http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13637360
I have no knowledge of Mladic's history or the events which are the subject of this trial. However, I do have a couple thoughts on the whole idea of "international tribunal":
- The men who are charged are frequently elderly and often spend the latter part of their lives "defending" themselves against the "charges" that are brought against them
- There is no clear criterion of guilt/innocence because the persons charged are actually leaders of political organizations that were simply not recognized by the governments behind the Hague. It's not that he shot some large number of people with his own pistol, he was in charge of a military body which had some political power base which was duly charged by that political power to perform what it did.
- The "charges" are invariably brought opportunistically against members of extinct, weakened or disenfranchised regimes
- The very governments which are behind the Hague do precisely the same kinds of criminal acts and they even - implicitly - admit it... they all have intelligence services which have divisions that specialize in "wet work" as it's called and outsource whatever they themselves can't stomach to allied regimes with less moral compunction, as in the CIA's so-called "extraordinary rendition" program.
- Why Mladic only? Surely, he received his orders from someone higher up and delivered them to others below him. This can be waved off as the "Nazi defense" but it is a perfectly valid explanation of the chain-of-command in operation in the very governments which are behind the Hague.
- But even if the governments behind the Hague were not hypocrites, the whole affair still doesn't make much sense from the point-of-view of "law as dispute resolution". Who are the disputants? The Hague vs. Mladic? Or is it the Srebrenican survivors vs. Mladic?
This looks like a cross between star-chamber and victor's justice, to me. I'm not saying Mladic isn't a piece of crap... he probably is. But so are all the functionaries at the same levels of power in the very governments which are "charging" Mladic with crimes. The Hague is just an aggrandized version of national statutory law. It's a compounding of the same mistake that has given birth to the unholy creature known as the nation state.
</rant>
Clayton -
What is incredible is that he was staying in a village in the home of a person with the same last name - the authorities on the hunt for him surely would have known where he was. Why now? Because it is politically profitable? Because he was about to die, and they wanted to get him over with, before they moved on to the rest?
Strangely, many parties in the International Criminal Court have already pronounced his guilt before the trial even began, calling this man a war criminal. Is that it how it works? Why the trial then?
The men charged are assured of a lengthy prison time by the virtue of having no right to a speedy trial alone. It is perfectly normal if a defendant has to wait 2 years for his trial to begin, and for prosecution to then take 2 more years to make its case. It is safe that if you need 2 years to make your case, you probably don't have much of a case.
Most have been convincted on the grounds that they failed to stop crimes from taking place and to take measures against those who commited them. It is not the case that they ordered a criminal act to take place, or passed down such an order.
The charges are invariably brought up when politically benefitial. Mladic specifically was charged 2 months before the US and NATO would make itself one of the warring sides in the Bosnian War with Operation Deliberate Force. Milosevic was famously charged in the middle of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Recently ICC has taken steps against Gaddafi - just as he is being bombed by NATO.
Of course US/NATO was one of the belligirents in the Yugoslav Wars, killing some 2500 people and causing 15-30 billions in damages (its own estimate). It probably had the largest ratio of civilians/combatants killed. Regardless the ICTY has ruled that it has no jurisdiction over Americans or other Westerners. So in truth it is not a court for the area of former Yugoslavia, but a court for former Yugoslavs.
- Why Mladic only?
It is not Mladic only. It has been about 130 people.
For me it illustrates the historicaly unprecedented American way of waging war. In the past wars were at least somewhat impersonal affairs in that the enemy was recognised to have the right to exist and potentialy to warr. He was recognised to be an equal at least to some extent. This allowed for sitting down with the enemy after the war and concluding a peace settlement afterwards. Since America has become a world empire this has changed. Wars do not aim to result in partial concessions. Now the enemy is expected to surrender unconditionally, the enemy is regime changed, or the enemy is put in chains and dragged away for a show trial.
I doubt it. The government in Belgrade is wholly owned by Washington. He would not have been left at large had they known.
Conflating ICC and ICTY there. Anyway on the ICTY John Laughland has probably done the most good work. Here is a lengthy interview with him.
It’s a silly show and the tribunal would be served well if all of its members withdrew their consent from it. There are far speedier ways of delaing with 'personlaities' such as Mladic. The Israelis know a few
Since America has become a world empire this has changed. Wars do not aim to result in partial concessions. Now the enemy is expected to surrender unconditionally, the enemy is regime changed, or the enemy is put in chains and dragged away for a show trial.
I'd say this was typified by the treatment of Germany, post-World War I. It represents, in effect, the inception of a colonialist mentality within European wars; hence the noble cause to subdue "the Hun", and why all manner of injustice and burden could be placed upon every single man, woman and child for their sins of not submitting.
Indeed that must have been the beginning. Versailles was a peace conference to which the Germans were not invited, which was absurd.
Earlier, the French had been represented in Vienna in 1815.