View Full Version : Karadzic got 40 years
Radovan Karadzic got 40 years
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/24/europe/karadzic-war-crimes-verdict/
The former leader of the Bosnian Serbs was found guilty and sentence of War Crimes and Genocide for shelling Sarajevo and organising a atmosphere of fear among the civilian populations of Sarajevo during the civil war.
Serbia mark NATO bombing Campaign
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy=2016&mm=03&dd=24&nav_id=97466
No war crimes or genocide there, as apparently bombers bombing civilians in order to have the country surrendering is legitimate.
So, where and when War Crimes are committed, and when are they not?
I am not speaking of obvious war crimes as in Sebrenica, and not speaking of the ignored war crimes by others parties involved in this (these) wars.
It is more about legitimate violence and excessive use of violence in war. What is the difference between the siege of Sarajevo and the one in Fallujah?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y9MCE60wjI
Answers?
Gilrandir
03-27-2016, 15:00
So, where and when War Crimes are committed, and when are they not?
The court is to decide it. File a suit giving enough evidence and we'll see what the outcome would be.
So i just looked up Karadzic's indictment. And he was convicted of "unlawfully inflicting terror on civilians," which means there is a lawful level of terror that can be inflicted on civilians.
Now in Sarajevo that siege was by an rebel separatist army, that were agents of what was a (albeit newly) separate nation. Fallujah was besieged by the de facto (if not de jure) military of that nation.
The man was a politician not a military general.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/karadjic-told-me-i-saved-serbs-genocide-god-knows-we-are-right/ri13574
"The court is to decide it. File a suit giving enough evidence and we'll see what the outcome would be." Hmmm, in theory. However, the prosecutor is chosen by whom, and whom decide to create a Court. In case Former Yugoslavia, the first prosecutor were Carla del Ponte then Louise Harbour. The court was proposed by Germany, the same country who recognised unilaterally the independence of Croatia against the recommendations of the Comity Badinter, report that recommended negotiations before it, in order to avoid what did happened.
So, was/is the Court independent of major power, and are the most powerful countries exempt of it (i.e.. France refusing to expel one of her citizen)?
This is why I linked the two events. Bombing Sarajevo and organising terror on population is war crimes whereas bombing Serbia and terrorising population is not. I linked Sarajevo and Fallujah because in both case the besiegers were shelling the town and blockaded the town, refusing most of time the delivery of humanitarian help.
"Now in Sarajevo that siege was by an rebel army separatist army, that were agents of what was a (albeit newly) separate nation. Fallujah was besieged by the de facto (if not de jure) military of that nation." Interesting. The problem of course in the Bosnian Army was itself in a rebellion again the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So, if this army would have besieged the town, this wouldn't be war crimes?
"which means there is a lawful level of terror that can be inflicted on civilians." How to do measures it? Especially when the difference between civilians and militias is most of the time carrying a weapon at the wrong time?
What are the tools used to measure lawful use of violence and what excess of violence is in term of war, and is there a difference of violence in civil war and others type of war?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-27-2016, 17:01
The man was a politician not a military general.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/karadjic-told-me-i-saved-serbs-genocide-god-knows-we-are-right/ri13574
Atrocities are usually committed by politicians - generals are per definition soldiers, and soldiers usually have higher standards. That's why atrocities are also usually committed by whatever mob or militia has risen up to "assist" the army.
Sarmatian
03-27-2016, 22:51
Karadzic is certainly guilty of most of the counts he was convicted of. On the other hand, by employing these standards, we'd have half of the world's political leaders and military officers in jail. I don't subscribe to the logic that no criminals should be convicted if all criminals can't be convicted all, so I don't really feel slighted. It will be used for a new round of demonizing Serbs and Serbia, but, all in all, it's yesterday's news so it will all blow over rather quickly.
However, I find it weird that the court found that Srebrenica massacre was a genocide because "killing a third of the population of reproductive males had the aim of destroying the reproductive ability of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica" (something to that effect, didn't hear the original English). That was a wtf moment.
Germany and german companies were the benefactors of the yugoslav war and its aftermath
Germany and german companies were the benefactors of the yugoslav war and its aftermath
I got a sofa and a lamp post from it, pretty cool. :dizzy2:
Interesting. The problem of course in the Bosnian Army was itself in a rebellion again the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So, if this army would have besieged the town, this wouldn't be war crimes?
Well that's one way you could look at it. But the custom is that if is an area is recognized as independent by a majority of nations then that area gets accorded the rights of an independent nation under international law. Which is what happened in Yugoslavia. As soon as Slovenia/Croatia/Bosnia/Macedonia declared independence from Yugoslavia the US and the rest of Europe gave them the nod as being sovereign nations. Thus any force organized by the Bosnian government would be that nations de-facto army. You gotta love the rule of law sometimes. A thing is true because we said it is, and all agreed with us. :rolleyes4: I really can't get too upset about Serbs being a little butt-hurt about how the Yugoslav wars went down. Since Serb is generally used as a by-word for Milošević's regime (which was more than a little authoritarian) and it's allies in the former Yugoslav republics.
How to do measures it? Especially when the difference between civilians and militias is most of the time carrying a weapon at the wrong time?
Using the term militia in this context is, to me, inappropriate. As, again to me, a militia is an officially sanctioned auxiliary or reserve military force. When what you describe sounds more like irregular paramilitary forces.
What are the tools used to measure lawful use of violence and what excess of violence is in term of war, and is there a difference of violence in civil war and others type of war?
A betting man would lay odds that t'would be laid out in the Geneva conventions and protocols. Which were revised and expanded after WW2 BTW. And if it's not, then a panel of learned experts would judge that.
Karadzic got what he deserved.
Now if only his Croatian counterparts, the proud successors of Ustase also got what they deserved, then the world could look a bit more just.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
03-28-2016, 12:39
The court is to decide it. File a suit giving enough evidence and we'll see what the outcome would be.
In short: The 'winners' decide.
Gilrandir
03-28-2016, 12:41
In short: The 'winners' decide.
You are dismantling the edifice of democracy whose cornerstone is the supremacy of law enforced by the judicial system.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
03-28-2016, 12:52
You are dismantling the edifice of democracy whose cornerstone is the supremacy of law enforced by the judicial system.
In terms of an international court, edifice is a very precise term. But, in what way can my suggestion on a forum be dismantling anything?
There is, imo, much wrong with this statement. Is the cornerstone of democracy the supremacy of law enforced by the judicial system? That sounds like a pretty narrow definition of what democracy is, frankly - and I think it highly debatable that what you have put forward would be the basal notion of democracy (consent, surely, has a stronger case as a defining concept of democracy than enforcement, for example)
But.....what democratic consideration underlies this international court? Who decides on the judiciary? The losers of a war? Do Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans from the 'wrong' (losing) side, for example, get the same representation in this 'democratic' institution?
Gilrandir
03-28-2016, 13:36
In terms of an international court, edifice is a very precise term. But, in what way can my suggestion on a forum be dismantling anything?
There is, imo, much wrong with this statement. Is the cornerstone of democracy the supremacy of law enforced by the judicial system? That sounds like a pretty narrow definition of what democracy is, frankly - and I think it highly debatable that what you have put forward would be the basal notion of democracy (consent, surely, has a stronger case as a defining concept of democracy than enforcement, for example)
But.....what democratic consideration underlies this international court? Who decides on the judiciary? The losers of a war? Do Afghans, Iraqis and Libyans from the 'wrong' (losing) side, for example, get the same representation in this 'democratic' institution?
One of the basic tenets of a democratic state is the people's right for justice which is enforced through the system of the courts of law. Perhaps it is not THE cornerstone of democraccy, but it is A cornerstone of democracy.
As for the representation in the international court - that is a different issue which is probably open to discussion and correction. But denying the supremacy of law if some court is inadequate is like closing down all restaurants in the city if a client got poisoned in one of them.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
03-28-2016, 14:28
One of the basic tenets of a democratic state is the people's right for justice which is enforced through the system of the courts of law. Perhaps it is not THE cornerstone of democraccy, but it is A cornerstone of democracy.
I think if 'enforce' or 'enforcement' are within the terminology of what is seen as being essential to democracy then.... the fundamental notion of democracy may be missing.
As for the representation in the international court - that is a different issue which is probably open to discussion and correction. But denying the supremacy of law if some court is inadequate is like closing down all restaurants in the city if a client got poisoned in one of them.
I'm not really sure what logic gates you are using here. First...I'm not sure what you mean by "supremacy of law". Who controls the laws surely defines their implementation. In terms of a "supremacy of law" as defined as a "cornerstone of democracy" one cannot simply equate the two and then dismiss the matter of representation as almost irrelevant to that question. And....I didn't ever suggest that because I have doubts as to the representative nature of this court, that I therefore disavow all courts, so that you appear to have made a 'logical' leap without any foundation.
I was responding to the OP's question, and your response to it; who decides? In an international court, which cannot be separated from politics, it is the winners who decide. That is as simple as it is.
Gilrandir
03-28-2016, 16:41
I think if 'enforce' or 'enforcement' are within the terminology of what is seen as being essential to democracy then.... the fundamental notion of democracy may be missing.
Enforcement of laws doesn't cancel democracy. If someone disobeys them. Otherwise it is anarchy.
I'm not sure what you mean by "supremacy of law".
Obeying the law is the ultimate value on which social agreement rests.
I was responding to the OP's question, and your response to it; who decides? In an international court, which cannot be separated from politics, it is the winners who decide.
I was talking of the judicial system in general. And since in world politics there is no alternative to the international court we are to abide by its decisions until it is reformed in any way you would want it to be.
dafuck? https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dLN-lVsc-niTQEMmHsfWW0vXB22kM&q=hartmann&lr=Dutch&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1o8XYgOPLAhUB1hQKHa5EDrIQqgIILDAA
Sarmatian
03-28-2016, 19:44
dafuck? https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dLN-lVsc-niTQEMmHsfWW0vXB22kM&q=hartmann&lr=Dutch&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1o8XYgOPLAhUB1hQKHa5EDrIQqgIILDAA
She was supposed to pay a fine for writing something in her book. She didn't pay, France refused to extradite her so she was arrested when she came to hear Karadzic verdict and is spending a week in jail.
No big deal.
She was supposed to pay a fine for writing something in her book. She didn't pay, France refused to extradite her so she was arrested when she came to hear Karadzic verdict and is spending a week in jail.
No big deal.
That explains a lot, gracias. As I understand she wrote that there actual was a 'controlled' genocide intended, bit like euganics. I do not know her nor have I read anything from her. If she was put on suicide-watch as she claims that's pretty bad, but if it's as you say I agree.
"She was supposed to pay a fine for writing something in her book." No. She leaked documents from the Court (where she was employed) in order to make her point (pro-Croat one).
As a journalist she was devoted to the Croatian cause in the Le Monde Newspaper, which is her complete right. However, when employed by the Court of Justice, she was not supposed to jeopardized inquisitions and normal set of rules (i.e. confidentiality), was fired and fined. France refused to execute a decision of Justice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8253992.stm
"She was supposed to pay a fine for writing something in her book." No. She leaked documents from the Court (where she was employed) in order to make her point (pro-Croat one).
One of Fragony's many linked news stories specifically said she mentioned the documents but did not leak them. Your link mentions it, too. She did not leak them, merely said that they exist and should be leaked. However, I guess it shows that she was not good at keeping those two jobs either way.
One of Fragony's many linked news stories specifically said she mentioned the documents but did not leak them. Your link mentions it, too. She did not leak them, merely said that they exist and should be leaked. However, I guess it shows that she was not good at keeping those two jobs either way.
If she mentioned persons (I haven't read the links, I am just amazed about the treatment she got, and I don't know that's true either) and published them in her book Brenus is still right even if she didn't leak them However, when employed by the Court of Justice, she was not supposed to jeopardized inquisitions' Unprofessional, yeah, very. In any case, we don't really don't know anything about what went on there, that much seems pretty obvious.
If she mentioned persons (I haven't read the links, I am just amazed about the treatment she got, and I don't know that's true either) and published them in her book Brenus is still right even if she didn't leak them. But unprofessional, yeah, very. In any case, we don't really don't know anything about what went on there, that much seems pretty obvious.
Not saying Brenus is wrong, she just didn't leak the entire documents, which would probably have made it worse for her.
To me it seems like she had the option to pay a fine to avoid jail but she'd rather insist on her right to break her work contract or something and now that she got jailed, her attorney is stirring up the media making a big deal out of a week of imprisonment.
What I don't quite get is why her solitary confinement is such a big deal, she basically seems to be saying that she'd rather be among the war criminals and terrorists, some of whom may not like her for researching their crimes, than be kept away from them. Seems a bit strange to me.
her attorney is stirring up the media making a big deal out of a week of imprisonment.
Worked for me. Now that I know a little bit more... Still would like to know if she was actually in solitary on suicide watch. That is really rare
Urgent Appeal: https://www.knightstemplarinternational.com/urgent-appeal-please-help-these-brave-fighters-for-truth-in-serbia/
rory_20_uk
04-01-2016, 09:38
Next you'll be wondering how the USA can sent helicopters into Pakistan to assassinate someone, target a MSF hospital and the end result is "whoops - my bad!" with nothing done about it, yet when other countries fire a missile in their own boundaries that is reprehensible; how we care oh so much about the poor asylum seekers although I've yet to see celebrities give much more than a few hours of their time and a token amount of money (if any) and most of us (me included) are very content to live a nice life whilst so many live on a few dollars a day... And so on and so on - hundreds of examples we are all aware of.
As always, those who are rich and powerful make the rules and enforce the rules: the rule of law is invariably a way of enforcing the status quo (hence why at the UN only 5 countries have a veto and hence they and their chums are always blameless). Small, weak, powerless loosers are going to get the full whack of the law with the large, powerful winners able to get away with pretty much anything and even lauded for sorting out a problem that they helped create.
~:smoking:
Urgent Appeal: https://www.knightstemplarinternational.com/urgent-appeal-please-help-these-brave-fighters-for-truth-in-serbia/
First cultural marxists and now templarsinternational, can I assume that we both know what that looks like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKjSnnpOHXg
USA propped up the Tito when they should of propped up Mihailović the man who fought against the Nazis and the Soviets and saved a huge number of OSS/SOE servicemen from the Germans,
Theres so so much to talk about this subject of yugoslavia Bill Clinton, Germany and EU meddling, Tito etc. ethnic strife, Ottoman invasions the list goes on but essentially the winner of war decides. And now you have got an ethnic removal of christian serbs from Bosnia, and an increasing Wahabbi and Salafist movement in Bosnia.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.