify this kind of charter, no country should have right to enforce its power over anybody.

Thanks for that link. I agree with your last para. I am not advocating for Kumar Lama, I am advocating for citizens of Nepal and my country's right.

 If David Cameron visits Nepal, he would be the first sitting (or not) British prime minister to do so. And if he is arrested in Nepal, he would still be the first British prime minister to be arrested in Nepal or anywhere. It would be really interesting and funny, but mostly interesting.