This is so funny

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Roland
Tribune:

"Nah, Roland, this is much too sweeping. First of all, iurisdiction by whom? Obviously by those who win. Or can you imagine Bush or Clinton under trial for NATO war crimes?"

Having jurisdiction does not automatically mean you can actually exercise it. Universal jurisdiction simply means that a state does not need substantial connections to a case. Read eg § 64 StGB.

He is talking about division of both legislative competencies (and everyone grabs those in the case of war crimes) and the measure of appropriatness of the forum.
You reply with a provision of StGB that talks about judicial jurisdiction.
I reckon he is not using the term in a technical way.

[Roland]

"Not a fair question. Imagine yourself on the side of 'Why this love affair with Karla del Ponte?""

She's a cutie compared to Slobo.

"Well, it feels good (and sometimes even right) to challenge certain things whose only evidentiary weight was that they have been repeated 1000 times."

In that case the defense should be pretty interesting. Haven't followed it in detail but on some prosecution points esp wrt Kosovo you can drive a truck through. Don't know whether they dropped'em in the meantime. On others I want to see how the defense weasles out... but maybe it'll just be a shouting match with Slobo.

"He is talking about division of both legislative competencies (and everyone grabs those in the case of war crimes) and the measure of appropriatness of the forum. You reply with a provision of StGB that talks about judicial jurisdiction."

I'm not sure what the point was. That provision of StGB is of course based on legislative competence - and it's in material penal law, not just about judicial jurisdiction.

"I reckon he is not using the term in a technical way."

I guessed so too...

[Fidel]

yeah when it comes to criminal matters - judicial = prescriptive

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Late 1940s. Too late to start the trials now.



1930s/early 1940s. Too late. Also, those aren't crimes against humanity.



Most aren't cases of crimes against humanity. Vietnam could be considered that, but it's also too long ago.



Same as above. Too late.



The Russians should be held accountable for Chechnya. Maybe someday.



True enough. That's why Sharon and probably also Arafat might face trial in Belgium. Others won't even dare to set foot in a western nation out of fear of being arrested (Sadam, among others)



They can and should be held accountable as well.


Still, most on your list simply don't apply. The crimes aren't crimes against humanity, or have been commited far too long ago.

Breaking news - there is no time limit to the actionability of such crimes. How do you reckon Nazis still get prosecuted?
As for Swedes - they sold steel to Hitler, Slobo sold weapons to Bosnian Serbs.

[Saint Marcus]

Breaking news - there is no time limit to the actionability of such crimes. How do you reckon Nazis still get prosecuted?

There is a time limit. Recently, we found a former SS member in Holland, who is believed to be guilty of some crimes against humanity. Yet, the court judged the alleged crimes happened too long ago. So yes, there definetly is a time limit.

[Bereta_Eder]

I'm sorry but Karla del ponte must be immidieatly put under arrest purely for bad looks.
I'm sure she's violating some relative law.

And Albright was a freak of nature too.

Is it only chance that UGLY WOMEN go after Milosevic?

Woman jealousy can be dangerous you know. very.


oh and if you want to talk terrorism, just look at the ad of Albright dancing and signing.

Al Qaeda are babies in front of her. She has violated about 50 articles of International Law just by moving her attrocious butt around.

Also in the ad was Kissinger (east timor, cyprus,chile etc etc)too and it was an ad for respect of immigrants

if this is an example of what immigrants will turn out to be I say close the borders and close them tight

[Fidel]

paiktis, my friend
i agree wholeheartedly
just one thing - most of the serbs would like more to see all of them in cell with milosevic than to set him free.
player1, am i right?

[Bereta_Eder]

in prison with del ponte and albright will indeed be an inhumane punishment for Milosevic

but in a serbian prison judged by Serbians unless the law says otherwise.

I don't have any sympathy for him but this is a trial for the crimes of NATO, USA and the EU as well as his lest we forget

[VetLegion]

aaaaaarghh paiktis lose that sig willyou? I mean its one thing to support slobodan, kind of ok, but

http://www.emperors-clothes.com

makes you so look so funny

ok, I wont threadjack, but we ll need to have a serious thread dedicated entirely to that site.

In other news, I saw milosevic today, I must say I think NATO intervention was illegal in my opinion, but deserved. I mean the judges are so happy he finnaly speaks they let him say anything. He gave in, he should have refused to fight on their ground. He should have refused to speak and become a martyr or something

and Comrade Tribune (is it this thread?), you have been seriousely brainwashed, but all may not yet be lost gotta go now, see you.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Roland
Overall... why this leftie love affair with Slobo ?

Why the 'leftie' (Blair/Schroeder) love affair with NATO air terrorism?

Permit me to let the New Statesman (great paper) answer:

"The trouble with Slobo is not that he is an "ethnic cleanser" (three years after the original indictment, we have yet to see the evidence linking Milosevic to atrocities in Bosnia), but that he is stubbornly and cussedly an "old", unreconstructed socialist. This is why the new designer "left" parties of Europe have pursued him so mercilessly to The Hague. Slobo is exactly the kind of old-style eastern European leader many of them would have defended in their student days. Ironically, it is still acceptable in politically correct circles to praise Tito's Yugoslavia, which was truly a one-party state; but Milosevic's Yugoslavia, where more than 20 political parties could freely operate, is deemed completely beyond the pale.

Had Milosevic sold off his country's assets to the multinationals and queued up deferentially to join the European Union and Nato, and become a western "yes-man", he would have had carte blanche to wage his own "war against terrorism". Anyone who doubts this need only refer to the 1999 US-EU Balkan Stability Pact, which called for all countries of the region to be offered Nato and EU membership to "anchor them firmly in Euro-Atlantic structures", as well as demanding "widespread privatisation" and an end to any restrictions on the operations of multinationals.

The treatment handed out to Milosevic shows that the biggest enemies of socialist causes are not those with principles on the right, but those without them on the left."

http://www.consider.net/forum_new.php3?newTemplate=OpenObject&newTop=200202110019&newDisplayURN=200202110019

[VetLegion]

Comrade, Comrade

Milosevic was NOT a socialist.

Milosevic was a power hungry dictator, if he neaded to, he would have establihed an anarchy or a monarcy to remain in power. However, it wasnt necessary, all he had to do was a coalition here and there, and putting key people in key places in media on a daily basis. (he took much care of media, Serbian radiotelevision was the propaganda champion of the Balkans, followed closely by Croatian HRT)

Anyway, a socialist!? True to the ideals?
Say, if you were a dictator, would you want a free market capitalism system under you, or a state owned system you can control from the centre of power? Milosevic inherited socialism from Yugoslavia and just kept it as it suited him.

And, ahem, he wouldnt sell to the transnational companies? He would gladly sell anything, dictators love hard currency to pay their police and keep people in order.

For example, he sold Serbian Telecom to Italian Telecom (evil capitalist company) for many dollars. Why, if he was a socialist? Telecoms are one of the most profitable companies in any state, why not keep and let workers enjoy fruits of their labor? Because, as I said, he had more important things on mind then socialism, how to stay in power for example.

I even read a transcript where he talks with his brother (a buissinesman) about the sell. They speak of how "the French are whimps, they had it open but did nothing". You see they offered Telekom to the French first, but they werent too happy about it, so Italians got the deal.

This is one of the myths, that he was a socialist. There are so many myths about the man, that undoubtely people are going to be wearing his shirts in 50 years, like Che Guevaras. Fighter for freedom, hanged by the capitalists. His last words were about his people.

I wont scrap _my_ Che shirt anytime soon

And Comrade, your sources of info are at least... problematic. You shouldnt say things they say for granted.

I just had to comment the site you quoted in one of these threads. This is from http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

Between 1960 and 1980 it had one of the most vigorous growth rates: a decent standard of living, free medical care and education, a guaranteed right to a job, one-month vacation with pay, a literacy rate of over 90 percent, and a life expectancy of 72 years. Yugoslavia also offered its multi-ethnic citizenry affordable public transportation, housing, and utilities, with a not-for-profit economy that was mostly publicly owned. This was not the kind of country global capitalism would normally tolerate. Still, socialistic Yugoslavia was allowed to exist for 45 years because it was seen as a nonaligned buffer to the Warsaw Pact nations.

credits, credits... people in Yugoslavia did not earn enough to support the relatively high standard of living they had so the state had to take loans.
Take reports of Yugoslavias economic sucess with caution.. yes there was some, but they were far from spectacular. My opinion is that if postwar Yugoslavia was a confederation in a capitalist system after the II. World War, it would have been a prosperous member of the EU now.

But discussing different forms of self-governing socialism in ex Yugoslavia is material for a whole thread in itself. For example, the Yugoslavian concept of workers making decisions in factories has made a comeback in capitalism as workers do that more and more - employers learned that giving workers some deciding power improves efficiency.

Another goal of U.S. policy has been media monopoly and ideological control. In 1997, in what remained of Serbian Bosnia, the last radio station critical of NATO policy was forcibly shut down by NATO "peacekeepers." The story in the New York Times took elaborate pains to explain why silencing the only existing dissident Serbian station was necessary for advancing democratic pluralism. The Times used the term "hardline" eleven times to describe Bosnian Serb leaders who opposed the shutdown and who failed to see it as "a step toward bringing about responsible news coverage in Bosnia."

There was not so long ago a trial for Ruanda crimes, and a newsreporter in Ruanda radio station was tried as guilty. Why? Because that radio was the most important centre of hatred spreading in Ruanda (Americans thought of bombing it but havent)

Power of the media is ENORMOUS (cant bold it enough), and in war it is further amplified. There is such thing as inciting hatred, and in most countries in the world it is a _crime_ to do so. you get fined or go to jail if you spread racial or other hatred. This was case in Ruanda, where power of the media was used for genocide.

Media in ex Yugoslavia were also pretty harsh during the war. I hope some get trial on all sides for that, but analysis of war media is also a topic for itself.

In bosnia situation is still tense. Many warmongering politicians are still in power structures, democracy is far from being full, the last thing people there need is warlike media. I havent heard that particular station, but dont assume freedom of the media is a good thing always, it can get to extreme too, and in fragmented state like Bosnia, NATO is the only real authority who can do something about it.

Yugoslavia's sin was not that it had a media monopoly but that the publicly owned portion of its media deviated from the western media monopoly that blankets most of the world, including Yugoslavia itself.

No. TV was Milosevic propaganda machine, and in war, that is a legitimate target. I hear Serbs are putting on trial the guy who was in charge of the station because he did not protect his workers adequately. We ll see what the court has to say, should they have known they were going to be bombed.

Tudjman's government adopted the fascist Ustasha checkered flag and anthem.

Nonsense. Tudjman government adopted Croatian flag and anthem. Do you really think Croatian history is only between 1941 and 1945?

Tudjman presided over the forced evacuation of over half a million Serbs from Croatia between 1991 and 1995, replete with rapes and summary executions.

I was a kid (10) then, 1991. My best friend and neighbour was Serbian, flat next to mine, in Zagreb. We were playing whole day long, at my place, his place (more often, he had ****load of great toys) or out in the park. What the hell did I care he was Serbian? Noone forced them out by force, although some people might have been harsh to them. Someone glued a paper to their doors "serbs out!", ofcourse, author hid behind anonimity.

It was a reaction to native Serbs baricading 1/3 of Croatia, JNA (totaly Serbian by then) shelling cities and killing people all the time. We had to go to shelter in Zagreb because of the planes, although it wasnt on the front line.

Anyway, for a Serb in Croatia, that was really a tough period to endure. I imagine it was a really tough to be a part of a nation which cut main roads, effectively cutting Croatia in half, enraging people. Some Serbs were killed (there are trials for the killers going on), some were forced out, and some left of their own. Some stayed too. Between 1991-1995, oficial numbers say 9000 Serbs served in Croatian army.

My neighbours left, we said goodbyes and all, although I havent realised they were going for good. Mother of my friend was crying all the time.

This included the 200,000 from Krajina in 1995, whose expulsion was facilitated by attacks from NATO war planes and missiles.

No, those are two different events, not a continuous action. Also, there were no NATO planes and missiles, only some NATO training and intelligence to Croatian forces.

Bosnia is now under IMF and NATO regency. It is not permitted to develop its own internal resources, nor allowed to extend credit or self-finance through an independent monetary system.

Sadly, there is no Bosnia. Serbs in 'Republika Srpska' part dont want to have nothing with it.

In early 1999, the democratically elected president of Republika Srpska, the Serb ministate in Bosnia, who had defeated NATO's chosen candidate, was removed by NATO troops because he proved less than fully cooperative with NATO's "high representative" in Bosnia. The latter retains authority to impose his own solutions and remove elected officials who prove in any way obstructive.

Yes, they did that to a number of leading Croat politicians in Bosnia too. They dont want nationalists in power, even if democraticly chosen (they were). Bosnia is not ready for democracy, if it was, and Karadjic was a candidate, who do you think Bosnian Serbs would wote for? Him.

The popular image of this war in Bosnia is one of unrelenting Serb expansionism. Much of what the Croatians call 'the occupied territories' is land that has been held by Serbs for more that three centuries. The same is true of most Serb land in Bosnia. . . . In short the Serbs were not trying to conquer new territory, but merely to hold onto what was already theirs."

There were large areas in Croatia where Serbs were majority for hundreds of years, however they have not lived there alone, and there were others who lived there for centuries too. In the entire area they occupied in Croatia they might have had some 50% or a slight majority.

What happened to others? Well, during the Serbian occupation, the worse crimes in the entire period of war in Croatia occured. Hundreds of thousands of people were rounded up and expelled, hundreds killed. Things Serbs did on the occupied territory surpased everything Croats did in the free part. After a while, Serbs had a 100% majority in an area they never had, and apart from being unarmed and burdened with refugees, Croatia was cut in half too (almost cut in three parts, but managed to stop that)

Recently, three Croatian generals were indicted by the Hague War Crimes Tribunal for the bombardment and deaths of Serbs in Krajina and elsewhere. Where were U.S. leaders and U.S. television crews when these war crimes were being committed?

One of them is trialed in Haag because of too much bombardment in operation Storm (Ademi), one is hiding (Gotovina), and one is trialed in Croatia because of killing native Serb civilians in a city near the front line (Norac)

If they are guilty, I hope they all be hanged (there is no capital punishment in Croatia, so life in prison would suffice). But it is a serious problem to say just how much bombardment is enough in large scale military offensive. I think that one will be released (Ademi), for Norac, I think he will be found quilty and Gotovina, who knows.

Where was US television when it happened? In Ademi case, they could not film it because it was a short military operation, in Gospiæ case, people 'dissapeared' from the city to be shot in some forest and never seen again. How do you film that?
And in Gotovina case, I think he is on trial for behaviour after the operation Storm, based on commanding responsability. These things are well documented and filmed.

The reason serbs are 'demonized' is because they constantly, in the 4 year period of war in Croatia and Bosnia, used their superior weaponry to bomb civilians in the cities. Also, they refused every possible peace agreement, including Z4 total autonomy plan which no normal country would sign, however Croatia did. Croatia really was looking for a peaceful solution, while the rebels were happy as it was.

Where were the TV cameras when hundreds of Serbs were slaughtered by Muslims near Srebrenica? The official line, faithfully parroted in the U.S. media, is that the Serbs committed all the atrocities at Srebrenica.

Reports speak of 8000 dead in srebrenica. Karadjic and Mladic should hang for that, and so should one man in the entire world who could have stopped it with a phone call - Milosevic.

If there were mass killings of Serbs in Srebrenica (which I doubt), someone should answer for that too. One crime is not excuse for the other.

This same story did note that the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal sentenced a Bosnian Croat military commander to ten years in prison for failing to stop his troops from raping Muslim women in 1993 -- an atrocity we heard little about when it was happening.

You heard little because it happened little. Why?
Because when number of Serbs left (expelled or free will) Croatian cities in 1991 they left individualy. There were no long queues of people leaving you could systematicly torture. People were not rounded up by the hundreds, women separated from men and led to concentration camps. And in 1995 they left without physical contact with Croatian forces.

I dont know about Bosnia, but I am glad that guy was trialed.

At first, the Western press, viewing the ex-banker as a bourgeois Serbian nationalist who might hasten the break-up of the federation, hailed him as a "charismatic personality." Only later, when they saw him as an obstacle rather than a tool, did they begin to depict him as the demon who "started all four wars."

Unlike most of the article this is true. West thought of Milosevic as the reasonable person they can negotiate with for the most of the time. It will be a hell of a show when he calls them as witnesses on trial.

There are more opposition parties in the Yugoslav parliament than in any other European parliament. Yet the government is repeatedly labeled a dictatorship. Milosevic was elected as president of Yugoslavia in a contest that foreign observers said had relatively few violations. As of the end of 1999, he presided over a coalition government that included four parties. Opposition groups openly criticized and demonstrated against his government. Yet he was called a dictator.

He was a dictator and his word was the law. Elections were heavily influenced by media and Milosevic had the media. I dont know about ballot fraud and was there any. Was Hitler dictator? He was elected too.

A report released in London in August 1999 by the Economist Intelligence Unit concluded that the enormous damage NATO's aerial war inflicted on Yugoslavia's infrastructure will cause the economy to shrink dramatically in the next few years.37 Gross domestic product will drop by 40 percent this year and remain at levels far below those of a decade ago. Yugoslavia, the report predicted, will become the poorest country in Europe. Mission accomplished.

And prior to 1999? Serbia was a flourishing paradise? They could have waited for people of Serbia to overthrow the maniac themselves, which would have happened eventually, but they speeded it with bombings instead. It wasnt legal, but if was necessary.

With their electric power stations ruined and factories destroyed by NATO bombing, isolated, sanctioned and treated as pariahs by the West, Serbs have the choice between freezing honorably in a homeland plunged into destitution, or following the 'friendly advice' of the same people who have methodically destroyed their country.

Those same people forgave Serbia 66% of its foreign debt (Croatia got nothing), and are going to invest millions of dollars in it. Weak Serbia is in nobodies interest. Serbs will recover, no doubt about it.

Its matter of time until Volkswagen buys Crvena Zastava, although, with a bit of luck it could have been the other way around

Things are not black and white in the Balkans, so they are not with Milosevic either. Some things about him are true, some false, but sites you quote Comrade, where do you find them They are pure propaganda.

If they present you the facts an allow you to form opinion from there, then they are good media, if they force an opinion on you, then they are bad. However, the issue of suggesting an opinion by manipulating different facts and not really telling a single lie is called unfortunately the art of jurnalism and is difficult to spot. No single media is fair.

I havent commented Kosovo parts of the text, this is long as it is.

[Shi Huangdi]

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

Controlling a country in no way lets you do whatever you want to your people.

"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."



David Floyd continues to make the absurd argument that national soverignity allows for everything. But soverginty too is a relatively new concept in international relations-- back in the ancient times it was seen by everyone as ok to do almost anything so long as you had the power. In the middle ages, anything could be justified for the glory of God. National soverginty only became cemented with the Treaty of Westphalia. But I don't see how a French victory in the 30 years war needs to mean we let murderers do their horrible crimes in the 21st century if they want.

"No medium sized or large country which has not been hit militarily is ever going to have it's citizens sitting in such a position. If the crime is losing a war, then I suppose it's fair."

Well, that's how it works sadly enough- the weak get the short end of the stick. But just because we can't enforce basic human rights for all, doesn't me we shouldn't enforce it for some.

[Bereta_Eder]

human rights cannot be enforced by those who break it and create the violations in the first place.

It's like a murderer being the judge. Doesn't work.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Milosevic was NOT a socialist.
...
This is one of the myths, that he was a socialist. There are so many myths about the man, that undoubtely people are going to be wearing his shirts in 50 years, like Che Guevaras. Fighter for freedom, hanged by the capitalists. His last words were about his people.

I wont scrap _my_ Che shirt anytime soon

Well, you sometimes change your shirt, don´t you?

You could wear your Che shirt and your Milo shirt alternately.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Power of the media is ENORMOUS (cant bold it enough), and in war it is further amplified. There is such thing as inciting hatred, and in most countries in the world it is a _crime_ to do so. you get fined or go to jail if you spread racial or other hatred.

When are we going to see the American media prosecuted for transmitting Bush´s hate speech against Iran, Iraq and North Korea?