Posted on 07/06/2004 8:30:16 PM PDT by Destro
Milosevic forced to accept defence counsel
Ian Black in Brussels
Wednesday July 7, 2004
The Guardian
Slobodan Milosevic is fit to continue standing trial but may not be well enough to represent himself, the war crimes tribunal in The Hague ruled yesterday. The three judges made it clear that the former Serb president may be forced accept a defence counsel, because the burden of doing it himself was damaging his heath, and that the trial was not, contrary to speculation, about to collapse.
Mr Milosevic, 62, suffers from recurrent and chronic high blood pressure and heart problems.
Judge Patrick Robinson suspended the hearing on Monday, when Mr Milosevic was due to begin his defence, on being told that he was at risk of a heart attack or a stroke and urgently needed rest.
"It is in the interests of the accused and the broader interests of justice that this trial be conducted and concluded within a reasonable period of time," the judges wrote.
"There is no evidence that the accused is not fit to stand trial at all, but there is evidence that ... [his health] is such that he may not be fit to continue to represent himself, and that his continuing to represent himself could adversely affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the trial."
They ordered that the court registrar identify counsel to represent Mr Milosevic. His agreement is not required.
"It may be necessary to assign counsel to the accused, and/or adopt other measures to ensure a fair and expeditious conduct of the trial," they wrote.
It shocks me that I have to explain that on an conservative website to so called conservatives.
They seem to have disappeared....Nice KO.
With me "the enemy of my enemy (for now) is my friend."
Slobo is, as you have said, giving the finger to the UN and it's kangaroo court society.
He also was giving the "grim reaper treatment" to islamists in his own HOMELAND.
In both cases, he has proven to be the enemy of our nation's enemies... radical islamists and UN would-be overlords.
Is he to be lauded for his criminal efforts as well?
Any suppport for Slobo demonstrates ignorance, whether it be of what transpired during his misrule, or of the foundation and legitimacy of the ICTY. Slobo agreed to send his fellow Serbs indicted for war crimes to the Hague during the Dayton negotiations - his 'illegitimacy' stance only came about when he found himself in front of the court, and holds about as much water as any of his other idiot ramblings.
Milosevic is a murder, so I guess you think that Saddam is going to get "railroaded" as well?
cough*idiot*cough
As for Nuremburg - cough*idiotcan'tread*cough
"The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors."
Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, U.S.N. Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 42.
Don't you understand? Husband Kimmel and Igor Sikorsky said the Nuremberg Trials were wrong. Can't you just read that and accept it?
The only chance for the Hague kangaroos is to set up a fake defence and silence Milosevic. I guess they are not above poisoning him if needed.
When this all start, I predict that he die from heart attack before it is over, especially (as is seen now) it is obvious they can not convict. George Bush should now look with worry upon monster he and Clinton help to create...he is not that far away from being in the jaws of same monster.
Are you saying Milosevic is going to be murdered?
Of course they think the Nuremberg Trials were a travesty. LOL
Kangaroo judges in Hague must be looking around their shoulders too. Judge May did not perform well enough and now he is history. This morbid circus starts to resemble Moscow show trials of 1930s.
First of all, Bush has opposed the International War Crimes Tribunal, and second, just let the UN try and get their mitts on a United States president, sitting or former.
One difference is that in Nuremberg the sponsors of anti-Serb crimes were on trial. The key travesty was that among judges and prosecutors were murderers who had blood of tens of millions on their hands, but Stalin was a good guy then.
Thank you to them for placing all those quotes on one website. You don't doubt those words were spoken bt those men regarding the Nuremburg trials do you?
Not only would I disagree with the quotes listed, and the men who are quoted, but furthermore, I wonder how accurately the quotes reflect the speakers' actual sentiments.
And I'm surprised to find posted on FR stuff sourced from the Institute for Historical Review or the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, the two preeminent nests of Holocaust denial on the internet. The IHR and CODOH people are scum-of-the-earth types not worthy of legitimate recognition.
A poor choice of words makes my clause very muddy. I'll try again:
...what aspect of those quotes might have been twisted by the way in which they were quoted?
University Times
VOLUME 29 NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 10, 1996
Copyright (c) 1996, University of Pittsburgh
Others weren't so sure -- most famously, U.S. Sen. Robert Taft, who condemned the trials as "victors' justice" imposed by the winning side against the war's losers. Taft's remarks about Nuremberg didn't go over well with most of the U.S. public, and poisoned his chances for the presidency. But by taking such an unpopular stand so defiantly, Taft earned a chapter in John F. Kennedy's book "Profiles in Courage" and caused some Americans to have second thoughts about the fairness of Nuremberg.
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.