Chief Hague prosecutor: Time for justice

And after Goran Hadžić is brought to the Hague, Brammertz has requested that "Serbia now disclose where Genghis Khan is buried, so that old wounds can be healed from the times of Mongolian rule. This will bring the Serbian nation closer to achieving EU standards". I see some sort of scenario like this happening regarding EU's demands on Serbia.

“Mladić's arrest and extradition are very important for justice because they confirm that nobody can count on not being punished, ...“ the Hague Tribunal chief prosecutor pointed out.
--
So with Mladic's arrest that confirms nobody can count on not being punished? Well, if that's the case then why isn't Clinton, Bush, Blair, Albright, Clark and the rest of the joint criminal enterprise on trial?

Prof. Michael Mandel of Toronto argued that, according to its Statutes, the Tribunal is obligated to investigate NATO. Article 2, for instance, states that the Tribunal "shall have the power to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions...willful killing...willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." Article 3 cites "wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" and the "attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings..."

I totally fail to understand the idea that Mladic is a Serb hero. What exactly makes him a hero? Not only did he disgrace the Serbs by slaughtering unarmed people in their name, he ultimately lost their war by finally moving NATO to take action. Taking pride in killing people with their hands tied? To support such a monster as a Serb hero is not just shameful but stupid.

Zoran,

well pointed out, but as all in the world know the Hague is not about justice it is all about continuing with the lies about how and who really was to blame for the violent break up of Yugoslavia and how they gained from the continued deceit of waging war against others since all in the name of "humanitarianism"!

160 of 161 tried - but not all found guilty for the few non-Serbs and neither was Milosevic but he had to die!

Mladic's and Karadzic's only failing was not having the conviction of surrendering to this kangaroo court and taking it on like sesel - but then they falsly believed in western technoRATs like holbroke and his deceitful deals. Every Serb knows that had they been in their place they could have done little different to have changed the way war brings the worst in all humankind.

'Ratko Mladić...should now be held responsible for the crimes he is accused of...'

This is something of an oxymoron since one cannot be held responsible for a crime until a court has finally established guilt through a fair trial.

If this comment doesn't incite suspicion among people then nothing ever will, and hence there will be no fair trial and no true closure.

'Ratko Mladić...should now be held responsible for the crimes he is accused of...'

This is something of an oxymoron since one cannot be held responsible for a crime until a court has finally established guilt through a fair trial.

If this comment doesn't incite suspicion among people then nothing ever will, and hence there will be no fair trial and no true closure.
(TP, 1 June 2011 19:53)
You ever think that a person facing a trial is called being held responsible, He did not say should be punished for crimes he is accused of.
Maybe the problem is in translation if English is not your primary language or maybe you are being a bit overzealous in your search to find mistreatment of Mladic.

progresso, we may not totally agree but I love your sense of humour... there could be some truth to what you say.

I totally fail to understand the idea that Mladic is a Serb hero. What exactly makes him a hero? (Harry, 1 June 2011 19:24)

Don't comment on things you don't know about or understand then? The West have a funny view on the definition of "justice".

Then, each country or tribunal can interpret them to their liking. That is why every country has lawyers writing this stuff. So us simple people can't understand it.
(Patrik, 1 June 2011 22:07)
--
The point I'm making is that provisions exist for the NATO court to investigate NATO crimes but the political will does not. Therefore, it is a biased political court.

There is nothing there to exclude investigating NATO crimes. Clinton, Bush, Albright and Clark can stand trial but they form the joint criminal enterprise that created the court.

Zoran, Prof. Michael Mandel is taking a lot of liberties when citing those provisions. All of these "treaties and protocols" are written with a lot of "wiggle room". They are designed so that there is no black and white answer. Then, each country or tribunal can interpret them to their liking. That is why every country has lawyers writing this stuff. So us simple people can't understand it.

Prof. Michael Mandel of Toronto argued that, according to its Statutes, the Tribunal is obligated to investigate NATO. Article 2, for instance, states that the Tribunal "shall have the power to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions...willful killing...willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." Article 3 cites "wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" and the "attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings..."
(Zoran, 1 June 2011 18:40)

Dude, either you or the "professor" (if cited correctly by you) are missing the basics... NATO is not a person. Criminal law 101: only natural persons can be sent to prison. There does not exist collective criminal responsability. The criminal responsability is individual.

but then they falsly believed in western technoRATs like holbroke and his deceitful deals.
(Principa, Gracanica, KiM, Serbia, 1 June 2011 19:43)

yeah, exactly, they must, at least, be punished for their unbeliaveble stupidity.... If I tell you, Principa you have immunity for any crime you may have committed if you do X for me, you must be really, really, really naive to say OK without asking me "who the hell authorized you to grant me immunity" :)

(P.S. I assumed those deals you referred to exist....)

There is nothing there to exclude investigating NATO crimes. Clinton, Bush, Albright and Clark can stand trial but they form the joint criminal enterprise that created the court.
(Zoran, 2 June 2011 10:07)

Dude, criminal law 102: criminal law does not work by exclusion, but by inclusion. The only things that can be punished, are those that the criminal law specifically says that should be punished. Criminal law does never say that everything is punishable except A, B or C. So if there is no criminal law that makes NATO a subject of it, than NATO cannot committ a crime, by definition.

And after Goran Hadžić is brought to the Hague, Brammertz has requested that "Serbia now disclose where Genghis Khan is buried, so that old wounds can be healed from the times of Mongolian rule. This will bring the Serbian nation closer to achieving EU standards". I see some sort of scenario like this happening regarding EU's demands on Serbia.

“Mladić's arrest and extradition are very important for justice because they confirm that nobody can count on not being punished, ...“ the Hague Tribunal chief prosecutor pointed out.
--
So with Mladic's arrest that confirms nobody can count on not being punished? Well, if that's the case then why isn't Clinton, Bush, Blair, Albright, Clark and the rest of the joint criminal enterprise on trial?

Prof. Michael Mandel of Toronto argued that, according to its Statutes, the Tribunal is obligated to investigate NATO. Article 2, for instance, states that the Tribunal "shall have the power to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions...willful killing...willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." Article 3 cites "wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" and the "attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings..."

I totally fail to understand the idea that Mladic is a Serb hero. What exactly makes him a hero? Not only did he disgrace the Serbs by slaughtering unarmed people in their name, he ultimately lost their war by finally moving NATO to take action. Taking pride in killing people with their hands tied? To support such a monster as a Serb hero is not just shameful but stupid.

Zoran,

well pointed out, but as all in the world know the Hague is not about justice it is all about continuing with the lies about how and who really was to blame for the violent break up of Yugoslavia and how they gained from the continued deceit of waging war against others since all in the name of "humanitarianism"!

160 of 161 tried - but not all found guilty for the few non-Serbs and neither was Milosevic but he had to die!

Mladic's and Karadzic's only failing was not having the conviction of surrendering to this kangaroo court and taking it on like sesel - but then they falsly believed in western technoRATs like holbroke and his deceitful deals. Every Serb knows that had they been in their place they could have done little different to have changed the way war brings the worst in all humankind.

'Ratko Mladić...should now be held responsible for the crimes he is accused of...'

This is something of an oxymoron since one cannot be held responsible for a crime until a court has finally established guilt through a fair trial.

If this comment doesn't incite suspicion among people then nothing ever will, and hence there will be no fair trial and no true closure.

I totally fail to understand the idea that Mladic is a Serb hero. What exactly makes him a hero? (Harry, 1 June 2011 19:24)

Don't comment on things you don't know about or understand then? The West have a funny view on the definition of "justice".

Then, each country or tribunal can interpret them to their liking. That is why every country has lawyers writing this stuff. So us simple people can't understand it.
(Patrik, 1 June 2011 22:07)
--
The point I'm making is that provisions exist for the NATO court to investigate NATO crimes but the political will does not. Therefore, it is a biased political court.

There is nothing there to exclude investigating NATO crimes. Clinton, Bush, Albright and Clark can stand trial but they form the joint criminal enterprise that created the court.

progresso, we may not totally agree but I love your sense of humour... there could be some truth to what you say.

Zoran, Prof. Michael Mandel is taking a lot of liberties when citing those provisions. All of these "treaties and protocols" are written with a lot of "wiggle room". They are designed so that there is no black and white answer. Then, each country or tribunal can interpret them to their liking. That is why every country has lawyers writing this stuff. So us simple people can't understand it.

'Ratko Mladić...should now be held responsible for the crimes he is accused of...'

This is something of an oxymoron since one cannot be held responsible for a crime until a court has finally established guilt through a fair trial.

If this comment doesn't incite suspicion among people then nothing ever will, and hence there will be no fair trial and no true closure.
(TP, 1 June 2011 19:53)
You ever think that a person facing a trial is called being held responsible, He did not say should be punished for crimes he is accused of.
Maybe the problem is in translation if English is not your primary language or maybe you are being a bit overzealous in your search to find mistreatment of Mladic.

Prof. Michael Mandel of Toronto argued that, according to its Statutes, the Tribunal is obligated to investigate NATO. Article 2, for instance, states that the Tribunal "shall have the power to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions...willful killing...willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." Article 3 cites "wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" and the "attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings..."
(Zoran, 1 June 2011 18:40)

Dude, either you or the "professor" (if cited correctly by you) are missing the basics... NATO is not a person. Criminal law 101: only natural persons can be sent to prison. There does not exist collective criminal responsability. The criminal responsability is individual.

but then they falsly believed in western technoRATs like holbroke and his deceitful deals.
(Principa, Gracanica, KiM, Serbia, 1 June 2011 19:43)

yeah, exactly, they must, at least, be punished for their unbeliaveble stupidity.... If I tell you, Principa you have immunity for any crime you may have committed if you do X for me, you must be really, really, really naive to say OK without asking me "who the hell authorized you to grant me immunity" :)

(P.S. I assumed those deals you referred to exist....)

There is nothing there to exclude investigating NATO crimes. Clinton, Bush, Albright and Clark can stand trial but they form the joint criminal enterprise that created the court.
(Zoran, 2 June 2011 10:07)

Dude, criminal law 102: criminal law does not work by exclusion, but by inclusion. The only things that can be punished, are those that the criminal law specifically says that should be punished. Criminal law does never say that everything is punishable except A, B or C. So if there is no criminal law that makes NATO a subject of it, than NATO cannot committ a crime, by definition.