Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Wednesday
Del Ponte Not Satisfied With Serbia's Hunt for Mladić
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061003/wl_nm/warcrimes_serbia_dc
I don't know how anyone expects her to feel. Deciding to end the Hague Tribunal at a set point, 2007 or whatever it is, was an unwise decision. There is no statute of limitations on murder, why is there practically speaking a statute of limitations on genocide? I thought that at the begining of this process and it makes me angrier all the time.
Serbian Secrurity Staff Sacked as Mladić Still At Large
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20061004\ACQDJON200610040606DOWJONESDJONLINE000403.htm&selected=9999&selecteddisplaysymbol=9999&StoryTargetFrame=_top&mkt=WORLD&chk=unchecked&lang=&link=&headlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na
Some BiH Election Reporting From the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5399856.stm
Serbia Welcomes U.S. Military Assistance
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200610/04/eng20061004_308968.html
Balkans Lessons
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061003-084818-7553r.htm#
I don't agree with all of this article. There are some similarities between the Balkans and Iraq
* Formerly Under Ottoman Rule
*Ethnic Diversity
*Religious Diversity
The comparison begins to break down pretty early though because the religious diversity of Iraq is mostly within Islam, with a Chrisitan minority, and the ethnic diversity is greater in Iraq, there's even a certain amount of racial diversity.
There is actually Linguistic Diversity in Iraq, because there's groups that speak Turkic languages and Kurdish, as well as some Aramaic speakers.
In the Balkans the linguistic diversity is a lot less, there's mainly people who speak Bosnian Croatian or Serbian, or Slovenian, and there's the Albanian language in some areas. There are some Turkish speaking minorities here and there. These individuals number in the thousands.
It is worth noting that while a foreign presence did not solve all problems in the Balkans, the presence did at least stop the shooting. In Iraq nothing is better, and quite a few things are the same or even worse.
The right wing rant radio types still holler about the 'rape rooms' under Saddam Hussein, but they have nothing to say about the fact that rape and abduction of women has become quite common in Iraq since the U.S. occupation. For the most part it's Arabs abducting Arab women and girls for this sort of thing, but even a few instances have occured involving U.S. forces or contractors.
Events like this did also happen in the Balkans but again the locals were much more likely to be involved than U.S. forces or U.S. contractors.
As a woman, I get very angry at such accounts, because I too easily can imagine it happening to a friend, a relative or a neighbor. Even one such occurance is one too many, just as even one murder is one too many.
The fact is though that a U.S. presence in the Balkans has been fairly positive for the locals, and it has not been so positive in Iraq. If anything positive is happening due to U.S. presence we certainly are not hearing a lot about it here.
This is not the fault of the soldiers. On the whole I have real respect for American military people, they are mostly well intentioned, and really do try to do the right thing. I felt some real pride when I saw the Americans in Bosnia-Hercegovina. I could tell them at a glance even at a distance, even before seeing shoulder flashes or an American name, or anything else that distinguished the Americans from other soldiers. There is something distinct in the American way of carrying oneself, especially with soldiers.
There are legitimate times for war, and I am very glad there is no Saddam Hussein. The problem is we haven't seen anything better replace him. I don't know if a continued U.S. presence can fix things there or not. I also think a foreign presence remains neccesary in the Balkans for some time to come.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061003/wl_nm/warcrimes_serbia_dc
I don't know how anyone expects her to feel. Deciding to end the Hague Tribunal at a set point, 2007 or whatever it is, was an unwise decision. There is no statute of limitations on murder, why is there practically speaking a statute of limitations on genocide? I thought that at the begining of this process and it makes me angrier all the time.
Serbian Secrurity Staff Sacked as Mladić Still At Large
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20061004\ACQDJON200610040606DOWJONESDJONLINE000403.htm&selected=9999&selecteddisplaysymbol=9999&StoryTargetFrame=_top&mkt=WORLD&chk=unchecked&lang=&link=&headlinereturnpage=http://www.international.na
Some BiH Election Reporting From the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5399856.stm
Serbia Welcomes U.S. Military Assistance
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200610/04/eng20061004_308968.html
Balkans Lessons
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061003-084818-7553r.htm#
I don't agree with all of this article. There are some similarities between the Balkans and Iraq
* Formerly Under Ottoman Rule
*Ethnic Diversity
*Religious Diversity
The comparison begins to break down pretty early though because the religious diversity of Iraq is mostly within Islam, with a Chrisitan minority, and the ethnic diversity is greater in Iraq, there's even a certain amount of racial diversity.
There is actually Linguistic Diversity in Iraq, because there's groups that speak Turkic languages and Kurdish, as well as some Aramaic speakers.
In the Balkans the linguistic diversity is a lot less, there's mainly people who speak Bosnian Croatian or Serbian, or Slovenian, and there's the Albanian language in some areas. There are some Turkish speaking minorities here and there. These individuals number in the thousands.
It is worth noting that while a foreign presence did not solve all problems in the Balkans, the presence did at least stop the shooting. In Iraq nothing is better, and quite a few things are the same or even worse.
The right wing rant radio types still holler about the 'rape rooms' under Saddam Hussein, but they have nothing to say about the fact that rape and abduction of women has become quite common in Iraq since the U.S. occupation. For the most part it's Arabs abducting Arab women and girls for this sort of thing, but even a few instances have occured involving U.S. forces or contractors.
Events like this did also happen in the Balkans but again the locals were much more likely to be involved than U.S. forces or U.S. contractors.
As a woman, I get very angry at such accounts, because I too easily can imagine it happening to a friend, a relative or a neighbor. Even one such occurance is one too many, just as even one murder is one too many.
The fact is though that a U.S. presence in the Balkans has been fairly positive for the locals, and it has not been so positive in Iraq. If anything positive is happening due to U.S. presence we certainly are not hearing a lot about it here.
This is not the fault of the soldiers. On the whole I have real respect for American military people, they are mostly well intentioned, and really do try to do the right thing. I felt some real pride when I saw the Americans in Bosnia-Hercegovina. I could tell them at a glance even at a distance, even before seeing shoulder flashes or an American name, or anything else that distinguished the Americans from other soldiers. There is something distinct in the American way of carrying oneself, especially with soldiers.
There are legitimate times for war, and I am very glad there is no Saddam Hussein. The problem is we haven't seen anything better replace him. I don't know if a continued U.S. presence can fix things there or not. I also think a foreign presence remains neccesary in the Balkans for some time to come.
# posted by Katja R. @ 6:35 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
About the statue of limitations:
Does that mean for example, if the Court closes in 2007 and Mladic pops out of his hiding place in 2010; he can't be charged by an international court for genocide & crimes against humanity?
Can the court be re-opened in that case?
I'm assuming that even if the ICTY cannot try Mladic for genocide; than he can be extradited to Bosnia to face charges by a court there.
You are absolutely correct, there should be no statue of limitations for genocide.
While there may be more effort to find Mladic than ever before; the chances of him spending one day in jail for his crimes is less and less.
Does that mean for example, if the Court closes in 2007 and Mladic pops out of his hiding place in 2010; he can't be charged by an international court for genocide & crimes against humanity?
Can the court be re-opened in that case?
I'm assuming that even if the ICTY cannot try Mladic for genocide; than he can be extradited to Bosnia to face charges by a court there.
You are absolutely correct, there should be no statue of limitations for genocide.
While there may be more effort to find Mladic than ever before; the chances of him spending one day in jail for his crimes is less and less.
Shaina I frankly don't know if the closure of the court means these war criminals can't be tried but I think it does mean just that.
There should not be a limit on trying any war criminals from anywhere.
The U.S. wants to be exempt and immune from war crimes trials either.
Basically the United States has forced a treaty to prevent trials of Americans in this sort of situation, and I think that is a bad precedent. I think it's better to rescue people in such a situation or negotiate releases, or not go places where this could happen than it is to set a bad precedent that weakens the Geneva Conventions. It is potentially very harmful to AMERICAN soldiers to weaken the Geneva Conventions.
There should not be a limit on trying any war criminals from anywhere.
The U.S. wants to be exempt and immune from war crimes trials either.
Basically the United States has forced a treaty to prevent trials of Americans in this sort of situation, and I think that is a bad precedent. I think it's better to rescue people in such a situation or negotiate releases, or not go places where this could happen than it is to set a bad precedent that weakens the Geneva Conventions. It is potentially very harmful to AMERICAN soldiers to weaken the Geneva Conventions.
Don't worry!
America will do nothing to help in the hunt for Karadzic and Mladic!
If anything they will hinder or set the hunt back more than it already is!
John
America will do nothing to help in the hunt for Karadzic and Mladic!
If anything they will hinder or set the hunt back more than it already is!
John
The weakining of the Geneva Conventin will do no harm to Amercian soldiers!
It won't because the only ones who abide by this "rule" are America and her allies! So what does it matter anyway?
It won't because the only ones who abide by this "rule" are America and her allies! So what does it matter anyway?
John, I disagree, according to Solzhenitzen, author of the Gulag Archipelago, the Soviet Union during WWII did not recognize either the Geneva Conventions or the Red Cross.
The end result was American soldiers got food packages, British soldiers got food packages and the Americans treated German and other Axis prisoners according to the convention and the Soviets starved so bad that one man thought Solzhitzin was dead and gnawed on his arm while he was lying in a fox hole in the prisoner of war camp.
The only good food the Soviets got was if the Allied men felt bad for them and threw some of their food over the fence and the Soviet soldiers were fighting over it.
Had the Soviet Union recognized the Geneva Conventions the Germans would have to have fed them something and had they recognized the Red Cross they would have had the Red Cross food parcels.
I realize this is not a precedent most people know about, but the Gulag Archipelago is available in any public library.
As far as the U.S. being useless in the hunt for Mladić or Karadžić, the U.S. isn't even going to be involved after December of this year for good or ill because the last U.S. troops will be pulled from BiH by then.
The end result was American soldiers got food packages, British soldiers got food packages and the Americans treated German and other Axis prisoners according to the convention and the Soviets starved so bad that one man thought Solzhitzin was dead and gnawed on his arm while he was lying in a fox hole in the prisoner of war camp.
The only good food the Soviets got was if the Allied men felt bad for them and threw some of their food over the fence and the Soviet soldiers were fighting over it.
Had the Soviet Union recognized the Geneva Conventions the Germans would have to have fed them something and had they recognized the Red Cross they would have had the Red Cross food parcels.
I realize this is not a precedent most people know about, but the Gulag Archipelago is available in any public library.
As far as the U.S. being useless in the hunt for Mladić or Karadžić, the U.S. isn't even going to be involved after December of this year for good or ill because the last U.S. troops will be pulled from BiH by then.
Good point! Do you really believe these Islamic Terrorists are going to treat our POWs according to anything civil?
I personally like and believe int he Geneva Convention. No matter what my enemy may have done to me, once they are in custody they are no longer combatives and have a right basic human needs such as food, medical care, shelter and even recreational programs.
Don't tell anyone but I'm actually a little scared of these Muslim Extremists. I mean, they are ruthless and it's impossible to negotiate with them. I'm still in the process of trying to understand and accept this fear, for I think it will make me a better fighter in the end.
I still think in today's day and age, our enemies will no honor the Geneva Convention no matter what.
John
I personally like and believe int he Geneva Convention. No matter what my enemy may have done to me, once they are in custody they are no longer combatives and have a right basic human needs such as food, medical care, shelter and even recreational programs.
Don't tell anyone but I'm actually a little scared of these Muslim Extremists. I mean, they are ruthless and it's impossible to negotiate with them. I'm still in the process of trying to understand and accept this fear, for I think it will make me a better fighter in the end.
I still think in today's day and age, our enemies will no honor the Geneva Convention no matter what.
John
Shaina,
Eventually the ICTY will close down. Murder has no statute of limitations in most countries...this means the country where this murder occured is going to have to prosecute.
I personally know men who do not have an ICTY indictment but, the Bosnian Government is actively searching for them to stand trial for war crimes.
Sadly, this all takes money. And I can't count the number of times I've seen crimes go ignored because of the dollar cost.
John
Eventually the ICTY will close down. Murder has no statute of limitations in most countries...this means the country where this murder occured is going to have to prosecute.
I personally know men who do not have an ICTY indictment but, the Bosnian Government is actively searching for them to stand trial for war crimes.
Sadly, this all takes money. And I can't count the number of times I've seen crimes go ignored because of the dollar cost.
John
@ Everyone: In every ignored war crime there lie the seeds of the next murderous war. Yeah there's no statute on murder and yes John you are right that money is an issue in prosecution of these cases. It means people will get shot, it lowers security for EVERYONE.
The basic purpose of law is to lower the level of personal vengence in a society. When law fails in this function, it breaks down. When law breaks down, people take personal revenge, and then if enough of that happens you have war and terrorism.
Remember Islam has rules about the treatment of prisoners of war, and about the treatment of civilians. The extremists aren't following those laws, and they actually probably do more harm to Muslims than to any foreign element at this point.
Just because an opponant is fighting dirty is no reason for the U.S. to fight dirty! What it does is ruin the moral fiber of American soldiers, and war alone is bad enough in that regard! It also gives us a bad name.
Remember if an enemy fails to play by what rules there are for war, then it reflects on THEM and damages THEM. It's a propaganda bonus for the United States.
I think the whole question of Islamic extremists is partly the fault of the U.S. We should have left the Soviet Union alone, they performed a valuable function for the West in sitting on Central Asia, and they kept those people busy with no cost to the U.S. basically.
Instead our Protestant extremist politicians gave the Islamic extremists money, equipment and moral support, without studying their propaganda which CLEARLY stated they'd bring down the Soviet Union and then they'd bring down Capitalism.
If we were going to bring down the Soviet Union, the LOGICAL step would have been to help Turkey fill the power vacuum. Turkey is a Muslim majority nation and they have a moderate take on the religion. They consider extremisim bad for business and would not have tolerated it. They would have been an acceptable and friendly replacement for the Soviets.
Instead we do have a lose-lose situation.
I blame it on stupid ignorant fanatics with stupid ignorant theories about the Last Days in the West, getting together with stupid ignorant fanatics with stupid ignorant theories about the Last Days in the East.
Unfortunately these stupid people had a lot of money they have been mis-using. I do think they want the Last Days so they can go to Heaven and the rest of us can burn in Hell.
I don't consider this situation irreretrivable, but it will take some time.
Basically the U.S. doesn't belong in the Middle East or Central Asia, neither do the French, the British, the Germans or the Russians. The best thing would be if the Turks were allowed that area as a sphere of influence. I think there is some cultural effort in that direction already and some religious effort in that direction also. Military and business effort in that direction should be quietly fostered.
It would be far better for everyone than allowing the Iranians too much influence in Central Asia.
The good news about fanatical sorts of religious movements is they burn out. No one can stand to live that way for long. Their leaders get old and die, or are killed and they get newer leaders who are less committed.
They will run out of steam.
That will leave us with moderate Muslims to deal with. It will take awhile and it may get very ugly meanwhile.
In a way I see the problem as being a problem of Christianity being less practiced in it's social and moral aspects.
Christianity has a social theory and that isn't observed, it has customs leading to order and decorum and these are more honored in the breech. This increases the cultural shock between the Christian and Muslim areas of the world.
The Agha Khan said something pretty good about it, he said 'There is no clash of civilizations, there is a clash of ignorances'
The basic purpose of law is to lower the level of personal vengence in a society. When law fails in this function, it breaks down. When law breaks down, people take personal revenge, and then if enough of that happens you have war and terrorism.
Remember Islam has rules about the treatment of prisoners of war, and about the treatment of civilians. The extremists aren't following those laws, and they actually probably do more harm to Muslims than to any foreign element at this point.
Just because an opponant is fighting dirty is no reason for the U.S. to fight dirty! What it does is ruin the moral fiber of American soldiers, and war alone is bad enough in that regard! It also gives us a bad name.
Remember if an enemy fails to play by what rules there are for war, then it reflects on THEM and damages THEM. It's a propaganda bonus for the United States.
I think the whole question of Islamic extremists is partly the fault of the U.S. We should have left the Soviet Union alone, they performed a valuable function for the West in sitting on Central Asia, and they kept those people busy with no cost to the U.S. basically.
Instead our Protestant extremist politicians gave the Islamic extremists money, equipment and moral support, without studying their propaganda which CLEARLY stated they'd bring down the Soviet Union and then they'd bring down Capitalism.
If we were going to bring down the Soviet Union, the LOGICAL step would have been to help Turkey fill the power vacuum. Turkey is a Muslim majority nation and they have a moderate take on the religion. They consider extremisim bad for business and would not have tolerated it. They would have been an acceptable and friendly replacement for the Soviets.
Instead we do have a lose-lose situation.
I blame it on stupid ignorant fanatics with stupid ignorant theories about the Last Days in the West, getting together with stupid ignorant fanatics with stupid ignorant theories about the Last Days in the East.
Unfortunately these stupid people had a lot of money they have been mis-using. I do think they want the Last Days so they can go to Heaven and the rest of us can burn in Hell.
I don't consider this situation irreretrivable, but it will take some time.
Basically the U.S. doesn't belong in the Middle East or Central Asia, neither do the French, the British, the Germans or the Russians. The best thing would be if the Turks were allowed that area as a sphere of influence. I think there is some cultural effort in that direction already and some religious effort in that direction also. Military and business effort in that direction should be quietly fostered.
It would be far better for everyone than allowing the Iranians too much influence in Central Asia.
The good news about fanatical sorts of religious movements is they burn out. No one can stand to live that way for long. Their leaders get old and die, or are killed and they get newer leaders who are less committed.
They will run out of steam.
That will leave us with moderate Muslims to deal with. It will take awhile and it may get very ugly meanwhile.
In a way I see the problem as being a problem of Christianity being less practiced in it's social and moral aspects.
Christianity has a social theory and that isn't observed, it has customs leading to order and decorum and these are more honored in the breech. This increases the cultural shock between the Christian and Muslim areas of the world.
The Agha Khan said something pretty good about it, he said 'There is no clash of civilizations, there is a clash of ignorances'
I totally disagree with you that the West is to blame for Islamist Extremists!
These terrorists are in it soely for their own greedy, pleasurable gains. It's an idea, a thought based on and excused by religion.
I agree we don't belong in the Middle East. And I don't agree that these Extremists will simply fade away. Honest, decent Islamic citizens across the world, for the most part, have failed to stand up fight back against those terrorizing the world in the name of their religion. This silence only gives the terrorists strength in my opinion.
Are we supposed to just idly sit by and wait for this steam to be spent? How many innocents will die in the meantime.
It's almost like saying, it's ok to go out and bomb and murder because you made me mad.
I agree with you that America should not treat priosners bad simply because the enemy does.
With respect,
John
These terrorists are in it soely for their own greedy, pleasurable gains. It's an idea, a thought based on and excused by religion.
I agree we don't belong in the Middle East. And I don't agree that these Extremists will simply fade away. Honest, decent Islamic citizens across the world, for the most part, have failed to stand up fight back against those terrorizing the world in the name of their religion. This silence only gives the terrorists strength in my opinion.
Are we supposed to just idly sit by and wait for this steam to be spent? How many innocents will die in the meantime.
It's almost like saying, it's ok to go out and bomb and murder because you made me mad.
I agree with you that America should not treat priosners bad simply because the enemy does.
With respect,
John
John, we never HEAR when someone Muslim stands up to the terrorists, our news is totally manipulated on that score.
We don't hear on national news for example that the membership of a certain Muslim organization in the U.S. elected a female an ex-Catholic who converted.
She was recently interviewed on 'Fresh Air' and she gave the extremists all sorts of Hell.
She knows her stuff too. I posted something about her recently. I don't know what you read on your visits, but I hope you look for her, in fact for the benefit of people who might have missed it, I'll post that again.
Slowly but surely Muslims in England are standing up to the extremists.
Bosnian Muslim leadership has been solidly against the extremists all along.
Turkey has had laws against extremist organizations for decades, not just recently to suit the West.
As far as the West being at least partly responsible, there is NO situation of conflict that wasn't at least a two way street including this one.
The U.S. under Reagan and the George Bush Sr. funned millions of dollars worth of arms to the Jamat-i-Islami and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Afghan refugees were all over San Francisco peddling opium, and living on refugee aid.
Then we supported Saddam against the Iranians.
We propped up the Shah and messed things up for any moderate secular opposition to the Shah.
The last thing I mentioned happened before I was even born and the other stuff happened when you were pretty young, still playing ball and hiding from bad babysitters.
The West is not totally innocent in this.
My take, anything that happens in the West should be handled in the West.
The Middle East is nothing but a filthy death trap.
Post a Comment
We don't hear on national news for example that the membership of a certain Muslim organization in the U.S. elected a female an ex-Catholic who converted.
She was recently interviewed on 'Fresh Air' and she gave the extremists all sorts of Hell.
She knows her stuff too. I posted something about her recently. I don't know what you read on your visits, but I hope you look for her, in fact for the benefit of people who might have missed it, I'll post that again.
Slowly but surely Muslims in England are standing up to the extremists.
Bosnian Muslim leadership has been solidly against the extremists all along.
Turkey has had laws against extremist organizations for decades, not just recently to suit the West.
As far as the West being at least partly responsible, there is NO situation of conflict that wasn't at least a two way street including this one.
The U.S. under Reagan and the George Bush Sr. funned millions of dollars worth of arms to the Jamat-i-Islami and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Afghan refugees were all over San Francisco peddling opium, and living on refugee aid.
Then we supported Saddam against the Iranians.
We propped up the Shah and messed things up for any moderate secular opposition to the Shah.
The last thing I mentioned happened before I was even born and the other stuff happened when you were pretty young, still playing ball and hiding from bad babysitters.
The West is not totally innocent in this.
My take, anything that happens in the West should be handled in the West.
The Middle East is nothing but a filthy death trap.
<< Home
