N400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 890 times:
Let Milo Go
The U.N. would love to see some present and former American officials tried for the same sort of crimes as Milosevic.
by MICHAEL LEDEEN
July 3, 2001 8:25 a.m.
I hate Slobodan Milosevic, and I was all in favor of marching into Belgrade and removing him from power. But I do not revel in his arrest and his impending trial in The Hague at a "war crimes tribunal" created by the United Nations, because I know that lots of folks at the U.N., on bad days even a majority of the Security Council, would love to see some present and former American officials tried for the same sort of crimes in the same docket.
I would hate that, even if it were Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, hauled up for aiding and abetting genocide in North Korea. And I would hate it even more if it were, as some of the America-haters are urging, George Bush the Elder and his evil henchmen Powell and Cheney, for genocide in Iraq. If you think such events are utterly fanciful you're not spending enough time online with the new New Left. If that crowd has its way, one A. Greenspan will stand trial for mass murder.
That's why all those folks who are gushing and cooing over the wonderful expansion of the "rule of law" had best remind themselves that dreams-come-true often have unintended consequences, although in this case they are certainly not unimagined. The United States refused to sign the Genocide Convention for more than a generation precisely because of such fears, and those resisting included some fairly cautious souls from both parties, from Hubert Humphrey to Jacob Javits and Clifford Case, for example. When we finally signed, we stipulated reservations strong enough to convince several of our close allies that we hadn't really agreed to anything. We insisted that no American can stand trial without the formal approval of the U.S. government, and that in no case can any American be tried for something that is not criminal according to the Constitution. The wise Americans who insisted on such reservations had the same nightmare visions I do. And they insisted that the "rule of law" is best exemplified by the Constitution, and we're not going to expose American citizens to somebody else's view of what is criminal.
The kidnapping of Milosevic and his delivery to The Hague tribunal seems to me utterly unnecessary, because he was going to be tried by his own countrymen (the Genocide Convention, for example, requires enforcement by the nations involved, and permits the creation of special tribunals only when the law is flouted). The seizure of Milosevic was probably carried out to favor one side in the intense internal political struggle between Milosevic's successors in Serbia and the virtual country called "Yugoslavia" (Serbia plus Montenegro), and, more ominously, to show the world that the U.N. — or, in this case, the countries offering financial aid to Serbia — can enforce its will.
Never mind that Milosevic was removed from power by the Serbs (you may recall that, as in Iraq, we shrank from the dirty deed, preferring to leave the scene and hope that good things would happen), and that a duly elected Serbian Government has insisted on its authority over the former tyrant. This is quite different from the situation in Africa, where Rwanda simply lacks the resources to try their own mass murderers; Serbia is able and willing to try Milosevic. We are denying Serbia the same rights we have claimed for ourselves, and it's quite remarkable that so few chatterers and, so far as I can tell, not a single member of the American government, has spoken against the clear violation of Serbian sovereignty. Richard Holbrooke, in a remarkable essay in the Washington Post, regrets only that this happy turn of events was produced by Congressional meddling in foreign policy. Not even Henry Kissinger, who is likely one day to be indicted by one of these self-righteous tribunals (if Lou Lapham and Christopher Hitchens have their way), has denounced it. Is no one concerned that the U.N. — the same bunch that declared Israel guilty of racism, and that removed us from their human rights institutions — may kidnap our citizens and drag them before some self-appointed judge?
The current trend toward trying fallen dictators is thus far limited to the former rulers of small countries, and has a distinct political tinge to it. No one is clamoring for the trial of former Communist tyrants from the Soviet Union or Central/Eastern Europe. The fashionable intelligentsia cheers when Pinochet gets gobbled up, but no one demands that Gorbachev or other Soviet Communists stand trial, as simple intellectual consistency demands. And don't hold your breath waiting for the International Court of Justice to indict Fidel Castro or the vicious regime in Beijing (although you may recall that Fidel was so upset by the indictment of Pinochet that he cut short a trip to Spain and hightailed it back to Havana before some local judge brought charges).
All this is simply one more example of the global victory of the legal class. The lawyers and judges are asserting their supremacy over all possible competitors for power, from the businessmen to the politicians and the generals and colonels. They have claimed the authority to decide who gets indicted, and who enforces "the rule of law," here and everywhere. The politicians, who mostly come from the legal class, aren't inclined to contest the issue. The military, at least north of the Equator, accepts civilian rule. Who is left to defend us against the impending assault of politicized lawyers with a grudge against America?
Maybe we should enlist the trial lawyers. Somebody should tell them that if this trend continues, all the fees from the "patients' bill of rights" boondoggle will go to some attorneys in Brussels or the Netherlands. Then we might get to see a real fight.
I agree and it would be very scary if the United States signed on to this damn international court. But the government has never had too much regret when they go against the Constitution.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12952 posts, RR: 79 Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 831 times:
While Kissinger has questions to answer, a 'War Crimes' trial would be excessive. Not even Capt. Calley, if he is still alive, the officer ultimitely reponsible for the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, would be a candidate. We are talking about systematic, state-directed genocide here.
It's so easy, safe in a country which has not known war on, or near it's soil since the 1860's, to be dismissive of such an important event, which in Europe at least, has broad support across the political divides.
There are many others who should be there, but the fact they are not, should not stop the attempts to bring these scum to trial.
There's some tyrants who are very worried now, after all, not many thought that Slobbo would end up in the slammer.
The Hauge is a suitable setting, Holland has a fine legal tradition.
The US is not the only nation of laws.
As for a trial in Serbia, there are many dangers, after all. Slobbo controlled all aspects of the state for many years. It's unlikely that all of his cronies have been rooted out.
Or he could to vunerable to assassination.
All this nonsense talk of 'leftist plots', ever heard of rights AND responsibilities? Works for nations as well as citizens.
9A-CRO From Croatia, joined Jun 2000, 1574 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 824 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
first of all - Slobo was prosecuted in Serbia not for war crimes, but for financial malversations (and this was not "Al Capone trial" way to get him prosecuted for war crimes using other crimes as excuse) SECOND - why should american officials have "GOD" status - if crimes are commited in othere country these should be prosecuted - if in country of origin then OK, but if not then there should be International court
When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward...
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29513 posts, RR: 59 Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 792 times:
In the case of the happenings on Okinawa, the US and the Japanese government have a SOFA. Which stands for Status of Forces Agreement. This agreement governs the conduction of personel in that country and sets the rules for who is in charge when a crimial matter come up.
There is no such agreement between NATO, The US, or the UN and Serbia.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 785 times:
First I have to argue with absurd notion that President Clinton or President Bush being "charged" with such idiocy. The author misses one, big, important difference between Clinton and Bush on one side, and this scumbag Milosovich on the other: Milosovich murdered his own people in cold blood. Clinton and Bush didn't exterminate anyone. And his potshot at President Bush over Iraq was just sour grapes. Mr. Bush stated clearly from the beginning that we weren't in Kuwait to occupy Iraq, and he was true to his word.
As for this assertion that he was "kidnapped", it seems to me that he was arrested by his own people, and they are the one that sent him to the U.N. If they wanted to exact their own justice, why didn't they keep him? I think they'd rather have the U.N. make a martyr of this lunatic, then having to do it themselves.
As for executing Milosovich, I think he'd get the easy way out. I think the U.N. should lock him up in a 3 x 5 cell for the rest of his life, like a caged animal. Let him go berserk in there.
And, of course, N400QX doesn't like this court: it's made up of all those foreigners at the U.N. N400QX, what is your view on Milosovich? Why are you so against him facing some kind of justice for being the Hitler-wannabe that he is?
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 778 times:
Another reason why I have no respect for you L-188. You can spell Milosovich's name right, but then you purposely spell Mr. Clinton's wrong. Grow up a little and get over your childish behavior. That kind of stuff impresses no one.
Mbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2572 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 778 times:
The editorial is sensational and manipulative. It's not even worth arguing many of the author's suppositions.
The U.S. must come to terms with justice, however. The U.S. cannot continue to act as judge and jury for the rest of the world. We are no more "God's chosen people" than the citizens of Chad. Other nations have begun to embrace this notion. It's time Americans started thinking about this.
Aviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 753 times:
Actually, not to be nitpicky, but it is Milosevic.
But anyway, to those people who are against Milosevic being tried for crimes against humanity, let me ask you this.
In 1945, after the end of World War 2, Adolf Hitler is captured. Who will try him? After all, he has not broken any German laws. He also has not broken any laws of other country's, because after all, he was on German soil the whole time. Also, in Germany at the time, there was no way on earth that Hitler would have had a trial which was not biased by people with views for and against his.
The International Court of Justice has proven itself to be bipartisan, and as such, have no problem with an Australian, American, Nigerian, Antiguan, or whoever, being tried in front of it.
To those American who are against such "international courts", who would you rather have your servicemen who fought and were captured in Vietnam tried in front of? A North Vietnamese court, or the International Court of Justice????
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 741 times:
I don't give a damn about you impressing me, but you have absolutely no class. You can call that mass murderer by his right name, but you have the arrogance, because of your petty hates not even to spell Mr. Clinton's name right. I guess you have more respect for a man who has committed genocide. You need to grow up, and get over Clinton.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29513 posts, RR: 59 Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 741 times:
Would you have allowed Austrailian troops been prosecuted by an international war crime tribunal or a North Vietnamese court for any "war crimes" Aussie troops commited in Nam?
I didn't think so.
International courts have a history of convicting or aquiting with the prevailing international setiment. Not what is right or wrong.
See there you just proved my point to Aviatsiya. You allready have the man convicted and hanged. That is because that is the prevailing setiment put on the news. He is only charged, he has not been convicted.
I don't think the man is innocent but I do believe that is guilt has allready been pre-ordained by the "international court" This is just window dressing.
Avit: I hope I spelled your name right.....Johans forum doesn't display previous posts if you go back and correct something........I rewrote this about twice.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 738 times:
You don't even get what I'm talking about, L-188, do you. You show more respect for this mass-murderer, and that's what he is, than a president of your own country who you harbor these petty hatreds against. You are an arrogant man.
I think all the mass graves in Serbia are make him guilty. Or, is it simply becasue a bunch of foreigners are going to stand judgement on him that makes you give him some benefit of the doubt? Your mistrust of anything "international" is right out of the far right-wing's handbook in this country. It would be very funny if it were't so idiotic.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29513 posts, RR: 59 Reply 20, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 738 times:
Hey....I never said Milo wasn't guilty....In fact I believe the opposite.
1. He is due his day in court.
2. He is not being tried by his countryman aka his peers
3. One could make the argument that he was ransomed by the current Serbian government. Basicly sold to the war crimes tribunal for international aid.
What is so wrong about being tried by a "jury of your peers?" I don't believe an international jury could ever be made up of your "peers"
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 733 times:
So, do you believe that at Nuremburg, it was a sham to try Goering and Co. the way they did? Because it, too, was an international tribunal, that, under your definition was not made up of their "peers". Frankly, I don't think Serbia has the balls to try the man themselves, that's why they handed him over.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 733 times:
I'm siding with Alpha here (surprise!). Milosovic would have gotten off, or maybe probation or something ridiculous like that had he been tried in Yugoslavia. The Tribunal will be fair, I expect.
It is unfortunate that the Serbian government bent the rules (or actually broke them) to send Milosevic to the Hague. If that aid conferance had been held a month or two later, he would probably have been sent anyway, legal and clear. As it is, now the newly democratic government of Yugoslavia is about to collapse over the issue.