Posted on 12/12/2002 4:11:02 PM PST by vooch
The truth is that six million Jews were put to death without a written order, without dissent or public discussions.
From your post:
That Hitler ordered the final solution is so well documented
The two are contradictory - get a clue already and start thinking before you start posting.
Again, we don't yet have documentary proof that Milosevic ordered any of the warcrimes that his forces perpetrated, and we may never get it, as is the case with Hitler, but his position in the chain of command is analogous to that of Hitler in his, and it is through the very same methods that Milosevic will be tied to those crimes, no matter how loud the ignorant and deceptive defenders of Milosevic raise their cry: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in neither case - deal with it.
If the JNA or the MUP archives yield such evidence it will be merely the icing on the cake upon which Milosevic is doing a face plant at the Hague.
Really? Then what the hell was Momcilo Krajisnik doing there and why was he entertaining a notion that he, or any of the Pale delegation had any real power as far as agreeing to the terms of Dayton?
SRNA: White House Press Secretary, Nicholas Burns, claims that Milosevic was given power to decide on the fate of Bosnian Serbs, and that his decisions may not be questioned by the Assembly of Serbian Republic?
Mr.K.: That is not true. That is a fallacy, aimed at undermining the agreement we have reached through mediation of the Patriarch Pavle. President Milosevic is a member of the joint delegation, in which all delegates are equal. Only when there is a tie, President Milosevic's vote can be decisive. But even President Milosevic has to abide by certain rules that both we [Bosnian Serbs] and the Yugoslav part of the delegation have agreed upon.
Karadzic didn't go because he was a war criminal and would, and will, be arrested in any law abiding country in the world, and Milosevic went because he had the power to hold the Bosnian Serbs to any agreement he wanted to force upon them in order to save his butt.
Please note, Pale was forced, to comply with Dayton against their wishes.
More proof as to who was pulling the strings in Bosnia.
Seen any POW?Have you read UN Resolution1244?
Whatever you say,Albi...But,at the end of the day,Yugoslavia stood on her own aggainst KLA and NATO.Your drug dealers ,,as usual,fought under NATO umbrela.You chose:Nazis/NATO, just add appropriate years!
sorry, but failed to provide any proof as to who was really pulling the strings in Bosnia - clinton & Company!
sorry, but failed to provide any proof as to who was really pulling the strings in Bosnia - clinton & Company!
Damned if I know, guess he served as a fig-leaf for the Bosnians Serbs. Wouldn't want to give the world the impression that Republica Srpska was part of Yugoslavia!
"At Dayton no one talked to Krajisnik; he was completely isolated in his room. No one talked to him."
__ Holbrooke
Because Milosevic was ultimately in control of the power that eminated from Pale, as evidenced by the signing of the agreement.
Pale as an independent entity is a fiction useful to Milosevic's defence, nothing more.
I'm glad to see that YOU think it's part of Yugoslavia. Now convince your Hum Warrior buddies!
Try it again, Einstein. It was a part of Greater Serbia until 1995, but has since been a part of Bosnia.
In the meantime, I will give you some immediate thoughts to your reply:
Which part needs a definitive proof?
The assumption, of course! Assumption of guilt or liability is no proof, is it? A valid assumption is more likely to be proven, but an asusmption in itself cannot be a subsititue for proof.
International courts are either valid or invalid. If they are valid, they are valid for all, not some.
You must admit that blaming Lt Calley for everything and exhonorating his senior commanders along the chain is weak. Despite the conviction, right or wrong, Lt Calley is not referred to as a convicted war criminal. Similarily, if rape is a war crime, why is ex-SSG Rhongi also not officially classified as a convicted war cirminal?
In fact, can you name one American war criminal? I admit, I didn't do the research and this is simply free association. I don't recall ever reading about one.
So how then to address this culpability? Good question. I am not sure, not yet anyway. But we are setting a precedent that is not necessarily what we want. It seems very myopic.
Good post.
As for your comment Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in neither case, there is no absence of evidence linking Hitler to the slaughter of Jews, except in your distortion of what consituted an order in Nazi Germany. By your own confession, there is (currently) no evidence linking the guarantor to Srebrenica, so your attempts to compare the two situations is invalid.
And if Slobo's guilt will be determined solely by the fact that he ran Serbia while Bosnian Serb paramilitaries committed atrocities, then by their own confession western leaders dealt with one who they considered responsible for genocide.
You will recall all the hue and cry over hearsay evidence in Milosevic's trial? 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. David Irving and a couple of others have made careers out of using the same disingenous method you are using here for Milosevic to absolve Hitler of his crimes, but if you choose to remain blind to your folly, that's your business.
Just don't expect not to get figuratively smacked upside the head for your ignorance.
What we have in the case of Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, is forces under Milosevic committing war crimes - we don't have documentary proof that Milosevic ordered those crimes, but we have ample proof that his subordinates did - in 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.
War Crimes shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons* or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
From Article 4
*Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
and
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.
Please note - one is not tried for war crimes per se, but for crimes that qualify as war crimes.
I'm definitely not a lawyer, so here's the source of what I posted.
The use of "war crime" to refer to a specific act, then, is dependent upon the circumstances in which the act took place - I'm not sure how the fact that Calley, Medina, and Ronghi were purported allies of those they victimized plays into this, but I have no qualms with thinking of Calley and Medina as war criminals.
Not to worry, I've got this whole 'we were in the same Army and they've disgraced the uniform' animosity thing directed at all three of them, and I think the sentiment is shared by the majority of my fellow veterans and those currently on active duty.
I'll catch the rest of your points after you've responded in full to my last.
Really?
Read the first three sentences of the second paragraph and footnote 28. Holbrooke had no intention of dealing with the Bosnian Serbs.
"You [Milosevic] must speak for Pale."
He and Warren Christopher concluded that they would deal only with Milosevic!
Speaking of "hiding and running away" that is a speciality of your KLA bandits:hiding behind NATO/US troops in Preshevo Valley and Macedonia.The moment VJ got a green light from NATO,your brave narco dealers vere utterly destroyed ,together with their "Commander" Leshi who promptly became "lesh"!Find someone to translate for you>
In Macedonia,your terrorists were saved by US conwoy who had prevented their destruction because American instructors were ammong them!
The day will come,"Brit" when everybody will be pissed off with your violence and land grabing!Then,you will face one on one your neighbours whose motherlands you have destabilised and almost destroyed!
I will see your "army" then!
Nevertheless,we both know where we stand on this subject.As far as I`m concerned,this debate is over.See you on some other thread!
Cheers!
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.