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.
This clearly is Taft's premise. It is also absurd. Were the hangings at Nuremberg not just?
There is no question that the Nuremberg tribunals were legitimate bodies since the occupying powers were the ruling authority in Germany. They had the power, and the right, to try anyone within their jurisdiction.
Some question where a UN tribunal gets its power from.
Anyone following the Hague Tribunal would come to that conclusion. Moreso I suspect if Milosevic is allowed to present his defense.
From Bill and Hillary?
Taft did not mind the executions just the legal grounds for them. See the Nazis WERE guilty but the Allies used judicial procedings to carry out military executions. The trapings of justice for a tribunal does not confirm justice to it.
Where do you see a simularity between Milosevic and Saddam? Stick to the script please, we're talking about the "makes a person watching puke" trial that's still being orchestrated at the Hague.
There is a concept in international law that certain crimes, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, fall under the universal jurisdiction of all courts.
I'm not sure I agree. However, if the Nuremburg tribunal was illegitimate, then what court should have tried Nazis for their crimes?
All I can say is wow.
The trials represent only the 'trappings' of justice? What was missing?
More accurate - What was not missing - a Soviet judge for one? In a Soviet military uniform no less.
Regarding #40, George Will/Washington Post.
both are killers who should be shot
OOps - sorry excerps only from WP.
Who does the shooting? The UN police?
The Nuremburg Trials were a start down a slippery slope. They should never have happened.
We, as an occupying power, had every right to line every one of those maggots up against a wall and execute them.
We had no right to put them on trial.
The UN Tribunal is the grandson of the Nuremburgers and a big mistake in my book.
I think that the same tribunal could be constituted on the solid legal ground (for example using already existing German, international and local laws) and conducted fairly (allowing for presumption of innocence and possible acquital of some Nazi officials).
The problem was with Stalin. Stalin DID NOT WANT honest impartial trial - such trial could create precedence and momentum to prosecute the GREATEST genocide in history, commited by Bolshevik regime against Russian population.
Western government did not have any problem with accomodating Stalin. Worse, being cynical as I am, I suspect that if in 1942 Hitler defeated Soviet Union - the same US and UK establishments would redirect their policy and join him with setting up the international war tribunal against Soviet criminals. The history is always written by the winners and those flexible enough always join the winning side.
Stalin needed this tribunal.
No, they aren't. I fully expect that his health will deteriorate rapidly as it comes time for him to present his defense.
Milosevic may be a bastard and a murderer, but Carla del Ponte and her like are a far greater threat to international liberty. My only question: in what court can she be tried.
Most FReepers question the legitimacy of the UN kangaroo court and are not defending Milosevic.
Well, I see you posted good commentary but I do have to agree with you that the Nurmenburg trials and other such trials tend to be vehicles for vengence than a real trial. I think if that's the case, it would be more merciful to take them out behind the barn and just shoot 'em. B-P Seriously, I I think the best way is to let the nation in question deal with it after they get their infrastructure and laws up to speed. We are doing the right thing in Iraq although I do wonder if the new Iraqi government will do the right thing but the ball is and should be in their court (pardon the pun).
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.