It’s a right old week for collapsing cases … although Slobodan Milosevic is almost certain to be found guilty of crimes against peace and war crimes, the central charge of genocide is apparently a lot more doubtful. The prosecution in the Hague are moving to rest their case a couple of days early, admitting as they do so that they’ve not really found any smoking gun linking Milosevic to the actions of Radovan Karadzic, the real butcher of Bosnia. Not sure what to make of this myself, and it’s probably best not to comment further in the absence of real evidence; I know that CT’s Chris B is of the opinion that Milosevic was guilty as sin and the NATO intervention in Kosovo was a paradigm example of a good war, but my good mate Chris DeLiso, who hasn’t posted on the subject yet but will probably do so soon, thinks different.
All in all, I think the most important lesson to learn here is a negative one, for anyone on the left who ever thought that the Hague international tribunal was ever going to be more useful than a chocolate teapot.
Surely the point of the tribunal, even for those on the left, was to see whether he was guilty or not. If the prosecution cannot prove that he was after such a long trial, then maybe he wasn’t.
If the utility of the trial was merely to act like we were being fair (rather than actually being fair), then we might as well have strung him up to begin with.
Agreed. International kangaroo courts are undesirable things, and the Hague Tribunal has just proven itself to be admirably impartial. If the prosecution cannot prove Milosevich’s complicity in Karadzic’s actions, then they cannot prove it, period. Either the prosecution is incompetent or the case really isn’t as clear cut as it was hyped prior to the war.
Surely the point of the tribunal, even for those on the left, was to see whether he was guilty or not.
Hear, hear.
If the prosecution cannot prove that he was after such a long trial, then maybe he wasn?t.
Well… that’s something else again.
I lived in Serbia for two and a half years, and IMO Milosevic was and is guilty of the most appalling crimes. However, being able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, many years later and a couple of thousand km away, against a highly intelligent and absolutely amoral defendant, is no easy task.
If the utility of the trial was merely to act like we were being fair (rather than actually being fair), then we might as well have strung him up to begin with.
Bless your heart. So many people — both in Serbia and in the West — seem to have forgotten this. Dan included, it seems, alas.
— For the record, I’m a Serbophile — albeit a critical one — /and/ I think the Kosovo intervention was justified and even necessary.
As to the Hague, nuance nuance. One, I think they’ve got a very important and difficult job to do. Two, in evaluating their performance, one does have to keep in mind the rather tremendous difficulties they’re labouring under. Three, IMO they’ve taken about twice as long — and cost about four to five times as much money — as they should have. And, Four, IMO Carla Del Ponte was a very dubious choice for chief prosecutor, and has not covered herself with glory.
I can go into more detail if anyone cares. Like most everyone who’s lived in Serbia, I’ve been following the Hague with fascination.
Doug M.
From the linked article:
“Del Ponte said Belgrade authorities had jeopardized the case for genocide by failing to provide the prosecution access to documents from the state archives.”
That would have had some effect on the prosecution’s ability to press a genocide charge.
That would have had some effect on the prosecution’s ability to press a genocide charge.
Yes, and it casts doubt on the usefulness of international courts generally, if they can’t compel production of crucial evidence.
Things like subpoenas make the rule of law possible; in the absence of them, simply stringing mass-murdering dictators up as a political policy may make more sense and produce more justice.
Arguably, the purpose of the ICTY wasn’t so much to address crimes of the past (although that’s obviously the primary stated purpose) but to show potential future war criminals that they will be punished for their actions. Whether or not Milosevic is found guilty of genocide, he will be found guilty and imprisoned, and thus will serve as warning to other potential war criminals. We don’t know whether this future-looking purpose to the tribunal will be successful.
I suppose the conditions would have to be like those at Nuremberg—where the prosecuted party kept good records, and where the prosecution could hold the damning evidence in their hands.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm
However, the string-them-up-let-God-decide option strikes me as unjust. The victims need their courtroom vindication. And the perpetrators their courtroom condemnation.
Not sure how to react, Daniel, since you’ve mentioned my views explicitly. But I’m not sure that I understand how your “useful as a chocolate teapot” jibe is consistent with your belief that M will be found guilty on some charges (and will likely be locked away for the remainder of his natural life). Some use after all maybe?
As for Kosovo, my view is roughly this: that after Bosnia we knew how this one was going to go. IMHO, intervention in Bosnia has been well justified anyway. Remember that Kosovo came after Srebrenica: should the outside world just have waited to see how this one turned out? Of course not.
As for M being as guilty as hell. Sure he was. He started the whole appalling process going with the suppression of Kosovan autonomy back in 1989. So there is no smoking gun? So what? AFAIK there are no documents linking Hitler directly to the gas chambers - do you want to give him the benefit of the doubt on that account?
My instincts are with Chris here - when I read the piece I had the exact same thought about the lack of a smoking gun document ‘proving’ that Hitler ordered the mass extermination of Jews. This has allowed Irving and similar creeps to claim that he was innocent - but it’s hard for fairminded people to dispute that Hitler was responsible. So too, Milosevic. I see that Glenn Reynolds is already gloating about this - claiming that the Clinton administration sexed up intelligence and misrepresented etc etc.
Thanks for changing the font on this site. It was awful before.
My instincts are with Chris here - when I read the piece I had the exact same thought about the lack of a smoking gun document ‘proving’ that Hitler ordered the mass extermination of Jews. This has allowed Irving and similar creeps to claim that he was innocent - but it’s hard for fairminded people to dispute that Hitler was responsible. So too, Milosevic.
That’s some dangerous reasoning.
I would say that it is impossible to dispute the fact that any court would have found Hitler guilty.
But as the Milosevic trial shows it is possible to dispute about the extend to which it can be proven that Milosevic is responsible for the crimes committed.
Even suggesting that a court (like the one in The Hague) might have shown any doubts about the evidence against Hitler is almost like giving credibility to loons like Irving.
Everyone should take an hour or two and read The Porcupine, Julian Barnes’ dramatization of the trial of a fallen Communist leader. The accused is wily, amoral, used to domination and still backed by people who liked things the way they were. Rule-of-law liberalism has a tough time coping with people like that.
Some use after all maybe?
Well a chocolate teapot is some use; I had a novelty one once and I used it to store pencils in. But it doesn’t provide the function of a teapot, in roughly the same way that the Hague promised, but did not provide the functions of a court.
On the Hitler comparison, all I’ll say is that the connections and command lines between Milosevic and Karadzic were much less obvious than those between Hitler and Heydrich. A “smoking gun” in this case would have been any evidence at all that K took orders from M and there weren’t any. And although the prosecutors didn’t have access to the archives in Belgrade, it’s funny that they didn’t find anything at the other end either.
(The point of mentioning Chris in the story, btw, was to establish that reasonable people can disagree on this one)
But it doesn?t provide the function of a teapot, in roughly the same way that the Hague promised, but did not provide the functions of a court.
Yeah… I mean, it’s only convicted 47 people, so far, for terms ranging from 2 years (suspended) to life.
“Doesn’t work as well as it should, takes too long, costs too much” — I’d agree, actually. “Not producing the results I want, was supported by people I disagree with” — that seems to be your real grudge, as far as I can tell.
As noted, I agree that there’s plenty to criticize about the ICTY. But “does not function as a court”? Sorry, twaddle.
Doug M.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review