quote:

---

Irene Kahn, secretary general of Amnesty International, said, "Louise Arbour's broad human rights background, distinguished legal career and service as U.N. prosecutor give her the experience to be both bold and creative in promoting and protecting human rights."

---

quote:

---

There was an article by a Canadian lawyer a few years ago in some magazine "Louise Arbour-War Criminal"

---

quote:

---

During the Assembly meeting, representatives of Morocco, Malaysia, Bulgaria, Tunisia, Ireland and the Republic of Korea - many speaking on behalf of their region - congratulated Ms. Arbour on her appointment.

---

Ferdinand Celine escaped prosecution for openly supporting the Nazis, yet he escaped prosecution. The people who organized the rendering of fat for the production of soap in Konignsberg, out of the bodies of concentration camp victims, also escaped prosecution, as the preperation of bodies is not a crime. There needs to be a direct line of responsibility.

Black tries to take care of this by noting that Arbour said: "I am mindful of the impact that this indictment may have on the peace process," and although indicted individuals are "entitled to the presumption of innocence until they are convicted, the evidence upon which this indictment was confirmed raises serious questions about their suitability to be guarantors of any deal, let alone a peace agreement."

This does not mean that she has any knowledge of the realities of what effecting the peace process in this manner will have on indivdual Kosovars, and Serbs. She no doubt thought that she would be saving lives, not the reverse.

The principal that someone is guilty, simply by their association with a particullar ideological alinement, is very problematic. In fact this idea is one of the principle ones that lead to war crimes being committed, through retaliation killings of who haven't done anything.

Since Black and Herman associate themselves with this point of view can I now turn around and write and article called:

Christopher Black and Edward S. Herman: Unindicted War Criminals?

Politically, Arbour can be forgiven because a lot of liberal people the world over really thought that Serbia would be a test case for a new standard of international law. This was how the whole bill of goods was sold to liberal moralists.

[ 27 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

In actual fact, Louise Arbour is a very progressive person, as her judgments in the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada abundantly document.

One could not, for example, read her report on the Prison for Women in Kingston without coming to this conclusion.

Cueball would like to suggest that "liberal moralists" are the only ones have been "sold"
on international law, and the need to prosecute those in power for criminal acts they commit.
Actually, all you need is a basic respect for human rights, and the idea that law can do more than express the power needs of the bourgeoisie. That is, all you need is a bit more than reductionist Marxism.

quote:

---

As I have written elsewhere, Black and Herman's article is utterly irresponsible. Writing that someone could be a war criminal for holding a press conference should disqualify the writer from all serious discussion of the matter.

---

quote:

---

As I have written elsewhere, Black and Herman's article is utterly irresponsible.

---

Silly actually. Calling it irresponsible gives it to much weight.

quote:

---

Cueball would like to suggest that "liberal moralists" are the only ones have been "sold" on international law, and the need to prosecute those in power for criminal acts they commit.

Actually, all you need is a basic respect for human rights, and the idea that law can do more than express the power needs of the bourgeoisie.

---

Thank you for actually directly quoting words (almost an entire phrase even!) out of my text, when misrepresenting my statements. What I have said is that people have been sold the idea that a sytem of international law will come into being as a result of Ms. Arbour's efforts on behalf of the UN in regard to Balakn war crimes.

I am suprised that this is still being argued given the completely lawless manner in which the one of the prime movers for the NATO campaign against Serbia has acted since. In that period USA has invaded two countries without the sanction of the UN, and incarcerated hundreds of people of various nationalities, for an indefinite period of time at camp x-ray, without even giving them access to a lawyer.

The state of international law and the ability of the those laws to decrease "the ability of the state to impose violence on those it choses to," has apparently deteriorated, since Ms. Arbour's intevention in Serbia.

The vague hopes of people such as Ms. Arbour are misplaced. We will see that the precedent by trial, based on Ms. Arbour's investigation of Slobodan Milosevic and others, that a future trial will take place wherein Saddam Hussein will go on trial while persons such Donald Rumsfeld, who actively supported Mr. Hussein through some of his worst criminal activity, will not even be investigated for crimes commited in Iraq, or in Iran.

quote:

---

Given that Rwandans have been put on trial for genocide for giving speeches, radio interviews and refusing to open their doors, I can only assume that you would disqualify everyone working on the Arusha tribunal from serious discussion as well.

---

quote:

---

Given that Rwandans have been put on trial for genocide for giving speeches, radio interviews and refusing to open their doors, I can only assume that you would disqualify everyone working on the Arusha tribunal from serious discussion as well.

---

Come on. The persons put on trial in Rwanda for the reasons given above were prosecuted because the content of their broadcasts incited slaughter and genocide. Even if you buy Black and Herman's argument at its highest (and that's being generous), Arbour's press conference was used as a moral shield for continued NATO bombings. The difference is immediately apparent.

I am still trying to figure out what decision of the Supreme Court of Canada Black is referring to in his article in here

quote:

---

Arbour clearly does not believe in the basic rules of Western jurisprudence. And within a month of her elevation to the Canadian Supreme Court she joined a court majority that grafted onto Canadian law the dangerous Tribunal practice of permitting a more liberal use of hearsay evidence in trials. (2) The consequent corruption of the Canadian justice system, both by her appointment and her impact, mirrors that in the Canadian political system, whose leading members supported the NATO war without question.

---

The hyperlink leads to some rambling about Star Chambers which helpfully referrences one of Black's previous articles as a source.

quote:

---

Given that Rwandans have been put on trial for genocide for giving speeches, radio interviews and refusing to open their doors, I can only assume that you would disqualify everyone working on the Arusha tribunal

---

I presume you can distinguish between a person shouting on radio: "Go out and slaughter your neighbours; get a machete and rip their guts out of their bodies", on the one hand, and "We have determined that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Milosevic should be tried for genocide."

quote:

---

The state of international law and the ability of the those laws to decrease "the ability of the state to impose violence on those it choses to," has apparently deteriorated, since Ms. Arbour's intevention in Serbia.

---

There have been some egregious abuses by the US government, yes. And the groups that promoted the ICTY have been very active critics there. But there has also been a great deal of progress since the ICTY was established. None of these efforts at justice would have been possible unless the ICTY had paved the way:

-- first, the International Criminal Court itself. The movement to create the Rome statute and get it ratified was heavily citizen-based. It built directly on the success in establishing the ICTY. Without ICTY, there would not likely be an ICC. The ICC, sadly, has jurisdiction only on crimes committed since it was set up, so it cannot alone handle all cases in the world. Special tribunals are needed if we want to address anything that happened before the Rome statute was signed.

-- Like it or not (and you can click Holy's link for that debate) the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda was set up as a direct result of the ICTY.

-- With the need for local involvement taken into account, the Special Court for Sierra Leone was established on a mixed international-national basis.

-- The Special Tribunal for Cambodia employed this model to resolve a deadlock between the UN and the Cambodian government, with the result that some prosecutions may take place. Nowhere near what's needed, but it is a step.

-- The Ad-hoc Court for East Timor is another mixed tribunal which has handled the job of prosecuting East Timorese militia killers fairly well and indicted some of the Indonesian generals who masterminded killings in East Timor, although it has stalled based on Indonesian refusal to cooperate. The Cambodia and East Timor cases both show that leaving these things to national tribunals alone can mean impunity for the men who commit genocide.

-- The UN has set up a mixed tribunal in Kosovo as well.

These are faltering steps. We need a great deal more. If we keep pressing, we can keep getting more. That's why i think the ICTY was a step towards international justice. And with someone like Louise Arbour as UN commissioner for human rights, i don't think that we'll see any country get a free pass. The two people who have held this post before (Mary Robinson from Ireland and Sergio Viera de Mello from Brazil) have been exemplary in their consistent calls for respect for human rights everywhere: Robinson, for example, spoke out against NATO's actions in Kosovo.

quote:

---

I am still trying to figure out what decision of the Supreme Court of Canada Black is referring to in his article in here

quote:

Arbour clearly does not believe in the basic rules of Western jurisprudence. And within a month of her elevation to the Canadian Supreme Court she joined a court majority that grafted onto Canadian law the dangerous Tribunal practice of permitting a more liberal use of hearsay evidence in trials

---

I am with you, 49. At the time of the article I tried to find any such decision. I used Quicklaw, which others may not know of, but which is a specialized service for lawyers.

Quicklaw yielded no such decision by Arbour.

And Black's idea, that it is "dangerous" to admit hearsay evidence, is about as blinkered an Anglocentric idea as one could have.

In the continental systems, hearsay evidence is not routinely excluded; but it is often admitted, then disregarded as being unreliable.

quote:

---

There have been some egregious abuses by the US government, yes. And the groups that promoted the ICTY have been very active critics there. But there has also been a great deal of progress since the ICTY was established. None of these efforts at justice would have been possible unless the ICTY had paved the way:

---

Thank you for responding to the content of my post. I can only sympathize with your objectives.

In plain English my problem is the manner in which well meaning persons volunteer themselves into the larger causes of the major powers (in much the same way that young kids who want to go to college end up being shot at by Iraqis) by aligning themselves with stated purposes of those powers, which are obviously worthwhile, but willfully ignore the actual puropses.

In the three most recent interventions Human Rights activists have been engaged regularly in the service of expanding US or Eurpopean hegemony. They perform as excelent propogandist that help hide real intentions.

1) In the case of Serbia, liberal Human Rights activist where used extensively to justify NATO intervention, on the basis that the intervention would was the begining of a new mode of pro-active international relations. Yet, when it comes down to agreeing to recognize the ICC, the US explicitely balks unless it is guaranteed blanket exemption from prosecution, once the deed is done.

2) In the case of Afghanistan, womens rights activists actively campaigned in support of the intervention in the hope that basic human rights would be delivered to Afghan Women. Yet at the most recent Loya Jirga one of the most outspoken women sent as a delegate had to seek UN protection for fear of her life when she dared raise severe criticisms of the makeup of Kahrazi's latest cabinet. Meanwhile on the streets of Kabul the blue burque is as common as it was before.

3) In the case of Iraq, various claims about Saddam (some true, some not) where made. Various promises were made about democracy, freedom, law and justice. Yet tomorrow, the expected date for a new Iraqi constitution will pass, without that goal having been achieved. The country is a lawless mess, and there is no reason to believe that this situation will change for the better in the near future.

Today Iraq Body Count calculates that a minimum of 8249 and as many 1093 people have been killed in the conflict.

U.S. State Department Report of 1999 states that:

"The number of victims whose bodies have been burned or destroyed may never be known, but enough evidence has emerged to conclude that probably around 10,000 Kosovar Albanians were killed by Serbian forces."

Similar statistics. I ask you, when do you think the investigation into the US conduct of the War in Iraq will begin?

***

As for Arbour herself, I can only say that her press conference, of April 20, 1999. Arbour should really have used the opportunity to announce her resingation from the investigation, on the basis that she is a citizen of a countries engaged in war activities against one the parties being investigated and therefore had a conflict of interest. Even for the sake of form, no matter how honestly she conducted herself.

Surely, the UN could have found a more neutral investigator, say from Japan or China to investigate the alledged crimes.

[ 27 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

In the case of Iraq, various claims about Saddam (some true, some not) where made.

---

Yup, that poor Saddam just keeps getting such a bum rap!

Its funny how people will level the most absurd half-baked conspiracy theories involving nefarious activities by the US and and it gets accepted at face value. Supposedly the US masterminded the massacre in Rwanda and purposely ensured that as many Iraqi civilians dies as possible etc... (For the record, i think the US ios responsible for SOME but not all of the bad the bad things that happen in the world) But in the case of Saddam, we are supposed to think "gee maybe he didn't really kill people by stuffing them head first in a plastic shredder". I guess it all boils down to that old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Since we are supposed to believe that the US is the ultimate force of evil in the world then we have to also believe that anyone the US is against can't possibly be all bad ergo all of sudden totally indefensible despots ranging from Milosevic to Saddan to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan are to be rehabilitated as "slightly misguided good guys" who may have gone a little too far here and there but who are the victims of smear campaign.

quote:

---

Yup, that poor Saddam just keeps getting such a bum rap!

---

You are suggesting that their actually were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that the case for the invasion was founded on good evidence?

quote:

---

"gee maybe he didn't really kill people by stuffing them head first in a plastic shredder".

---

First of all it is a very bad idea to assume that people you disagree with are stupid, or uninformed. I have actually seen rather disgusting footage of Uday Hussein whipping soldiers, and Iraqi officials killing people by putting plasitc explosives in their pockets, and then blowing them up as a means of execution.*

Also, (I know this is a challenge for you) you might try and discuss the topic at hand without going into paroxsysms of outraged histrionics.

Also, if you are going to attempt to a serious critque of my posts then try reading them. I think above you will find one where I use the line "the crimes of Saddam Hussein."

No one, least of all me, is trying to rehabilitated any of the above as "slightly misguided good guys."

Why do you insist in inventing others arguements for them, is it so that you can simply spout your own simplistic responses? Why bother with the internet? You could do this at home with a piece of paper and pencil. Imagine, you could save yourself the cost of a dial up service.

Cheers.

* Try Ogrish.Com, under "Executions."

There you can also see really delightful footage of Chechyn rebels cutting the heads of (living) Russian soldiers. It's a lovely world isn't it?

Does that make Russian intervention in Chchnya right?

But for some reason you seem to think that painting an ugly picture somehow makes an arguement strong. Sorry it doesn't.

[ 27 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

As for Arbour herself, I can only say that her press conference, of April 20, 1999. Arbour should really have used the opportunity to announce her resingation from the investigation, on the basis that she is a citizen of a countries engaged in war activities against one the parties being investigated and therefore had a conflict of interest. Even for the sake of form, no matter how honestly she conducted herself.

---

Arbour is not just any citizen, she is a member for the Canadian establishment, with strong ties to government. The government was engaged in War activities in Serbia. The official purpose of that war was directly related to the subject that Arbour was investigating, and it was clear that the Canadian government had already decided that Milisevic was guilty.

[ 28 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

it was clear that the Canadian government had already decided that Milisevic was guilty.

---

quote:

---

In the three most recent interventions Human Rights activists have been engaged regularly in the service of expanding US or Eurpopean hegemony. They perform as excelent propogandist that help hide real intentions.

---

There is a problem here certainly. The answer some people give is to turn around and say we should not worry about delivering justice for victims of genocide, because that will only advance the nefarious intent of American imperialism.

I disagree. I think we need to do both things. I certainly don't think that we stop campaigning for human rights in individual countries merely because, if we succeed, the US government will seize upon our success to further its own goals.

On Iraq, the very good human rights work that was done was originally aimed at two targets: Saddam's dictatorship and the governments (including the USA) that supported it. The people active in the cause of supporting human rights in Iraq (like British MP Ann Clwyd, for instance) who turned from campaigners for human rights, into campaigners for war, are an example of the problem. Human rights rhetoric was used to legitimize war (and is being used much more, now that the WMD excuse has been exposed for the flimsy lie it was).

So what's the answer? I think that groups like Human Rights Watch have it right: continue consistent advoacy for human rights (including international involvement in a tribunal to try people like Saddam Hussein). Which means also opposing US violations of human rights. Or it's things like former human rights commissioner Mary Robinson's intervention in the Kosovo situation: while continuing to support international criminal tribunal work, she spoke up against the NATO bombing campaign. That was a consistent pro-human rights position that refused to lend itself to the goals of war.

Between the people that harness human rights rhetoric to their own goals (Bush) and those who effectively oppose any human rights work because they believe that only the struggle against US empire matters (Ramsay Clark), there is room for genuine and honest human rights activism. And that is where Louise Arbour is standing.

quote:

---

Anyone who would disqualify her from working for human rights based on her citizenship will also have to disqualify Lloyd Axworthy or Steven Lewis from doign any international human rights work.

---

[quibble]I disagree. The context is entirely different, allowing oneself to asigned to a criminal tribunal, which is largley aimed at persons your country is at war with is not simply 'Human Rights work.' Your being unusually hybeprbolic here. The statement is in correctly titled reductio ad absurdem. Reducing the actual context into mere philanthropy, to the point where the Balkan investigation could be synonymous with old ladies giving out soup to the homeless.[/quibble]

In case you misunderstood, I am not suggesting that the conditions as they are today should prevent her from taking on this new role at the UN, because of her citizenship. Although, her intervention in the Serbian situation certainly undermines my faith in her objectivity. I was speaking specifically of her role in the Balakan Investigation.

I really believe she believed she was on the side of right. Wasn't it Lenin who said something like; 'the bureaucracies in hell are satffed by well intentioned human rights activists.' Do I have the quote right?

[ 28 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Arbour is not just any citizen, she is a member for the Canadian establishment, with strong ties to government

---

Actually, she grew up relatively poor. As I understand it, her father left the family home early on, and she was raised by a single Mom.

She has never worked for the government. First, she was a law professor, and after that on various courts. Courts are independent of the government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

But in the case of Saddam, we are supposed to think "gee maybe he didn't really kill people by stuffing them head first in a plastic shredder".

---

quote:

---

She has never worked for the government. First, she was a law professor, and after that on various courts. Courts are independent of the government.

---

quote:

---

that very thin, almost invisible, line between the courts and the government.

---

I pushed the point because the original argument about Milosevic was that the judges are the direct pawns of their NATO governments.

If that isn't so, then the case against the Tribunal collapses.

Of course, if it is so, then no one gets a fair trial, because the same authority who funds the police funds the courts.

I know it is difficult to distinguish between various arguements made by apparently allied forces, but just because Greenspan (or Clakre -- see I can't even remember which) mentions funding does not mean that all people who see essential problems with the Milosevic trial agree on all points. Nor is it true that a person who is wrong on point is therefore wrong in the main.

It seemed to me that the actual direction taken by Clarke was not an issue of funding, but the that those that sponsor the tribunal are above the same laws, and the not idictable by the tribunal.

The difference between this tribunal and the Canadian courts is that "I can take the Canadian government to court. This is one of the key things that gives the Canadian courts their legitimacy."

It is not an issue of who cuts the cheques. But the evident fact that those who sponsor the trial (the NATO members of the UN Security Council who psushed for it), and the war are not accountable within the framwork of the Tribunal --incidentally they also cut the cheques .

Clarke suggests the following:

quote:

---

1. Declare a moratorium on all proceedings in all U.N. ad hoc criminal tribunals for a period of at least six months and for such additional periods as may prove necessary for the United Nations to:

A. Create a Commission of international public law scholars and historians to examine the precedents, the drafting, language and intention of the Charter of the United Nations to determine whether the Charter empowers the Security Council to create any criminal tribunal and, if so, the basis, authority and scope of such power, or refer the issue to the International Court of Justice for decision.

B. Create a commission of international criminal law scholars to review the trial proceedings in the case against President Milosevic to determine whether legal errors, violations of due process of law, or unfairness in the conduct of the trial compel dismissal of the proceedings, and whether the evidence presented by the prosecution against former President Milosevic to is sufficient under international law, before any defense is presented, to support and justify continuation of the trial.

C. Provide former President Milosevic with funds to retain advisory counsel, investigators, researchers, document examiners and other experts sufficient to effectively respond to the evidence presented against him and assure the time required to complete the task before any further trial proceedings resume, such efforts being essential even if the court is abolished, or the prosecution has been dismissed in order to help establish historic fact for future peace.

D. Provide funds to secure independent medical diagnoses, treatment and care for former President Milosevic in facilities in Serbia.

---

Honestly, what is wrong with any of that given the importance of the trial as a precedent, as illustrated by Swallow?

Clarke even suggests that International Court of Justice be used as tool to determine the validity of the ad-hoc tribunal. This says to me that Clarke is not at all questioning the principals of International law where people such as Milocevic could be indicted, as has been suggested by some. In fact he is attempting to see it reinforced by ensuring that it proceeds in a manner which is manifestly fair.

Why the rush to hang Milosevic?

[ 29 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

If there was a rush to "hang" Milosevic, the trial would be over by now, instead of dragging on as it has (and it will certainly take more than six months to finish, given the long break M. is now given to prepare his defence). Such rush as there is, i think, is probably a result of the need to get tribunals up and running to end the global culture of impunity, and the desire to get the man on trial before he dies having escaped a reckoning, as Tudjman did.

quote:

---

allowing oneself to asigned to a criminal tribunal, which is largley aimed at persons your country is at war with is not simply 'Human Rights work.'

---

quote:

---

Ramsay Clark wants a six-month moratorium on all UN tribunals? That's terribly irresponsible, i'm sure the victims of torture in Sierra Leone will be lining up to thank him.

---

Assuming that these people have genuine claims (which will be estalished by the trial I suppose,) I am sure many of them would like to dispose of the trial phase entirely and get straight to the hanging part. Why have a trial at all if we assume at face value the truth of crimes alledged to have taken place, right from square one?

But we are talking about fair trials here, as Greenspan pointed out the trial shoudl take as long as it takes and not be hurried along. This isn't some mickey mouse B&E charge, Milosvic is being charged with mass murder and genocide.

As for the length of the trial, isn't it a fact that the preperation for the case including the trial itself have been going on for 8 years. Now you think it is fair that Milosevic should combat the huge forces arrayed against him in a mere 6 months?

Actually what happens to Milosevic is very minor, what is far more important is the legal precedent that is being established. Your eloquent, factual and well outlined summary above points to this.

quote:

---

Was NATO at war with Serbia when the ICTY was established?

---

No. But at the time of the press conference that Black speaks about. She even states that she knows her statements will have a direct impact on the peace negotiations, going on between Canada (as a member of NATO) and Yugoslavia. I think it might have been a good thing for her to step down when Canada began military action against Serbia. Again, there is difference between fullfilling the function of criminal invesitgator and prosecutor, and sitting on 'advisory' panels that determine 'if' human rights are being violated and what 'might' be done if they are.

Clarke is not an official at the UN, nor is he a prosecutor for a special tribunal. Certainly persons have a right to make judgements, but context is also important. I mean ones country being at war with another country is a big deal. Again, why could the function of investigator not been handled by a legal secialist from the PRC, for instance?

It think we all understand each other.

Cheers

[ 29 February 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Greenspan's view is that cross-examination should be allowed to continue forever. That is more or less the view of Canadian law (though in practice judges do what Greespan complained of on a regular basis.)

But continental systems do allow for a Tribunal giving a "reasonable opportunity" to cross examine. So Greenspan is basically saying the idealized Canadian system is the only one possible.

Of course, Milosevic has every reason to drag the case out. As long as he does, he is a possibly-innocent man facing a juggernaut; once
he is convicted (on one or more of the 66 charges), he is nobody.

This is partly why I asked: why not have this case handled by a jurist from the PRC?

quote:

---

I am glad it is now conceded that the funding of the trial does not determine whether or not it should be supported

---

Now conceded? Man, you are way out on some trip about something. I really don't understand the need to try and establish your authority by scoring apparent debating points. I, for one, conceded (if you like) this rather silly point, immediatly when you first mentioned it. So far this point has only served to allow you to ignore what is actually being said, for the sake of what? What? Really! What?

Ok. We can spend the rest of our lives trying parse what constitutes a fair court but there is to much discussion about abstract legal processes, such as trials. At the same time we are ignoring that all justice systems constitute a number of different branches. These generally headed under the judiciary, policing and punishment/rehabilitation.

Your courts can be unbiased and just in-and-of-themselves, but if the police only bring only black men to trial, the courts are still the instrument of racism. This is why the US justice system is oft critisized as being racist -- a conclusion that I agree with.

This has nothing to do with how biased the courts themselves are, or the nature of the persons presiding as judges. As well, the fact that a great number of the persons brought before those courts are guilty does not detract from the racism of the legal system as a whole.

This is the sailent theoretical feature that links all the analysis made by critics of the Milosevic trial and the other 'ad hoc tribunals' that have the sanction of the UN. The point being that the enforcement system, the means by which criminals are investigated and aprehended is strictly selective.

(Ai Chiuhuahua, repetition ad nauseum!)

quote:

---

And he knows they have the evidence.

---

Speaking of which there was the matter of the phone intercept, where you stated that Miolesevic ordered a mass murder. Someone disagreed that the person involved in the call was Milosevic, as you had stated. You said you would follow up on this to determine if Milosevic was a party to the phone call. I never heard how that was resolved.

[ 01 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

the means by which criminals are investigated and aprehended is strictly selective.

---

I don't think so. I think Milosevic is the biggest of the criminals, because his authority pervaded Yugoslavia, and then, former Yugoslavia.

And they sided with Crips in order to get the Bloods, but its ok to see some Crips go down, to appease the facade of justice. Still 'whitey' judges.

quote:

---

Serbs may have concern about crooked justice as other sides have such concerns too.

However, the crooked justice was pointed against others in order to equalize everybody for political pruposes. They ( Hague bureaucrats) don't care about victims, their job is to shrink wrap everything for "future relationships". If they have to falsly accuse someone, they will do it.

Yes, Hague court is a crooked justice. If that justice is pointed agaisnt Serbs then thats a small amount of real justice for the S___ they did to others.

---

-- Helicopterbase

[ 01 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I will join anyone in supporting the prosecution of people such as Henry Kissinger.

Unfortunately the Milosevic group made a big deal of claiming that (just like Chris Black did with Louise Arbour) all the leaders of Nato countries were war criminals.

quote:

---

Yes, expand the area of justice, don't contract it.

---

Fine for you.

Just who's idea of justice are you talking about?

I'm sure you can be quite comfortable behind that desk, trading documents and talking in ears.

You are talking about power, the more for you the better is it?

Can you justify that?

Other than a shrine to your political virtue, what is it?

quote:

---

Cueball, you do know that Milosevic is being tried by a panel of three judges, right? Only one (the now resigned Richard May) is from a NATO country. The others are Patrick Robinson of Jamaica and O-Gon Kwon of South Korea. Is "whitey" judging the criminals from the ghetto? It doesn't seem to be the case.

---

Metaphors are imprecise tools of communication. Obviously I am not suggesting that the bias in these Hague tribunals is racialy motivated. I am saying that the bias is of another kind, using bias in US courts as an example of how bias can be generated, despite balance at the level of the court. I am talking about the police, not the Judges (or the balance of the courts themselves,) so you have completely missed the point.

quote:

---

If the problem is that justice is only meted out in this "ghetto," isn't the effort to expand the area of justice to other areas not only a worthwhile effort, but also a sign that there may be more than victor's justice happening here?

---

Is it really wise to expand the system of justice in ways that are manifestly biased?

The problem is that none of these courts are more than ad-hoc courts that expand the area of justice to specific regions, where those who sponsor the Justice system are beyond prosecution. In doing so it has biased the existing standards of international law, under which many of Milosevic's acts would have been covered by immunities and the principal of self-defence, as outlined in the UN charter.

These are very same prinicpals that the US and Israel use, in the first case in both the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the second case in the occupation of the West Bank.

The argument made by Clarke expressly attacks this, not the idea of international justice itself. They are saying that Milosevic had every right to expect the same kind of protections that are regularly appealed to by other UN signatories: Self-defence and the right of a country to deal with criminal bands (terrorists) that threaten its people.

These are clearly enshrined in the UN charter, and available to all countries. The right of the security council to mount special prosecutions against memebr states is not.

They are also saying that NATO engaged in the 'greatest crime, the crime against peace,' by attacking Yugoslavia -- the very crime that the UN was formed to prevent.

So, is it worthwhile to expand the area of Justice?

Yes, it is. But no effort is being made by one of the chief sponsors of the special tribunals. The reality is the opposite: the US is directly blockading your project by overtly denying that it will allow a permanent court to come into existence under which it is liable. Ad hoc courts that attack their enemies (or small fry of little consequence) are fine. They say; "look at all the human rights activist who support them."

I respect the intentions being expressed by you, here. However, I can not 'support' the ad-hoc tribunals. When it is the case that the US signals that it is ready to submit to the same laws that it demands of others, then I might be able to support you. At the time the 'ad-hoc' tribunals were created this was actually the case, and I thought there was more validity to the position you are putting froward. But this is not the case now.

Edited to included: Yet again, the US shows hows International Law is universally applicable --to others.

[ 02 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 02 March 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]