Osama Bin Laden is Dead!!!

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

In regard to the Rwandan trials, there have been a total of 92 indictments brought to trial. Only 8 have been acquitted...a couple have died, whilst in custody, and the remainder are either still in progress, of have been convicted. The vast majority have had life sentences imposed, and as far as I know, life means life in these trials.

I dont have any information of the gaol conditions, but will try and find out.

With regard to the war crimes trials in the Former Yugolsavia, my understanding and information is incomplete, however some of the facts that I do know of are interesting.

International armed forces deployed in the Former Yugoslavia, while slow to prioritize cooperation with the Tribunal in enforcing indictments, more recently improved in their performance. The first arrest by an international armed force was on June 27, 1997, when the U.N. mission in Eastern Slavonia, Croatia (UNTAES) detained Slavko Dokmanovic; he died in Tribunal custody before trial. All subsequent arrests have been made by SFOR troops in Bosnia, and included two others in 1997 for a total of three arrests by international forces in that year (Slavko Dokmanovic; Anto Furundziga on December 18, 1997 --convicted and sentenced to ten years December 1998; and Vlalko Kupreskic, arrested with Furundziga and for whom trial remains pending). In the following years, seven were arrested by SFOR in 1998, and four in 1999 (1998: Goran Jelisic, January 22, 1998; Miroslav Kvocka and Mladen Radic, April 8, 1998; Milojica Kos, May 28, 1998; Milorad Krnojelac, June 15, 1998; Stevan Todorovic, September 30, 1998; and Radislav Krstic, December 2, 1998; and 1999: Dragan Kolundziga, June 7, 1999; Radoslav Brdjanin, July 6, 1999; Radomir Kovac, August 2, 1999; and Damir Dosen, October 25, 1999). On October 19, 1999, the Tribunal found that Goran Jelisic, who calls himself the "Serbian Adolf," was not guilty of genocide; but the tribunal nonetheless convicted him on 31 counts of torture and murder of Muslim and Croatian inmates of the Luka prison camp near Brcko in 1992, for which a forty year term was handed down in December 1999. All the rest of those who have been arrested in 1998-2000 still are awaiting or are undergoing trials (ICTY 2000b).

Bosnian Serb Dusan Tadic, also known as "Dule" and "Dusko", was the first man brought into the custody of the Tribunal; his long trial and his conviction, May 7, 1996, helped delineate the further course of the work of the Tribunal. On February 13, 1995, indictments were handed down against twenty Bosnian Serb commanders and guards from the Omarska concentration camp in northwestern Bosnia, including Tadic. At the time, Tadic was being held by police in Munich, Germany, since his arrest (February 13, 1994), where he had been hiding out at his brother's apartment. He soon was extradited to the Hague, becoming the first defendant held under the custody of the Tribunal. In Tadic's first Tribunal hearing, he declared "I did not take part in any of the crimes with which I am charged".

Evidence undermined that assertion. The indictment against Tadic listed 132 separate counts of crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, all of which related to a rape, several instances of torture, and thirteen murders which occurred between May and August of 1992 at the Omarska concentration camp. Tadic did not hold an official position at the camp, but he was frequently observed by witnesses held there to have worn a military uniform while in the camp.

The Tribunal was scrupulous in examining the many sensational charges, some which alleged his role in castrations, tortures and murders. In one incident, witnesses testified to Tadic ordering prisoners to drink water from puddles on the ground like animals, while he jumped on their backs and beat them. When the men were no longer able to move, Tadic put them into a wheelbarrow, discharging the contents of a fire extinguisher into the mouth of one of the victims. Yet another alleged war crime performed by Tadic occurred on May 27, 1992, when Tadic, along with Goran Borovnica, lined up against a wall Bosnian Muslims and Croats Ekrem Karabasic, Ismet Karabasic, Seido Karabasic, and Redo Foric, and shot them dead.

Witnesses told their experiences in detail, though the use of hearsay evidence and the fact that the identity of some of the raped witnesses was shielded engendered some criticism. Tadic nevertheless received a vigoroous defense: his legal counsel, Michail Wladimiroff, was an experienced Dutch attorney assisted by members of his own law firm, as well as by the head of the Serbian bar association Milan Vujin and Krstan Simic, "a rural country lawyer" from Banja Luka. Assistance also was provided to the team by international NGO's, including the Americans from the Central/Eastern European Legal Initiative. The prosecutors in the case were a formidable unit. Chief prosecutor Richard Goldstone led the team, assisted by a friend of mine, Grant Niemann, an Australian who had prosecuted three cases against suspected Nazi war criminals, in addition to two Americans, Brenda Hollis and Michael Keegan, on loan from U.S. military Judge Advocate General's offices; and one American, Alan Tieger, from the Justice Department who headed the prosecution in the federal trial of four Los Angeles police officers accused of beating Rodney King. Presiding over the trial were three of the U.N.-selected judges, headed by U.S. appointee Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, along with Malaysia's Lal Vohrah and Australia's Sir Ninian Stephen.

On July 14, 1997, Tadic was sentenced to a twenty year term. Tadic appealed but his appeal was defeated. Guess hes not smiling now......and hearings took place April 19-22, 1999, in the Appeals Chamber. Its final judgment was delivered July 15, 1999, denying Tadic's appeal on all grounds. Thus, the Tribunal completed its first complete trial and appeal, finding Tadic to have committed grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. Again, I do not know thee conditions of his confinement, but any confinement is going to be a major discouragement to commit such crimes in my opinion. Justice may bne slow but it is happening

Of the 93 warrants that have been issued in the ICTV (the Yugoslavian tribunal), 30 remain at large, 36 convicted, 18 acquitted or the charges dropped, and the remainder are either in progress or awaiting trial. Those awaiting trial are in custody, so effectively they have been incarcerated for more than 10 years anyway. Of the 36 convictions secured, no sentence is less than 10 years duration.
 
why do think they will go soft on him, or any other of the criminals brought before them. The predecessors to the ICC were reasonably effective in tracking down and dealing with the criminals in their jurisdiction. The two immediate predecssors were the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and the tribunals for Rwanda. The trials in Rwanda were a bit wishy washy, but a vengeful commission would not have solved the reasons for that massacre. I still rate that tribunal as a success, because the ringleaders were punished, and the main objective there was to try to reach some raprochement between the parties. Before those tribunals ther was only the Nuremberg trials, and these were anything but light on the defendants.

And to date the ICC had not had time to complete any of the matters before it, so it is impossible to judge its effectiveness as yet

The only alternative to prosecution by trial is summary justice, and whilst this might salve our desire for vengeance, it does not solve the issues that drive these attocities. It might seem we are fighting with one arm behind our backs, but we have to...we have to demonstrate to these "restless native" the superiority of what we stand for.

I will grant you this.....inneffective due process is worse than no process. If that happens, then we do have a problem, I admit

I probably should have worded that better. I question how effective they would be.

I honestly see the "Country Club" scenario playing out in any major case involving a war criminal. I hope I am wrong.
 
"... I honestly see the "Country Club" scenario playing out in any major case involving a war criminal."...

That was certainly the case for Napoleon on Elba and Saint Helena Islands ..... :) ... and the Kaiser didn't get in any practice busting rock.

MM
 
For napoleon his treatment on Elba was a joke, but from what little I know about St helena, it was a rather bleak existence. Mind you, that was also a different age, where the treatment of captured enemy leaders had more to do with romantic notions of chivalry and honour. Mistreatment of officers and leaders in the modern age really began during the ACW

I think it worth noting that a high proportion of detainees from these war crimes tribunbals are recorded as having died in custody. Causes of Death are not known to me at this stage, but i bet at least some of these guys committed suicide. If so, that suggests anything but a paradise like incarceration. Some of these guys do their time tough........
 
The problem with the "Country Club" existence, or a lifetime of turning big rocks into little rocks, for that matter.....who pays for the bills? Who gets stuck paying for the electricity, water, sewage, guards' salaries/training/equipment? Taxpayers. Me, for one, I'd rather spend my hard-earned cash on something that will better me and my family's lot. I'll go in on the cost of bullets to put the world out of these scumbags' misery (or rope....rope can be reused...that's "green", isn't it?). But I don't want to fund some international criminal's lifetime of living better than my family is able to. Screw that.
 
The US experience dosent point to any reduced cost. They hauled in a lot of people from 2001 on and put them into a camp. Then they realized they couldnt do anything with these people, and as time progressed, it transpired that many of the people incarcerated were not guilty of anything....victims of faulty intell, again.

So, what do we do with these situations....haul anyone off the street, shoot them, simply because someone else, usually with a religious ace to grind, says they are bad. We would be taken for a ride by anyone who wanted us to do their dirty work for them.

So again, I fail to see the correlation of due process and the death penalty. The US model (guantanamo) has cost at least as much as the ICC model, and is completely unsatisfactory because it has no end game.

If the ICC wanted to use the death penalty it would need international agreement to do that. However the majority of progressive western states reject the right of the state to use cap[ital punishment, mostly because there is a risk that the trial process might get it wrong. There are reputable investigation into the texan experience, for example, that suggest about 25% of death row inmates are not guilty of the crimjes they are alleged to commit. The figures for China are not reliable but some analysts say that as many as 50% of detainees are not guilty of the crimes they were executed for. So what do you do if you have a miscarriage of justice like that.....put it down to abad day at the office????

In any event, adopting the death penalty is an option, but it is in the minority opinion at the moment. Obviously I dont support state executions, but it would be a matter for consensus amongst the signatory nations. But at least having a trial process means these people will face justice, of a sort, eventuallyt, instead of getting off scott free, or martyring themselves so that others that follow them are inspired to even more depraved depths

There is no evidence to support the notion that summary justice reduces costs of the penal system, or that it acts as an effective deterrent. It does fulfill the concept of retribution, which is a valid element of the justice system, but in just about every other aspect it fails fundamental tests of amodern society. Thats not my opinion, its the opinion of others.....
 
here is a link to a website that gives a pretty good overview of US executions, and people wrongfully put onto Death Row.

Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing the Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center I: The Danger of Mistaken Executions

Reports of executions of innocent people weighed heavily in some other countries' decisions to stop using the death penalty. Two American researchers, Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, reported 23 instances in which innocent people have been executed in the United States in this century.

Among the cases noted by Bedau and Radelet are cases in the south of black men tried by all white juries and executed for the rape of a white woman. In some of these cases, subsequent evidence revealed that the woman had an ongoing sexual relation with the accused, but such evidence was considered either unbelievable or irrelevant at the time.

The difficulty with such cases is that generally no court decides that an executed person was innocent. Courts hear current cases brought by live petitioners. Whether an executed person was innocent becomes a matter of historical research (which is rarely undertaken) and an evolving consensus among the public. This is a much slower and less precise process than a retrial ending in an acquittal.

Recent Cases of Possible Mistaken Executions

Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have been inmates with reasonably credible claims of innocence who were nevertheless executed, some without a full review of those claims. In 1992, for example, Roger Keith Coleman made headlines with his dual plea that he was innocent and that no court would review his evidence.



Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction 1986

New DNA blood evidence has thrown considerable doubt on the murder and rape conviction of O'Dell. In reviewing his case in 1991, three Supreme Court Justices, said they had doubts about O'Dell's guilt and whether he should have been allowed to represent himself. Without the blood evidence, there is little linking O'Dell to the crime. In September, 1996, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated his death sentence and upheld his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review O'Dell's claims of innocence and held that its decision regarding juries being told about the alternative sentence of life-without-parole was not retroactive to his case. O'Dell has asked the state to conduct DNA tests on other pieces of evidence to demonstrate his innocence.

O'Dell, I understand has since been executed

Ive been told in this place that "near enough" is "good enough", and "so what if a few innocents are accidentally killed. I find that response apalling to be honest. I know what i would do if anyone in my family were executed wrongly


.
 
I have mixed feelings about capital punishment -- but I have to admit that we've had a series of ghastly wrong convictions in Canada --- where innocent lives have been just destroyed. And non-capital -- we had a coroner in Ontario named Smith who was just out-right incompetent -- who convicted Mothers and Uncles of offenses against kids because he was on a witch hunt and refused to accept in-your-face evidence.

But I think it's naive to believe that everyone in the world shares the same views - for example - Saddam Hussein's execution was a tad "purple" (cursing him, shoes, etc., so was Benito Mussolini's) but sometimes justice is "cathartic" :). If justice isn't perceived as justice by those who have been wronged then it misses the mark - somewhat. Justice isn't simply to make one portion of the world feel good about how civilized THEY are.

MM
 
Last edited:
Hi MM

There are some "people" who are just such animals that they dont deserve to live. I know that. If a criminal can be shown to have committed a heinous crime, and there is no chance of a mistake, and no chance of rehabilitation, then I am all for stringing those people up. Some crimes are unforgivable, some people cannot be helped. What I object to is using the death penalty as a first choice, as a panacea for all the criminal issues that confront us

Youd have to say that OBL was in that category, Gaddafi probably does deserve to die as well, but only after we have shown the world that he was given a fair trial. Who knows, maybe his grandmother forced him to have sex with her when he was 6 years old or something.....
 
I thought that was funny. This thread needed a little levity.

Agreed

Bin Laden has met the first of the Virgins Promised to him
 

Attachments

  • Bin Laden.jpg
    Bin Laden.jpg
    19.5 KB · Views: 174
I note since the last entry that two things of significance have occurred. First, the ICC have issued warrants for the arrest of Gaddafi and his sons, and the Yugoslavian government have arrested Vladtko Miladic for the ICTY (special international tribunal for the former jugoslavia). Riots have already broken out in Belgrade by supporters of this criminal, though the vast majority of Serbs appear relieved or nonchalant about his arrest. He is effectively in gaol from now.

meanwhile his mate Radavan Karadic has had his 48th motion to dismiss on the grounds of a procedural irregularity dismissed. I am told ot took more than three months for his defence team to put together their submission, and less than two days for the motion to be dismissed.

And one of the Bali bombing masterminds Umer Patek has been captured in Pakistan. An Indonesian National the Indonesians are currently considering whether they want to try him at home under local jurisdiction, or refer him to the ICC. Under the local law, he faces the death penalty but the certainty of a conviction is lower. Under the ICC the body of law is more secure, and the court more independant, but he will not face the death penalty. I am unsure about this one.....
 
Last edited:
I had posted this under "Are War Crimes Trials Effective" the day the story broke, but re-post here:

Bosnian-Serb Ratko Mladic arrested, facing genocide charges - The Globe and Mail.

I don't like the idea of "trials" in the Hague - Nuremberg Trials were effective because they were held in Germany. 9-11 trials in some other country than the USA ...? Unthinkable. Trials should be in the location where the crime took place - if there is public discomfort with that (Serbian protests) then that is part of the bargain-of-justice.

MM
 
Last edited:
Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.

Might be appropriate for a localised tribunal like the ICTY, but what do you do with the ICC which is a truly international court? Sometimes the local venues would not have the access to security and legal precedential libraries that are sometimes needed. I agree having the venue so far removed limits the effect of the courts justice, but I also see it as a necessary step. I think the idea is to make the trials "business as usual" rather than letting them degenerate to a media circus. Part of the problem to be solved is the sometimes fanatical support these guys receive. Can you imagine the circus that would develop if Hambali was tried in Pakistan?????

Part of the raison de tre for the ICC is that they offer to remove these divisive persons from countries often devastated by war. The last thing they need is a further descent into anarchy. And it tends to rob these despots of their primary reason for living.....the support they command from their armies of supporters. Instead they are quietly removed frome world stage and deaslt with as surgically as possible .
 
All true, Parsifal, but it does foster the concept of "extradition to justice" which amounts to saying "no possible justice in situ" which then undermines the goal - which is "universal standards of justice". If I were a Serb nationalist I would be pissed off that Mladic was being shipped out of country. If it's OK to do that, why isn't it OK to move prisoners to countries with lower standards of Human Rights to be "questioned"?

MM
 
Last edited:
All true, Parsifal, but it does foster the concept of "extradition to justice" which amounts to saying "no possible justice in situ" which then undermines the goal - which is "universal standards of justice". If I were a Serb nationalist I would be pissed off that Mladic was being shipped out of country. If it's OK to do that, why isn't it OK to move prisoners to countries with lower standards of Human Rights to be "questioned"?

MM
Just be aware that a nation able to try an international criminal, can elect to excercise its soverign rights and do so. A nation with the legal framewaork to try a person, but unwilling to do so, can refer it to the ICC. Finally, the UN security Council can refer a matter to the ICC for investigation and further action. This is the only relationaship the UN has with the ICC, and it the only merchanism that allows nationals of non-signatory nations to be pursued. I think its a pretty neat mechanism...it does a couple of things simultaneously. It establishes an international framework of standards against which international crimes can be judged. It does not unneccessarily cut across the soverignty of nations with the will and the means to paddle their own canoes, but it also gives the world s nations to act collectively to deal with tyranny, if they desire.....all we need now are the balls to use it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back