Karadzic got 40 years

**Brenus** · 03-29-2016, 07:25

"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

**Husar** · 03-29-2016, 09:00

Originally Posted by Brenus

"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.

**Fragony** · 03-29-2016, 10:01

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

**Husar** · 03-29-2016, 10:13

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

**Fragony** · 03-29-2016, 10:27

Originally Posted by Husar

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

**Lizardo** · 03-31-2016, 16:52

Urgent Appeal: https://www.knightstemplarinternatio...uth-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.