Posted on 12/12/2002 4:11:02 PM PST by vooch
Thursday December 12, 2002 at 2:03 am
Jeri Laber, the woman of the human rights, was this obnoxious combination of ignorance and arrogance which could be noticed in all these NGO warriors. One of our columnists coined a suitable name for them: anti-war profiteers (as opposed to simple, more honest, merely money-oriented war profiteers). This lot is downright dirty-handed and dirty-minded.
By penning their worthless 'reports', full of cheap politicking, ridiculous mistakes and vague generalizations, pretending they're defending the human rights of some abused people (without even deigning to put the facts right), they play into the hands of the governments who ordered these reports and at the same time they are not at all squeamish to accept the money. Our own type of such anti-war profiteers has one more layer to it: they are commissioned to quench even the last trace of any national feeling and pride within the tortured Serbian people. The three wicked witches of Belgrade are Biljana Kovacevic-Vuco (Yugoslav Committee of Human Rights Lawyers), Natasa Kandic (Humanitarian Law Centre) and Sonja Biserko (Serbian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights). They drafted (if not completely authored) the large chunks of the ICTY indictments, with a little help from Mesic.
They created the refrigerator truck news and dully disseminated/manipulated each anti-Serb slander there is. The last one named, Biserko, is among those 14 witnesses that the Prosecution had renounced in order to extend Babic. Good riddance! I'm physically unable to listen to the dribble of either one of them for more than 10 minutes at the time.
If you want to know more, to 'follow the money trail' and to see how the agenda, the ideology and the sources of funding are the same for the Human Rights Watch, the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, the International Crisis Group… and to follow the trail of the 'Human Rights Crowd' in the Balkans, read 3 highly informative articles by Gilles d'Aymery (http://www.swans.com/library/art7/ga109.html …/ga110.html …/ga111.html).
Well, if we were rid of Biserko by a lucky escape, we couldn't evade her more prominent Helsinki-Committee sister, Jeri Laber.
This one looks a bit more sophisticated than her Balkans counterparts, but her arrogance is that much greater. It was her downfall: she revealed her utter ignorance about the region and events in question and she didn't care one bit, concluding that she is 'here just to bring these 2 reports' (?!).
And these reports, one re human rights abuse in Kosovo and the other in Croatia, are so vague and generalized ('a certain small village', 'many people are believed to be executed'), full of material mistakes and plain stupidities ('KLA didn't exist then and I have been impressed how peaceful the Army of the Albanians was'), and above all highly politicised in each of its premises and conclusions ('the situation equal to apartheid and racism', 'HW appeals for the sanctions to be introduced against the Serbian Government').
In addition to anonymous informants, alleged victims of abuse, the bulk of material for the reports has been provided by talking to our 3 humanitarian Amazons and Mesic ('intellectuals, newspapermen, members of the Presidency')! The total number of the interviews for each report is about 30, Amazons & Mesic included. Truly a large, representative sample.
Of course, the Greater Serbia slander was amply used; when Nice asked how that came about, Laber answered 'this was in general use, in the Western press in any case'(?!). Even judge Robinson wanted to know whence the claim of JNA acting without authorization came. Laber said: "I cannot say what is this information based upon; perhaps they [HW staff] spoke with some members of the Presidency and draw such a conclusion."
After concocting such a precise, unbiased report, Jeri & staff would try to hand-deliver it to the culprits (in this case, Milosevic and General Adzic); when refused reception by them and instead received by lower-level officials, and later on answered in writing by the Chief of Cabinet, they regarded this as the sign that 'Serbia assumes full responsibility for all crimes in its territory'. This, together with both 'reports', was trumpeted all over media and sent to 'relevant Governments'.
To demonstrate objectivity, Laber presented supposedly similar report, handed over to Tudjman (this time in person), to which he replied he will 'investigate it'. Good show! But, one can take just one look at this other report prepared for Tudjman to see the sly doubletalk: this is the 'report on the human rights abuse by the Serbian local authorities and by Croatian individuals'. The Croatian Police and the National Guard Units are 'individuals', while JNA and Serbian Government are accused in toto .
Of course, other than this initial show no further development happened, no sanctions against CRO were asked/imposed. Nevertheless, Nice was thrilled, asking a rhetorical question: "Was this the sign of your trying to be unbiased?", and he quoted few sentences stating 'sufferings of the Serbs in the WW2', when 'thousands were killed'.
Jumping to and fro between the 2 reports, Nice made Laber talk profusely about the situation in Kosovo back in 1981, irritating May so much (history!!!) that he snapped even at Nice: "Such a detailed revisiting of the Kosovo history is not helping us at all in this moment." Nice sheepishly said: "We have always claimed that this all mutually fits together; this is a woman who visited all these regions before the wars."
So, the woman who makes all this to fit together, summed up all this by repeating that 'yes, they've denied all our accusations, but that letter signifies also their acceptance of responsibility'. Obviously, it is mortally dangerous to exchange any mail with these rabid NGOs, because that way you automatically recognize their importance.
After such a disgusting performance, Milosevic jumped with both feet on Laber; May tried his best to rescue her by interrupting 'We shall decide the admissibility of hearsay evidence", "This is irrelevant", "This is for us to decide".
After May prevented questioning the anonymity of informants, possibility to contact them and offer them protection of the ICTY to testify, the principle of direct procedure in any other court that the HW should defend and the separation of the right for self-determination from the human rights corpus, Milosevic then switched to the 'reports' and shredded them to pieces. Opening one of them at random, he quoted one sentence, describing one alleged human rights abuse. Then he asked: "Which village was that and which event?" Laber didn't know.
Milosevic quoted next sentence, describing alleged perpetrators, wearing 'yellow camouflage uniforms', and asked Laber whether she knew that there were no such uniforms in any ex-YU region, that these are the uniforms used in desert regions. Laber 'couldn't say what was the matter there'. Milosevic expressed his astonishment at such imprecise text, in collision with the 'highest professional standards' that her organization boasts of. Laber stated she did 'believe in the competence of people who made the report; didn't come here to defend the report paragraph by paragraph, but to bring the report.'
Milosevic proceeded by quoting from the statement, describing Laber's meeting in Belgrade (after she had been denied meeting with Milosevic and General Adzic) with 3 lower-level Army officers and '2 Foreign Affairs Ministry officials, Dr Micunovic and a certain Kostunica'.
He innocently asked her whether she was aware that Micunovic, current Speaker of the Federal Assembly, and Kostunica, current President of FRY, 'people who illegally delivered me here after they seized the power', were at that time two MPs from an opposition party, and not members of any Government. Laber showed contempt to these facts (why should she worry about some Balkan politicians, who was in what body and when, or whether her reports are precise or not?), saying it only matters what those people told her. Milosevic pointed out that this proves she was unable to understand such simple facts, which further indicates the other things were misunderstood as well; he then explained to this pigheaded lady that what they told her about Kosovo was exactly the same position she heard earlier from 3 Army representatives, as reported; was it not enough reason for her to believe it, when bitter political opponents stated the same?
Laber finally admitted: "I understand now what you're saying."
Milosevic pressed on: "Was it not a logical mistake of yours, when you heard identical answer from those people as the answer you've got from the Army, to automatically lump them up in the Government?" For the first time, Laber let few moments to pass in silence. May panicked and jumped in: "No, no, this has nothing to do with this witness. You're now making your case here, and through this witness." Tapuskovic used the opportunity to further embarrass May, lingering at the unpleasant fact and getting back at him for all that snapping and barking; he stood up and supposedly 'clarified': "Your Honour, it has been a mistake, she thought that they were members of the Government, that they belong to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."
May was sarcastic: "Yes, we know that. We shall not lose any more time." But Milosevic wouldn't let go: "Don't you think this is a rather cardinal mistake, which destroys a picture of your organization being exact and precise?" May prevented the answer: "Mrs Laber, if you don't want to answer, and it seems to me this is totally senseless…" She didn't answer, of course.
All the rest was further humiliation of the humanitarian madam, obviously very tough and cynical from handling Soros-type funding in exchange for opinion shaping. She answered in the shortest possible way, with staccato annunciation and acid remarks. Milosevic pointed out her falsely-objective and hypocritical remarks about the sufferings of the Serbs in the WW2 in CRO, when 'thousands were killed'; he sharply told her there were hundreds of thousands , and not thousands killed.
Laber said they 'want to avoid sensationalism and always use lower figures'. Talking about Holocaust denier!
Milosevic wanted to know was it not logical for the Serbs in CRO to remember those things after their constitutional status has been revoked. Laber was insolent: "I have not studied the Constitution; I believe your word at face value."
Milosevic: "You and your colleagues were supposed to read it, dealing with it in your reports. Your organization and yourself didn't know what was going on there."
Laber: "We have to draw the line somewhere, we don't want to go into the past."
Milosevic: "This was not the past, this was the present condition and the change happening at that moment."
To get an idea of the expert staff going to fact-finding missions, in addition to Laber herself, a Columbia-graduated expert in sovietology (?!) (when her staff was still petit, she was engaged personally; now they're 200 and she just jets around the world, being wined and dined, and occasionally testifies) there were two other gentlemen and a girl called Ivana Nizic, personally recruited by Laber right after she finished Columbia.
Laber gave her a training in research techniques (one week? three weeks?) and off she goes! This is her 'competent, experienced staff, trained not to ask suggestive questions, familiar with the countries in question'. Naturally, Miss Nizic acquired necessary experience along the way and became the investigator - guess where? Yes, ICTY!
Pure political premises and conclusions of the 'reports' were too much for Tapuskovic to bear, so he stood up at the very beginning, trying to point out that on a similar occasion, when one of the Court's investigators testified about Kosovo, all his conclusions were left out from his report and only 'facts' remained. But, it was useless, May admitted everything, mistakes, stupidities, slander, Western media as a source.
The 'reports' stated "Serb occupation of the parts of Croatian territory". When Milosevic quoted the US General Charles Boyd as saying that 'contrary to the popular media position, the Serbs lived there for centuries",
Laber shortly said: "I'm not competent for that."
Milosevic quipped: Contradictio in adjecto. She's not competent, full stop.
Laber just brought her reports, she was a courier and you don't argue the contents of the mail with a courier.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia
There is no contradiction. As absolute dictator of Nazi Germany, Hitler didn't need to put his orders in writing, and the fact that he didn't put his orders in writing doesn't in any way separate him from those orders. When Hitler verbally ordered the troops under his command troops to slaughter Russians and Jews, that's all that was needed.
You will recall all the hue and cry over hearsay evidence in Milosevic's trial?
It's not just the hearsay being used for evidence, but the seemingly dishonest manner in which the case against him has been built.
The same is true of the method you are using to tie Hitler to his crimes - which is why documentary proof is preferred, but not necessary in these matters.
There is no (confirmed) comparison between the two. Hitler's troops obeyed direct orders given by Hitler to slaughter Jews and Russians. I have proven that with numerous references which you have ignored. OTOH, "After a five-year investigation, The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation says it can find “no proof that orders for the slaughter came from Serb political leaders in Belgrade”. Investigators also say that they can find no direct link to Radovan Karadzic, the wartime leader of the Bosnian Serbs, who is also indicted by the tribunal.".
Just don't expect not to get figuratively smacked upside the head for your ignorance.
It wasn't the guarantor who literal slapped the U.S. upside the head on 9-11, was it?
What we have in the case of Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, is forces under Milosevic committing war crimes...
Was that before or after this?
...the case of today's testimony his subordinates were the Serbian Interior Ministry troops, who were active in all three conflicts and who, as an organization, reported to (that is, were ordered around by and did not operate without the blessing of) Milosevic.
Got a link?
I would be more than willing to continue this through other communication channels, with references and voluminous detail that would otherwise monopolize this Forum. My post, therefore, is limited to your post, and the statements therein.
Your "proof" that Miloshevich was in control of Serbian forces in all three conflicts states that
"Milosevic was one negotiating for the Serbs in all three conflicts (Croatia -- Geneva, Winter 91/92, Bosnia -- Dayton, 95, Kosovo, Ahtisaari/Chernomyrdin peace plan [99]).
In 91/92 Miloshevich was a head state of one of the parties involved in a civil war brought on by the illegitimate secession of Yugoslavia's federal units. In Dayton, he represented Yugoslavia, Franjo Tudjman represented Croatia, Izetbegovic Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although this is not what they really represented, Washington wanted it that way. In other words, the only way Washington was willing to partake in this was by politicizing the issue and making it look like a conflict between three countries and not the civil war. Miloshevich hoped to gain something from this in a beneficial way. For a while it worked, because he was let off the hook, but he was mistaken. That he was not in control of RS is obvious from the defection of Bilyana Plavshich, and his inability to thwart her plans.
His culpability in Bosnia can be extended to the same extent as ours in supporting the government of Colombia fight Marxist guerillas, or our assumption of war crimes commited by our allies, the Northern Alliance troops, which we clearly reject.
In his answer to the HRW report, it is clearly stated that if any "citizens of Serbia participated in those crimes, they will be brought to justice." Do you know of any of the accused as being citizens of Serbia? At that time, citizens of the Bosnian Serb Republic, or the Krayina Republic, were not officially recognized as citizens of Serbia and were granted citizenship only recently. Their official status was that of refugees if they were inside of Serbia.
Granted, this may seems like a “lawyeristic” play on words, etc. but then what about "People, let me tell you something, I did not have sexual relationship with that woman, Monica Lewinsky..." or the famous "depends what you mean by 'is.' "
International norms say that the response to such things has to be "reasonable." Well, I don't have to tell you what a lawyer can do with that. Circumstances, leads, etc. Een you recognize the enormity of resources, peaceful conditions and a lot of coercion (your own words) to get people to cooperate.
Accusing Miloshevich of not acting is like accusing Gen. Drazha Mihailovich in WWII for not reining in some of his collaboratonist and tyrannical commanders in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Montenegro. These were, like Arkan, true warlords, only mominally under some command umbrella.
Miloshevich also dependend on people around him for support, and fulfillment of their special interests, so to make a simple black-and-white scenario a la Star Wars is a bit naive without going any further into this.
I don't know how to comment on your statement that Serbs transported some people through Serbia to the Austrian border, so I will just let that go.
As for the Rachak report is concerned, the Yugoslav forensic findings did not agree with the instant opinion issued by William Walker, and the findings released by the Finnish team were not universally accepted since they were inconclusive, although you do not think so. Another matter, another time.
Sheshel' and Arkan were elected officials. Under Serbian constitution, elected officials are immune from prosecution. Blaming Miloshevich for not prosecuting Sheshel' and Arkan, in addition to their armed protection, is senseless, because what court in Serbia would initiate the proceedings and where would it get witnesses and evidence? We have already established that prosecuting any one of these people in Serbia is impossible, as prosecution of Tudjman or Bobetko in Croatia, or Hashim Taci in Kosovo is. I am also not sure that the Calley trial or the Clinton impeachment were text book cases of justice at work either.
General Pinochet, who was put in power with our prodding, and who has been indicted for crimes against humanity in the UK, jailed, and then -- under someone's political influence -- released to stand trial in Chile (I even lost track of it) is a perfect example of double standards. For years, the US supported various dictators in Korea, and Latin America. Papa Doc of Haiti may have been a bloody dictator, but -- by God -- he was an anti-communist dictator! The same "look-the-other-way" approach worked on Yugoslavia's Josip Broz Tito and Romania's Cauçescu.
The fact that Tudjman, whose regular Croatian forces were very active in Herzegoivna in 1993, and involved in carnage in Mostar that by its sheer destruction and wanton killing exceeded Serb shelling of Sarajevo, was never officially charged with war crimes by the ICTY.
Justifying ICTY as a biased, but still a necessary and just body, because the security Council approved it is something I would never expect you, of all people, to say on this Forum. There were many a Security Council resolution that were stopped dead in their tracks, against a unanimous vote, by one of the permanent members of that body casting its veto. Iraq may have violated dozens of such resolutions, but Israel has outdone Iraq many times over, and nothing. As early as last year, Israel refused to allow a fact finding mission of the UN into Jenin. Without consequences. Majority is not always right, Hoplite. After all, Hitler was elected to power, a prodigy of a democratic process, and the "will of the people."
In the same fashion, but in the opposite direction, the US is refusing to accept a permanent International Criminal Court, although just about ever nation -- out closest allies included -- voted for it. The reason: tribunals are, by definition, political courts and as such have a negative connotation. It takes a political will to convene them, and their deviation from international rules and norms make them less than legitimate in the eyes of the world. A permanent internanlly-defined and agreed-upon body would have the legitimacy that ICTY lacks, especially with its own made-up rules.
But, I got news for you: jurisdiction over war crimes does not require ICTY, or any other tribunal. The jurisdiction is universal and the crimes never go out of date. That means that one day, each and every player in this world's political area can -- under favorable circumstances -- find himself or herself behind bars in some country, answering charges they thought they would never have to mention except when writing lucrative memoirs, a la Sec. McNamara.
The seeds we plant today is what we will harvest in the future. If I were any of those players, remote as it may seems now, I would think twice of what my retirement might look like thanks to such freak shows as ICTY.
As for the various topics that apply to Milosehvich in particular, and command responsibility, conflicts, etc. in general, first of all we have to start with charges brought against Miloshevich & co. They are very clearly stated in the four indictments, three based on crimes against humanity and one as violation of the rules of war. The former has never been codified by any known international convention and is therefore a free and not universality accepted creation of the ICTY. As such, it has no legitimate, and does not reflect internationally accepted standards of law. The former deals with rules that are probably the oldest conventional legalities of war time, updated and upgraded in the course of the last 200 years or so, but generally written for straight wars, not Balkan-type mutations.
Several complicating issues preclude decent discussion of all relevant topics in any depth here. The issue of willfulness,, a critical matter that has to be proven in proving command responsibility. The issue of where various categories of war crimes apply. The issue of internal vs. international conflict and, the newest, "internationalized" internal armed conflict, the issue of paramilitary formations and their legal status and accountability for their acts is concerned, etc. There are actually serious "gray areas" in all these issues that are not nearly as black and white as you present them. It simply ain't that simple.
It's a fascinating topic. But, as I mentioned ad nauseum, it is unfit for this Forum. I wish there were more people who approach various issues on your level, but then this would no longer be the fun *balkans chat show.
In #120, you state:
We're not talking about 'negligent liability' but criminal responsibility
Hoplite, this is one and the same. Negligence is a crime (felony), not a misdemeanor. Negligence means failure to exercies prudent control, to fail to take appropriate measures, and so on. Prudence means what an average person in a similar situation would do, etc.
Command responsiblity is therefore based on the concept of negligence. Words such as "should have known" are not the same as "must have known" or even "had known." Should've, could've, would've, lacks another element -- willfulness -- necessary to prove command responsibility in terms of criminal intent (mens rea), that the accused intended, the consequences of the act.
In a famous case involving Israeli Col. Yehuda Meir in 1988, this principle was clearly shown. The colonel ordered his troops to break the bones of some 20 Palestinian prisoners. He did also say that he didn't expect them to obey it. Apparently he took the words of defense minister Yitzhak Rabin, openly advocating the need to "break the bones of Initfiada rioters," too literaly.
Some of Col. Meir's soldiers refused, but others carried out the orders, even with excesisve zeal. The end of a long story, resulting in Col. Meir's demise, rested on the Article 86, Additional Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Convention which states that war crimes committed by the subordinates do not "absolve his superiors from disciplinary responsibility" if they "knew, or had information" to know but failed to take "all feasable measures within their power to prevent or repress the breach."
One does not have to be a lawyer to realize that this sentence is full of pot holes and that words such as "all feasable" and "within their power" is clay a good lawyer can mold into anything he or she wants.
In the case of Col. Meir, this was a clear breach (although Israel never ratified Additional Protocol I, and therefore only similar Israeli laws applied). More importantly, the question of how high up the chain does this criminal liability go. Historically, this has not been taken all the way up the chain of command to include heads of state, or other high ranking officials such as defense minister unless one could show close supervisory connection. Rather it was limited to those officers who, by virtue of thier proximity, exercised some degree of direct or prudent supervision over the perpetrators.
To imply that Miloshevich had that kind of direct or reasonable control over all of the Serbs units in the theater of war is untenable, especially if documenatry proof is lacking.
ICTY has set a precedent in asserting that the a political capacity or position does not mean immunity, or that it can be taken to shield an individual from responsibility of the misdeeds of the suboridnates. Britains indictment of Gen. Pinochet was based on this "newthink" version of "newspeak." ICTY's ruling is therefore "newjustice" in the world of international law. It is heavily supported by Britain and the US because everyone knows that ICTY is a political tribunal, borne out of a political will of those who created it and not based on a universally agreed convention that would give it legitimacy.
Creators of ICTY know that this is a non-viable child and that it will die by the same political will that bore it, resting assured that no other body of countries on earth will have the means or the stomach to try members of the American or Brithish administrations on similar charges for the past or future crimes in armed conflicts.
But once a genie is let loose out of the bottle it is diffiuclt to put it back. It creates an atmosphere of opportunistic trials being mounted in a given political milleu, based on the fact that jurisdiction over war crimes is universal and can be aplied by any country without the consent or cooperation of another (example Adolf Eichman's trial), therby making everyone equally vulnerable in the long run. The thirst for revenge masked as some phoney justice concocted in ICTY is a stupid and myopic move of victors intoxicated with their own breach of prudent conduct. Two wrongs do not make a wright.
Unlike the Calley pseudo war-crime trial, the Israeli court in the Col. Meir's case also tried and punished those soldiers who participated in the act of breaking Palestinian prisoners' bones. Their defense -- that they simply "followed orders" -- fell on deaf ears because the order was illegal. Unlike the war ciminals of Calley's platoon, who were let off the hook -- because they just "followed orders," illegal as they were. Instead of shaming our pristine armed forces with a massive conviction of war criminals, we decided to make Calley pay the whole bill, so as to minimize the extent of our crime to one person, and in doing so willfully failed to punish all those responsible. Yet another example of our unbiquitous hypocricy that shines like a beacon in mid day.
You agree that Milosevic (or Bobetko) could never be tried domestically, and if that's the case, then what is the alternative to the ICTY?
To paraphrase Aricle 147 of the 4th Geneva Convention: War Crimes...
In today's portion of addressing some of the issues you stated, I want to concentrate on your justification of the ICTY which, although perhaps biased, is justified because there is no other alternative -- except mimicking what was done with Pol Pot's misdeeds, which is equal to doing nothing.
The reason for such a narrow range of choices is your presumption, with which I agree, that the likelihood of any of the Balkan war crime suspects, whether officially indicted or not, in their respective countries is practically nil. Your assumption is based, I would venture to guess, on the disdain you feel towards the Balkan regimes in general, as sub-civilized near-autocracies, and a complete lack of independent judicial exercise.
Far from being entirely wrong in that assumption, I come to the same conclusion as you do, but for entirely different reasons: I use as my guiding principle not just democracies, but the world's leading democracy, and precedents it has set. If even the world's leading democracy fails the test of meeting justice for its own, than by simple extension of reasoning others must fail too.
Unfortunately, nothing can be farther from the truth. In my previous post I mentioned the shining example of Israel's judiciary facing the truth squarely in convicting Col. Meir and his men for what essentially amounts to war crimes, and appropriately punishing those who partook in them.
Nothing should entice American people more to accept a permanent International Criminal Court than their democracy’s dismal failure to try and punish its own war criminals. The conduct of the United States in the case of My Lai is the case in point.
For starters, My Lai (ironically pronounced as “me lie”) exceeds six to ten times the Rachak massacre in the sheer number of people killed. Rachak was the “turning point” for the Serb-hating State Department’s push to first blackmail and then blatantly attack Yugoslavia in 1999.
The My Lai massacre occurred on March 16, 1968. Depending on the source, some 300 to 500 unarmed civilians, mostly women, children and elderly, were wantonly massacred by Charlie Company, 11th Infantry Brigade in Vietnam, after months of suffering losses and causalities due to mines, sniper fire and so on in the region known as Son My.
Even in the type of causalities, the US “outdid” the perpetrators of the Rachak massacre, presumably the Serbs. In the Rachak carnage, 98% of the victims were adults, mostly men of fighting age.
Even more importantly, the Serb forces were actively engaged in Rachak by the KLA bandits, who were firing at the Serbian police units. In contrast, Charlie Co in My Lai encountered no enemy fighters to engage them. The overall catch-of-the-day were three rifles. The only American causality in My Lai was a “schlamazel” who shot himself in the foot. In contrast, the Serb forces captured scores of KLA weapons in Rachak.
While there is no consensus on the Rachak conclusions, there is not a shadow of a doubt as to what happened in My Lai -- because there's ample photographic and other admissible evidence to show who did what.. Most importantly, there was a motive, which also exists on the KLA side but lacks only on the Serb side in these two incidents.
The American public was not made aware of the My Lai massacre until November of 1969, just two month after Lt Calley was charged with murder (sic)! The world’s leading democracy was going to try in secret its misbehaved “Lt Shithead,” as his Company Commander, Cpt. Medina, used to refer to him in front of his troops, .
In other words, it took more than one and a half years (20 months to be exact) for the world’s leading democracy to even inform its public of this incident. Going public was accomplished only because reporter Seymour Hersh found out about it, and not because the world’s leading democracy was having pangs of conscience, Hoplite.
Quite to the contrary, always on a “moral high ground,” the world’s greatest democracy had every intention of keeping the fallout of this official “military success” a dark secret. Had it not been for CWO Thompson, mentioned in your own post, the carnage would have gone on for an unspecified amount of time resulting in many more causalities. Similar war-crime reprisals by the US military have also been noted in other places in Vietnam, such as My Khe and Co Luy, resulting in hundreds of intentional civilian deaths. All of these were magically transformed into military “victories.”
Coverup and outright lies were the order of the day right from the start. My Lai was called a “stunning military victory” against a Viet Cong base, and military newspaper The Star and Stripes hailed the “bravery” of Calley’s “heroes“ (as it did the U.S. helicopters gunning down of a crowd of civilians in a marketplace in Mogadishu, Somalia, a quarter of a century later, trying to hit Gen. Adid who was rumored to be hiding there). Charlie Company even received an official “uttaboy” from Gen. Westomereland himself. The official death toll issued by the U.S. Army: 20 Vietnamese civilians died “accidentally.”
I will not even entertain the issue of “command responsibility” here, which is an altogether different topic. Had this crime not been brought to Sen. Morris Udall by a Vietnam vet who heard about this, My Lai would have been mentioned in history books and military academies as a “stunning military success.”
As for CWO Thompson, his heroism in the field is dimmed by his silence, for it was not him who tipped off the public, the Congress and the media about this. He is certainly credited for risking his life to save other lives while exposing himself and his crew to possible hostile fire from the troops on his own side, but after all was said and done, he did not come forward ringing the bell.
On November 17, 1970, 32 months, minus one day, after the massacre the court martial convened to try Lt Calley and his soldiers. All in all, 80 of them were investigated, 25 officers and men were charged (including Calley’s CO, Cpt Medina), only six cases were tried, and only Calley was convicted -- of murder, despite overwhelming evidence and photographic material of wanton war crimes.
Rachak was one of the incidents listed on Miloshevich’s indcitments. If Miloshevich can be held accountable for this, so can Lyndon B. Johnson, Gen. Westmoreland, and so on. What happened in My Lai was a clear and documented case of a war crime. Yet, American justice deemed it politically desirable to let everyone of the hook, even those who freely confessed to having killed in My Lai. And although this crime was clearly a war crime by all the references you post in your replies, not a single American solider, Lt Calley included was convicted of war crimes; just one, Calley, who was convicted of “plain” murder! Not even mass murder, Hoplite, just murder! Yet his own conviction actually states that he was guilty of murdering 22 civilians at My Lai. Is this not misleading or what? Did Jamie Shae write the court opinion?
Ample evidence shows that the world’s leading democracy was acting indecently in handling this crime, more willing to look the other way, than to engage the truth in public. The My Lai issue was going to be “quietly” taken care of not anticipating an accidental publicity it received. Even after it became a public outcry, the punishment was cleverly minimized to one person (the least liked one at that) in order to minimize the extent of the crime.
Lt calley was sentenced to life imprisonment. That sentence was commuted by President Richard Nixon, after Calley spent just 30 days behind bars, to a house arrest where he could have guests, pets and cook his own meals. Several states asked for his clemency; his sentence was changed to 20 years only to be reduced one more time to 10 years. After just 3 years in house arrest, Lt Calley was paroled.
My Lai shows that the United States is capable of lying, covering up, committing massacres and war crimes, as well as incapable of prosecuting and punishing appropriately its own war criminals, let alone even admit to having committed one. Contrary to what you would have us believe.
My Lai also shows that not all massacres are the same, and that the number and “quality” of kill have little to nothing to do with the reaction to it. On the one hand, crimes such as committed in the Medak Pocket (100 non-combatants killed, including 25 POWs), or the Rachak massacre (54 killed under suspicious circumstance) are given the highest international notoriety, while My Lai remains abandoned and forgotten.
Since war crimes do not go out of date, it is high noon for the UN to create yet another tribunal -- one that will try for crimes against humanity various Medinas, and Calleys who got off scoff free!
Lead by example says an old adage. If we are professing international justice, don’t you think we should be the first to pass its litmus test in order to continue to claim that moral “high ground?”
The HumWarriors with their newjustice are laying the groundwork for all sorts of US Political and Military leaders to be tried in foreign courts.
President Clinton wrote in his official report to Congress that Kfor had operational command of the KLA/KPC. According to the HumWarriors that means that from Clinton all the way down to a 2nd Lt. from the 82nd liasoning with his KLA/KPC counterpart can be held accountable for the KLA murder of Albanians after June 1999.
The HumWarriors misuse of international law will come back to haunt us one day.
No one was punished, although "Approval for the assault was obtained from the Pentagon and White House . . ."
Did I say no one? Several months later, 18 brave guys gave all due to their commanders' criminal incompetence on that July day in Mogadishu.
Another fine example of humanitarian bombers at work.
There is footage of American soldiers executing wounded Japanese prisoners, and other evidence of war crimes. Yet, to this date we don't have a single convicted war criminal on our recrod. But, we took care of some of them quietly at the end of WWII, making sure no blemish falls upon our holier than grain armed forces.
The gunning down of women and children in Korea for fear that communist infiltrators could be among them is another. Children possible communist infiltrators? Elmer Fudd is hard at work here along with Gomer Pyle, USMC.
The perticipants of such crimes are haunted and want justice to be done, but the powers to be wish to maintain that we, of all nations, are the pristine high priestess of virtue.
My point, only reinforced by posts like yours, goes to show that we are just human and not divine and have no right to judge others as if we are free of sin. I hope Hoplite we understand that one day.
Either justice applies to all, or to none. Amen.
Kosta50.....and guess which unit was responsible for the slaughter of civilians in Korea ? Why indeed the infamous 25th Inf. Div.
Gael.....guess which unit was involved in arguable the worst war crimes in Vietnam ? but of course the 25th
Point being that by far and away the US Army and Navy has been pretty good about not committing crimes against civilians. However, one rouge unit (such as the 25th Tropic Lightning) can besmirch the reputation of a entire military establishment.
If so, I have to say that I have no particular interest in proceeding, and nobody has any basis for complaining about wrongs, past or present, as all are tarred by some crime somewhere.
Still, if you happen to get a traffic ticket and decide to use this defence, let me know how it goes - ok?
Q At what point, if ever, in these explorations and discussions do you ever make contact with the Bosnian Serbs?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLBROOKE: I don't know. I don't know. The Bosnian Serbs have refused to accept the Contact Group Map as the starting point for negotiations, and our position on that has not changed. Milosevic has accepted it. Tudjman has accepted it. Izetbegovic has accepted it. But to negotiate with the Bosnian Serbs at this point, given their present position, including recent statements that they want 64 percent of the land, when they know full well what the Map says, would be tantamount to a major change in position in return for nothing at all.
So I would call on the Bosnian Serbs once again to participate in this process and not try to destroy it.
Q Can you get a deal if you don't have Karadzic and the rest of the Bosnian Serbs?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLBROOKE: That's two different questions, and the answer is the Bosnian Serbs must in the end be party to a deal. Karadzic, himself, I'm not sure what his role is going to be. I don't know what his standing is, and we'll deal with that if and when he understands that the Contact Group Map and the Plan have to be the basis for the negotiation.
I also want to talk a moment about the War Crimes Tribunal. Whatever else we do, the process will not affect the War Crimes Tribunal process, and that is not part of this negotiation.
So sayeth Holbrooke himself.
In the end, the Bosnian Serbs went to Dayton, didn't like what they saw, said they'd never sign, but were forced to agree to the deal by Milosevic.
Dayton is conclusive proof of Milosevic's control over the Bosnian Serbs, and the issue of who represented Pale at Dayton is irrelevant to that fact.
As absolute dictator of Yugoslavia, Milosevic didn't need to put his orders in writing, and the fact that he didn't put his orders in writing doesn't in any way separate him from those orders.
Quibble with the "absolute dictator" if you want - Milosevic ruled outside of any laws so it's merely a question of semantics, but that's the point I'm making, and if you agree to one, you cannot deny the other.
Dictators do not have elections and parlaments.
Dictators do not have multi party sistem.
Dictators do not allow opposition press.
Dictators do not get a slap in the face by their,alleged,subordinates(Krajina and Bosnian Serbs).Dictators do not loose elections.
You want a dictators,talk about your pals,Pinochet and Galtieri...Somossa and Sthrasner...Sadam Husein and Saudis...Marcos and....list is to long.
Now carry on ,Mr,Parrot.
Read much?
Hoplite, what is there to address? Legally, he is innocent until proven otherwise. Everything else is a speculation.
His guilt may be established only on the basis of (1) internationally formulated principles or crime and justice, and (2) on historical legal precedence and rulings that followed in similar situations.
Either justice is a principled exercise of reason and historical wisdom, or it is not justice as we understand it. Since ICTY is based neither on internationally formulated principles (there has never been an international convention on the definition on crimes against humanity, let alone an agreement on what it represents), nor legal precedence of similar cases, it is incapable of arriving at Miloshevich verdict in a judicial sense as we understand justice today. It will by the sheer force of power it rests on, power wrapped in phoney justice that will eventually come to hunt us.
War crimes do not go out of date, so the wrongs done in the past do not become right simply because one sits on them. The perpetrators of My Lai should be hunted down and put behind bars just as the remaining Nazis are hunted down to this date. No one should escape justice.
Ignoring the "litany" of documents you post in some other repsonses, the bottom line is: you are not interested in justice, just revenge. Admit it, and we will never have this discussion again. But do not hide your prejudice and hatred behind a facade of judicial principles.
Everything I mentioned in my "litany of sin" is true, relevant and current.
Bull Crap! It proves absolutely nothing!
The Bosnian Serbs were not getting any supplies from Croatia, Iran, Germany or any other NATO country. The only place they could get supplies is from Yugoslavia. If Milosevic cuts their supplies they die in a Croat/Muslim genocide. They had no choice but to capitulate.
"In the end, the Bosnian Serbs went to Dayton, didn't like what they saw, said they'd never sign, but were forced to agree to the deal by Milosevic."
If they were, as you yourself say, "forced" then you've disproved your own claim! If Milo was is control, he would have simply ordered it!
It's funny how you continue to make things up that end up biteing you in the ass!
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOLBROOKE: I don't know. I don't know. The Bosnian Serbs have refused to accept the Contact Group Map as the starting point for negotiations, and our position on that has not changed. Milosevic has accepted it. Tudjman has accepted it. Izetbegovic has accepted it. But to negotiate with the Bosnian Serbs at this point, given their present position, including recent statements that they want 64 percent of the land, when they know full well what the Map says, would be tantamount to a major change in position in return for nothing at all.-
The Serbs refused as the land was economically/geographically disproportianetly in favor of the HV/Muslims. Serbs were to have been given land full of rocks and stones, whereas the Muslims/Croats were given factory-land. The Serbs were willing to give up the 68-70% of the land they owned, down to 64%. During the summer of 95, the VRS held 72% and at one point 74% before withdrawing to not allow the thinning of their lines. One reason for the forced recruitment of Bosnian Serb refugees was to increase the VRS by at least 5,000. This would give the VRS that ability to sledgehammer certain pockets of Muslims and consolidate their positions before VRS forced the Muslim/HV federation to the negotiating table in the mid-Fall.
Dick called upon the Bosnian Serbs from the drafh he himself drafted, knowing full well the Serbs were to reject. Casting the blame of war onto the Serbs, and not on the Muslims. BTW- were the most belligerant at the Dayton Talks. Croats behaved and for the most part, the Serbs.
The Serbs didnt like the land given to them, and the corridor of Gorazde and Brcko pocket. The same plan was dealt to them by Tito, resturctering of the borders, forcing Serbs to lose any balance of power.
Slobo did not have complete control of the Bosnian Serbs, Hop. Krajisnek was not in agreement with Brcko and that asinine Gorazde bottle. What suggests to you that Slobo had a free run at Dayton? If it were him and his decision alone, he would have stayed in Beograd and faxed his signature. Karadzic pined and had him in a corner in procreative ways to expose his deeds. The RS leadership had it outlined what was to be given up and what was off-limits. If Krajisnik and the RS had no say, why do you believe Holbrooke had to committ a physical assault on Momcilo for 'him to agree' to Brcko?
But,unlike you,I have been living in Yugoslavia for 30+ years.I am the witness of many of the things that you`re lecturing me about!I know,personaly,some of the protagonists of Yugoslav drama,you don`t.I know how that country breathe,you don`t.
I know how and what they eat,what songs do they sing when they`re drunk,I know what soccer teams they root for....you dont!
You are just an ignoramus who like to throw arround funny articles and insult people!
I had lived under Tito and Miloshevich ,you didn`t!I was in that war and seen it first hand,you didn`t!
But,you being a self proclaimed judge and jury on FR can help me,maybe?
You see,I have forgotten the name of US Senator(Congressman ) who was accused for war crimes two years ago.He was responsible for killing 20+ woman,elderly and children in Vietnam village as a part of SEAL team.He admited his crime publicly but..."He had suffered mental anguish for years"(couldn`t sleep!!!). And,"You wasn`t there and don`t know what is war" Senator McCain...so,no investigation,the man is "a hero"!.
Was his name maybe,Bob Carrey, a man who is running for the President as a democrat candidate???
Don`t bother,we know what your answer is going to be!
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.