Patterico's Pontifications

3/11/2006

Milosevic Dies from Boredom at His Interminable War Crimes Trial

Filed under: Terrorism,War — Patterico @ 12:58 pm



Is this what they’re trying to do with Saddam’s trial — drag it out until the defendant dies?

37 Responses to “Milosevic Dies from Boredom at His Interminable War Crimes Trial”

  1. Milosevic died fighting in the last battlefield he had left. He fought the jurisdiction of the International War Crimes Tribunal (or whatever it’s called) and now he has been rendered to the jurisdiction of another court. He was never a threat to the United States. He did continue Tito’s policies of brutalizing minorities which we accepted for 50 years until Clinton needed a “Wag the Dog” distraction from the Monika Lewinski scandal. May God have mercy on his soul.

    nk (4d4a9d)

  2. That his trial dragged on interminably is appalling. The idea of war crimes trials is inherently problematic as a result of the legal paradigm that insists on scrupulous fairness in a trial where we know the major players are guilty as sin.

    It just makes me gag to hear newscasters refer to the “allegations” leveled against Saddam Hussein. Hussein — and Milosevich — should have been tried and executed in the same manner as Ceausescu, i.e., within about 24 hours.

    Winston Churchill thought the Nazi leadership should have been stood against a wall and shot with great dispatch.

    It was the Americans, with their love of the legal system, and the Soviets, who loved a good show trial, insisting on the Nuremberg Trials that blocked Churchill’s more efficient administration of justice.

    I’m not sure that the so-called benefits of a tyrant mocking and manipulating the legal system for years outweighs the harm to a nation trying to escape the hangover from war, defeat, or revolution.

    Mike Lief (e9d57e)

  3. I read that one of his co-defendants Milan Babic, the Serb leader of a rebel republic in Croatia, committed suicide last Sunday evening in his cell at the U.N. Detention centre in Scheveningen. Did Milo have the courage to follow him–his parents apparently both committed suicide as well.

    Patricia (2cc180)

  4. May God have mercy on his soul.

    why?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  5. Because God is the only one who can render both justice and mercy.

    nk (5a2f98)

  6. Slobodan Milosevic essentially saved the “world” from the embarassment of rendering judgement on him after a years long trial. By the scrupulous application of specious notions of law, Saddam Hussein is making a mockery of his own show trial.

    Such things are hardly surprises: even though both men were evil, both were also strong leaders; that’s how they achieved the positions that they had. They were put on trial by lesser men, and they dominated the proceedings, because they were great men. Had Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin been put on trial, under the kinds of legal niceties we see in Baghdad, they’d have dominated as well.

    I have spoken with at least one American far-left liberal who insists that, under the law, Saddam Hussein must be acquitted; as the President of Iraq, he had the legal authority to order the murders for which he is currently on trial. That’s the kind of mentality you get when you insist on legal treatment for defeated enemies.

    Dana (71415b)

  7. The simplest thing would have been if they would have ‘cleared’ that particular spider hole with a grenade.

    paul (464e99)

  8. Dana – that’s an odd point, because it would clearly be illegal for the President of the United States to order many of the things for which Saddam Hussein is on trial.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there were things that Hussein did which were illegal under Iraqi law.

    However, if it were legal under Iraqi law for him to do what he did, I have a problem: under what principle do we apply some other body of law to him? Surely to prosecute him today for something that is illegal in Iraq now, but was not then, violates basic norms of justice. Or are we prosecuting him for violating some higher law which the Iraqi government did not, at that time, recognize?

    aphrael (e7c761)

  9. Aphrael —

    However, if it were legal under Iraqi law for him to do what he did, I have a problem: under what principle do we apply some other body of law to him? Surely to prosecute him today for something that is illegal in Iraq now, but was not then, violates basic norms of justice.

    Sigh.

    This is what I mean when I say that sometimes justice and the law have little to do with one another. Justice demands that Hussein swing from the end of a rope, no matter what the law — such as it was during his reign of terror — said about his actions.

    This is precisely the problem with using the courts to deal with deposed tyrants. Applying the logic in the previous post, no-one in the Third Reich could be held accountable, for everything done during the twelve years of its thousand-year reign was “legal.”

    So, allow me to ask, would you support doing away with the legal niceties and just use summary executions to wipe the slate clean? Or are we checkmated, not wanting to — how did you put it? — “violate basic norms of justice”?

    Mike Lief (e9d57e)

  10. Let’s not get too far ahead of this: The GuradianUnlimited today reports the following:

    The death of Slobodan Milosevic was shrouded in mystery and deepening controversy last night as Dutch pathologists examined his corpse and it emerged that he had claimed he was being slowly killed by doctors…

    Yesterday the 64-year-old former Serbian and Yugoslav president’s lawyer revealed a six-page letter – dated last Friday, 24 hours before his death – that Milosevic wrote to the Russian government alleging he was being deliberately administered the wrong drugs for his illnesses.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,,1729660,00.html

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  11. However, if it were legal under Iraqi law for him to do what he did, I have a problem: under what principle do we apply some other body of law to him? Surely to prosecute him today for something that is illegal in Iraq now, but was not then, violates basic norms of justice.

    I disagree. The ban on ex post facto laws is a decent jurisprudential doctrine for use in a country that has a decent system of laws to begin with, but there’s nothing inherently “just” about it, or “unjust” about changing laws retroactively. We do it all the time for taxes, civil liability, etc., and we even do it in a criminal context sometimes, in the direction of more leniency. It may not be legal (assuming it’s even possible) for Hussein to get as good as he gave, but that doesn’t mean it would be unjust.

    Besides, didn’t Hussein violate some Iraqi law in coming to power in the first place? If so, I say we hold him accountable for every pre-existing law he violated, including those that had been “repealed” by his equally illegal government.

    Xrlq (b80efa)

  12. XRLQ – I have no problem whatsoever with holding him responsible for every law he violated which was in place when he violated it. I also have no problem with your suggestion that, if he came to power in violation of law, that any legal changes enacted by his government be deemed to have not happened for the purposes of prosecuting him.

    However, in general, I find retroactive changes of criminal law to be problematic; it does not strike me as being just to hold someone accountable for criminal activity which was not criminal when he engaged in it.

    [So if a dictator says: “Everything I do is legal, including rapes and murders.” — you don’t think they can be prosecuted later??? Come on. — Patterico]

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  13. Mike Lief – it’s a serious problem, and I’m not comfortable with either of the “obvious” solutions.

    Changing the law so that activities which were perfectly legal become retroactively illegal strikes me as undermining the legitimacy of the system. If the Iraqi government can prosecute Saddam Hussein for an act which was perfectly legal when he did it, then the Iraqi government could also invent a crime tomorrow and prosecute someone for violating it today: that is not fair, and it is not just.

    This is not to say that what Hussein did was not wrong; but wrong and illegal are not synonyms, and I don’t think it is a good thing to be helping Iraq construct a judicial system whose decisions are based, not on whether or not an act was illegal, but on whether or not an act was wrong.

    This is a problem that was faced by a number of former communist countries in the early 1990s; aside from Germany, most of the Warsaw pact states ended up deciding that, in general, it was not just to prosecute people for things that were not illegal when they were done.

    So how can Hussein be prosecuted? He can be prosecuted for things he did which were technically illegal; or he can be prosecuted for things which there is a plausible theory were illegal under Iraq’s treaty obligations; or he can be prosecuted based upon some sense of inherent law which the Iraqi state violated, if the applicability of such a thing can be established.

    [This is in essence precisely the problem that the International Criminal Court was intended to solve.]

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  14. Changing the law so that activities which were perfectly legal become retroactively illegal strikes me as undermining the legitimacy of the system. If the Iraqi government can prosecute Saddam Hussein for an act which was perfectly legal when he did it, then the Iraqi government could also invent a crime tomorrow and prosecute someone for violating it today: that is not fair, and it is not just.

    Of course it is just. Saddam himself killed plenty of people either for no conduct at all, or for conduct that was legal when they committed it. There may be jurisprudential reasons why giving Saddam the Saddam treatment might be a bad idea, but lack of justice is not one of them.

    Xrlq (b80efa)

  15. Mike Lief, it is not correct that everything done under the Third Reich was legal under its laws. In fact the Third Reich did on occasion prosecute its minions for war crimes.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  16. Aphrael —

    We’re talking past each other. I do not believe that justice demands that deposed tyrants must be tried in accordance with the laws that were in effect during their reign, given that, in a regime where l’etat, c’est moi!, nothing the ruler did was illegal, making punishment impossible if one is hewing to your paradigm.

    Xrlq —

    I agree. When dealing with Saddam and his ilk, what was good enough for his victims is good enough for him.

    James –

    The war crimes prosecutions by the Thrird Reich’s judicial system were few and far between. Far more common were the legal proceedings involving Hans and Sophie Scholl, college students charged with distributing anti-Hitler tracts.

    Sophie was tried in a formal courtroom setting, in full accord with the accepted standards and practices of the Nazi regime. IIRC, she was tried, convicted, sentenced, and guillotined the same day.

    That this was “lawful” in no way deters me from saying the participants in this charade should have had a date with the hangman.

    Mike Lief (17fd00)

  17. Mike Lief – what standards do you use to try a tyrant you have deposed? And by what right do you assert that those standards apply?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  18. Aphrael —

    Let me be clear; I’m with Winston Churchill (see my previous comment). I do not assert that we ought to try them. Like Churchill, I’m in favor of finding a convenient wall and a few willing riflemen.

    Mike Lief (17fd00)

  19. Mike, ahhh. That’s something different. I don’t like that solution, but I find it less problematic than trying people for acts for which we can’t find a reasonable theory declaring them to have been illegal when committed.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  20. Mike writes: When dealing with Saddam and his ilk, what was good enough for his victims is good enough for him.

    The quote is

    Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

    Not

    Do unto others what they did to you (or someone else).

    Not to get all preachy, but I personally believe that we are called to transcend vengeance and rise above “an eye for an eye” when it comes to treatment of our fellow man, no matter how despicable their deeds. There are spiritually decent and indecent ways to handle things like this. Clearly, the decent thing is a trial with applicable laws.

    In which Tom gets behind the pulpit and rants: Wouldn’t it be great if Christian politicians actually emulated the love of Christ, rather than merely invoking God’s name for war-mongering or gay-bashing? Amazing how quickly ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ gets tossed out the window when the focus shifts from gay marriage to warfare and/or issues of health care and poverty…

    Tom (15e81e)

  21. Tom —

    Your call for us to do “the decent thing [using] a trial with applicable laws” runs afoul of the issues raised by Aphrael.

    Mike Lief (17fd00)

  22. Yes it does. (Note to self: make sure to read the entire corresponding thread before spouting plattitudes.) You two carry on; this has gotten interesting.

    Tom (fefa50)

  23. Mike Lief, when you say the “participants” in the trial and execution of Sophie Scholl should have been hanged how many people are you talking about? And how many Germans in total?

    James B. Shearer (de70a3)

  24. Mike Lief, you wish for certain Iraq’s to be summarily executed. On whose authority? Bush makes up a list and that is it or what?

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  25. James —

    What point are you trying to make? That at some point the culpability becomes too attenuated to execute the killers?

    Clearly, that is true. The judges? They can swing. Except for presiding judge Roland Freisler, who was killed in an air raid.

    The bailiffs? No.

    The prosecutors? [gulp] Hang ’em.

    The court clerks? Also, no.

    The executioner? Yup.

    How are these people, who implemented the death sentences of the Reich materially different from the men who operated the death camps and dropped the Zyklon-B into the showers?

    How are they more deservingof mercy than the Einzatzgruppen who machinegunned the women and children in the ravine at Babiyar, more than 33,000 in two days, 100,000 by the time they were done?

    That they accomplished the same ends with law books and oratory in a clean courtroom, rather than the blood-soaked abbatoir of the Russian countryside, does this afford them some degree of mercy?

    As I’ve been saying, we ought not give these men the dignity — or the platform — of a trial.

    Mike Lief (e9d57e)

  26. James —

    Seems to me that the Iraqis can decide who gets Saddamized.

    Mike Lief (e9d57e)

  27. Mike Lief, Sophie Scholl was executed for treason in time of war which is also a crime in the US. Being a Jew is not a crime in the US. This seems like a material difference to me.

    James B. Shearer (de70a3)

  28. James —

    Actually, she was found guilty of sedition.

    But that misses the point.

    This discussion was sparked by the tension between those advocating a legal proceeding for deposed tyrants, and supporters of summary executions.

    The problem for legal purists is that they cannot support prosecuting someone for committing heinous acts if said acts were lawful under the former regime’s statutes.

    Your statement about Sophie Scholl leaves me nonplussed, for the actions of the Nazis were not illegal under German law.

    As for “[b]eing a Jew is not a crime in the US,” I’m afraid I’ve missed whatever point you were trying to make.

    Mike Lief (e9d57e)

  29. Mike Lief, you say “we” ought not give these men the dignity of a trial but then you pass responsibility for summary executions off to the Iraqis which seems disingenous to me.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  30. The Nuremberg Laws established the principle that some crimes are so heinous that “ex post facto” does not apply. The criminal was on notice that what he was doing was wrong since the beginning of civilization. The gassing of Kurdish babies. The horror at Srebenica. As for putting them on trial, why not? In other times we would have stuck a spear in them. Or strangled them in the temple of Saturn. Now we have our own rules of our own time and we’ll kill them in our own particular slow way. With all the trial we can afford to give them while they are practically buried alive in their four by eight grave cell.

    nk (57e995)

  31. NK – i’m not entirely sure that the nuremberg laws established the principle that it is ok to hold someone criminally responsible for an act which he did not know to be a crime; i think it established that there are a class of things which are against the rules of a civilized society regardless of what law has been established by the legislature.

    Likewise, while I don’t want to put words in XRLQ’s mouth, I suspect that he isn’t actually saying that it is OK to try someone for something they didn’t know was against the rules; I expect he would say that of course Saddam knew it was against the rules of a civilized society and that any assertion ot the contrarty is absurd.

    What I find interesting about this, that nobody in politics seems willing to address, is how we know what is an element of that class of things that are punishable regardless of whether or not they are technically illegal. And, additionally, how we go about reconciling different cultural perceptions of what belongs in that category.

    As a good leftist, i’m uncomfortable with the entire concept, because it seems as if people are doing one of two things: (a) applying the rules concomitant with their particular political beliefs, or (b) using a set of rules that they know, because common sense tells them, should apply. Yet (a) is clearly an inappropriate standard by which to judge members of a different religion; and (b) is problematic because the fact that it is obvious to me that [x] is not acceptable behavior does not make it obvious to Joe Smith down the street, and unless it can be established that either (i) it was obvious to him, or (ii) he agreed to the rule or to the system which produced the rule, it doesn’t seem fair to apply it to him.

    At the same time, making a case that there is some such set of rules by which Saddam should have been bound is inifinitely preferable to me than saying that we’re going to punish him today for violating rules which didn’t exist then.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  32. Patterico – I just now saw your question attached to #12; my apologies for not responding sooner.

    If a dictator who has legal power to do so says “Everything I do is legal,” I don’t think they can be prosecuted for murders they commit during the time where that is the law. It’s clear to me that you don’t believe that. I’m curious about this: why do you not believe that?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  33. Tom – the question I am trying to establish is “which laws are applicable and why?”

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  34. aphrael said:

    “i think it established that there are a class of things which are against the rules of a civilized society regardless of what law has been established by the legislature.”

    Exactly. That was my point. I’m sorry if I was not clearer.

    nk (41da82)

  35. Mike Lief,

    I should say it’s cool to have you commenting here. I have owned Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury for some time. It’s a great resource. I didn’t put two and two together until I saw the recent Power Line post mentioning you.

    Patterico (de0616)

  36. Patterico,

    It’s a pleasure to hang out and shoot the breeze. I’ve been reading your site for a long time; it’s part of my daily morning surfing.

    Mike Lief (e9d57e)

  37. Patterico,

    Almost forgot to say “Thanks!” for the compliment about the book. Although I actually think And the Walls Came Tumbling Down is better, and the next book, Devil’s Advocates, is aimed at people more interested in criminal trials.

    Quick anecdote. I was in court and a defense attorney walked up and told me that his client, awaiting trial in a death penalty case, had his family give the attorney a copy of the book, to help inspire him for their son’s closing argument.

    Never did find out if it helpled. . . .

    Mike Lief (e9d57e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0905 secs.