This is so funny

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lars-E
I smell american spirit in here...

So the worse thing is that we have a "UN communist" look-a-like World court? And not that Slobo is a massmurdering-ethnic-genocidical-cleanser?

You have to be american to have such an anti-rest-of-the-world-arrogant attitude.

This stinks to hi heaven big time!

Lars, you are in error. See the other thread on this same topic where I make some excellent points.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


We gained nothing of import from what I've seen from changing the leadership in Belgrade, so I fail to see the reason for the action.

Debatable. For one, the action helped to increase US prestige-- particularlly this action helps rebut criticisms we are anti-moslem because we helped Moslems. Milosevich was seen by many US policymakers as a destabilizing force in the region. Milosevich was a socialist, something which the US wishes to destroy. It gave us a chance to find common ground with our European allies who we had been drifiting apart from. It gave us a nice chance to test our weapons.

But even if you believe it was not in US interests to carry out the bombing, now that we have him I can't see your objection in going ahead and trying him. What would be the point now of releasing him?

[David Floyd]

He's being indicted for Kosovo. That's in his own damn country. The UN can bugger off.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The UN can bugger off.

Or, to phrase it legally: The Security Council doesn´t have, and never had, the right to appoint any courts.

Therefore, this court does not legally exist.

[David Floyd]

Or international courts and/or bodies have no rights to interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations. That includes Nuremburg.

I like that one better.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Or international courts and/or bodies have no rights to interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations. That includes Nuremburg.

I like that one better.

Yeah. Damn Brits, Americans, and French for endeavoring to ensure that those murdering sunza*****es got theirs!

[David Floyd]

Those "murdering sunza*****es" (which I grant they were) violated no international laws they agreed to or any national laws.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Those "murdering sunza*****es" (which I grant they were) violated no international laws they agreed to or any national laws.

Last time I checked, the Geneva Convention was in effect during WW2. Less I'm more wrong than usual.

[David Floyd]

But if Germany didn't recognize the Geneva Convention - and I'm fairly certain the Nazis didn't - then it wouldn't apply to them.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But if Germany didn't recognize the Geneva Convention - and I'm fairly certain the Nazis didn't - then it wouldn't apply to them.

They certainly didn't adhere to the GC, in spirit or letter, but they did recognize it. (In fact, more than once Goebbels put out films decrying the Soviet's for not adhering to it. )

[Seneca]

If international law allows the purposeful slaughter of innocent civilians with no chance of justice for the perpetrators, indeed has no provision for justice for the perpetrators, then I'd say it needs a few changes.

The concept of enforceable standards of basic human rights that transcend national boundaries is a new and evolving one, and our first steps in that direction will necessarily be imperfect.

[Sikander]

Unfortunately I think that international law is overstepping it's bounds vis it's ability to enforce the law. Only the weak are subject to it, and the fact that it is based entirely on western principles of morality, law and justice don't do much to endear it to the rest of the world. I certainly don't cry for Milosevich, but he's the exception rather than the rule. These courts will never have the acceptance of the world until they are backed by a world government which will obviate the need for them in the first place.

[Roland]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I actually agree with David on this one point. This really is a farce of a trial considering that the Serbian people are the only ones with the authority to try him for his crimes and that the NATO intervention that precipitated them man's downfall was illegal on its face.

1. War crimes, genocide etc are matters of universal jurisdiction.
2. Whether the UN SC can create a court and endow it with such jurisdiction can be debated, but under the broad phrasing of the UN statute I'd tend to say yes.
3. Serbia's government extradited Milosevic. This may have been a violation of Yugoslavia's federal constitution, but this constitution does not take precedence over international law.
4. Whether NATO intervention was illegal... we could do a nice debate about that and about the concepts of self determination and sovereignty, but it is irrelevant here. First the link between his fall and NATO action is questionable, second there is no fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine equivalent that would render Milosevic being held at the Hague illegal.

So legally you won't get much mileage out of the "farce" argument.

[Az]

does anyone here can even imagine a situation in which Milosevic is not found guilty ? ( I am not talking about whether he's guilty or not , but the court's desicion )

if such a thing would happen , would you take all your words about milosevic back?

[Roland]

Originally posted by Sikander
Unfortunately I think that international law is overstepping it's bounds vis it's ability to enforce the law. Only the weak are subject to it, and the fact that it is based entirely on western principles of morality, law and justice don't do much to endear it to the rest of the world.

Only the weak are subject to what exactly ?