Posted on 10/12/2002 6:00:54 AM PDT by kosta50
The catch, as always, has to do first with the fact that ICTY is not a country/state, and second that it is not even a court in the strictest sense; it's a tribunal.
Although one of the definitions of the word tribunal is "court of justice," the term "tribunal" is commonly reserved for special judicial procedures outside of the usual system of justice.
Thus, you have military tribunals, such as the ones being prepared for the Afghan prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Tribunals can and do depart from the established standards of judicial norms, and have "flexibility" to establish guilt by means normally not acceptable in ordinary courts -- such as annonymous witnesses, hearsay, etc.
Some of the proceedures used in ICTY have drawn ire of many a legalist who fail to acknowledge that, as a tribunal, ICTY does not have to follow established standards of justice.
Usually, tribunals are punitive courts, but they are not necessarily courts of justice because the procedures and standards they use have been dismissed by civilized nations as obstacles to fair trials.
The objection by many a Serb and Croat, including top leadership, to extraditions of accused citizens to the Hague Tribunal is not so much on the grounds of trying to "hide" from the truth, or not "facing" the crimes some country's leaders may have committed, but on the grounds that a tribunal, especially ICTY, is not a court of justice but a politically-motivated kangaroo court tasked to perform intimidating show trials.
While many a Serb would have been satisfied with seeing Miloshevich tried for various alleged crimes in Serbia, many, if not most, Serbs feel that Miloshevich is not getting a fair trial in the Hague, and for a good reason.
In that light, Croatia's politicians and people are almost united in their opposition to extraditing their accused general to this tribunal, not as denial of possible crimes, but as a revolt to the mockery of justice and political dog and pony show that ICTY has been proven to be.
Who writes their material? The Marx brothers? Karl & Company?
Isn't it what the Yugoslav People's Army was doing?
I am not so much concerned with the details or even the validity of the indictment. I am much more interested in the precedent that is developing here in resisting the Hague Inquistion.
The end result of this clash will be intersting to see, given that Croatia is the "good" country. This also means that Shiptar leadership in Kosovo can look at being hauled away to the Hague, and even the Izetbegovic's Islamic gangsters meeting the same end.
Let's not forget Noriega and how his fortune turned dealing with the Big Brother. Corporate loylaty is no guarantee. The fact that the Hague is now going after others may be indicative of the changing security interests that are developing in the Balkans in the post 9/11 era.
so that everyone can be familiar with this document instead reading about it. :)
There seems to be an intellectual disconnet of disturbing proportions. Among those killed were allegedly 5 Serb soliders who were either captured or wounded; the other 95 were civilians, some of them women. How does killing non-combatants and/or captured or wounded soldiers tie in with the "constitutional duty to defend the country's territorial integirty" is not logically connected.
According to this thread on FR: "The European Union has told Croatia that it will risk delaying closer ties with the bloc if it does not co-operate fully with the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague."
Wow, big "repercussion" that is! "Risk delaying closer ties" indeed! < /so >
Well, the "right" comes from might. The rest is semantics. This case is crucial because the Croatian arguments are meaningless. Stipe Mesic, the ceremonial President of the country, is in favor of "complete cooperation" with the Hague. The Prime Minister, who has all the executive power, Ivica Racan, is against it. The situation is eactly reversed from the scenario in Serbia, where Yugoslav president Voyislav Koshtunitsa was against and Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjich in favor of extraditing Miloshevich to the Hague.
This reversal will make this case evn more interesting because -- in the long run -- it may not be important at all who is for or against it, or what the constiutional courts have to say.
Yugoslavia's and Croatia's constitutions prohibit extradition of their citizens to another state. Well, no problem there: ICTY is not a state! Extradition is not prohibited in principle, just in this particular case relating to another state. Legal trappings, nothing new.
However, Croatians are also saying that the army did what was constitutionally required of it -- suggesting that the crimes mentioned in the indictment are somehow part of "business as usual." That is a very weak argument in my opinion.
Without a valid legal basis, and without a good argument to the contrary, Croatia's resistance to sending Gen. Bobetko to the Hague is on thin ice, and is based on such intangibles as honor, pride, national sovereignty, and probably above all -- a sense of betrayal.
It all boils down to this: the Croatians are insulted that, after having done so much for the US, and for being such a devoted servant or ally, whichever, this is just an unbelieveable slap in the face.
In fact, one Chicago-based Croatian lawyer said to the effect that if the international court is not good enough for the US, it shouldn't be good enough for Croatia either. That statement shows a very serious reality disconnect on his part. We may all be equal (on paper), but some of us are more equal.
But the real significance of this Indictment is not in its details, as much as in its timing and geohragphical location. Either the Empire wants Croatia to agree to something else, and is simply threatening it with this lregal action to make it more agreeable, or the geopolitical security arrangement in the Balkans is changing.
It is difficult to imagine that ICTY would be doing this in order to appear "less partial." Its days are numbered, and rumors abide that it will be closed after Miloshevich is convicted (which is a certainty, judging from the statements of his own "friend of the court" lawyer). ICTY's closing is that much more certain in the aftermath of the open US opposition and arms-twisting over the issue of ICC.
Of course, we must understand that one of the most civilized people of Europe, to whom we owe not only technology, landing on the Moon, science, music and arts, as well as Calculus, were capable of the Holocaust and more. Let's not forget that another civlized and highly advanced nation, in Asia, was capable of barbarism and that even the world's leading democracy became -- through self-proclaimed Providential Destiny -- the continent's leading power in part by ethnically cleansing the native population of North America. Unfortunately, Croatians don't realize that they are despised by the West as just another little nation willing to do anything to be allowed to sit in the same room with the Big Boys.
VRN
I think that's too facile a loophole. Although the accused citizens would be placed in the legal custody of the ITCY -- a non-state "court" -- the extradition would physically be to another state, in this case the Netherlands, where the "court" is located. On its face the provision is broad enough to encompass physical removal of a citizen from the national territory, regardless of whether he is being remanded to the custody of another state's courts, a UN court, or the Food Court in the mall.
I never knew that. Do you happen to have any links? I would love to read more on that.
Actually, their arguments are so weak it's pathetic. First of all, attempt at blocking Miloshevich extradition based on a similar constitutional prohibition failed. Therefore, by invoking a constitutional ban on extradition, Croatians are relying on an already failed argument as their strongest legal course of action!
Second, they are arguing that all the Croatian army was doing in the Medak Pocket is what was "required" according to the constitution. The 1st Count of the Indctment accuses Gen. Bobetko of direct or indicrect responsability for the deaths of 100 Serb civilians and captured or wounded RSK soldiers, in other words with the execution of non-combatants under his command. That is what the constitution requires the Croatian armed forces to do? Interesting.
We are seeing here an incredibly weak legal and intellectual capacity on the part of those who are stepping up to defend Croatia's resistance to extradition.
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.