Like John Howard, I won’t be shedding any tears over Slobodan Milosevic, whose death, apparently from natural causes, has been announced.
An obvious question raised by his death is whether (and how) his trial on a variety of war crimes charges could have been accelerated. The fact that he will never be properly convicted is certainly unfortunate. Even if it would have had no short run impact on opinion among Serbian nationalists, it would have helped to set the historical record straight. Milosevic’s death increases the urgency of capturing his main instruments, Mladic and Karadzic, whose connection to the crimes of the Bosnian war is more immediate, and whose trial could drive home the evil of Milosevic’s policies.
Still, the long trial in The Hague is better than the alternative on offer in Baghdad, where Saddam Hussein, whose wars cost millions of lives, is being tried, and may be executed, for a comparatively minor crime, but one which is politically convenient for the purposes of victors’ justice.
John Quiggin 
John, I would have thought that the long trial in the Hague was far too long and now inconclusive and that the tactics of the Saddam prosecution of narrowly focusing on specific atrocities and disallowing Saddam to represent himself to have a better chance of obtaining some justice.
John,
You ask “whether (and how) his trial on a variety of war crimes charges could have been accelerated.”
I am glad to see you frame the question positively, but I’m sure the question being asked will be the more negatively-loaded, “why did it take so long?”
And I am sure that opponents of international law (Bush, Blair, Howard) will use this to further denegrate the work of the Hague, the ICC and even the UN.
As to Rog’s comment on “obtaining some justice”, there is a lot more to Saddam’s trial than just obtaining a guilty verdict and meting out a punishment. Would it were so simple.
It is important for this trial to be publicly seen (by Iraqis and the world) as establishing new and credible legal standards for the “new Iraq”. And it is important that the full horrors of Saddam’s rule be put on display so that any lingering pro-Saddam sympathies among Iraqis be extinguished. The trial is failing dismally on both these fronts.
Truth is, Saddam should be in a cell next to Milosevic’s at the Hague, and there should be cells further down the corridor for Bush, Blair and Howard.
Bush Blair and Howard help bring Milosevic to trial and that’s good, but helping bring Saddam to trial is bad and they should join them in the dock. It’s all about your view of the law I guess
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18430960-1246,00.html?from=rss
As usual lately, observa, you’re missing the point. The whole point of the post is that Saddam is *not* being brought to trial for the crimes that allegedly justified the invasion.
Moreover, where Milosovic’s trial was so scrupulously fair it gave the defendant the opportunity to drag it out by cross-examining every witness on almost every topic and putting the prosecution to the proof of almost every allegation of fact; Hussein’s trial is a travesty of justice. IIRC, the chief judge (the, what, fourth so far?) is a Kurd who’s relatives were among Sadaam’s alleged victims. Furthermore, as I understand it, so far ten lawyers, judges or court officials have either fled their jobs or been assasinated.
Husein is almsot certainly guilty of some pretty heinous crimes. But surely he deserves a fair trial?
“The whole point of the post is that Saddam is *not* being brought to trial for the crimes that allegedly justified the invasion.”
And the consequences of this correct observation are:
1. For the Bush Clique, it underlines the contempt they have for international law and emphasises that the alleged cassus belli was indeed, as Wolfowitz so candidly explained, “for bureaucratic purposes only”.
2. For Deputy Sheriff Howard aka Sergeant Schultz, “I know nussing. Nussing I tell you.”
3. For Blair, who has tried to maintain the illusion that he respects international law, it represents a major blot on his credibility and a disproof of the claim that he could act as a moderating influence on the Bush Clique.
Blair’s pretended respect for international law is being challenged by members of his own armed services. This from today’s “Age”:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/sas-soldier-refuses-to-fight-in-iraq/2006/03/12/1142098343662.html
The forthcoming trial of Flight-Lieutanant Malcolm Kendall-Smith is also mentioned in this story. This trial will test the legality of Britain’s Iraq adventure. The outcome could be explosive.
OTOH, Katz, it could be that the House of Lords, as the ultimate appeal court, decides that the invasion was legal. I think that would also be ‘explosive’ news. Maybe the ECHR will also give its view. Either way it will be years before either get anywhere near it. Lets wait and see.
.
I was discussing Milosevic’s death on the weekend and I would tend to agree that the worst part about his death was that he was never properly convicted. It would have been better if the trial was faster – but you cannot speed a trial in the belief that the defendant is going to die soon.
Maybe he will end up in the Marcos category – his body waiting for a long time to be buried while the family are not allowed to return to the country. At least it means the nationalists would have to go to Moscow to pay their last respects.
AR,
You’re correct in your implication about the slowness with which the wheels of proper justice turn. Milosevic was either a victim or a beneficiary, according to your perspective, of proceduralism.
One of the problems of the Milosevic trial was that it sought to do more than establish the guilt of Milosevic. It also sought to be a commission of historical enquiry into a wide range of the activities of the Milosevic regime. This delayed the meting out of justice. On the other hand, it did, literally, uncover some buried bodies.
The Saddam Trial will do no such thing. The verdict on one, small atrocity, the resolution of which is acceptable to all important stake-holders, will still be echoing through the secret court room while Saddam dangles twitching on the end of a rope.
Wouldn’t it be nice to hear from Saddam his perspective on his long and initially fruitful relationships with successive US Administrations? A trial of Saddam’s war crimes might profitably include the sources of his chemical and biological warfare weaponry.
Katz,
It might also include the sources of his tanks, artillery, rifles, aircraft, nuclear reactor (you know, the one the Israelis destroyed) and other paraphernalia of war. All five of the permanent members at one stage or another supplied him – so all five would oppose actions that we may consider as appropriate under normal circumstances.
I agree that a full trial of all his atrocities would have been better, but the outcome(s) would still not have been out before he was dried and wrinkled in his grave – leaving him unconvicted. Each of the main protagoists would also have sought to delay the verdict. Repeating the mistake apparently made with Milosevic would not be the optimal outcome.
Say, given there are a lot of Balkans buffs around here, I was wondering if somebody could give me a final body count for both the Bosnian War and the pre-1999 Kosovo “genocide”.
The figure of 250 000 deaths was quoted on the ABC news last night.
AR,
In regard to Saddam’s possession of illegal biological weapons, much of the time-consuming work has been done. The world can know the truth and have a speedy hanging–the best of all possible worlds. All that is required in Saddam’s trial is for the following to be read into the transcript;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9390.htm
On this website you can see the documents collected by the ‘The Riegle Report’, US Senate hearings chaired by Senator Donald Riegle in 1994. It is quite clear that during the 1980s the US exported, among other things, weapons-grade anthrax to Saddam.
Unlike the tanks, guns, and other weapons of war you mention, US export of anthrax to Saddam breached internaitonal law, in this case the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons, of which the US was a signatory.
I said “was” because in 2001 Bush decided that the proposed protocol did not suit the national interests of the United States, whatever those interests may be in the interesting field of war-winning plagues.
“The figure of 250 000 deaths was quoted on the ABC news last night.”
And the figure is false. The true figure for the Bosnian conflagration is much closer to 100,000 (of which 16,000 were Serb civilians), according to a survey conducted and commissioned under ICTY auspices.
http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2004/11/bosnia-death-toll-revealed.html
Next up, I will call for any bids on the Kosovo “genocide”, including both the actual post-war body count and the official pre-war, uh, “estimates” of the belligerent parties.
And another thing – how come it was a massive strategic disaster, and a classic example of “blowback” in the making, to support the incipient al-Qaeda against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but considered “humanitarian” to do so within Europe itself?
Steve, your own source cites an alternative estimate of 130 000 to 150 000, and this is for Bosnia alone.
I don’t think this kind of revisionism is doing you any good. If the official estimates were out by an order of magnitude it might be worth pointing this out, but quibbling over whether 250 000 or “only” 100 000 people died makes you look like an apologist for genocide, as does your use of scare quotes around the term.
Katz,
As I think you would realise, reading a legal opinion into transcript does no more than provide additional words for the court stenographer. Every piece of evidence needs to be tested, all opinions justified and the applicable law determined and clarified, amongst other things. It was this process that was taking time in the Hague – and necessary time (at least some of) it was too.
The opinion of Geoffrey Holland of the University of Sussex, however well founded, cannot be taken at face value to a court in Iraq.
I would also debate, in strong terms, whether the death penalty, which you seem to be almost US redneck in your enthusiasm for, is appropriate here or anywhere else. Even Milosevic, IMHO, would have been better off in prison for the term of his natural life (not long, as it turned out), serving as a reminder to others that a quick, possibly even painless, end would not be the finish of it.
“Steve, your own source cites an alternative estimate of 130 000 to 150 000, and this is for Bosnia alone. ”
No – that alternative estimate was not conducted under the auspices of the ICTY prosecutors. It was a separate project. Repeat – the prosecutors of the ICTY commissioned a team to do a Bosnian body count…and arrived at a figure of 102,000. How come this figure hasn’t been reported?
“I don’t think this kind of revisionism is doing you any good.”
So are you for or against the accurate reporting of an historical event? Or are you objectively in favour of disseminating propaganda?
“quibbling over whether 250 000 or “onlyâ€? 100 000 people died makes you look like an apologist for genocide”
All you have to do now is show where I have defended genocide, and you might have an argument! And the “only” is your quote, not mine, I might add.
“as does your use of scare quotes around the term”
My scare quote around “genocide” pertains entirely to the Kosovo theatre. I have not expressed any opinion as to whether any genocide happened in Bosnia – only to point out that the media continues to fabricate stories about what happened there.
In the case of Kosovo (the subject of my “scare quotes”), however, the evidence is pretty conclusive that there was no genocide.
Sorry – another question before I dash off. Can somebody here tell me the significance of the word “Krajina”?
Just quickly – thought I’d throw another spanner in the works:
http://blogs.zmag.org/ee_links/bernard_kouchner
Katz,
On another reading, I also presume the Geoffrey Holland is not a lawyer – he has made one elementary mistake (i.e. one even I could pick up) on the reporting ‘obligation’. Article VI (1) says that a “State Party … may (emphasis mine) lodge a complaint…”. There is no obligation there. Once a State Party has lodged a complaint the UNSC (also) may commence an investigation, which the various State Parties undertake to assist with.
Mr Holland is simply wrong there – and he simply glosses over it. He also goes on to argue that international law effectively does not exist given this example, so, on the arguments in this paper indicate that international law effectively has no importance anyway.
Not a strong line of argument to convict Saddam Hussein.
I think that summary executions are under rated.
Politically there is no scope for Saddam to be found innocent. Such a verdict would not be politically acceptable. So any presumption of innocence is a farce. In my view that means that we are witnessing nothing more than an elaborate show trial. A summary execution would be grubby but honest.
If the court acquited Saddam and ordered his release tomorrow then I feel certain he would be shot dead anyway by “mysterious forces”. Or perhaps he would suddenly hang himself in prison.
Fascinating article on defense testimony that was suppressed during the ICTY trial:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi/2006/02/21#Bin_Laden_Tapes_and
An intriguing shade of grey is forming as the black and white colours of the West’s hysterical Balkans narrative begin to run together.
Terje,
Politically unacceptable things do happen, if only occasionally. I would agree that there is little scope for him to be found not guilty, but the same is true for most notorious killers. Do you think we should just establish their identiy, walk them out the back and just shoot them? IMHO this is not a good stance for a person who believes in the rule of law.
AR,
You’re swallowing a whale but choking on a spratt.
There are many reasons to hang Saddam. What remains is to determine who were his willing accomplices when he committed crimes against humanity.
Katz,
I take it you agree with Terje that a summary execution would be the best outcome. I would agree that we should be looking for accomplices, but we should also do it in a manner that fits with the rule of law. Otherwise, we are but little better than him, however justified.
In Arabic, the opposite of oppression is justice. For me, at least, it is freedom – but both require the rule of law.
Andrew,
I do believe in the rule of law within the nation state. However when the presumption of innocence is a farce it is better to simply be honest. In any case invasions are generally extra-judicial subversions of national law. The invaders do not concern themselves with the niceties of local rules in the invasion in general so it is not so out of order to ignore them in finalising the humiliation.
If after the tanks rolled into Iraq the local police had turned up to arrest the coalition forces for public disorder do you think that the rule of law would have been adhered to?
Regards,
Terje.
Steve Edwards Says:
What are you on about, Steve? Your own source, i.e., the one you cited as evidence said exactly what John said it did. In other words, your source does not support your contention that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s number is the sole correct one.
And yes, you do sound like you’re trying to minimise or excuse genocide.
If you have some other to make, then make it.
I did read that post WW2 Winston Churchill wanted nazis to be classed as outlaws and shot on sight. The US were against this and wanted to bring them to trial hence Nuremberg.
The key issue is that a head of state be made responsible for crimes against humanity or genocide. To this extent the UN court has failed with the key figure Milosevic dieing of natural causes as an innocent man whilst his key aides remain free.
AR & rog, the problem is that the crimes for which Saddam is to be convicted (as opposed to those for which he is not being tried) are no worse than those of many other world “leaders”, including most permanent members of the UNSC. As between Dujail, Grozny, Fallujah and Tienanmen Square, there’s not a lot to choose.
rog Says:
Bit more complicated than that, I’m afraid:
rog Says:
Yeah yeah. You poor little whingeing right wing whore. The UN failed, and the US has done everything it could to ensure all heads of state, including the US are held to the same standard, right? Tens or hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, and where’s the accountability for Bush’s murders?
“Katz, I take it you agree with Terje that a summary execution would be the best outcome.”
AR, I hope you’re being disingenuous.
Milosovic’s trial was Gilbertian, but Saddam’s trial is a travesty.
Neither is satisfactory but at least Milosovic’s has served some function in revealing the dimensions of Milosovic’s most serious crimes.
Saddam’s trial serves no purpose but revenge. It’s actual political effect will be to make a martyr of Saddam in the eyes of more Iraqis than is absolutely necessary. This status can only exacerbate the likelihood of civil war.
(Spookily, as I type I hear on the BBC that Muqtada al-Sadr has declared that Iraq is now in a state of civil war.)
Saddam’s death will be just one among many in the coming civil war. It cannot be said that the ludicrous mismanagement of justice that has characterised his trial is the cause of the civil war. However, it is just one more of the myriad of absurd cases of mismanagement by the US of post-war Iraq.
Would this civil war have still broken out if Saddam had been occupying a cell next to Milosevic’s at the Hague? Probably.
Is Saddam’s trial symptomatic of American idiocy? Certainly.
Wrong SJ – read again:
“The number of people killed in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was around 102,000, according to research done by the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This is half of earlier estimates.”
…
Researchers at the court estimate the correct number to be a bit over 102,000.
This number deviates somewhat from a documentation project going on in Bosnia, and project leader Mirsad Tokaca concludes that the number of killed was between 130,000 and 150,000.”
That is to say – a separate project from the ICTY, and bear that in mind as I address the next point.
“In other words, your source does not support your contention that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s number is the sole correct one.”
Oh really, and where is that “contention”? Let me put it this way for you – lazy media estimates based on sheer guesswork put the number at 250,000. The ICTY prosecution (no “revisionists” themselves) commissioned a study which arrived at a figure of 102,000.
Furthermore, your ridiculous diversion, by attempting to claim that I suggested the ICTY’s figures are the “sole correct one”, is completely irrelevant as I have not said that any particular figure is the “sole correct one”, except to point out that the ICTY prosecution has commissioned a study (and you can draw your own conclusions as to whether this would be a high or a low figure) which decided upon 102,000 as the final body count.
“And yes, you do sound like you’re trying to minimise or excuse genocide.”
There are two claims here. The first is that I am trying to “minimise” something (which is false – I am simply pointing to the estimates of impeccably official, non-controversial, sources), and the second is that that “something” is genocide.
Okay, but I’ll let you prove the existence of a “genocide”, which I have prudently not expressed an opinion on (except of course for the Kosovo “genocide” which even the establishment doesn’t bother to claim anymore), and then we’ll see what I am trying to “minimise”.
Now, where was I? Oh! That’s right – Krajina.
Anyone care to indulge?
SJ my information is that when New York newspapers leaked the Morgenthau Plan, some critics were outraged by its vindictive terms. An alternative plan, formulated by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and attorney Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays, proposed that Nazi organizations be tried for criminal conspiracy, making any member guilty by default of the racism, terrorism, and atrocities committed. Before the Americans settled on their position, in April 1945, Roosevelt died. With the American Army dividing Germany and Nazi collapse imminent, President Harry Truman decided to proceed with a trial, appointing Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson as chief counsel. He soon secured British cooperation and the stage was set for an international trial.
You are a bit imaginative Katz if you think that the trial of Saddam could invoke a civil war and offer as confirmation the comments of al-Sadr (who would welcome Saddams death)
“However, the Soviet Union announced its preference for a judicial process. ”
SJ you must be kidding.
Steve, if what you intended to prove is that the late and unlamented Tudjeman belonged in the Hague along with Milosevic (a number of his cronies have in fact ended up there), I doubt many would disagree.
If you want to push some kind of defence of Milosevic, please take your comments elsewhere.
Yeah that sort of thing is only tolerated in places like the Hague. Opps.
“You are a bit imaginative Katz if you think that the trial of Saddam could invoke a civil war and offer as confirmation the comments of al-Sadr (who would welcome Saddams death)”
1. False premise Rog.
“It cannot be said that the ludicrous mismanagement of justice that has characterised his trial is the cause of the civil war.”
An attentive reading would have obviated the need for the first part of your post.
2. Fundamental misreading of the political realities on the ground in Iraq Rog.
Muqtada has all the time in the world.
Muqtada al-Sadr doesn’t want to START a civil war, because the coalition he supports has a majority or near majority in the Iraqi parliament. Muqtada, and most Shiites, would love to see Saddam swing, but as a supporter of Iranian interests over US interests in the region, Muqtada would like as much US dirty linen as possible to be aired in the course of Saddam’s trial. Instead Saddam is getting an American, Judge Judy-style quickie.
For most Sunni, Iranian hegemony over Iraq would be less inviting even than US hegemony. Thus Muqtada would love to turn Saddam’s trial into a demonstration of Saddam’s puppet status in the would-be American imperium. But the US controls the judicial process, such as it is.
Muqtada is thus trying to give Bush every encouragement to withdraw from Iraq. But he has a problem:
Peace and progress is interpreted by the Bush clique as proof of the success of their strategy and a sign that they should “stay the course”.
Chaos and anarchy is interpreted by the Bush clique as proof that it would be wrong to leave and a warning that they should “stay the course”.
Come what may, therefore, the Bush clique seems determined to “stay the course”.
The circuit breaker, of course, is the US electorate. Bush understands this and is now imploring Americans to “stay the course”. This plea won’t work.
Muqtada knows Bush’s plea won’t work. He needs only wait. The British are backing out. The Bush clique will be forced by a hostile congress to withdraw.
Time is on Muqtada’s side.
Why would Muqtada want a civil war until after the COW leaves? Once that happens he can deal with his Iraqi enemies at his leisure.
Rog,
I must say I agree with Katz. You really didn’t read what he said.
Regards,
Terje.
Katz, I was referring to your para; “Saddam’s trial serves no purpose but revenge……. This status can only exacerbate the likelihood of civil war.”
Later on you infer that civil war will break out regardless of Saddam’s location – to what do you attribute the coming civil war?
I have read that whilst Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone they still hold him in some awe, he has been a dominating force for so long.
Multifactorial Rog.
Saddam’s trial and execution will be neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of civil war in Iraq.
Saddam’s trial and execution are little more than corroborative proof of the bleeding obvious:
1. That secularist Arab nationalism (of which Ba’athism was an example) cannot bind the disparate forces of Iraq.
2. That therefore the Sunni are thrown back on their religious identity as a uniting force. As a religious minority they don’t have the political weight they had when the Ba’athist Part was dominated by Sunni.
3. Secularist Sunni have nowhere to go but to throw their lots in with their theocratic co-religionists. Or leave the country, which they have been doing in droves for some time.
4. The coming civil war will be driven mostly by religious identity.
“Steve, if what you intended to prove is that the late and unlamented Tudjeman belonged in the Hague along with Milosevic (a number of his cronies have in fact ended up there), I doubt many would disagree.”
I certainly don’t believe that Tudjman, Izetbegovic, or Milosevic belonged in The Hague, because I don’t support the foreign meddling in the Balkans that necessarily led to any of them being considered for trial at The Hague. If I had any opinion as to the desirable fate for leaders such as the three I’ve listed, it would entail hanging them from a lamp-post after no trial – but there are quite a few leaders who deserve a similar fate.
>And another thing – how come it was a massive strategic disaster, and a classic example of “blowbackâ€? in the making, to support the incipient al-Qaeda against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but considered “humanitarianâ€? to do so within Europe itself?
Well firstly you have to avoid the “muslims” = “terrorists” logical fallacy.
Then you take a look at the evidence (or lack of it) for radical islamist terror in the Balkans.
Any Buddha statues (or Orthodox monasteries) demolished?
any sign of Sharia law beign imposed?
Any evidence of foreign terrorists being sheltered?
“No – that alternative estimate was not conducted under the auspices of the ICTY prosecutors. It was a separate project. Repeat – the prosecutors of the ICTY commissioned a team to do a Bosnian body count…and arrived at a figure of 102,000. How come this figure hasn’t been reported?”
Do you understand the terms “balance of probabilities” and “beyond reasonable doubt”?
Which standard do you think the prosecutors were applying?
Furthermore: what ABOUT Krajina?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina
“In August 1990, a referendum was held in the Krajina on the question of Serb “sovereignty and autonomy” in Croatia. The resolution was confined exclusively to Serbs and, not surprisingly, passed by a majority of 99.7%…”
“The fighting in the Krajina generally took the form of Serbian attacks on Croatian police posts and state buildings, with the Croatian police fighting back where they could. Serbian side engaged in many attacks on Croat civilian targets, blowing up and burning houses belonging to people of the “wrong” ethnic group, and killing many innocent. The Serbs were initially armed with more than small arms but the JNA soon even remedied this by allowing them free access to army equipment, up to and including armoured vehicles and artillery. The European Union and United Nations attempted to broker a ceasefire and peace settlement, but the truces were repeatedly broken—mostly by Serbs supported by JNA;…Hardline nationalists on the Serb side rejected any moves to settle the conflict.”
“Around August 1991, the leadership of the Serbian Krajina (and that of Serbia) agreed to embark on what war crimes prosecutors would later describe as a “joint criminal enterprise” to permanently forcibly remove the non-Serb population of the Croatian Krajina in order to make them part of a new Serb-dominated state. The participants included Milan Babić, Slobodan MiloÅ¡ević, other Krajina Serb figures such as Milan Martić, the Serbian militia leader Vojislav Å eÅ¡elj and Yugoslav Army commanders including General Ratko Mladić, who was at the time the commander of JNA forces in Croatia.
According to testimony given by Babić in his subsequent war crimes trial, during the summer of 1991 the Serbian secret police—under MiloÅ¡ević’s command—set up “a parallel structure of state security and the police of Krajina and units commanded by the state security of Serbia”. ”
“A ceasefire agreement was signed by Presidents TuÄ‘man and MiloÅ¡ević in January 1992, paving the way for the implementation of a United Nations peace plan put forward by Cyrus Vance. Under the Vance Plan, four United Nations Protected Areas (UNPAs) were established in the territory of the RSK. The Vance Plan called for the withdrawal of the JNA from Croatia and for the return of refugees to their homes in the UNPAs. The JNA officially withdrew from Croatia in May 1992 but much of its weaponry and many of its personnel remained in the Serb-held areas and were turned over to the RSK’s security forces. Refugees were not allowed to return to their homes and the few Croats and other non-Serbs who had remained in the RSK were expelled in the following months.”
“UNPROFOR … proved wholly unable to ensure that refugees returned to the RSK. Indeed, the Krajina Serb authorities continued to make efforts to ensure that they could never return, destroying villages and cultural and religious monuments to erase the previous existence of the non-Serb inhabitants of the Krajina. Milan Babić later testified that this policy was driven from Belgrade through the Serbian secret police—and ultimately MiloÅ¡ević—who he claimed were in control of all the administrative institutions and armed forces in the Krajina.”
Personally, I have no problem with the “victors” (who in the case of Saddam’s trial are the people who finally get to tell their stories of what Saddam did to them and their families) getting justice in an Iraqi court. In fact, that’s exactly where they should get justcie.
“A summary execution would be grubby but honest.”
The Mussolini Treatment? Might have been a good idea.
Slobodan Milosevic won’t be missed. His trial had lasted at considerable expense for four years at the very least. In a sense it was a show trial, to demonstrate to a sceptical world that the West (us goody-goodies with allegedly superior systems of democracy and decency) believes even the vilest of tyrants deserves a fair hearing in a court of law.
Unfortunately, dictators are not so easily dealt with as your average street villain. Legal process inevitably becomes tangled up with national and international politics, and ever since Nuremberg such trials typically descend into high farce. The current circus in Baghdad which merely gives Saddam Hussein a unique opportunity to shout and hurl abuse from the dock, is a superb example of the genre. So far it has led to the resignation of a leading judge and the murder of two defence attorneys. The now senile Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is another case in point. His lawyers have successfully thwarted every attempt to haul him into court. He’ll be dead before he stands accused of murder. None of these bastards, including Milosevic, deserves even the hint of a fair trial. Their crimes are written in so much blood that the whole world can see them. The possibility of their innocence or diminished culpability is laughable. As was the case with Nicolae Ceausescu and the infamous Pol Pot it would have been far better to have quietly dispatched them before the talk of a fair trial got under way. The subsequent hand-wringing would have soon died down, and the lawyers would have had to look for work elsewhere.