14-02-2002 17:24									#31
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Roland Only the weak are subject to what exactly ?

When do you think you will find an American president or a Chinese party chairman sitting in Milosevic's position? Instead we get deposed dictators from small countries. No medium sized or large country which has not been hit militarily is ever going to have it's citizens sitting in such a position. If the crime is losing a war, then I suppose it's fair.

Btw, I don't have a problem with a nation doing what it will with such prisoners as it gets under it's own name. It will have to pay the consequences of it's actions after all. But this is a fantasy that is going on in all our names. Until national power is replaced in large part these sorts of international proceedings are going to be seen as another tool of the powerful to use against the weak. I think it's better to admit that international organizations are too limited to provide justice than to wreak vengeance only on the weak and pretend that it's universally applicable.

	14-02-2002 17:26									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti does anyone here can even imagine a situation in which Milosevic is not found guilty ? ( I am not talking about whether he's guilty or not , but the court's desicion ) if such a thing would happen , would you take all your words about milosevic back?

exactly. there is not even a promile of chance he could walk free. not even an OJ-like percentage.
he is lynched by the media already. therefore, this is not a trial, but an execution of the media verdict, already delivered.
he knows that and i guess he is trying to turn himself into georgi dimitrov....but that is another farce....

funnily, they cited him saying to karadzic:'they are either with us or against us' which should prove his genocidal tendencies. i wonder where i heard that sentence before.

	14-02-2002 17:30									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous :which, if we did, Milo would STILL be in power and STILL killing his people.

yes this is the 'Third Man' argument
all sanctions West did and idiotic bombing are justified because at some point Milosevic fell
This is to say that Hitler's rampage was justified because he knew that, as one of the results, O. Wells would shoot 'The third man" and that it will be actually a brilliant movie.

	14-02-2002 17:39									#34
	Inflate your Upload Space

"When do you think you will find an American president or a Chinese party chairman sitting in Milosevic's position?"

So the enforcement of this particular segment of international law is the issue.

"Instead we get deposed dictators from small countries."

Well no enforcement system is perfect. International law is a bit in the same stage as the nascant state in medieval europe. I'm not happy about it. It sucks. But the alternative is an even worse anarchy. And as a slightly cynical remark, "pretending" there is a rule has been a respectable way of making such a rule for millenia.

	14-02-2002 17:47									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Roland,

I thought about the medieval analogy and perhaps you are right. However these days I think people are a lot more sensitive to class warfare rhetoric and a lot less sensitive to the appeals of 'divine right'.

	14-02-2002 17:49									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: When do you think you will find an American president or a Chinese party chairman sitting in Milosevic's position? Instead we get deposed dictators from small countries. No medium sized or large country which has not been hit militarily is ever going to have it's citizens sitting in such a position. If the crime is losing a war, then I suppose it's fair.

Yes, that is a problem. Realistically, a head of state isn't going to find himself in this position unless he loses a war. We live in an imperfect world.

But is this justification for letting known mass-murderers get away with it if they DO lose a war? I think not.

Milosevic had this coming. Not just for Kosovo, but for Bosnia also. And the Bosnian atrocities were certainly not just "an issue for the Serbian people", because it wasn't primarily the Serbs who suffered.

It's a good thing that the protection of being a "sovereign head of state" is being dismantled. Nuremberg was a start, and this is another important step on the road to a world where any national leader who orders atrocities CAN be hauled before such a court.

	14-02-2002 17:53									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sikander However these days I think people are a lot more sensitive to class warfare rhetoric and a lot less sensitive to the appeals of 'divine right'.

Class warfare ? How does this come in ? And "devine right" was used by both sides in medieval power struggles (as usual). Just as today the issue is the devine/natural/rational law of human rights vs the devine/natural/rational law of sovereignty.

Rex imperator in regno suo. Or maybe not. Princeps legibus absolutus. Or maybe not. Nothing new...

	14-02-2002 18:14									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Wouldn't you expect the usual Fred West or Charles Manson to respect the court and to speak when it is his turn?

quote: does anyone here can even imagine a situation in which Milosevic is not found guilty ? ( I am not talking about whether he's guilty or not , but the court's desicion ) if such a thing would happen , would you take all your words about milosevic back?

It would be interesting to hear justifiable reasons for what he was trying to create - greater Serbia- or to find out that he was not behind all the operations and was not the real leader at all.

quote: "When do you think you will find an American president or a Chinese party chairman sitting in Milosevic's position?" So the enforcement of this particular segment of international law is the issue. "Instead we get deposed dictators from small countries." Well no enforcement system is perfect. International law is a bit in the same stage as the nascant state in medieval europe. I'm not happy about it. It sucks. But the alternative is an even worse anarchy. And as a slightly cynical remark, "pretending" there is a rule has been a respectable way of making such a rule for millenia.

	14-02-2002 18:14									#39
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I have a generalized problem with most international organizations which are universal and not consisting of smaller groups of like minded states. Namely we are going to end up like an African country after colonialism. A large group of peoples with not enough values in common, and with only a minority sophisticated enough to intelligently participate in a democracy. The U.N. general assembly and the numerous bureacracies have met my low expectations on many occasions.

My fear with an international court system (aside from that stated in my earlier post) is that once a few of these trials take place there is going to be an incredible amount of political pressure for convictions of people not normally brought to trial in the past. America or China might serve up some medium level bureaucrat to pay for their sins and of course protect the bigger fish. In the end I don't think many will be satisfied, wherever they are from. Different cultures have a lot different standards of behavior, law and justice, and I don't think that a western legal system applied to the weak and the politically importunate is going to be viewed as justice.

On a lighter note, perhaps Milosevic will provide the saving grace for the whole system by making these trials enough of a spectacle that their entertainment value alone will carry them through whatever claims of injustice might arise. These courts need to come up with a novel means of carrying out the death penalty in order to maximize the audience. Hmmm....

	14-02-2002 18:21									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Sikander I have a generalized problem with most international organizations which are universal and not consisting of smaller groups of like minded states. Namely we are going to end up like an African country after colonialism. A large group of peoples with not enough values in common, and with only a minority sophisticated enough to intelligently participate in a democracy. The U.N. general assembly and the numerous bureacracies have met my low expectations on many occasions. My fear with an international court system (aside from that stated in my earlier post) is that once a few of these trials take place there is going to be an incredible amount of political pressure for convictions of people not normally brought to trial in the past. America or China might serve up some medium level bureaucrat to pay for their sins and of course protect the bigger fish. In the end I don't think many will be satisfied, wherever they are from. Different cultures have a lot different standards of behavior, law and justice, and I don't think that a western legal system applied to the weak and the politically importunate is going to be viewed as justice. On a lighter note, perhaps Milosevic will provide the saving grace for the whole system by making these trials enough of a spectacle that their entertainment value alone will carry them through whatever claims of injustice might arise. These courts need to come up with a novel means of carrying out the death penalty in order to maximize the audience. Hmmm....

I think it is even worse at the moment, USA might give some middle level beaurocrat that is of no threat and no use to anyone, but China or Russia... they won't even give them, and there is no way to enforce them giving up those people -perhaps stop aid to Russia for example, but nothing for China. For lesser countries you can do trade embargos etc... However even that enforcement is not universal it is a good start. A few good ideas were perfectly executed from the beginning. But maybe in 300 years this will be seen as the start of a court that will than be seen as a protector of human rights worldwide no matter who the people are and where they come from.

	14-02-2002 18:48									#41
	Remove this text

"I have a generalized problem with most international organizations which are universal and not consisting of smaller groups of like minded states. Namely we are going to end up like an African country after colonialism."

Only that post-colonial Africa tried to force a centralised state on that population rather than IOs for special purposes. Even the most developped IO that is only regional, the EU, is far from a centralised state.

"The U.N. general assembly and the numerous bureacracies have met my low expectations on many occasions."

The general assembly is a circus. The various bureaucracies, that's a mixed bag, but often just a way to park some fat cronies... but why should they suddenly be better than nation states ?

"Different cultures have a lot different standards of behavior, law and justice, and I don't think that a western legal system applied to the weak and the politically importunate is going to be viewed as justice."

It can't stay that way, but as I said I see it as transatory. So it either fails or evolves - if it doesn't move, bicycle syndrome.

"On a lighter note, perhaps Milosevic will provide the saving grace for the whole system by making these trials enough of a spectacle that their entertainment value alone will carry them through whatever claims of injustice might arise."

Well we had that entertainment approach with the OJ Simpson trial, and it didn't work...

	14-02-2002 18:57									#42
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Roland So legally you won't get much mileage out of the "farce" argument.

I wasn't making a legal arguement Roland. Nor was I trying to in the post that you quoted.

However, if you really want a legal debate we could argue the legalitiy of a foreign alliance imposing itself in a civil war without approval from the UN Security Council. Chapter VIII, Article 53 of the UN Charter, which I mentioned earlier, would be a good place to start the debate IMO.

	14-02-2002 19:05									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I wasn't making a legal arguement Roland. Nor was I trying to in the post that you quoted. However, if you really want a legal debate we could argue the legalitiy of a foreign alliance imposing itself in a civil war without approval from the UN Security Council. Chapter VIII, Article 53 of the UN Charter, which I mentioned earlier, would be a good place to start the debate IMO.

As you mentioned the UN Charter, it had a legal slant. But no, I do not want to repeat those 1999 debates.

	14-02-2002 20:36									#44
	Put an end to popups!

Roland, as Kelsen said, people observe law because it IS law, not because they are punished.
Yet we devise punishment mechanisms. True, not every murderer faces justice. Yet Dubbya can kill anyone not carrying US passport and get away with it. Just like we are told that we should clean up our backyard first, self righteous
1) Dutch - should face their Indonesia episode
2) Swedish - should pay us reparations for selling steel to Hitler
3) Yanks - should pay massive reparations to half a dozen nations they invaded
4) Belgians - should do some soul searching on Kongo
5) Russians - should send couple of generals to answer about Grozny
6) the whole of Middle East - bunch of lunatics
7)Turkey - paradise for minorities


and so on and so forth....as we both know, war crimes and genocide are never obsolete.....

	14-02-2002 20:36									#45
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Roland But no, I do not want to repeat those 1999 debates.

That's too bad.

	14-02-2002 20:42									#46
	Inflate your Upload Space

LaRusso:

"Roland, as Kelsen said, people observe law because it IS law, not because they are punished."

Kelsen emphasised the force element (Zwangsordnung). I'm not sure what you mean there - Grundnorm?

"Yet Dubbya can kill anyone not carrying US passport and get away with it."

Currently yes. Although, when the likes of Milosevic are put on trial, it will be more difficult to say "we go our merry killing ways" then if it is accepted state practice.

Dino:

"That's too bad."

It's good that way. Trust me.

	14-02-2002 20:53									#47
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Roland
LaRusso:
Kelsen emphasised the force element (Zwangsordnung). I'm not sure what you mean there - Grundnorm?

No, I meant that he also said that people observe law because it IS law. He noted that Zwangsordnung only kicks in after the obedience to the law itself (present in many people) is depleted I can find you a quote if you want, but I will be off home soon.



"Yet Dubbya can kill anyone not carrying US passport and get away with it."

Currently yes. Although, when the likes of Milosevic are put on trial, it will be more difficult to say "we go our merry killing ways" then if it is accepted state practice.

Wanna bet 10 euros? CIA is already paying those poor bastards that got their bones broken during interrrogative chitchat in Kandahar base. Imagine what happens to real Al_Qaeda. Wait a sec, they are not human...

	14-02-2002 20:57									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"I can find you a quote if you want, but I will be off home soon."

If we're within legal sociology yes. Although I'm not sure and the Kelsen quote would be inetersting...

"Wanna bet 10 euros? CIA is already paying those poor bastards that got their bones broken during interrrogative chitchat in Kandahar base."

Ehm... paying ?

	14-02-2002 21:03									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Kelsen : Pure theory of the law, 2nd ed. Uof Ca Press, 1967, pp35, 44 ff.


Look at IHT in the last couple of days.
They launched missiles on some guys who were after scrap metal left over from the bombs.
Then they raided wrong Afghan village.
IHT claims CIA has been paying them to shut up.

	14-02-2002 21:13									#50
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 1) Dutch - should face their Indonesia episode

Late 1940s. Too late to start the trials now.

quote: 2) Swedish - should pay us reparations for selling steel to Hitler

1930s/early 1940s. Too late. Also, those aren't crimes against humanity.

quote: 3) Yanks - should pay massive reparations to half a dozen nations they invaded

Most aren't cases of crimes against humanity. Vietnam could be considered that, but it's also too long ago.

quote: 4) Belgians - should do some soul searching on Kongo

Same as above. Too late.

quote: 5) Russians - should send couple of generals to answer about Grozny

The Russians should be held accountable for Chechnya. Maybe someday.

quote: 6) the whole of Middle East - bunch of lunatics

True enough. That's why Sharon and probably also Arafat might face trial in Belgium. Others won't even dare to set foot in a western nation out of fear of being arrested (Sadam, among others)

quote: 7)Turkey - paradise for minorities

They can and should be held accountable as well.


Still, most on your list simply don't apply. The crimes aren't crimes against humanity, or have been commited far too long ago.

	14-02-2002 21:29									#51
	Inflate your Upload Space

"Kelsen : Pure theory of the law, 2nd ed. Uof Ca Press, 1967, pp35, 44 ff."

Thou shalt not read Kelsen in english!

He refers to religious and moral motivations to follow law, but the "because it is law" thing is something I can't see there...

"They launched missiles on some guys who were after scrap metal left over from the bombs.
Then they raided wrong Afghan village."

Ah, that one. Yes, it seems they also get drawn into local struggles (instead of sueing your neighbour, you tell the yanks he's a Taliban).

	14-02-2002 21:41									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Roland Ah, that one. Yes, it seems they also get drawn into local struggles

Yeah, I think they need to start turning over the informants that give them bad intel to the villages that informant chose to target.

Re the whole scrap metal deal: I was under the impression that accusation was far from proven.

	15-02-2002 04:20									#53
	Got spare money?

Originally posted by Roland
1. War crimes, genocide etc are matters of universal jurisdiction. [/QUOTE]

Nah, Roland, this is much too sweeping. First of all, iurisdiction by whom? Obviously by those who win. Or can you imagine Bush or Clinton under trial for NATO war crimes?

quote: 2. Whether the UN SC can create a court and endow it with such jurisdiction can be debated, but under the broad phrasing of the UN statute I'd tend to say yes.

No, the canīt. They have precisely those rights that are put in writ, and no others.

quote: 3. Serbia's government extradited Milosevic. This may have been a violation of Yugoslavia's federal constitution, but this constitution does not take precedence over international law.

Oh, yes, if we recognize self-determination of peoples, it does. Particularly as there is no International Criminal Court, yet.

quote: 4. Whether NATO intervention was illegal... we could do a nice debate about that and about the concepts of self determination and sovereignty, but it is irrelevant here. First the link between his fall and NATO action is questionable, second there is no fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine equivalent that would render Milosevic being held at the Hague illegal.

Unless we consider the Dutch government an accomplice in a kidnapping.

	15-02-2002 04:28									#54
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave It would be interesting to hear justifiable reasons for what he was trying to create - greater Serbia- or to find out that he was not behind all the operations and was not the real leader at all.

Simple. He was never trying to create Greater Serbia. This is a propaganda invention wholesale. What he was trying to do is defending the original Yugoslavia, and when failing in that, giving assistance to Serb minorities that were, as a matter of fact, persecuted in both Croatia and Bosnia. Hardly a crime.

See also the other Milosevic thread (p.2, I think), where I have posted at length about the whole affair.

	15-02-2002 04:56									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Those "murdering sunza*****es" (which I grant they were) violated no international laws they agreed to or any national laws.

Er, how about basic human rights? Of course, this can be a grey area as morals are not set in stone - rather they standards dictated by society and change with the times, but grey areas never extend across the entire spectrum. Killing unarmed people because of their race is hardly open to debate, though

What annoys me is that Australia is condemned over illegal immigrants while support exists for people who commit mass genocide. How can they even compare?

I must say i'm rather interested to hear what your views on the Al Quaeda/Taliban prisoners are, considering that you are american. What may they be???

	15-02-2002 05:21									#56
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by LaRusso Roland, as Kelsen said, people observe law because it IS law, not because they are punished.

What planet did you come from? Laws are not worth the paper they're written on if they can't be enforced.

	15-02-2002 07:03									#57
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Simple. He was never trying to create Greater Serbia. This is a propaganda invention wholesale. What he was trying to do is defending the original Yugoslavia, and when failing in that, giving assistance to Serb minorities that were, as a matter of fact, persecuted in both Croatia and Bosnia. Hardly a crime. See also the other Milosevic thread (p.2, I think), where I have posted at length about the whole affair.

Well as I pointed already you are plain wrong here does a protection of Serb minority include ethnic clensing of 1/3 of Croatian territort and 170 000 people expelled? Or shelling of city Vukovar fro three months because Croats there did not want to surrender until there were overwhelmed by superior artillery power and numbers and city burned to the ground? Etc...

And prosecution in Croatia there are other ways to act othere than conquer as much as you can and throw all non-serbs out... but prosecution of serbs in Bosnia Anyway he has a full right to defend himself and whole world is watching so if that was the case he better present it well instead of complaining on illegallity of the court.

http://www.reuters.com/news_article...&StoryID=597371
some news from his four hour defence

	15-02-2002 13:14									#58
	Remove this text

paiktis got any more of this???

	15-02-2002 14:04									#59
	Got spare money?

Tribune:

"Nah, Roland, this is much too sweeping. First of all, iurisdiction by whom? Obviously by those who win. Or can you imagine Bush or Clinton under trial for NATO war crimes?"

Having jurisdiction does not automatically mean you can actually exercise it. Universal jurisdiction simply means that a state does not need substantial connections to a case. Read eg § 64 StGB.

"No, the canīt. They have precisely those rights that are put in writ, and no others."

Overall yes, though some may be customary, esp as far as SC actions extend to non UN members. Those in the Charter are quite broad. And what they legally can do and what they legally may do are two different things.

"Oh, yes, if we recognize self-determination of peoples, it does. Particularly as there is no International Criminal Court, yet."

If we recognize Haider as god, his word takes precedence over the constitution. So tell me, on what do you base it ? International law or ideology ? What does it entail ? How does it relate to the int.law-national law issue ?

"Unless we consider the Dutch government an accomplice in a kidnapping."

Sure. Just under what set of rules ? International law ? Nope. Dutch law ? Nope. And if you want to put national above international law, shouldn't the dutch be free to do what they want anyway ?

Overall... why this leftie love affair with Slobo ?

	15-02-2002 15:19									#60
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Roland Overall... why this leftie love affair with Slobo ?

Not a fair question. Imagine yourself on the side of 'Why this love affair with Karla del Ponte?"

Much has been said about the values of dissedentism, especialy in our part of the Europe. Well, it feels good (and sometimes even right) to challenge certain things whose only evidentiary weight was that they have been repeated 1000 times.

I watched BBC last night, they invited just an Albanian to comment on it, and the servile news anchor was asking the following questions to this Betulahu guy:
- Is this all rubbish?
- Yes, this is all rubbish.
- Albanians, of course, did not run away from the KLA?
- Of course they did not. My mom was on Kosovo, there was no KLA around. She run away because of the Serbs. She called me by the phone and told me that she will leave because of the Serbian army.

I mean, beats me.....I thought they were being forced out by submachineguns-totting Serbian lunatics...in which case you do not chat over a phone...