Confirmed: report says Milosevic is dead

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-03-11 01:43pm

Slippery fuck evaded justice one more time. I don't know why people are so happy about this. He was going to die in a cell one way or another anyway. Now he just does it before his victims get any closure by seeing him convicted.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2006-03-11 02:26pm

RedImperator wrote:Slippery fuck evaded justice one more time. I don't know why people are so happy about this. He was going to die in a cell one way or another anyway. Now he just does it before his victims get any closure by seeing him convicted.

The way the trial was going, that was never going to happen. There was official concern that the case against him wasn’t going to be resolved before the tribunals mandate to exist ended in 2008. As it was we where in what, year four?

Tiriol · Post by **Tiriol** » 2006-03-11 02:57pm

Good riddance. He evaded justice once again, but at least now he can't cause any more suffering.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-03-11 04:46pm

I just think that he was able to stall the trial for far too long. The Nuremberg trials were handled better (yes, the circumstances were different, but I never imagined that we would see something like this that he was charged with, such as genocide, in Europe so soon after WWII).

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-03-11 07:28pm

Figures. Slobo can't even be man enough to be properly convicted and executed, he has to go and die on them...

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-03-12 12:56am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
RedImperator wrote:Slippery fuck evaded justice one more time. I don't know why people are so happy about this. He was going to die in a cell one way or another anyway. Now he just does it before his victims get any closure by seeing him convicted.
The way the trial was going, that was never going to happen. There was official concern that the case against him wasn’t going to be resolved before the tribunals mandate to exist ended in 2008. As it was we where in what, year four?

On the other hand it was the first time that there had been a genuine trial of a war criminal of international proportions that wasn't a kangaroo court. What the hell do you expect a Judge fucking Judy soundbite trial? Of course its going to take a long time, but at least in the end it would have been done fucking right.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2006-03-12 01:05am

weemadando wrote:On the other hand it was the first time that there had been a genuine trial of a war criminal of international proportions that wasn't a kangaroo court.

So Nuremberg was a kangaroo court; despite it ruling that you could actually take hostages in reprisal for partisan attacks?

Linka

On the question of partisans, the tribunal concluded that under the then current laws of war (the Hague Convention No. IV from 1907), the partisan fighters in southeast Europe could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of said convention [1]. On List, the tribunal even stated

"We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans..."
—(WCC 1949), cited here after [2]

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2006-03-12 01:06am

Regarding hostage taking, the tribunal came to the conclusion that under certain circumstances, hostage taking and even reprisal killings might constitute an allowed line of action against guerilla attacks. In the tribunal's opinion, taking hostages (and killing them in retaliation for guerilla attacks) was subject to several conditions [3]. The tribunal also remarked that both the British Manual of Military Law and the U.S. Basic Field Manual (Rules of Land Warfare) permitted the taking of reprisals against a civilian population. (The British manual didn't mention killing, the U.S. manual included killing as a possible reprisal.) Nevertheless, the tribunal still found most of the accused guilty on count 1 of the indictment because it considered the acts committed by the German troops in excess of the rules under which the tribunal considered hostage taking and reprisal killings lawful.

Siege · Post by **Siege** » 2006-03-12 02:07pm

It seems it's becoming progressively more likely that Milosevic didn't die of natural causes after all... Seems like he was poisoned, either by himself or by other people. There's medications found in his bloodstream that undermined the effects of the medications given to him for his weak heart and blood pressure, according to Dutch news.

Also, BBC article on the subject

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-03-12 02:50pm

I don't think it's realistic that anyone but himself poisoned him. However, the Serbian reaction and their sudden claim that he was poisoned were perfectly expected. That's typical Balkan bullshit (note, not Serbian bullshit, but Balkan bullshit, this sort of wild claims for and from politicians and lawyers are common in all the ex-yu countries except maybe Slovenia). So I don't put much stock in it. However, since Carla and co. aren't denouncing it, it may actualy turn out to be something. But I give it 25% chance at most.

While we're on that article, did anyone notice the stupidity in the HAVE YOUR SAY box? "Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs were certainly no worse than the people he opposed" says John Tiller from Toronto. Well John, go fuck yourself please. That sort of equivalation of victim and aggressor is simply disgusting. It is also the only reason why I hated that Gotovina was part of the Karađić, Mladić, Gotovina trio since it raised his alledged crimes (basicly command responsibility over vindictive yahoos) to a level of planned genocide which allows for eqivalation of parties in the conflict. Milošević is the main cause for the Balkan wars with Serbs being sheep that followed the leader. Slovenia and Croatia spent close to 2 years from when their populations were clamoring for independance trying to fix old Yugoslavia (proposals ranged from turning it into a confederation to independant countries connected in some sort of a EU-style arrangement), which was all stamped out by Milosevic and allies warmongering and thirst for power (it can actualy be argued that he started all that crap in order to rile up the Serbian populace and give them an external enemy to combat so that his position can be secure).

Bleh, I'm rambling again.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-03-12 03:10pm

MKSheppard wrote:Regarding hostage taking, the tribunal came to the conclusion that under certain circumstances, hostage taking and even reprisal killings might constitute an allowed line of action against guerilla attacks. In the tribunal's opinion, taking hostages (and killing them in retaliation for guerilla attacks) was subject to several conditions [3]. The tribunal also remarked that both the British Manual of Military Law and the U.S. Basic Field Manual (Rules of Land Warfare) permitted the taking of reprisals against a civilian population. (The British manual didn't mention killing, the U.S. manual included killing as a possible reprisal.) Nevertheless, the tribunal still found most of the accused guilty on count 1 of the indictment because it considered the acts committed by the German troops in excess of the rules under which the tribunal considered hostage taking and reprisal killings lawful.

Ahem:

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. Article 33 states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as less states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Art 33. is the one more commonly quoted.

Might want to ask Lt. Calley about this one...

Post by **Edi** » 2006-03-12 03:21pm

mmar wrote:I don't think it's realistic that anyone but himself poisoned him. However, the Serbian reaction and their sudden claim that he was poisoned were perfectly expected. That's typical Balkan bullshit (note, not Serbian bullshit, but Balkan bullshit, this sort of wild claims for and from politicians and lawyers are common in all the ex-yu countries except maybe Slovenia). So I don't put much stock in it. However, since Carla and co. aren't denouncing it, it may actualy turn out to be something. But I give it 25% chance at most.

While we're on that article, did anyone notice the stupidity in the HAVE YOUR SAY box? "Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs were certainly no worse than the people he opposed" says John Tiller from Toronto. Well John, go fuck yourself please. That sort of equivalation of victim and aggressor is simply disgusting. It is also the only reason why I hated that Gotovina was part of the Karađić, Mladić, Gotovina trio since it raised his alledged crimes (basicly command responsibility over vindictive yahoos) to a level of planned genocide which allows for eqivalation of parties in the conflict. Milošević is the main cause for the Balkan wars with Serbs being sheep that followed the leader. Slovenia and Croatia spent close to 2 years from when their populations were clamoring for independance trying to fix old Yugoslavia (proposals ranged from turning it into a confederation to independant countries connected in some sort of a EU-style arrangement), which was all stamped out by Milosevic and allies warmongering and thirst for power (it can actualy be argued that he started all that crap in order to rile up the Serbian populace and give them an external enemy to combat so that his position can be secure).

Bleh, I'm rambling again.

I don't mind the little sidetracks. I've seen far too much apologism for the Serbs (not so much here, but elsewhere), and it's refreshing to see viewpoints from people who are from the region and know exactly what they're talking about.

As for the cause of death, it was just confirmed that he died of a heart attack. I guess we'll know more tomorrow.

Edi

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2006-03-12 05:20pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:See you in Hell.

From heaven!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2006-03-12 05:53pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Ahem:

So why are you referencing the Forth Geneva convention, written AFTER WW2 when as Sheppard stated the trials went by the 1907 Hague Convention? You know, one of those legal issues you seem fond of is that you cannot change the law and then try someone under the new law for a crime committed before it was changed.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-03-12 07:50pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:
Ahem:
So why are you referencing the Fourth Geneva convention, written AFTER WW2 when as Sheppard stated the trials went by the 1907 Hague Convention? You know, one of those legal issues you seem fond of is that you cannot change the law and then try someone under the new law for a crime committed before it was changed.

Because Shep seems to be implying, in his reply to Weemandandro, that somehow it's permissible to take retaliation against civilian populations for guerilla activity today, which questions the legal premise of Milosevic's trial. The Fourth Convention was formulated as a response to the hole in the law which permitted a defence for the Nazis in the Hostages Trial, which means no such defence is legitimate today, which means the entire point over that particular protocol of the 1907 Hague Convention which was followed at Nuremburg is irrelevant to any war crimes issue in the present day.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2006-03-12 08:07pm

Patrick Degan wrote: Because Shep seems to be implying, in his reply to Weemandandro, that somehow it's permissible to take retaliation against civilian populations for guerilla activity today, which questions the legal premise of Milosevic's trial. The Fourth Convention was formulated as a response to the hole in the law which permitted a defence for the Nazis in the Hostages Trial, which means no such defence is legitimate today, which means the entire point over that particular protocol of the 1907 Hague Convention which was followed at Nuremburg is irrelevant to any war crimes issue in the present day.

Well, did Yugoslavia even sign and ratify the Fourth Convention to begin with? A whole lot of nations didnt.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-03-12 08:31pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote: Because Shep seems to be implying, in his reply to Weemandandro, that somehow it's permissible to take retaliation against civilian populations for guerilla activity today, which questions the legal premise of Milosevic's trial. The Fourth Convention was formulated as a response to the hole in the law which permitted a defence for the Nazis in the Hostages Trial, which means no such defence is legitimate today, which means the entire point over that particular protocol of the 1907 Hague Convention which was followed at Nuremburg is irrelevant to any war crimes issue in the present day.
Well, did Yugoslavia even sign and ratify the Fourth Convention to begin with? A whole lot of nations didnt.

How remarkably irrelevant to the main issue.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2006-03-12 08:37pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Because Shep seems to be implying, in his reply to Weemandandro

You're an imbecile. WeeMadAndo implied that Nuremberg was a Kangaroo Court; I proved him wrong, by showing that Seventh Nuremberg did not issue guilty verdicts on EVERYONE in it's docket and ruled that yes, you could take prisioners, but that the Germans took it to excesses.

Certainly, these are not the actions of a Kangaroo court. Perhaps WeeMadAndo is getting Nuremberg mixed up with the PROMPARTY trials under Krylenko

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-03-12 08:47pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:Because Shep seems to be implying, in his reply to Weemandandro
You're an imbecile.

Look who's talking.

WeeMadAndo implied that Nuremberg was a Kangaroo Court; I proved him wrong, by showing that Seventh Nuremberg did not issue guilty verdicts on EVERYONE in it's docket and ruled that yes, you could take prisioners, but that the Germans took it to excesses.

Which applies to any war crimes issue involving the recent Yugoslav wars... how, exactly?

Certainly, these are not the actions of a Kangaroo court. Perhaps WeeMadAndo is getting Nuremberg mixed up with the PROMPARTY trials under Krylenko

Or, perhaps it's you who's reading more into Weemadandro's words than what was actually there?

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-03-13 03:57am

Edi wrote:I don't mind the little sidetracks. I've seen far too much apologism for the Serbs (not so much here, but elsewhere), and it's refreshing to see viewpoints from people who are from the region and know exactly what they're talking about.

As for the cause of death, it was just confirmed that he died of a heart attack. I guess we'll know more tomorrow.

Edi

Wikipedia (I've been reading it a bit to find out what was going on with Slobo) actualy has a pretty decent ramp up and war history on its Croatia pages (this of course being applicable to Croatia and Slovenia, not later conflicts) of modern history and Croatia in the second Yugoslavia. When they aren't defaced that is. There are some errors in them (for instance the IMF paranoia on the 2nd YU page) but overall they give a pretty good overview how the ball started rolling. The bosnian war page is also a good overview, however it glances over the support given by both Serbia and Croatia to its respective forces (the biggest shame of moderate Croats for conduct in the war is our involvment in Bosnia and the crimes commited after the militarily excellent Operation Storm).

For the later conflicts (Kosovo, the problems in Macedonia) I really don't have much info beyond what a attentive western news viewer has.

I don't mind that people don't consider Croats and Bosniaks squaky clean in the conflict. We weren't (as much as some of our rightwing nationalist would like people to think). But whatever crimes our forces did pale in comparison with Yugoslav (read: Serbian with a touch of Montenegrin at that point) regulars and especialy irregular forces.

And to get a little more ontopic for the ending of the post, I found a little comment in yesterday's Jutarnji list ("Morning paper" - largest local daily) that is simply excellent in summing up how people from the region feel about Slobo's death: "During the war and all the atrocities his sick heart didn't cause him problems, but in the Hague, when he was about to face justice, it did".

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2006-03-13 06:13am

Update from Reuters:

Milosevic blood showed he took wrong drugs - ANP
THE HAGUE (Reuters) - Tests on Slobodan Milosevic's blood taken before he was found dead on Saturday showed traces of a medicine that negated the effect of high blood pressure drugs, Dutch news agency ANP reported on Monday.

ANP said the U.N. war crimes tribunal asked Groningen University toxicologist Donald Uges to conduct the tests at the end of last year to find out why Milosevic's blood pressure remained so high despite the drugs he was prescribed.

Uges told ANP he had found traces of rifampicin -- a drug against leprosy and tuberculosis -- in his blood.

Groningen University was not immediately available to comment on the ANP report.

Milosevic's lawyer said on Sunday the former president had written to Russia asking for help just a day before his death, saying he had been given the wrong drugs in an attempt to silence him.

The 64-year-old, who suffered from a heart condition and high blood pressure, was found dead in his cell on Saturday only months before a verdict was due in his trial on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the 1990s.

Assassination, anyone?

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-03-13 06:20am

Or Slobo giving the middle finger to the west and giving his supporters one final rallying point. It's not like he wouldn't be found guilty of at least some of the charges.

We'll see how this turns out...

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2006-03-13 08:29am

I would have preferred to see him convicted. And then to see him keel over in court when the sentence was handed down.

Tranan · Post by **Tranan** » 2006-03-13 08:44am

Soontir C'boath wrote:Update from Reuters:

Milosevic blood showed he took wrong drugs - ANP
THE HAGUE (Reuters) - Tests on Slobodan Milosevic's blood taken before he was found dead on Saturday showed traces of a medicine that negated the effect of high blood pressure drugs, Dutch news agency ANP reported on Monday.

ANP said the U.N. war crimes tribunal asked Groningen University toxicologist Donald Uges to conduct the tests at the end of last year to find out why Milosevic's blood pressure remained so high despite the drugs he was prescribed.

Uges told ANP he had found traces of rifampicin -- a drug against leprosy and tuberculosis -- in his blood.

Groningen University was not immediately available to comment on the ANP report.

Milosevic's lawyer said on Sunday the former president had written to Russia asking for help just a day before his death, saying he had been given the wrong drugs in an attempt to silence him.

The 64-year-old, who suffered from a heart condition and high blood pressure, was found dead in his cell on Saturday only months before a verdict was due in his trial on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the 1990s.
Assassination, anyone?

No I see this ass a an poor escape atempt. The tribunal vanted him but he wanted out of jail. so if he tackes bad medesin and hawe to go to moscow fore tretment, do you think he ewer ´get back to Haag? no way.

Post by **Edi** » 2006-03-13 10:49am

mmar wrote:Or Slobo giving the middle finger to the west and giving his supporters one final rallying point. It's not like he wouldn't be found guilty of at least some of the charges.

We'll see how this turns out...

I'm inclined to agree. It'd be just like the asshole to do it to himself on purpose so he can fuck up the tribuinal's reputation and leave room for conspiracy theories. Or what Tranan said, a ploy to get out of Hague and then disappear.

Edi