Talk:International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

older talk

[206.124.129.30]: I found the listed criticisms and other additions to reflect a Serbo-centric viewpoint. Accordingly, I added counter-arguments and expounded on some points. However, I cannot say in all fairness that my own viewpoint is neutral on this matter, so the reader is advised that while differing viewpoints are represented, neither is objective. Further reading is advised.

I believe that this edit is pushing a POV. Does anyone care to comment?

Acegikmo1 18:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well ok it is a bit biased - personally I consider the opening line that it is a "body of the UN" when it is specifically not set up per the UN Charter a bit dodgy. "body of the Security Council but not of the UN General Assembly" is clumsy but accurate - I also think the fact it is funded by NATO members, while mentioned in Shea's quote, is sufficiently important as to whether it is independent of Nato or simply (as I believe) their corrupt propaganda arm to warrent mention in the main body. On the other hand the editor has admitted his bias which is half way & more importantly has put up most of the anti-nazi case.

Compare this with the Tudjman biography page which is taken verbatim from the Croatian nazi government & all edits are verbotten or Srebrenica where, while their is a "Revisionist" section only Natoists are allowed to write it.

New appeal for a npov check

So, how about a new check? --ThomasK 10:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

This page is one third simple description. Then 2/3rds critisizing it. There is no attempt to ballence this with a description of it's achievemnts. Editing is just going to give the bias a false veneer of neutrality. Dejvid 15:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the below section. Dejvid is correct that the article deals too much with criticism and the below potion is quite POV. The passage, attributed to unnamed critics, also seems like original research. - SimonP 06:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

"An apparently disproportionately large number of indictees are Serbs" - well, disproportionately large number of indictees in Nuremberg were Germans, no? I thought about correcting some of the worst bias, but then, we could do this forever. Why not just put that "neutrality of this article is disputed" sign and let readers think for themselves (including reading this talk page)? I am new here - how do pages acquire "neutrality disputed" banner? -- bonzi 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No. All indictees in Nuremberg were Germans, because it was a court created to judge German leaders. Such a sentence would not be necessary if ICTY was created to judge only Serbian leaders. But it supposedly was not.

You add the banner by inserting {{NPOV}} at the top of the page. You are also expected to describe what you see as not neutral on the talk page, else someone will likely remove it. If your description is sound, no one is supposed to remove it (though there are people who are doing that), until the page is made NPOV, or at least the discussion shows that you are wrong. It is nice if same person who put the tag in removes it after the article is changed, because that shows that you agree with the changes. Nikola 08:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikola. I will think it over and not do anything hastily. It's just that this "disproportionally large number of Serbs" really gets on my nerves (and it reflects some western diplomats' - in particular British - now abandoned calls for "more balanced approach", meaning, for each Serb atrocity invent some from other two sides; of course, the idea was to hide the fact they could have prevented or stopped the carnage at the very beginning, by just not encouraging Milošević). --bonzi 23:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Just don't think that I agree with anything you said. Nikola 05:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you would :) --bonzi 23:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Trudjman

I think that Franjo Tuđman should be added. The fact that he is dead does not change the fact that he would now sit in Hague. HolyRomanEmperor 17:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only Tudjman, BUT THE WHOLE NAZI-HDZ CROATIAN GOVERNMENT from 1995, responsible for the actions 'Storm' and similar, when many innocent people were killed; They should be all added. An indication that this will happen has been set up a while ago. Hopefully they will add all those monsters to the Haag Criminal Tribunal and they will be judged for what they've done. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If he was indicted he should be on the list. If not, we should not try to guess at "what might have been". Rmhermen 23:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a statement that he was under investigation and would possibly be indicted had he lived. I agree he should not be added. Nikola 07:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not mention (with citations) that he was being considered for an indictment, and just leave it at that? It's factual, without venturing into speculation. Wandering Star 05:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to mention people that might have been indicted I suggest you should ad a few more. Del Ponte said on numerous occasions that Izetbegovic might have been indicted as well if he had not died. Moreover the probably biggest war criminals in the whole Yugoslav Wars, Blagoje Adzic and Veljko Kadijevic might have been indicted if Louise Arbour had staid the chief prosecutor. While she was in charge large investigations have been made against these two and others but thanks to del Ponte, these investigations have been cancelled. So if Arbour was chief prosecutor these two might have been indicted as well. Also one or two years ago I have read an interview with del Ponte where she was asked why there have been no investigations against some UN officials like Yasushi Akashi and general Janvier although many Muslims consider them responsible for the massacre in Srebrenica. Her answer was that they considered this but could not start investigations because of time restrictions. This means that Akashi might have also been indicted if they had more time. Finally, when the defence teams of the generals Markac and Cermak asked the prosecution, who exactly according to the prosecution was part of the supposed “joint criminal venture” during operation Oluja the answer included a list of about 6000 people. This means that actually any police man, soldier, general or politician from that period might have been indicted. In fact it seems like pure coincidence that for instance Mladen Markac was indicted while others were not.

Milosevic

Milosevic is dead. The good news is that the whole "Greater Serbia" movement may be dying too. The bad news is, he died before he recieved any sentence from The Hague. This trial was fairly unique. It's one of the first of it's kind since the Nuremberg trials. However, the Nuremberg trials reached a decisive conclusion, which in turn allowed the healing process to begin, and established the legal authority of a court like the ICC. This trial did not. Europe's lodestone has always been, and always will be, it's inability to unite over much of anything. Here was the opportunity for the ICC to justify it's existence by bringing a war criminal to justice. The ICC instead became weighed down with beuracracy and indecision, to the point where it could not frunction well enough to reach a verdict of either innocence or guilt before the defendant died in his cell. Maybe the judges thought this would relieve them of the burden of having to say something controversial, which either verdict would have been. But it just makes the Court look spineless and weak, unable to take a stand. Their inability to reach a consensus within the time needed shows the inefficiency of this court, and displays for all the world to see it's fatal flaw. War criminals need not fear the ICC. Milosevic got away with it. The signal sent out by his death is that all the other war criminals probably will, too. Wandering Star 05:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this is old, but ICTY =/= ICC

List

The list of indictees currently contains 86 of the 161 indictees. I would like to expand it to a complete listing but wonder if it shouldn't be moved onto its own page. Any opinions? Rmhermen 15:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The list now contains 147 names - the same number as on the drop down list at ICTY Indictments. Are the rest, some 14, still under sealed indictments? Rmhermen 15:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the rest either had their indicments withdrawn or died. There should only be 2 or 3 still missing from the list. Rmhermen 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I found one more name and recounted - I think the list is complete now. Rmhermen 16:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was Bold and moved the list to List of ICTY indictees. Rmhermen 16:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Length of Trial

What a farce this court is. How long has it been since these crimes were committed? 10 years, 12 years and longer. The UN isn't interested in Justice. Only in spending the money of the American people. I say someone create an article about the ridiculousness of the length of the trial. Execute the offenders and be done with it. What a farce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.219.241.10 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

You don't have any idea what a monumental task they are up for, are you? The number of witnesses that needs to be heard, the enormous amount of evidence that has to be gone through...they are taking the law seriously, at least compared to the mock Iraqi court that had Saddam and the two other hanged before the full range of accusations had been dealt with. MoRsE 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral presentation

There are a number of conclusory statements and value judgments in this article. Some of them may be accurate, but the presentation does not allow the reader to verify or dispute the concepts. As such, the neutrality of this article is suspect.

Examples:

Calling the tribunal "The Victor's Tribunal for the Losers of the Yugoslavian War". Using Google, I couldn't find one page referring to the tribunal with this name.

I can't find the phrase in the article. Nikola

"In 2004, the ICTY published a list of five successes which it claimed it had accomplished:" The statement implies that the successes were not accomplished but does not provide any reason why the reader should think the success were not accomplished.

In one sentence, you say that it is not obvious why the reader should think the successes were not accomplished; in another, that section on criticism is too large. Perhaps the two things have something to do with each other ;) Nikola

"An apparently disproportionately large number (~3/4) of indictees are Serbs." Disproportionate is a conclusion. The truth may be that the number is disproportionate, but the article does not make clear how it is disproportionate. Is it disproportionate to the population in the former Yugoslavia, to the number of deaths, to the number of complaints, or to some other number?

It's disproportionate to all of them. Nikola

"Serbian indictees are of higher rank than those of other nations and face with broader accusations" This is in the criticism section of the article, so the statement is meant as a criticism. Unfortunately, it is not clear why this is a problem.

I don't understand why it isn't clear. Nikola

"However, this fails to explain why a number of specific crimes committed against Serbs are not prosecuted." Which "specific" crimes? The article claims that there are specific crimes that have gone unprosecuted but does not provide any more information. Again, this statement may be 100% correct, but the reader has no way to verify the assertion.

Any of them? Nikola

"The Tribunal's power to issue secret indictments creates uncertainty among people who regard themselves as possible indictees, which places an unreasonable strain on their ability to proceed with their everyday lives, both in the short and long term." The word unreasonable is a value judgment. It seems obvious that the possibility of a secret indictment could be a strain on some people. But, to call it an "unreasonable" strain is to make a value judgment about the reasonableness or necessity of the secret indictments. This statement is in the criticisms section of the article (good), but it doesn't have enough information to allow the reader to agree or disagree with the value judgment (bad).

I agree, "unreasonable" could be removed. Nikola 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is only a partial list of problems. In fact, if these were the only problems, then I would have simply edited the article. Finally, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the article is in the section titled "Criticisms of the Court" should make us suspect that there is a neutrality problem here.

67.39.184.122 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that Criticism section is very long, but note that it does not contains only criticism. For example:

An apparently disproportionately large number (~3/4) of indictees are Serbs (to the extent that a sizeable portion of the Bosnian Serb and Serbian political and military leaderships have been indicted), whereas there have been very few indictments resulting from crimes committed against Serbs (many Croat indictees were charged with crimes committed against Bosnian Muslims); furthermore, Serbian indictees are of higher rank than those of other nations and face with broader accusations. Defenders of the Tribunal respond that Serb control of the established command structure (and most of the weaponry) of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) from the start of the various wars facilitated the commission of crimes on a wider and more organised scale; furthermore, the Serb command structure facilitated the identification of those with command responsibility for war crimes. However, this fails to explain why a number of specific crimes committed against Serbs are not prosecuted.

If a single sentence about any of the important points on which ICTY is criticised and a single sentence to refute it is added to the section, well, it grows to be large. Note also that there are many criticisms which are not in the section: for example, accusations of staff being selected on political basis, accusations of the using fake witnesses, criticism of its use of common law system, of the practice plea bargain, of making its own rules of procedure, mistreatment of specific indictees (Seselj)... Nikola 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also conspicuously absent from the "criticism" section are serious allegations by Western scholars that the Tribunal's proceedings bear little resemblance to those of criminal courts in most democratic societies. The accused do not have the right to a trial by jury. There is no clear demarcation between prosecution and judges. The judges and prosecutors are overwhelmingly from NATO countries (enemies of the Serbs). In effect the accused are being tried by a panel of political appointees rather than a jury of their peers. The accused have limited ability to subpoena witnesses. Hearsay evidence is admissible, denying the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses. The prosecution has the right to appeal acquittals, denying the freedom from double jeopardy. Indictments are issued in secret, and the accused is not entitled to an indictment hearing, meaning habeas corpus is also effectively denied. Apart from all that is the fact the Del Ponte refused to indict NATO leaders in the face of clear evidence of serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions during the 1999 NATO bomings. Justice that is not applied evenly is not justice. It is something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trac63 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

About an item on “Criticism” section

*In the political analysts milieu one can frequently encounter the following thesis: court verdicts do not succeed in writing history. Historians have observed that trials like the Nuremberg trials or the Tokyo processes did not affect German and Japanese populaces, respectively, in the wished-for way: they resulted in national homogenization and helped form a uniform, self-defensive opinion which treated these judicial processes as show trials or a weapon of revenge wielded by occupying forces. Only after more than two decades and the onset of economic prosperity did German general public come to agree with the many-but not all- points encountered in the Nuremberg trials indicements; on the other hand, frequent Sino-Japanese and Korean-Japanese diplomatic clashes about the veracity of Japanese history textbooks testify that Japanese public opinion have not, generally, accepted the interpretation of the WW2 history prevalent in the US, the EU and the neighboring countries, most importantly Korea and China. Criticism along these lines has been voiced with regard to the ICTY. The involved nations' public opinions, particularly those of Serbs and Croats, as well as of their dominant intellectual elites (especially with regard to historiography, political, economic and sociological analyses; also, political journalism, geopolitical analyses and military history), do not seem to be willing to accept or agree with the theses of the Hague court that, in their respective views, pretend to pass the final verdict on the turbulent periods of their national histories. Overviews of Croatian and Serbian history books and best-selling political journalism, as well as opinion polls, show the predictable course of events has occurred: peoples, as a rule, do not accept other's assessment of their national histories, especially if these evaluations are seen as being predominantly politically motivated. Since the majority of Serbs and Croats, a minority of Bosnians and Albanians, and a sizeable part of international community legal experts consider the ICTY to be a political court and the puppet of Anglo-American geopolitical interests- the possibility that the ICTY's verdicts will be, in a foreseeable future, regarded as impartial by the recently warring sides it has been founded to deal with is- virtually nil.

Welll, I think this entire item is unencyclopedic, uninformative and more a point-of-view statement than anything else. So I’ve decide it was better to remove it since it’s not necessary for the understanting of the article.--MaGioZal 07:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing it is a little sinister, since criticizms do exist and there are alternate views towards the entity. Leaving them out can cause people to think that it is 100% accepted as high and mighty. I don't know any Croats who appreciate the presence of Gotovina or other Croats even though I am the first to accept, yes we did comit some war crimes to establish a full independent Croatia!!! Can't be done any other way! But I feel that the "Criticizm" section should not be expanded any more, there is more than enough lead for people to read into themselves and to be honest, you can flood the whole page with criticizm and examples. The point now is clearly made, people will make up their own mind. Balkantropolis (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Any info on whether the Serb government tried to justify or defend themselves using the loophole in international law regarding ethnic cleansing?

Timothy V. Waters, On the Legal Construction of Ethnic Cleansing, Paper 951, 2006, University of Mississippi School of Law.

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation template for ICTY documents?

Does a citation template for documents of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia already exist somewhere? If so, can someone advise me where to find it? If not, would an editor who is knowledgeable in these things be willing to create one or assist me in creating one? The most-referenced articles should be indictments and decisions, but some may want to use transcripts and other documents as well. The ICTY web site might be helpful in this endeavor. I have asked this same question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law with no response so far, so I thought I'd try here as well. Many thanks in advance for any help. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs

Why there is no judge from CIS countries?

Why there is no judge from CIS countries?--79.111.157.171 (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That might make it more fair for the Serbs.Mike Babic (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a better answer: excluding Ukraine, there are no democratic countries in the CIS.--201.52.82.242 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

While I don't know the answer to the question, I don't think that responses like these are useful to help build a better article. Have no CIS judges been nominated, none approved or have those countries specifically refused to participate? Rmhermen (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, 'democracy' is the new 'fascism'. No CIS judges because it is a NATO tribunal and the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.245.59 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We now have a CIS Judge - Judge Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, from Russia. I think he was appointed to the ICTY in the summer of 2012 after serving on the ICTR - it has become a pattern that when a Judge's term of service at the ICTR expires, they move on to the ICTY - perhaps it might happen vice versa?

Anyway, Judge Tuzmukhamedov is already sitting on an ICTY Appeals case - that of Nikola Sainvoic et al (IT-05-87-A)

Here's a link to his biography:

http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/Chambers/judges_bios_en/pj_tuzmukhamedov_bio_en.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Historian (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ethical Issues

It is utterly deplorable to even allow this garbage into article. Just because Serbs committed vast majority of crimes, there is no ethical issues to put majority of their indictees on trial. This article has been hijacked by Serb editors and their sympathisers (so called "sources" and "commentators") who want to taint the credibility of the International Criminal Tribunal. I removed that section and then you returned it into article. What a shame.24.82.174.79 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

24.82.174.79 - you removed the section without stating why. What "sources" are you complaining about? The section needs sources, thats true. Bring some of your own to strengthen the article - its needed from both sides. Look at my home page before accusing. Dinkytown (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To put assorted statements under the “ethical issues” topic without putting some reliable source is simply baseless opinion-writing and POV-pushing.--BalkanWalker (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't. I may have had something to do with the introduction of that part as I recall. At the time, the section was bulky with a mixture of different responses. I then found a way of separating them, it seemed that some of the criticism was on practical grounds (such as costs, inconveniences) and others were on ethical grounds (as in fact the web is full of sites and observations that question the ethics of the project). That said, I was not the author of the remarks themselves although I did add to them or rephrase them so as to clean them up somewhat. Just to clarify to the editor who began this section, I am not a Serb hijacker, nor a Serb, nor a sympathiser, nor an apologist for them. I accept however that they were involved in a number of running battles and that they did take part in a great many atrocities. All of the wars contained atrocities committed by all belligerents against every other population caught up in the respective regions. I admit I failed to obtain a number of sources for the points I was corroberating so I will gather them together should I ever restore any of the former statements. That is all. As for the remainder of the comment by the IP in July 2009, the "credibility" cannot be more tainted than it already is, you can find enough negative material published from every corner of the globe in every language encountered on the search engines to last a lifetime. There is nothing remotely universally "credible" about the ICTY. In the main area of focus, attitudes towards it are mixed. Serbs and Croats are largely opposed to it, whilst Kosovar Albanians and Bosniaks appear to have mixed feelings, they love seeing persons tried where their populations were victims but change their tune on the court's activities when members of the KLA or pre-1995 ARBiH are in the spotlight. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ICTY protecting war criminals

[1] 89.216.196.129 (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

RM

this article is missing a section on the notorious case of judge Richard May who served for several years with a brain tumor and was clearly unfit to work, and who acted frantic and at times delusional during session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.192.44 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, now I understand that. I watched a video of him passing sentence in the case of the Prosecutor v Plavsic - most of the time during that sentencing, he did look like he didn't have much of a clue as to what was happening in the Courtroom! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Number of judges 11 or 15+?

OK, so I noticed UN Security Council Resolution 827 did "adopt the Statute of the International Tribunal annexed to the above-mentioned report". So I managed to track down that report, Report S/25704 of the UN Secretary-General, and upload it to the Commons. Going over the document I am finding the overall organization of the court, such as the prosecutor elected by the Security Council and the judges selected by the Security Council etc. (totally fair no doubt), but a few questions arise: Article 13(2)(d) says the UN General Assembly (UNGA) elects "the eleven judges of the International Tribunal" from the Security Council's list of 22 to 33, but the current Wikipedia list has more than 11 (15+) on this list. Why? Says who? Int21h (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I work for the ICTY. I hope my answer below is helpful. Article 13(2)(d) of the ICTY Statute was amended by Security Council Resolution 1116 on 13 May 1998 (S/RES/1166 (1998)). This Resolution established a third Trial Chamber of the ICTY in order to ‘try without delay the large number of accused awaiting trial’. The Resolution sets out that ‘three additional judges shall be elected as soon as possible to serve in the additional Trial Chamber’. This takes the total of permanent judges from 11 to 14. In addition to these 14 judges, Article 14 (4) of the ICTY Statute sets out that two of the permanent judges of the International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) shall be assigned by the President of ICTR, in consultation with the President of the ICTY, to be members of the Appeals Chamber and permanent judges of the ICTY. This makes up the total of 16 permanent judges. Members of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY also serve as the members of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR (ICTR Statute, Article 13.4) ICTYwiki (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

who runs ICTY

Just as in the bombing of FR Yugoslavia in 1999. Richard Holbrooke complained to a Russian diplomat: "I spoke to Madeleine that we should not have the entire top of the Serbian authorities charged with war crimes, now with whom can we negotiate." Russian, as naively asked, "Were they not indicted by the Hague tribunal? "Holbrooke is gloomy shook:" Let's be serious, man. " [2] 216.80.93.67 (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested edit to correct inaccuracies in second half of second paragraph

I'm suggesting the following edits to the second half of the second paragraph which currently contains some inaccuracies. As I work for ICTY and am aware of Wikipedia's npov policy, I'm suggesting the edits on this page first and will wait for feedback. The new section would replace the text from 'The last indictment (...) and would read as follows: -

The final indictments were issued in December 2004, the last of which were confirmed and unsealed in the spring of 2005.The United Nations Security Council called upon the Tribunal to finish its work by 31 December 2014 to prepare for its closure and transfer of its responsibilities to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals which will begin functioning for the ICTY branch on 1 July 2013. The Tribunal will conduct and complete all outstanding first instance trials, including those of recently arrested Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić. It will conduct and complete all appeal proceedings for which the notice of appeal against the judgement or sentence is filed before 1 July 2013. Should notice be filed for any appeal proceedings after that date, the appeals will be handled by the Residual Mechanism.ICTYwiki (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

NATO bs

Will somebody please remove part where criticism was raised for no indictment against the NATO?

It's completely baseless and nonsensical - the ICTY's jurisdiction is just over Former Yugoslavia, and not the NATO; such criticism comes from ignorant sources and should not be included in the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.60.53 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed this part is somewhat crazy - Chomsky is 'fringe' anyway, no matter that he is widely known. This is a bit like Nazi war criminals condemning their courts; the statement needs to reflect that this is extremely controversial in some way - this is taking NPOV a little too far, and hinders rather than helps the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In a press release, the Tribunal admitted it had jurisdiction over anyone perpetrating war crimes during conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Believe it or not, but they investigated NATO for possible war crimes: http://www.icty.org/sid/7846 Why it never amounted to an indictment is anyone’s guess. If the Tribunal convicted officials from every side in the conflicts, why should NATO be excluded?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The text about NATO is really ridiculous! It was like to expect the Nuremberg Tribunal put Winston Churchill on the dock because of the bombing of German cities by the RAF (which killed far less people than the sum of innocent deaths in the German concentration camps, anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.237.228 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There have certainly been discussions over whether the Allied bombing campaign was illegal. Nothing strange about that debate or about this one. But the idea that whoever wins while killing the least number of innocents gets a free "get out of jail" card is ridiculous. Rmhermen (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As Channel for Information

Please don't shoot me and WILLING to revert immediately (ulp, am I done???): Disturbing as it may sound: Regarding the ongoing trial against Ratko Mladic by Den Haag and Int. Criminal Court, pending Stoltenberg sr. testimony, I have this to note: As the connection to Serbia has "started" in 1992 and there are 3 years (number is important as "code") and to the year of 1995 and Srebrenica massacre/genocide and given Slobodan Milosevics' psychatrist title, some say that Norwegian involvement is DEFINITE!!! Url: http://controversial777.blogspot.no/2012/06/i-call-for-attention-to-these-cases-as.html Should I *order* it?: TAKE THEM DOWN!!!

How do I get to WikiLeaks? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It may also be a point to know that under reality of Telepathy (for real), psychiatry gets a different standing and this can have impacts on a psychiatrist like Slobodan "Slobo" Milosevic. Thus, enter the Norway-theory and how these people may have exploited this fact in hidden. Agree? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you allow me to ask (over rumours of Half-Slobo as Hind. New York to Nazi-Germany), is Jens S., the ("former") PM, 1,95 m. on his bare (bloody) feet? Crime, in the blood, genetic!??? 46.9.254.91 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)