GameBanshee Forums

All the attention focused on Get bin Ladan has tended to obscure the fact that yes, the world moves on with plenty of other news. Among the more intriguing items is everybody's favorite Central European ideologue and war criminal, former Prime Minister Milosevic of Yugoslavia. To date, stuck in a jail cell in the Hague, he protests that the International Courts have no jurisdiction over him. He has also refused to accept the legal council assigned to him.

How do you feel about it? Does Milosevic have a point? Are alleged war crimes sufficient cause to arrest a former national leader and extradite them? And if so, what level of crime is necessary to cause this? Who else might accrue to such an International Hit List, if one were capable of being started, among former and current national leaders?

Whoah! I think I feel something squishy under my feet ... did someone open a can of worms in here?

Why? This topic is certainly less risable than Afghanistan. So what are your opinions, @Lazarus?

Well, what is difficult about the issue is that some people would say that the US should be brought before a tribunal - or Israel - or China - or just about any nation.

I have an inherent distrust and dislike for any supra-national bodies which attempt to impose their ideas on others AND at the same time, claim that it is "the will of the world body politic."

This is victor's justice, and little more. If I were Milosovic, I would be saying exactly what he is saying.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>Well, what is difficult about the issue is that some people would say that the US should be brought before a tribunal - or Israel - or China - or just about any nation.

I have an inherent distrust and dislike for any supra-national bodies which attempt to impose their ideas on others AND at the same time, claim that it is "the will of the world body politic."

This is victor's justice, and little more. If I were Milosovic, I would be saying exactly what he is saying.</STRONG>

What alternative would you pursue, if you were a body like the UN? And what alternatives would you suggest to the surrounding nations that have had to suffer his depredations over the years?

I know you can't curse in here.
But i say fry the bas****!!
He should pay and everybody knows his crime and their is proof.

The charter of the ICC is what i agree with.
You can look at it here:
[url="http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/"]http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/[/url]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>What alternative would you pursue, if you were a body like the UN? And what alternatives would you suggest to the surrounding nations that have had to suffer his depredations over the years?</STRONG>

Saying "if I were a body like the UN" misses my point: I disagree with the UN as well.

To answer you however: If the surrounding nations feel they have been wronged by Milosovic, then THEY can put him on trial, under local laws. Or, if the "new" Yugoslavia wishes to face up to his crimes, THEY can put him on trial.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>Saying "if I were a body like the UN" misses my point: I disagree with the UN as well.

To answer you however: If the surrounding nations feel they have been wronged by Milosovic, then THEY can put him on trial, under local laws. Or, if the "new" Yugoslavia wishes to face up to his crimes, THEY can put him on trial.</STRONG>

What gives the nations the right to try the idiot?
If the UN can't do it, why can these nations?
I am confused.

Originally posted by Lazarus:
<STRONG>If the surrounding nations feel they have been wronged by Milosovic, then THEY can put him on trial, under local laws. Or, if the "new" Yugoslavia wishes to face up to his crimes, THEY can put him on trial.</STRONG>

Like Fas, I am confused by the idea that the surrounding nations should have a right to put a person who has committed war crimes, whereas an international body should not?

To answer Fables question: No, I don't agree with Milosovic. IMPO there should be an international court where large scale human rights violations like genocide, "ethnic cleansing", tyranny over an entire nation etc could be tried. IMO there should also be an international court where war crimes could be tried.

I'm bumping this--seems like an interesting thread, and not one that will unduly distress many SYMers.

I agree with Fas on this. Fry him up with an extra crispy coating.

fable - ignorant *and* insensitive. <sigh>

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>I agree with Fas on this. Fry him up with an extra crispy coating.

fable - ignorant *and* insensitive. <sigh>

</STRONG>

Grunt agrees with me??

No one is more shocked than I.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>No one is more shocked than I. </STRONG>

Uh uh.
*Points all the members of SYM*
They are more shocked!!

It will make the news.

Insensitive, @Grunt? I don't think any subject I've seen posted on SYM is insensitive in itself, but individual posters can make it so. The opposite holds true, too: hell, we got through some touchy religious stuff for pages on end without a single incident.

I'd hate to see censorship of serious stuff like this, out of concern for flames before they even occur. Just my POV. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

He won't be fried - that's for sure. No EU-country have the death penalty.

But he is guilty of his crimes and should be punished acordingly.
I believe that having an international count is the way to deal with these things. Especially because I for believe that it would be rather hard to have an objective count if he were to be trialed in his native country.
The country is wartorn and the people are angry and need someone to blame. I'm not saying that he's innocent, but everybody is entiteled to a fair trial.

-Sylvanerian

The problem with "war crimes" is that they are usually prosecuted against those on the losing side. For instance, Grand Admirals Erich Raeder and Karl Donitz were tried and convicted of "war crimes" at Nuremberg for "conspiracy to wage aggressive war". Charges of crimes against humanity against both men were dismissed.

Essentially what both men were guilty of was being good at their jobs. As the highest ranking officer in the Kriegsmarine during the inter-war period and at the beginning of the Second World War, Raeder was charged with rebuilding the German Navy to compete with the British and the Americans. Did he knowingly conspire to violate the Treaty of Versailles? Yes, but he did it with the complicity of British inspectors who felt that the terms dictated at Versailles were too harsh, so they let the Kriegsmarine slide a bit.

As Grand Admiral of the Fleet, Raeder ensured that the Nazi influence over the Navy was minimal (for example, the Navy retained its chaplains as the rest of the services lost theirs to political officers) and fought very hard for funding against Goering and the Luftwaffe. Raeder was not accustomed to the internal politics of the Nazis and saw himself as a professional officer of the old Imperial German state.

Grand Admiral Donitz was a Nazi, but he was also an officer out of the old Prussian mold. As commander of the U-boat fleet and later CINC of the Kriegsmarine, Donitz was the brain behind the "wolf packs" and almost starved the British into submission.

Why were these two men prosecuted? The Allied War Crimes Tibunal didn't present any evidence that either men were complicit in the Holocaust, although certainly both men knew something was up. The evidence present against both was that they waged unrestricted submarine warfare against the Allies which was a violation of international law.

If Raeder and Donitz were prosectued for waging unrestricted submarine warfare, why weren't American Admirals Ernest King (the CNO) and Chester Nimitz (the CINCPAC) brought up on the same charges? The American "silent service" was responsible for destroying troop transports and starving the Japanese of oil and natural resources, hastening their collapse in the Pacific. How did they do it? Unrestriced submarine warfare and a "shoot on sight" policy against Japanese shipping.

Now, back to Milosevic. There is no doubt in my mind that he is a completely worthless human being. I also have no doubt that he fostered a policy of "ethnic cleansing" and forced relocation against people he didn't like. My problem is not with bringing Milosevic to justice, but with the entire concept of "war crimes".

Everyone should be held to the same standard, whether they are the victors or the vanquished, and it seems that we (NATO; the victors) are coming down a little hard on the Serbs without applying the same scrutiny to the people of Kosovo (or ourselves).

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: HighLordDave ]

Here here, lets line them all up and gun them down.

If you think about each one of us in our own right, are all war crimials. We all pick sides, we close one eye. Saying "Our side wouldn't do that."

Once again another thread that should be closed. What a waste of time and intelligence.

How many of you are tree huggers?? Don't like the death pentilty, until your family member is raped repeatedly, then shot or stabbed. Would you have the same ideas then or would you want to throw the switch, pull the trigger, or put in the needle????

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

@HighLordDave: I agree with practically everything you say, but imo this only proves the need for an international court in these matters.

@DP: What do you mean? That the longing for revenge should guide our actions?