Yugoslav tribunal asks UN to help exhume alleged victims of former Kosovo prime minister

THE HAGUE, Netherlands The Yugoslav war crimes tribunal Thursday called on U.N. officials in Kosovo to help exhume the bodies of 14 people killed in 1998, in response to a request by defense lawyers for the province's former prime minister Ramush Haradinaj.

Haradinaj, the former commander of the Western-backed Kosovo Liberation Army, was charged in February 2005 with 37 counts of war crimes allegedly committed in 1998, several months before NATO's air campaign forced Serbian troops to withdraw from Kosovo and end a crackdown on ethnic Albanians.

U.N. prosecutors say Haradinaj, who has been released pending the start of his trial, and his KLA deputies executed a criminal plan to persecute, murder, rape and abuse Serbs and Gypsies in the Albanian-dominated province.

In a motion filed this week Haradinaj's attorneys sought help from members of the U.N. Interim Mission in Kosovo to exhume the bodies of people mentioned in his indictment as victims.

Just to let you know, tu quoque is not a legal defense in war crimes trials. A person is tried for the acts he did, not his enemies'.

Up to a point. When the accusers and "witnesses" are shown to be guilty of much greater crimes, if they are granted respect and immunity, then tribunal CONVICTS itself as being a show trial or kangaroo court. Maybe not in the eyes of the law but in the eyes of all honest people and in the eyes of God.

I am curious, what is your view of Moscow show trials of 1930s?

Trying to litigate war is a mistake, it is a basic misunderstanding of what war is. War is the state of affairs that exists when a conflict is beyond litigation.

Simply stated, when rule of law no longer holds you are in a state of war, which persists until the facts on the ground have been changed sufficient to allow peacetime laws and institutions to resume.

There is a place for war-trials at the end of a conflict, but these are not normal trials, they are an extention of the war, they are required as a part of the transition from war back to peacetime law. War prisoners, for example, who are no longer a threat at the end of the war are typically released by both sides. Certain individuals that the victorious power considers a permanent threat, however, will traditionally be hanged or shot. A war-trial documents the reasons for hanging him. It is not about guilt or innocence, typically the decision to hang him is a political or military one. The trial merely establishes the "why", sometimes the real one, sometimes the pretext.

The Allies at the end of the Second World War reasoned that some members of the Nazi regime could not be allowed to go free, ever. The Nuremberg Trials documented the reasons for hanging them. It could not be about legal guilt or innocence, because as agents of the former government, everything they did was "legal". But these were war-trials, part of the transition back to peace.

The trial of Saddam is similar in nature; Saddam can never be allowed to go free, he is a danger even in exile, he is a danger even in his cell as insurgents plan attacks to free him. But his crimes, which shock the conscience of normal people, were not legal crimes under his rule, because in essence he was the law. But this is a war-trial, the decision to hang him is a military and political one, and the purpose of the trial is not to determine his "guilt", but rather to document why he must hang.

This court is trying to establish its authority over countries which had never agreed to its authority, and to exert an authority it has not won on the battlefield. It is trying to litigate a war that is 10 years in the past. But you can not litigate war, war exists precisely when conflicts have gone beyond the reach of any court, war is by its nature extra-legal. The time to deal with a Haradinaj or any of the Serb officers currently on trial is right there on the battlefield. There is a time for war-trials in the immediate aftermath of a war, as a way of closing out old business. But this war is 10 years past, and there have been far greater crimes committed that will never be tried by any earthly court. Does the Hague propose to arrest and try the Sudanese government, for example? They have the blood of millions on their hands. This guy is accused of killing 14 people during a very ugly war. Any Sudanese worth his salt will laugh at such a puny crime as this.

The Moscow show trials of the 1930s were entirely different in character from the ICTY. Flawed as it is, the ICTY has tried Serbs, Croats, and Kosovars; there has been independent defenses, and impartial judges. I don't like the European model of trials as a whole but the quality of the ICTY is markedly different than the show trials.

I see complaints that the ICTY doesn't punish Bosnians and Croats enough; then I see arguments that they aren't valid trials at all. You can't have it both ways.

In the eyes of God, we're all guilty. This is why Christ came to Earth, to live a sinless life and die for our sins. Human justice has always been flawed, I fear. But at least someone is trying to be just in this case.

But at least someone is trying to be just in this case.

"Just" as Satan who was always eager to accuse and provide false testimony. He is the patron of all kangaroo show trials.

Flawed as it is, the ICTY has tried Serbs, Croats, and Kosovars; there has been independent defenses, and impartial judges.

ICTY is an evil mockery of justice where the defendants die if their defense is too successful. BTW, there is no such beings as "Kosovars", Kosovo is inhabited by Serbs (the natives) and Albanians and the name means in Serbian the Place of Black Birds.

I'll call them as I see them. I don't see what's wrong with a term to refer to all the inhabitants of a province by one name. Yes, there are Serb Kosovars and Albanian Kosovars. There's only one Kosovo, and it should be part of Serbia. However, everyone there -- particularly the Serbs -- have to break out of this poisonous mindset that it's impossible to work with the others.

If you can't live together, the only alternative is separation. If that's the case, the lines have been drawn, but not the way Serbs want them. And that's fine with the rest of Europe.

Of course, it could be worse... Hugo Chavez could have visited.

However, everyone there -- particularly the Serbs -- have to break out of this poisonous mindset that it's impossible to work with the others.

Why don't you see that it is the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo who are pushing out and killing others, not only Serbs but also Gypsies? Under Serbian rule the Albanian population grew, whether through high birth rate or through legal and illegal immigration from Albania. Why is that so, that Serbia even now is the most multiethnic of all former Yugoslav republics?

Will you say that I am lying or that I have "poisonous mindset" by stating these facts?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.