Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:
Rampant Nationalism..... I thought World War One put the lie to it. Yet, like a vampire it arises to wage war again.

I guess every few generations need to find out for themselves what a harsh mistress Rampant Nationalism is.

There are some indications we're heading there again, wait a few years and see.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
If there were any Albanians convicted of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, then feel free to correct me. But to me, the Hague and "international law" are jokes.

Haradin Bala

Lahi Brahimaj was also convicted, but acquitted in a retrial four years later.

 Power Elephant wrote:
"Yugoslavian civil war". This phrase sums up the manipulations performed by that court pretty well. There was no such thing as a "Yugoslavian civil war", and yet everyone seems to buy into the lie that there was. The Republic of Croatia, legaly and constitutionaly, proclaimed its independence, and was subsequently attacked by another nation. But no one knows that anymore. To everyone it's just an insurgence of a people in a dying state, rather than a glorious culmination of a thousand years worth of dreams of freedom. Today, we have confirmation that justice hasn't been enacted, and by extension, the war isn't over. It seems that soon we, within my lifetime, we will have to finish it. Guess we'll just have to do it properly this time.

Are you announcing a second fascist NDH? Looks to me you're announcing a second fascist NDH.

Of course it looks to you that I'm announcing a second NDH. After all, that is exactly what Republic of Croatia was accused of being from the very beginning of its inception.

No, what I'm saying is that war is brewing, and it's quite possible that my generation will have to be the one fighting it.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Haag trials were never more than show trials. A huge amount of Serbs have been convicted, and virtually no Albanians or Bosnians. They make it seem as if the Serbs are the guilty party, while in truth atrocities were committed by all sides. And even though the Serbs were generally the strongest party in the war (pre-intervention at least) and in the position to carry out most violence, it doesn't mean that other parties are free of blame.

Saying show trial is a disservice and a massive misnomer. Yes proportionately a lot of ethnic Serbs were on trial, yet "a huge amount" is a major overstatement as there were less than 200 cases. Less than a 100 were Serbian, by no means huge, when taking into account most of these Serbs were not Serb Serbs even but Serbs from the other countries. People convicted for very real crimes. Sure, more people should have been put on trial, but that by no means makes the ICTY a 'show trial'.

Serbs are Serbs, even if they have been forced to live in another country. And I do not dispute the justness of the convictions. The Serbs that were convicted were war criminals alright. The problem is that it was almost only Serbs that were convicted, while war criminals from other parties in the conflict have never been convicted, even if there was plenty of evidence for their numerous crimes. It makes the ICTY almost come across like a modern version of the Nuremberg trials, where the victorious Western allies punish the defeated evil Serbs.

I have to agree with Iron Captain here.


Case in point: 0 convictions or trials for Kosovo Albanians of the narco-terrorist KLA that committed atrocities (murder and rape) against ethnic Serbs in Kosovo, while KFOR and the UN did nothing. We're just lucky it didn't turn into Rawanda 2.0 (another atrocity that the UN, despite having people on the ground (including armed peace keepers), turned a blind eye to it). In that instance, the UN was also partially complicit, since they turned over names of Hutu dissenters to the government (dissenters that ended up in the river along with the murdered Tutsi).

But THE EBBIL SERBS and Slubba were convenient targets to lob a few Tomahawks or ALCMs at to distract the American public, every time some woman came out of the woodwork, and claimed they gave Slick Willie a blow job.


If there were any Albanians convicted of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, then feel free to correct me. But to me, the Hague and "international law" are jokes.

9 ethnic Albanians were put on trial. 7 were acquited (1 after a retrial), 1 was transferred to the national court and 1 got 13 years for involvement of killing civiliams. Not great, but better than zero.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Power Elephant wrote:
Of course it looks to you that I'm announcing a second NDH. After all, that is exactly what Republic of Croatia was accused of being from the very beginning of its inception.

No, what I'm saying is that war is brewing, and it's quite possible that my generation will have to be the one fighting it.

The problem isn't with you saying war might be brewing, the problem people have is that you ended it with "do it properly this time". It makes it sound far more ominous/dark than just saying a new war might happen, what does properly mean?


On the ICTY as a whole and disdain for international law. Without the ICTY likely no one would have been convicted of the atrocious events that took place. Sure the ICTY had flaws and should have perhaps prosecuted more people. But is the argument really that it would have been better to let all those Serbian war criminals walk then convict a possible disproportionate amount?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

. But to me, the Hague and "international law" are jokes.

sick sad little jokes and unfortunately some nations actually take them seriously.

I don't think Ive ever heard such an extreme Realist approach that it crosses over into being unrealistic about international relations and interactions between states as a whole.

Doing it properly means dealing with internal enemies. As I have said previously, the power structures in Serbia remained the same, but this applies to Croatia as well. If Croatia wasn't run by people who never wanted it to exist in the first place all the generals would be free years ago or never put to trial.

 Power Elephant wrote:
Doing it properly means dealing with internal enemies. As I have said previously, the power structures in Serbia remained the same, but this applies to Croatia as well. If Croatia wasn't run by people who never wanted it to exist in the first place all the generals would be free years ago or never put to trial.

I get that you want a reorganization of institutions when you put it like that. But saying things like doing it properly or dealing with internal enemies has very negative connotations historically. It comes across as very dark which is what I'm saying. You don't have to mean it like that obviously, but in a text based discussion there isn't always a lot of nuance.

That still opens up the question though, would they have been convicted in Croatia if they were guilty with the 'right' people in charge? That was the very risk of Serbian war criminals able to hide in Serbia with suspected tacit support of the state. Of course thats not just limited to the Balkans, even Germany had it with certain war criminals the Netherlands for example wanted extradited. Most states tend to be hypocritical/turn a blind eye to their wrongdoings, no country is innocent in that, not even the country hosting the Hague Trials.

Vaktathi wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Haag trials were never more than show trials. A huge amount of Serbs have been convicted, and virtually no Albanians or Bosnians. They make it seem as if the Serbs are the guilty party, while in truth atrocities were committed by all sides. And even though the Serbs were generally the strongest party in the war (pre-intervention at least) and in the position to carry out most violence, it doesn't mean that other parties are free of blame.

Saying show trial is a disservice and a massive misnomer. Yes proportionately a lot of ethnic Serbs were on trial, yet "a huge amount" is a major overstatement as there were less than 200 cases. Less than a 100 were Serbian, by no means huge, when taking into account most of these Serbs were not Serb Serbs even but Serbs from the other countries. People convicted for very real crimes. Sure, more people should have been put on trial, but that by no means makes the ICTY a 'show trial'.

Serbs are Serbs, even if they have been forced to live in another country. And I do not dispute the justness of the convictions. The Serbs that were convicted were war criminals alright. The problem is that it was almost only Serbs that were convicted, while war criminals from other parties in the conflict have never been convicted, even if there was plenty of evidence for their numerous crimes. It makes the ICTY almost come across like a modern version of the Nuremberg trials, where the victorious Western allies punish the defeated evil Serbs.

I have to agree with Iron Captain here.


Case in point: 0 convictions or trials for Kosovo Albanians of the narco-terrorist KLA that committed atrocities (murder and rape) against ethnic Serbs in Kosovo, while KFOR and the UN did nothing. We're just lucky it didn't turn into Rawanda 2.0 (another atrocity that the UN, despite having people on the ground (including armed peace keepers), turned a blind eye to it). In that instance, the UN was also partially complicit, since they turned over names of Hutu dissenters to the government (dissenters that ended up in the river along with the murdered Tutsi).

But THE EBBIL SERBS and Slubba were convenient targets to lob a few Tomahawks or ALCMs at to distract the American public, every time some woman came out of the woodwork, and claimed they gave Slick Willie a blow job.


If there were any Albanians convicted of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, then feel free to correct me. But to me, the Hague and "international law" are jokes.

Haradin Bala

LordofHats wrote:
Lahi Brahimaj was also convicted, but acquitted in a retrial four years later.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
9 ethnic Albanians were put on trial. 7 were acquited (1 after a retrial), 1 was transferred to the national court and 1 got 13 years for involvement of killing civiliams. Not great, but better than zero.

I stand corrected. But to be fair, that's still a pretty piss-poor showing. And compared to the anti-Serb propaganda spewed by Western media,NATO, the UN, and Western governments, there wasn't much coverage of the trials of Croats and Bosnians, and even less coverage of atrocities committed against Serbs by other combatants.

I guess that by the time the Albanians were dragged into court, the whole mess was no longer newsworthy for circulation/ratings hungry media organs. But when things were still hot, and the Western media was anything to go by, the Albanians in Kosovo were freedom-loving resistance fighters (rather than the Albanian-backed, drug-running terrorists that they were) and the ethnic Serbs were genocidal devils on par with the Antichrist (and backed by those dastardly Rooskies).

I still stand by my assertion that both the concept of "international law" and the Hague are jokes.

Srebrenica as the worst war crime since WW2 really focused media attention on a few key Serbian players. If Praljak hadn't killed himself barely anyone would have noted the verdict of that day. The ICTY could have been conducted better and more extensively, but what it did was still important. War criminals who otherwise might have never been punished were punished.

You might consider international law a joke, but even the US still abides and even champions most of international law. International law is even one of the more important features of US soft/normative power and even perceived as such by certain countries such as China. It has incredible value even if there is no real enforcement mechanism beyond what the international community enforces together.

Power Elephant wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Power Elephant wrote:
"Yugoslavian civil war". This phrase sums up the manipulations performed by that court pretty well. There was no such thing as a "Yugoslavian civil war", and yet everyone seems to buy into the lie that there was. The Republic of Croatia, legaly and constitutionaly, proclaimed its independence, and was subsequently attacked by another nation. But no one knows that anymore. To everyone it's just an insurgence of a people in a dying state, rather than a glorious culmination of a thousand years worth of dreams of freedom. Today, we have confirmation that justice hasn't been enacted, and by extension, the war isn't over. It seems that soon we, within my lifetime, we will have to finish it. Guess we'll just have to do it properly this time.

Are you announcing a second fascist NDH? Looks to me you're announcing a second fascist NDH.

Of course it looks to you that I'm announcing a second NDH. After all, that is exactly what Republic of Croatia was accused of being from the very beginning of its inception.

No, what I'm saying is that war is brewing, and it's quite possible that my generation will have to be the one fighting it.

 Power Elephant wrote:
Doing it properly means dealing with internal enemies.

Given what you're saying, the second fascist NDH seems like a completely appropriate question. 'dealing with internal enemies, 'doing it properly' are all big warning signs of an extreme and fascist ideology.

You say your generation will 'have to' be the ones fighting it. Why 'have to'?
Does your generation even want to? What would they get out of it?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

. But to me, the Hague and "international law" are jokes.

sick sad little jokes and unfortunately some nations actually take them seriously.

I don't think Ive ever heard such an extreme Realist approach that it crosses over into being unrealistic about international relations and interactions between states as a whole.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

. But to me, the Hague and "international law" are jokes.

sick sad little jokes and unfortunately some nations actually take them seriously.

I don't think Ive ever heard such an extreme Realist approach that it crosses over into being unrealistic about international relations and interactions between states as a whole.

No major world power has been brought before these courts, and none ever will. They exist to interfere in the affairs of smaller nations, its no surprise that African and Eastern Europe are the only countries that seem to be brought before them.

Well no, most major countries tend to shield their war criminals from prosecution in international tribunals, that's the "sick sad little" joke here.

Having seen his statements, it is quite clear that Power Elephant would be the least suitable person to move Croatia forward as a productive member of the civilised world.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Srebrenica as the worst war crime since WW2 really focused media attention on a few key Serbian players. If Praljak hadn't killed himself barely anyone would have noted the verdict of that day. The ICTY could have been conducted better and more extensively, but what it did was still important. War criminals who otherwise might have never been punished were punished.

But only if they were Serbs. Certainly, there are some Croats that were convicted, and maybe even a few Bosniaks and a few Albanians. But the proportions are ridiculously skewed. Almost all convictions are of Serbs. They let almost all non-Serbs go. And seeing as how there were plenty of atrocities committed against Serbs, that just isn't right. The ICTY is a perversion of justice.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You might consider international law a joke, but even the US still abides and even champions most of international law. International law is even one of the more important features of US soft/normative power and even perceived as such by certain countries such as China. It has incredible value even if there is no real enforcement mechanism beyond what the international community enforces together.

The US abides by international law only when it is in US interests to do so. They don't care for international law as anything more than a political tool to get what they want, and the same applies to other great powers such as Russia or China. None of them takes international law seriously.
If the US took international law seriously then there'd be Americans and other NATO members on trial as well, first of all for illegally attacking and invading another country and second for deliberately attacking civilian targets during their bombing campaign.
And not just great powers as well. The Netherlands is host to the ICTY and many other courts, but it played a key role in the Srebrenica massacre and yet no Dutchman has ever answered for it. Dutch soldiers were tasked with guarding Srebrenica, and it was Dutch soldiers who simply stood aside and watched how Serb radicals slaughtered those innocent people. Certainly, the main blame for Srebrenica falls on the Serbs who did the slaughtering. But Karremans, the commander who let them do it, should share responsibility as well. He too should have been put on trial by the ICTY.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Srebrenica as the worst war crime since WW2 really focused media attention on a few key Serbian players. If Praljak hadn't killed himself barely anyone would have noted the verdict of that day. The ICTY could have been conducted better and more extensively, but what it did was still important. War criminals who otherwise might have never been punished were punished.

But only if they were Serbs. Certainly, there are some Croats that were convicted, and maybe even a few Bosniaks and a few Albanians. But the proportions are ridiculously skewed. Almost all convictions are of Serbs. They let almost all non-Serbs go. And seeing as how there were plenty of atrocities committed against Serbs, that just isn't right. The ICTY is a perversion of justice.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
You might consider international law a joke, but even the US still abides and even champions most of international law. International law is even one of the more important features of US soft/normative power and even perceived as such by certain countries such as China. It has incredible value even if there is no real enforcement mechanism beyond what the international community enforces together.

The US abides by international law only when it is in US interests to do so. They don't care for international law as anything more than a political tool to get what they want, and the same applies to other great powers such as Russia or China. None of them takes international law seriously.
If the US took international law seriously then there'd be Americans and other NATO members on trial as well, first of all for illegally attacking and invading another country and second for deliberately attacking civilian targets during their bombing campaign.
And not just great powers as well. The Netherlands is host to the ICTY and many other courts, but it played a key role in the Srebrenica massacre and yet no Dutchman has ever answered for it. Dutch soldiers were tasked with guarding Srebrenica, and it was Dutch soldiers who simply stood aside and watched how Serb radicals slaughtered those innocent people. Certainly, the main blame for Srebrenica falls on the Serbs who did the slaughtering. But Karremans, the commander who let them do it, should share responsibility as well. He too should have been put on trial by the ICTY.

Perversion of justice is way too much of an overstatement. Yes the ICTY was lacking in taking down more war criminals. But without the ICTY these war criminals likely would never have been punished at all. The ICTY was lacking in handing out more justice, not perverting it.

Of course the US only abides when it suits them. That does not lessen the fact that the US is the major champion of international law, hypocricy aside. Also deliberatly targeting civilians? When? WW2? Vietnam? Yeah this is the problem with international law, there is no impartial enforcer as no supranational organization has the forces required. When China, the US and Russia don't self police nothing happens. But they would also face massive trials for all they have done the last decades just to ascertain the truth, realistically that will never happen unless there might be some sort of incredibly strong UN army backing up legal proceedings. One of my professors once told me: "You will know when an American is on trial in The Hague, because you would see the US Marine Corps storming the beach." Protecting your own is still the norm, which is why it was important for the ICTY to pursue for example the people that comitted the Srebrenica massacre.
The Serbrenica massacre was incredibly tragic and shameful. Personally I would like for Dutchbat to be prosecuted for their role in allowing it to happen. Sadly its a legal gray area meaning they mostly got away with letting it happen. I realize a conviction would have been incredibly hard or even impossible to get for Karremans. They certainly try and tried.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

. But to me, the Hague and "international law" are jokes.

sick sad little jokes and unfortunately some nations actually take them seriously.

I don't think Ive ever heard such an extreme Realist approach that it crosses over into being unrealistic about international relations and interactions between states as a whole.

No major world power has been brought before these courts, and none ever will. They exist to interfere in the affairs of smaller nations, its no surprise that African and Eastern Europe are the only countries that seem to be brought before them.

I'm going to Godwin the thread and mention that the International Courts at Nuremburg were used against the leaders of Nazi Germany.

It was also the first major instance of a international court using its powers against a country's leadership. You can blame the US for that, Churchill just wanted to take them out back and shoot them.

Voss wrote:

Power Elephant wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Power Elephant wrote:
"Yugoslavian civil war". This phrase sums up the manipulations performed by that court pretty well. There was no such thing as a "Yugoslavian civil war", and yet everyone seems to buy into the lie that there was. The Republic of Croatia, legaly and constitutionaly, proclaimed its independence, and was subsequently attacked by another nation. But no one knows that anymore. To everyone it's just an insurgence of a people in a dying state, rather than a glorious culmination of a thousand years worth of dreams of freedom. Today, we have confirmation that justice hasn't been enacted, and by extension, the war isn't over. It seems that soon we, within my lifetime, we will have to finish it. Guess we'll just have to do it properly this time.

Are you announcing a second fascist NDH? Looks to me you're announcing a second fascist NDH.

Of course it looks to you that I'm announcing a second NDH. After all, that is exactly what Republic of Croatia was accused of being from the very beginning of its inception.

No, what I'm saying is that war is brewing, and it's quite possible that my generation will have to be the one fighting it.

 Power Elephant wrote:
Doing it properly means dealing with internal enemies.

Given what you're saying, the second fascist NDH seems like a completely appropriate question. 'dealing with internal enemies, 'doing it properly' are all big warning signs of an extreme and fascist ideology.

You say your generation will 'have to' be the ones fighting it. Why 'have to'?
Does your generation even want to? What would they get out of it?

If saying "dealing with internal enemies" is a sign of fachism then the deffinition of fachism must have changed dramaticaly. It simply means lustration - preventing former comunist structures and their children from running for office. That's it.

If you had read my previous posts you would have known that when I said that my generation might have to fight in a war it means that Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina are being denied their constitutional rights as we speak, and with this verdict mass exodus seems like an almost inevitable reality. This could easily lead to a war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Having seen his statements, it is quite clear that Power Elephant would be the least suitable person to move Croatia forward as a productive member of the civilised world.

Despite the fact that I dissagree with pretty much everyone here I have not made any personal attacks. Please show the same courtesy.

Looking at english language news sources from both Croatia and Bosnia, there doesnt appear to be any particularly huge unrest about this, at least as yet. Fears of another conflict appear to be overblown for now. Croats probably arent going to be driven from their homes or punished or whatnot, especially as the Bosniaks still need them as a counterweight against the Serbs within Bosnian internal politics.

As for the issues with Serbs being the most represented at the trials, well, they're the ones who ended up fighting almost everyone. When you fight the largest number of groups for the longest time periods, you're probably going to have the most issues by simply through volume. The Bosniaks were not fighting in Vukovar, the Croats were not fighting in Kosovo, the Kosovar Albanians were not at the siege of Sarajevo. The Serbs were present for all of them. The more wars you end up fighting, the more war crimes are going to pop up. Lets also not beat around the bush, while all sides engaged in terrible acts of ethnic cleansing, looking at the independent estimates I can find, the Serb factions appear to have been the most "productive" in that regard, displacing the largest number of people and destroying the largest number of religious structures, particularly in Bosnia. That doesnt mean their adversaries were necessarily any better, just not as capable. Given these issues, it shouldn't be surprising that Serbs are the largest group represented.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Looking at english language news sources from both Croatia and Bosnia, there doesnt appear to be any particularly huge unrest about this, at least as yet. Fears of another conflict appear to be overblown for now. Croats probably arent going to be driven from their homes or punished or whatnot, especially as the Bosniaks still need them as a counterweight against the Serbs within Bosnian internal politics.

As for the issues with Serbs being the most represented at the trials, well, they're the ones who ended up fighting almost everyone. When you fight the largest number of groups for the longest time periods, you're probably going to have the most issues by simply through volume. The Bosniaks were not fighting in Vukovar, the Croats were not fighting in Kosovo, the Kosovar Albanians were not at the siege of Sarajevo. The Serbs were present for all of them. The more wars you end up fighting, the more war crimes are going to pop up. Lets also not beat around the bush, while all sides engaged in terrible acts of ethnic cleansing, looking at the independent estimates I can find, the Serb factions appear to have been the most "productive" in that regard, displacing the largest number of people and destroying the largest number of religious structures, particularly in Bosnia. That doesnt mean their adversaries were necessarily any better, just not as capable. Given these issues, it shouldn't be surprising that Serbs are the largest group represented.

Yes, that shouldn't be surprising at all. They were the biggest groups and committed the most violence. But even taking that into account, Serbs are still overrepresented on trials. Or rather, the problem is not that Serbs are overrepresented but rather that most other groups are underrepresented. The ICTY only seems interested in sentencing Serbs, and Croats to a lesser extent. It is quite telling that there is only one more Albanian (2) convicted than Macedonians (1) were convicted, and the Macedonians were barely involved in the whole war while the Albanians played one of the main roles.
Reading the list of ICTY convictions it goes like:
Serb
Serb
Serb
Serb
Croat
Serb
Serb
Serb
Croat
Serb
Serb
Croat
Serb
Serb
Serb
Serb
Where are all the Bosniaks and Albanians? These groups played very active roles in the war and there is plenty of cases where Bosniak and Albanian militias and leaders committed atrocities and ethnic cleansing. Yet no convictions. This is not fair, impartial justice, this is a farce.

Its not a farce. Saying its a farce is the equivalent of a murderer defending himself in court by saying "well this guy didn't get caught, this whole trial isn't fair, why just me." It is fair, just because some people weren't punished doesn't mean the ones that were didn't deserve it. The ICTY is the best thing we got realistically, that it was flawed doesn't lessen any of the justice the ICTY dealt out. Yeah it sucks a good amount of people managed to walk away from justice, but at least not all of them did for once.

Power Elephant wrote:If you had read my previous posts you would have known that when I said that my generation might have to fight in a war it means that Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina are being denied their constitutional rights as we speak, and with this verdict mass exodus seems like an almost inevitable reality. This could easily lead to a war.

Ah. I didn't get that from your previous posts at all.

If saying "dealing with internal enemies" is a sign of fachism then the deffinition of fachism must have changed dramaticaly. It simply means lustration - preventing former comunist structures and their children from running for office. That's it.

Then you should have said that, instead. Re-fighting a war 'properly' doesn't suggest a legal process regarding former communist structures.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its not a farce. Saying its a farce is the equivalent of a murderer defending himself in court by saying "well this guy didn't get caught, this whole trial isn't fair, why just me." It is fair, just because some people weren't punished doesn't mean the ones that were didn't deserve it. The ICTY is the best thing we got realistically, that it was flawed doesn't lessen any of the justice the ICTY dealt out. Yeah it sucks a good amount of people managed to walk away from justice, but at least not all of them did for once.

You can't compare a simple trial for murder in a common local court to an international war tribunal. There is completely different dynamics at play. In a war there are multiple sides, and if you are going to pass judgement for war crimes you should pass judgement on all those sides, and not just single out one or two.
The whole ICTY was a massive mistake, and an example of Western imperialism in its finest form. After the war ended, they should have let the whole thing rest. The ICTY has only served to re-ignite tensions and create new grievances in the region that might lead to trouble again in the future.
I really hope all this doesn't lead to an increase in tensions. The last thing I want is tensions and conflict in Croatia. I really like that country. I am going back to Split this summer and I'd hate it if my trip got ruined by such a stupid thing as war. I had that happen in Crimea already :(

I think much of that may be a matter of evidence too. It's one thing to try a general from an established state force and find official orders and communiques that support the prosecution, especially those who were trying to make names for themselves, many were quite showey with their activities (good and bad). Often detailed records of where they were and when, what information they received and what orders they gave are available. It's another when it's a milita group where no records were kept and half the members are dead and the rest aren't talking. The Serbs, especially through the Yugoslav army and Republika Srpska, and the Croats, operated large conventional forces with lots of record keeping. Bosniak and Kosovar Albanian forces were often much more irregular and/or less organized and capable, leaving less evidence.

That was one of the beautiful things about Nuremburg, the Nazi government had kept meticulous records of their activities, and thus there was ample evidence to bring to bear. It was much harder to bring charges against those outside the Nazi state in many instances because they didn't leave the papertrail.

Is there bias against Serbs? Possibly, but given the above realities, the way makeup of trials doesn't terribly surprise me. I'm also not sure where a specifically anti-Serb bias would come from, at least from a US/Western Europe perspective, that wouldn't apply equally or moreso against other groups in the region.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its not a farce. Saying its a farce is the equivalent of a murderer defending himself in court by saying "well this guy didn't get caught, this whole trial isn't fair, why just me." It is fair, just because some people weren't punished doesn't mean the ones that were didn't deserve it. The ICTY is the best thing we got realistically, that it was flawed doesn't lessen any of the justice the ICTY dealt out. Yeah it sucks a good amount of people managed to walk away from justice, but at least not all of them did for once.

You can't compare a simple trial for murder in a common local court to an international war tribunal. There is completely different dynamics at play. In a war there are multiple sides, and if you are going to pass judgement for war crimes you should pass judgement on all those sides, and not just single out one or two.
The whole ICTY was a massive mistake, and an example of Western imperialism in its finest form. After the war ended, they should have let the whole thing rest. The ICTY has only served to re-ignite tensions and create new grievances in the region that might lead to trouble again in the future.
I really hope all this doesn't lead to an increase in tensions. The last thing I want is tensions and conflict in Croatia. I really like that country. I am going back to Split this summer and I'd hate it if my trip got ruined by such a stupid thing as war. I had that happen in Crimea already :(

Both are basically murder trials, falling under different sets of laws, but the basis is the same. One is the state and the other is the supranational UN, both putting murderers on trial based on laws at their level. Just because the number is disproportionate or some walk away doesn't mean that these trials shouldn't be held. The ICTY tried to pass judgement on as many as they could. You're argument boils down to if you can't get them all, let them all walk. Why? Shouldn't you put those on trial that you can get your hands on? Just to avoid being called 'biased'? Look at how this thread started, the ICTY would never avoid being seen as biased.

Western imperialism at its finest? Hardly. Would it have been Western imperialism at its finest if the ICTY was based in Russia and they were sent there? The result would have been the same seeing as how the ICTY picked judges, plenty of them weren't Western to avoid being seen as a Western trial. The argument that they should have just let the whole thing rest is just out there. Should they have let the Nazis walk? So as not to provoke anything? This isn't going to lead to new conflict, these people were already convicted before and nothing broke out. Whenever it is possible, you should never let guilty people just walk. Nothing will have meaning anymore if laws are just ignored and not enforced as often as possible. The collapse of international law is a valid concern considering the possible consequences, far graver than a possible war just because of a lost appeal hearing.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

. But to me, the Hague and "international law" are jokes.

sick sad little jokes and unfortunately some nations actually take them seriously.

I don't think Ive ever heard such an extreme Realist approach that it crosses over into being unrealistic about international relations and interactions between states as a whole.

No major world power has been brought before these courts, and none ever will. They exist to interfere in the affairs of smaller nations, its no surprise that African and Eastern Europe are the only countries that seem to be brought before them.

I'm going to Godwin the thread and mention that the International Courts at Nuremburg were used against the leaders of Nazi Germany.

It was also the first major instance of a international court using its powers against a country's leadership. You can blame the US for that, Churchill just wanted to take them out back and shoot them.

Still no excuse for it being a kangaroo court, nazis or no nazis. If I remember correctly, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court at the time criticized Nuremburg for lacking due process of law and a travesty of jurisprudence. With the light treatment that Italy and Imperial Japan got post-war, such criticisms are perfectly valid. ESPECIALLY Japan.

So what would be your better solution?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So what would be your better solution?

I have no solution. And in my view, there is none, as long as there are interests other than punishing war criminals involved.

 Power Elephant wrote:

If saying "dealing with internal enemies" is a sign of fachism then the deffinition of fachism must have changed dramaticaly. It simply means lustration - preventing former comunist structures and their children from running for office. That's it.

Delusions about communist mafia still running the country are definitely a staple of extreme right-wing rhetoric in all former communist countries.

By extreme right wing rethoric you mean right wing which I proclaim to be extreme because I dissagree with them. Lustration never happened in Croatia. Why is it so hard to belive that powerhungry criminals decided not to give up their power? You don't even have to dig deep into this, just look at the fathers of the ruling elite and you will see many high ranking communists.

 Power Elephant wrote:
By extreme right wing rethoric you mean right wing which I proclaim to be extreme because I dissagree with them. Lustration never happened in Croatia. Why is it so hard to belive that powerhungry criminals decided not to give up their power? You don't even have to dig deep into this, just look at the fathers of the ruling elite and you will see many high ranking communists.

Sure, that is kinda obvious is it not? In the time of their fathers Croatia was a communist country after all, so the only way of getting a job in government was to be a 'communist'. This is the same in Russia and Ukraine and in every former communist country. I don't see the problem here. The fact that your father was a member of the communist party (again, this was required to get ahead in society) doesn't automatically make you a power-hungry criminal. I don't know all that much about Croatian politics, but they can't be that different from other post-communist countries.

Besides, lustration was never really done to a large degree in any country. If you are transitioning from a communist to a non-communist system, you do want to keep all the formerly communist government officials around, because you need them to make the transition a peaceful one and you also need them to properly run the country after the transition because they are at that point the only people with the experience and skills needed to run the country. The only other way is revolution and purges, but that never ends well. Just look at what happened to the mess that is called Ukraine.