Meanwhile, Milosevic

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 12:16 am

@HLD: I also agree with most of what you say, but like Dottie I think it shows the need of an international court.

@DP: Being the victim of a crime does not necessarily change one's disposition towards death penalty. We don't get back our dead because the person who killed them is also dead. Btw, why do you call people who are against death penalty tree huggers? Are most death penalty opposers also very ecologically aware people?

NCT · Post by **NCT** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 1:45 am

Very interesting views.I'd like some questions answered though,trying to be as impartial as one can since I have witnessed part of that war,from very close quarters.
1.Was he the only one to commit crimes against humanity?(that is the term in vogue)
2.What about the Croatian muslims and the "volunteers from Iran-Albania-Afganistan?
3.What about the "smart bombs"that turned out to be stupid and wiped out a refugee convoy of Slovenians?!
4.To expand this a bit:What about the 25 year genocide in Tibet?
5.What about Kashmir?
6.What about the Kurds being exterminated on mass?
7.The Amazonian tribes?(What is left of them)
8.The genoside of the Tutsi and Huttu in Africa?
The list is endless and covers all aspects of history and geography,being more gruesome as weaponry and delivery methods advance,and raw materials and resources decline.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 2:54 am

I'll leave most of that to others; but as far as the Amazonias is concerned, Venezuela has generally managed to treat its tribes (like the Yanomani) well, while Brazil has used the old "less government is better government" to piously sit back while land developers strip mined the Indian preserves and killed the Indians. The matter's been complicated recently by the presence of Protestant American missionaries, who have sided with the developers, while the Roman Catholic Church's more inflammable priests have taken up for the indigenous folks.

About twelve years ago, my wife and I were down on the Venezuelan side, where we heard a pretty amusing story. It seems that Brazil wasn't satisfied with the gold and logging on their side of the border. They actually sent prospectors and scouts to examine the land several miles into Venezuelan territory. Of course, the Indians on the Venezuelan side got out runners to the authorities (typically, about forty miles or more in dense tropical rain forests separate any Venezuelan villages from Indian ones, and that's deliberate). The Venezuelans warned the Brazilians not to cross the border.

A few weeks later, a contingent of trucks with loggers, equipment, and protected by Brazilian federal troops (who were presumably moonlighting) preceded by scouts calmly crossed into Venezuelan territory and set up a base. Within a day, the Venezuelan army arrived on the scene, shot several men, and drove the Brazilians back. Of course, neither government will acknowledge it happened, given what it might lead to, but the Brazilians have never tried to cross over, again.

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 10:10 am

Originally posted by fable:
@DP, no offense, but if you don't like the thread, why do you post in it? Why not ignore it?

Because I can't, just like you.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 10:27 am

Originally posted by Darkpoet:
Because I can't, just like you.

Yes, but I'm an ignorant American. What's your excuse?

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 10:47 am

Originally posted by fable:
Yes, but I'm an ignorant American. What's your excuse?

Arrogant and ignorant.

@All: By the way, my postings are my opinion. As for the tree hugger comment, I would rather see. The forests left alone and the money grabbing devolpers shot, and along with all the Murders, Child molesters, and Rapists. No trail, just take them out into the woods and leave them for the wolves and other meat eating creatures. One other thing that grinds me, is the useless killing of animals. I don't mean, hunters who hunt for food. I mean the exotic animals being killed.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 6:30 pm

Whether we like it or not, the world is getting smaller and smaller. Chances are, things that happen in the other side of the globe would have an effect on you.

Somehow, there must be a set of standard rules that all nations agree on to determine certain actions for certain offenses.

This is a small world now. We HAVE to accept that fact.

Suggestions? None at the moment from me

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:20 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
@HLD: I also agree with most of what you say, but like Dottie I think it shows the need of an international court.

We do need an international court. We need it to be completely independent of international, political, economic, religious, ethnic and geographic influence. In theory the World Court at the Hague is such an entity.

But who administers and funds the Court? The UN does. Who is the primary funder of the UN? The United States. What are the odds that the United States or an individual from the United States (or one of its allies) will ever be prosecuted without a mountain of evidence and loads of popular support from both international and domestic sources? Next to nil. Hell, we couldn't even convict OJ.

My point is not that war criminals shouldn't be prosecuted. They should. I believe that there exist definite statues on what constitutes a war crime from an act of war. But war crimes must be prosecuted fairly and impartially, against all perpetrators.

After the trials at Nuremberg and Tokyo, the term "war crimes" has taken a pejorative meaning and carries with it a lot of baggage which stirs emotion. Emotion is the most detrimental thing to the pursuit of justice. Emotion causes us to wrongfully prosecute individuals and mete out excessive punishments.

Until there exists an entity that has a blank check to investigate, prosecute and punish war criminals in a manner that is completely independent of external influence, the winners will always get away with more than the losers ("To the victors go the spoils", eh?).

kostkovahtar · Post by **kostkovahtar** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 2:21 am

Originally posted by NCT:
?
3.What about the "smart bombs"that turned out to be stupid and wiped out a refugee convoy of Slovenians?!

What refugee convoy? The only incident like this happend when Yugoslav airforce bombed truck culumn that blocked advance of armour unit, killing several foreign truck drivers. Were you thinking of refugee convoy in Kosovo that USAAF wiped out?

NCT · Post by **NCT** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 3:19 am

Originally posted by GaSper:

What refugee convoy? The only incident like this happend when Yugoslav airforce bombed truck culumn that blocked advance of armour unit, killing several foreign truck drivers. Were you thinking of refugee convoy in Kosovo that USAAF wiped out?

Nope I didn't mention that because the Yugoslavs were the"bad guys"in this fracas.This happened just south of Serajevo,during one of the numerous cease-fires late in the evening.It was acknowledged but no cameras were handy at the time,except some private ones.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 6:28 pm

But who administers and funds the Court? The UN does. Who is the primary funder of the UN? The United States. What are the odds that the United States or an individual from the United States (or one of its allies) will ever be prosecuted without a mountain of evidence and loads of popular support from both international and domestic sources? Next to nil. Hell, we couldn't even convict OJ.

Exactly so. Until the present leader of Israel is arraigned on war crime charges for approving the massacre of prisoners in a Lebanese POW camp twelve years ago (which he boasted about at the time), such a tribunal will always bear the stigma of bias.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 6:34 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
We do need an international court. We need it to be completely independent of international, political, economic, religious, ethnic and geographic influence. In theory the World Court at the Hague is such an entity.

In theory, yes. I agree with your post HLD, I just misunderstood your first post as arguments that there was no meaning to have an international court.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 7:37 pm

In re-reading my first post, I did not make my position clear; I think I was worried about going on for too long.

I believe that war crimes trials should be used as instruments of justice. However, in the past they have not been used to fairly investigate atrocities, but rather as instruments of revenge or further punishing defeated foes.

Some of the folks tried, convicted and either imprisoned or executed at Nuremberg and Tokyo certainly deserved their fate as determined by the war crimes trials just as Milosevic deserves whatever he's got coming. However, I also believe that comparable acts committed by the Allies went unpunished and as long as war crimes are prosecuted unfairly, war crimes trials will carry with them the stigma as being instruments of revenge, not justice.

kostkovahtar · Post by **kostkovahtar** » Wed Nov 28, 2001 2:30 am

Originally posted by NCT:
Nope I didn't mention that because the Yugoslavs were the"bad guys"in this fracas.This happened just south of Serajevo,during one of the numerous cease-fires late in the evening.It was acknowledged but no cameras were handy at the time,except some private ones.[/QB]

Yes Bosnia war was bloody slaughter, but Slovenians were not there. War in Slovenia lasted only ten days.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Nov 28, 2001 9:56 pm

Another problem with the idea of an international tribunal for the consideration of war crimes is the sheer length of time required to try and convict/free suspects. Delays are systemic, and ridiculously long. Though it's not generally known, the Yugoslavian tribunal has only convicted 15 people in all the years its been in existence; and if it is argued that the tribunal had little cooperation from the various governments, the Rwanda tribunal, created for identical reasons, has only convicted ten. And it has had thousands of suspects at its disposal.

International judges and languages, adversarial cases with defenses arguing for endless delays, witnesses that have vanished or are across the world--all these reasons are given for the difficulties of the tribunals, but it would appear that there are more deep-rooted issues involved.