Replies

Hmm you have a point. If they can bring and indictment against Izetbegovic then I see no problem in bringing him before the Hague court. And if they can link him with the mujahadeen fighters, or even with Naser Oric and his forces, then there is nothing to argue about. Anyone responsible for war crimes should be held responsible.

And you can't say that the Hague court isn't doing their job. After all they have brought people of various nationalities before the court. You see it as a banana court, a media circus, I may not see it that way. Which doesn't mean that your criticism and objections aren't justified, but without this kind of court, there would be many people free with lot's of blood on their hands. Some still are. And don't say that they would be helf responsible at home, cause in many cases they clearly wouldn't be. The Croat generals that were eventually brought to Hague (with a lot of opposition in Croatia) would probably never be before a court, had there not been Hague and demands by the west towards Croatia to extradite them. Just as in Serbia. At least that's how I see it.

It's quite simple. I suspect that you, like myself, would rather be tried in our own 'soverign' courts that at the Hauge. It does a job, but it is politically motivated and influenced by outside forces. The Western governments turn the evidence tap on and off at will. If you know anything about the acquis communautaire that your state and others wishing to join the European Union is about, one of the most fundamental parts is 'independence of the judiciary'. Under these standards, the Hague and it's methods wouldn't stand a chance.

Impartial and fair justice has to be seen to be done (not just told), which is not the case with the Hauge - if it were, then the nationalist of all those communities would have a much lower level of support. The fact that the Hauge does nothing to counter this and mirrors the colonial administration approach that is taken by persons such as Wolfgang Petritsch which means that it will never be accepted as impartial (and that's without even mentioning who payed/s, supplies, researches the whole Hauge thing). If the major powers refuse to accept a World Court, then why should any of the parties believe the treatises that the Hauge is impartial? Looks like a question of who yields the biggest stick, no?

VRN

Dude,

awesome, line of thinking re: Nasir Oric-Iztbegovic chain of command.......

Then you would also agree that Kfor commanders bear a measure of responsibility for the four fold increase in murder rate since they took control ?