R.I.P. Slobo

[Mr Epee]

Dead in Den Hague!

[Zilverzmurfen]

A man responsible for genocide? Yes indeed, R.I.Pieces.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by Zilverzmurfen

A man responsible for genocide? Yes indeed, R.I.Pieces.

As long as it stands for "rot in pieces"

The peace of the grave is something he does NOT deserve...

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

As long as it stands for "rot in pieces"

The peace of the grave is something he does NOT deserve...

I believe you did not read my entire posting, Purple...


I should probably have added this guy ---> <--- to clarify it.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Zilverzmurfen

A man responsible for genocide? Yes indeed, R.I.Pieces.

A man allegedly responsible for genocide.

--------------------------------------

And now, the end is near;
And so I face the final curtain.
My friend, I'll say it clear,
I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.

I've lived a life that's full.
I've traveled each and ev'ry highway;
But more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Regrets, I've had a few;
But then again, too few to mention.
I did what I had to do
And saw it through without exemption.

I planned each charted course;
Each careful step along the byway,
But more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When I bit off more than I could chew.
But through it all, when there was doubt,
I ate it up and spit it out.
I faced it all and I stood tall;
And did it my way.

I've loved, I've laughed and cried.
I've had my fill; my share of losing.
And now, as tears subside,
I find it all so amusing.

To think I did all that;
And may I say - not in a shy way,
"No, oh no not me,
I did it my way".

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels;
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows -
And did it my way!

[ReverseLunge]

Edited out as people have taken offence. This comment is wrong on so many levels. Gav

Strangers on the net exchanging glances
Wond’ring in the night
What were the chances we’d be sharing love
Before the connection was down.

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by Purple Fencer

As long as it stands for "rot in pieces"

The peace of the grave is something he does NOT deserve...

Why? Explain your self.
But yes,I know that this man blamed for the following :
'During the Kosovo War he was indicted on 27 May 1999, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Kosovo.'
Unfortunately the history is writting from the winners. The winners did not do CRIMES AGAINST HUMMANITY,they are saints.
But yes, I forgot there are no judges to judge them.

It is strange, in his funeral 400,000 people should be there.

BTW take a look here :http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4272

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by Poulet

Any British "news outlet" named the Truth Seeker is worthless sensationalism.

Such headlines as:

US, Britain complicit in Israeli war crime
Auschwitz For Dummies
Illuminati Devil Year 666
Siege Heil: The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus and the Destabilization of California
The Anne Frank Diary Fraud
Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government
Why All Porn is Gay
Christian Necropophagy[sic]
9/11 and the Israeli “Art Students”

So you imagine that in a war there are not crimes and in both sides. Cool. The one side fight with guns and the other with flowers. Very sweet!
When the airplanes throught the bombs the boms kill only the soldiers and the civilians are unheart.

Wake up it is war.

And if you want to read British news try the BBC........ :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4809532.stm

[Morion]

During the unrest in the Balkans there were definate crimes committed by the Serbian population against the Muslims and Catholics in the form of mass murders and internment camps. This has been documented. I have not heard of similar incidents committed by the other side but that could be either because of one sided news coverage in the US or because they simply did not have the strength of arms and numbers to pull it off. In any case I do not know if the Serbian president gave direction or had knowledge of these events or not. My gut feeling is that he did but what do I know?

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by Morion

During the unrest in the Balkans there were definate crimes committed by the Serbian population against the Muslims and Catholics in the form of mass murders and internment camps. This has been documented. I have not heard of similar incidents committed by the other side but that could be either because of one sided news coverage in the US or because they simply did not have the strength of arms and numbers to pull it off. In any case I do not know if the Serbian president gave direction or had knowledge of these events or not. My gut feeling is that he did but what do I know?

Hi Morion,
I agree with you. For this I react because I am thinging that he can R.I.P. with a simple funeral.
My thoughts is that there were been other genosides in the past but none judged for them, and they became heroes for their nations. But none react.

[Inquartata]

Velisarios, this is the tu quoque fallacy in action: others did it and were not condemned, hence we ought not condemn this one. But a reprehensible act is a reprehensible act, no matter how widespread it is or how many participate in it.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Velisarios, this is the tu quoque fallacy in action: others did it and were not condemned, hence we ought not condemn this one. But a reprehensible act is a reprehensible act, no matter how widespread it is or how many participate in it.

And this is the "jumping to conclusions" fallacy.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljust...316defence.htm

Interestingly, one of the tacks Milosovic tried from the very beginning was that the charges brought against him were fabricated by the US. Two interesting questions follow from that:

1) Is it possible this is true?
2) Is it possible that he gave no orders for genocide?

Another line of comment, that I think will inflame some opinions but should lead to some fun ideas, is that Milosovic is on trial for Crimes Against Humanity. One of the greatest crimes is that of a war of aggression in that it is generally necessary before any of the other crimes can be committed. Why is Iraq not a war of aggression? If Iraq is not enough for the Hague to at least remove The US President from office pending trial for war crimes, why are the actions in Serbia justification for the removal of Milosovic?

Is it the aspect of genocide that is the real justification for "crimes against humanity"? The genetic crime, as it were, of racial eradication?

James.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Is it the aspect of genocide that is the real justification for "crimes against humanity"? The genetic crime, as it were, of racial eradication?

James.

It is tempting to pretend that I am an authority on International law. However it would be wiser to just paraphrase/cut and paste the thoughts of Cherif Bassiouni- Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law and President of the International Human Rights Law Institute. He also served the United Nations in a number of capacities, including as: Member and then Chairman of the Security Council's Commission to Investigate War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia (1992-94).

The term 'crimes against humanity' has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. This is not, however, the original meaning nor the technical one. The term originated in the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. This codification was based on existing State practices that derived from those values and principles deemed to constitute the "laws of humanity," as reflected throughout history in different cultures.

Crimes against humanity are distinguishable from genocide in that they do not require an intent to "destroy in whole or in part," as cited in the 1948 Genocide Convention, but only target a given group and carry out a policy of "widespread or systematic" violations. Crimes against humanity are also distinguishable from war crimes in that they not only apply in the context of war-they apply in times of war and peace.

Why is Iraq not a war of aggression? If Iraq is not enough for the Hague to at least remove The US President from office pending trial for war crimes, why are the actions in Serbia justification for the removal of Milosovic?

(from Wikepedia)

The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006, that it had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed.

The Chief Prosecutor's conclusions were as follows:

1)He did not have authority to consider the complaint about the legality of the invasion. Although the ICC Statute includes the crime of "aggression", it indicates that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over the crime until a provision has been adopted which defines the crime and sets out the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to it.
The available information did not provide sufficient evidence for proceeding with an investigation of the complaints in connection with targeting of civilians or clearly excessive attacks.

2)The available information did provide a reasonable basis for believing that there had been an estimated 4 to 12 victims of wilful killing and a limited number of victims of inhuman treatment, totaling in all less than 20 persons. However this on its own was not sufficient for the initiation of an investigation by the ICC because the Statute requires consideration of admissibility before the Court, in light of the gravity of the crimes. Bearing in mind that a key consideration in this regard is the number of victims of particularly serious crimes, he concluded that the situation did not appear to meet the "gravity" threshold.

The whole letter is here and worth reading-
http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organ...ruary_2006.pdf


Either way- The US made sure national courts have priority. (also wikepedia) If allegations are made against a U.S. official, the ICC first must refer them to the U.S. government, and if the United States conducts a good faith investigation and finds them groundless, the ICC would lack any jurisdiction. Further, war crimes must be intentional, providing a defense against prosecution for accidental bombings. Finally, a majority of the U.N. Security Council, where the United States wields great influence, can take jurisdiction over a case away from the ICC.

An occupying power, like the United States in Iraq, is responsible for respecting the fundamental human rights of the population under its control. The arbitrary taking of a life is against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is still a party. No way that that this one would stick though.

American citizens can also be prosecuted by the court if the crime takes place in the territory of a state party (e.g. Jordan) Afghanistan has ratified the ICCt so not sure if US troops could be prosecuted there. US probably has a legal agreement (with Afghanistan) that US troops won't be turned over to an International court.

Not so for the British- we signed!

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Velisarios, this is the tu quoque fallacy in action: others did it and were not condemned, hence we ought not condemn this one. But a reprehensible act is a reprehensible act, no matter how widespread it is or how many participate in it.

Hi Inquartata,
I catch your point. Anyway this matter is over. The best thing to do all is to learn from the history and we must try all to stop the wrongs if we can see them and if we are avaiable to act.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by VELISARIOS

Hi Inquartata,
I catch your point. Anyway this matter is over. The best thing to do all is to learn from the history and we must try all to stop the wrongs if we can see them and if we are avaiable to act.

There are plenty of wrong things going on right now. I don't see you doing anything. Why don't you do something? Did you learn anything from history besides that you didn't learn anyting ffrom history? There are a lot of things going on all the time. When are you going to do something?

If you ever get around to doing something then you need to video tape it for proof. How come I don't think you will do something? Did you know there is a lot of wrong happening right now? You saw it right? Are you going to do something? are you going to learn form history? Are you going to stop all the wrong things you see? When are you going to start stopping it? You better start stopping it right now. You better say yes. But what was that important peice of information you were talking about? before that? no it was after that part, no no no it was before that and what about the solar powered flashight that you brought to me in my dreams?

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

There are plenty of wrong things going on right now. I don't see you doing anything. Why don't you do something? Did you learn anything from history besides that you didn't learn anyting ffrom history? There are a lot of things going on all the time. When are you going to do something?

If you ever get around to doing something then you need to video tape it for proof. How come I don't think you will do something? Did you know there is a lot of wrong happening right now? You saw it right? Are you going to do something? are you going to learn form history? Are you going to stop all the wrong things you see? When are you going to start stopping it? You better start stopping it right now. You better say yes. But what was that important peice of information you were talking about? before that? no it was after that part, no no no it was before that and what about the solar powered flashight that you brought to me in my dreams?

Hi RL,
you are right in most of your question. Alone none can do something and ofcourse I can not do something too. But if act all then something could happened. For example look what happened to France. The politicians try to confirm a new law for the workers and all France react, and the politician freeze. But the people of France act all together, not alone.
But I agrre with you uthat alone you can not do something.
CU

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by VELISARIOS

Hi RL,
you are right in most of your question. Alone none can do something and ofcourse I can not do something too. But if act all then something could happened. For example look what happened to France. The politicians try to confirm a new law for the workers and all France react, and the politician freeze. But the people of France act all together, not alone.
But I agrre with you uthat alone you can not do something.
CU

Liberal utopias like France require a police state to suppress open discussion of reality, complete with the media propaganda machine telling people how wonderful it is to have to live with people who have nothing in common with you and hate you, but you are forced to kindly support.

[VELISARIOS]

Originally Posted by ReverseLunge

Liberal utopias like France require a police state to suppress open discussion of reality, complete with the media propaganda machine telling people how wonderful it is to have to live with people who have nothing in common with you and hate you, but you are forced to kindly support.

No, wait RL, I spoke for what happened past week in the Universities. All the students of the Universities act all together with strenght and stop the politicians. Do you see what happened in the thrain stations and to the University?