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.
bump
Are you going to defend Saddam Hussein as well?
Milosevic is a murderer
And a communist.
That's a repetition.
He's got property in England?
FMCDH(BITS)
Milosevic is on trial in the UNITED NATIONS court - a court that never existed before and claims not to recognize sovreignty of nations and claims to be sovreign.
In such a case the UN court and what it represents is far more dangerous than any communist.
Slobo is a criminal? Let teh Serbian nation decide not a judge from Pakistan - Jamaica or the UK.
I do have to agree, I've always had trouble with international tribunals and even "crimes against humanity" trials, I just think it is up to the reconstituted nations to try their own people much like we are going to do by letting the Iraqis try Saddam Hussein. I do think it would have been better after World War II to hold the Nazis as prisoners (again like we are doing with Saddam) and let the new German government try them once they get set up, but then again, that's water past the bridge but I think it would have been a better idea. I know there might be room to let some guilty go free but if you look at it another way, it could be a slippery slope where it can get to the point where they can yank poor Joe Schmoe from Peoria for "international crimes against the environment" if he chops down a tree or something. I think if Slobo is to be tried, let the Serbs do it. I just have trouble with the idea of international courts that can cross over boundaries.
What do you think about the Nuremburg trials?
Pres. JFK and other great Americans considered the Nuremburg Trials a travesty of justice.
I do not doubt that Milosevic was a not-very-nice guy. On the other hand, the way his trial has been handled does not pass the smell test. If even 10% of what I've heard is true, the shenanigans by the prosecution would have been enough to get its case thrown out of an American courtroom. To be sure, international courts don't follow American law, but for the tribunal to do things like question them witnesses, adjourn before Milosevic can question them, and then not allow the witnesses to be called back for cross-examination stinks to high heaven.
I used to believe Slobodan was almost certainly guilty. But the more I see of the tribunal's action, the more I doubt that he's actually guilty of the charged crimes.
Reconsidering the Nuremberg Trials
"No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
John F. Kennedy (Yes, the president), Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190.
------
"I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world...I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty...This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurredin either of the trials I refer to herein."
Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D.Eisenhower Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168.
-----
"My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy's leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug."
Major General J.F.C. Fuller (inventor of tank warfare theory), C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O. Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.43.
-----------
"This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the 'InternationalMilitary Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges' seats. One of the judges came from the country which committedthe Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear atNuremberg that the Germans had done it."
Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII.
----------
"I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future."
Honorable Justice Learned Hand Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.
---------
The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex post facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressedin the adage: "Nullum Crimen Sine Lege" - a person cannot be sentencedto punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: "It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations." In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction or sentence of the so-called "war criminals" by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future.
William L. Hart, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.xx.
------------------
"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.
------------
"I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure."
Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky (of helicopter fame) Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.3.
---------
"About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret."
U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, p.191.
--------------
"I have always regarded the Nuremberg Trials as a travesty upon justice andthe farce was made even more noisome with Russia partipating as one of thejudges."
Charles Callan Tansill, Ph.D. Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 47.
--------------
"The Nuremberg Trials... had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this? ...The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy."
U.S. President, John F. Kennedy John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage p.189-190.
What the hell does that mean? You think he's innocent?
In the UN court vs Slobo - I route for Slobo. If he goes on trail in Serbia it becomes a non-issue to me and Slobo leaves my thoughts.
Slobodan was fighting islamism.
We backed the wrong side.
Siding with Chechnya is wrong too.
The serbs are the good guys in my book.
The muzzies the bad.
Slobo may have gone "too far" by some folks "war must be moral" mentality. War is not. War against religous, suicidal belt bomber types.... is even MORE dirty.
We should have kept nato out, and green flagged slobo and the ruskies to take care of business... instead of siding with "islamic jihad." Some of the weapons that killed our men in Afghanistan, was OUR OWN equipment that the "holy warriors" transported from their bases (where we supported them) in the former Yugoslavia.
Now there you go, posting facts. Surely you realize how deeply that offends the howling mob?
In such a case the UN court and what it represents is far more dangerous than any communist.
Slobo is a criminal? Let the Serbian nation decide not a judge from Pakistan - Jamaica or the UK.
I couldn't agree more.
to me it is not even that - it is that the UN court has to stopped. Slobo has actually chocked everyone by exposing the UN court system as biased and unjust. First they come for easy meat like Slobo who has no sympathy and then they come after the rest.
Ronnie James Dio
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.