Milosevic on Trial

[OneFootInTheGrave]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,649570,00.html

one more

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1817000/1817525.stm

and one picture of a prisoner in the war that was shown at the opening

[Eli]

Question by someone who knows almost nothing about the issue :
Why his own country didnt trial him? Why "the world" demanded him to be trialed in the Hague?

[DinoDoc]

Farce of a trial.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Farce of a trial.

Why?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Because his own country does have an interest to convict him for genocide and war crimes commited in other countries. His is the main convict but there are many others from Bosnian and Croatian sides too.

Farce of a trial.

I'd like you to say the same about 9/11 convicts even though there is much less evidence against those people held in US camp in Guantanamo.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
Why?

Because the blatant violation of international law that was the NATO Kosovo campaign is not being punished. I think that if you wish to take the credible moral highground in order to pontificate to the rest of the world then you should be more equitable in who you single out for condemnation for violations of international law.

Furthermore, the Serbian people have the easier criminal case to prove and should have been the ones to try him for his crimes.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I doubt that a Serbian court will ever convict him for 7500 killed in Srebrenica, or the direct responsibility for Croatian, Bosnian and Kosovo wars and the killings that were done there. In the same way that German courts were not permitted to handle Nazi general trial.

[BeBMan]

Furthermore, the Serbian people have the easier criminal case to prove and should have been the ones to try him for his crimes.

I simply doubt that a fair and correct process in Serbia is possible when there are many of former Milosevic supporters still in their old positions (e.g. army, police).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
I doubt that a Serbian court will ever convict him for 7500 killed in Srebrenica, or the direct responsibility for Croatian, Bosnian and Kosovo wars and the killings that were done there.

They don't have to try him for those crimes. They could have just as easily as convicted the man on the massive coruption charges against him and if Croatia had wanted him tried they should have captured him themselves becuase the whole conflict was none of NATO's concern.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I guess that stability in Europe is NATO's concern, and that was achieved.

As far as the tribunal goes that is setup by the UN and has nothing to do with NATO. Don't you think that it is a good thing that local warlords know that if they go over their limits that they can be tried in a court and that their crimes agains humanity can be shown, as well as for many victims - in such cases there are always many victims - that there is a place and hope that justice can be done one day.

[BeBMan]

Stability on its southern flank is nothing important for the NATO?

Edit: OneFootInTheGrave, please stop reading my mind

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by BeBro
Stability on its southern flank is nothing important for the NATO?

NATO military action in Kosovo preceeding Milosevic's downfall was a blatant violation of the very international law that Europe is now complaining that the US is violating.

OneFootInTheGrave: Don't you think that it is a good thing that local warlords know that if they go over their limits

I could care less what the local warlords do to thier own people as long as they do not threaten US interests abroad. And so far the only accomplished by the NATO actions in Yugoslavia is that we moved the conflict south. Nothing of real import changed in the region.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
NATO military action in Kosovo preceeding Milosevic's downfall was a blatant violation of the very international law that Europe is now complaining that the US is violating.

Err, do you mean your operations in Afghanistan? Who complained about that, which NATO Allies?

[DinoDoc]

I mean that Europe can not be logically consistent and claim to be holier then thou when you claim that international law is sacrosanct in one instance (The Geneva Conventions) and disregard it in its entirety in another (Chapter VIII, Article 53 of the United Nations Charter).

[BeBMan]

I could care less about that behaviour as long as it is good for Europe...