Banner Advertiser

Friday, July 6, 2012

[mukto-mona] Comments I made Re: When is a Genocide not a genocide in FP

             International Criminal Courts are not faring very well for a variety of reasons. Recently in Den Hague Dr. Radovan Karadzic was let off  of one count of genocide.  We should follow that news closely in order to deepen our understanding of Bangladesh genocide of 1971.  Please read the following comments after Michael Dobbs article briefly reporting the Karadzic ruling. My posts are made in the name of 'bougheyfm'.
                                             Farida Majid (Boughey)

Sort: Newest | Oldest
jpmaher22 pts
On his visit to Lazarevo Dobbs remarks that it is mere Serb propaganda that Islamic Bosnia was out to restore Islam with a new Ottoman state in the Balkans. Izetbegovic used the war book of Hezbollah, was in Teheran on more than one occasion, by way of Vienna and Istanbul, in preparation for the renewal of jihad. Izetbegovic wrote in Islamic Declararion:  "There can be no coexistence between Islamic social institutions and non-Islamic institutions and must take over as soon as the faithful are numerically strong enough. Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of non-Islamic ideology in its territory.  Therefore, there can be no secularism, and the state should be an expression and support of the moral concepts of the Islamic religion..."
Michael Dobbs with limited education,reminds me of a thief,who got caught,denying it.Genocide is a term used to denote the wanton killing of innocent ,unarmed,women,children,old people,who CANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.The UNARMED is the key issue.Thats what the turkees did,going house to house removing firearms.It is a planned annihilation.
 alexp1   UNARMED is not a sufficient criteria for 'innocence'.  I used to describe victims of genocide as "innocent, unarmed women children and men" but, as I learned more about "laws of war," I no longer use that language.  An unarmed 9-yr old boy can act as an informant, and even for a mere whistle from his lips he can be killed by the enemy force -- and that killing will not count as a "war crime."  Nowadays I talk of the victims of genocide in a war of aggression as "non-threatening, and non-combative civilians."
                   "Planned annihilation" of a group of people by another group requires a racial/ ethnic hatred to spark off the planning part of it.  The bedrock of all racism is an imagined "justification" for the cruel, inhuman actions of the annihilators.  The justification is accompanied by a certain amount of fantasized, sentimentalized self-description of being the 'injured party' and possessing the racial purity (blonde-haired, blue-eyed yoemen folkdancing innocently at village Bierfests -- according to Nazi propaganda of 1938, for instance).
                   Just scroll down and read 'AndyWilcoxson'  responses describing the Serbs as the 'injured party', and why all War Crimes Tribunals in the world should be criticized for being politically motivated.
 bougheyfm  alexp1 Are you suggesting that politically motivated war crimes prosecutions are OK, or that double standards have a place in international justice?
Are you blind, man?
As you know, the crimes of genocide cannot be outdated; they are liable to persecution forever.
If the International Court of Justice (or ICTY) considers that the killing of prisoners of war can be regarded as a crime of genocide, then what about thousands of German POW killed by Allied Forces without trial during the Second World War?
The Headquarter of the 328th US Army Infantry Regiment, issued an order on December 21, 1944:
"No SS troops or paratroopers will be taken prisoner but will be shot on sight."
This article really opened my eyes up<a href="">.</a>
  AndyWilcoxson conteds that  "they did it also, why blame us only" is a valid criticism of the ICTY or any other war crimes tribunal.  I do not think so. This exactly where the usefulness of the definition of Genocide kicks in.
<< Genocide is defined as mass killing or other acts with "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group." In other words, it is not enough to murder a large number of people. In order to be convicted of genocide, you must also be shown to have "genocidal intent." >>
             Without the "genocidal intent" the ethnic conflict-generated crimes such as destruction of churches and other atrocities can be counted and tried as municipal crimes.  Then there is the context of violating "laws of war" which opens up legal considerations of victimizing unarmed, non-threatening and non-combatant civilians.
               Most of 20th century warfare, no matter what the larger politico-economic ambitions or maneuverings had been, broke out on the surface as ethnic conflicts.  While we cannot make the world safe from all future wars, we can, at the very least, palliate the wounds suffered by the victims of conflicts that caused genocide and crimes against humanity by bringing the perpetrators to justice.  War Crimes Tribunals have the means to throw in view the real contours of human suffering against the nebulous claims of racial superiority, ethnic purity, or religious obligations.
What evidence do you have of Serbian genocidal intent? It seems to me that all of the belligerents carried out ethnic cleansing campaigns for the purpose of securing political control over the territories they sought to control by removing the civilian population of the opposing side through acts designed to engender fear and intimidation.
What evidence do you have that Serb forces who engaged in ethnic cleansing were uniquely motivated by an "intent to destroy in whole or in part a national ethnical racial or religious group as such", but that Croatian, Muslim, and Albanian forces who engaged in exactly the same practice did so for different reasons than the Serbs did?
If you're going to make the allegation that only the Serbs had genocidal intent, then I think you're obliged to explain the basis for that claim.
The Chamber's oral ruling was delivered pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence which provides that at the close of the Prosecutor's case, the Trial Chamber shall, by oral decision, and after hearing the oral submissions of the parties, enter a judgement of acquittal on any count if there is no evidence capable of supporting a conviction.

The Chamber found that whilst the evidence it had heard indicates that the circumstances in which the Bosnian Muslims and/or Bosnian Croats in the Municipalities were forcibly transferred or displaced from their homes were attended by conditions of great hardship and suffering, and that some of those displaced may have suffered serious bodily or mental harm during this process, this evidence does not rise to the level which could sustain a conclusion that the serious bodily or mental harm suffered by those forcibly transferred in the Municipalities was attended by such circumstances as to lead to the death of the whole or part of the displaced population for the purposes of the actus reus for genocide.
This represents a 180-degree U-turn from the Trial Chamber's decision eight years ago over Slobodan Milosevic. On 16 June 2004, in 'Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic: Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal', the Trial Chamber refused to acquit Milosevic on the same grounds, and ruled:
246. On the basis of the inference that may be drawn from this evidence, a Trial Chamber could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, whose aim and intention was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslim population, and that genocide was in fact committed in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi. The genocidal intent of the Bosnian Serb leadership can be inferred from all the evidence, including the evidence set out in paragraphs 238 -245. The scale and pattern of the attacks, their intensity, the substantial number of Muslims killed in the seven municipalities, the detention of Muslims, their brutal treatment in detention centres and elsewhere, and the targeting of persons essential to the survival of the Muslims as a group are all factors that point to genocide.
247. Having examined the evidence, the Trial Chamber finds no evidence of genocide in Kotor Varos.

323. With respect to the Amici Curiae submissions concerning genocide, the Trial Chamber, except for its holding in paragraph 324, DISMISSES the Motion and holds that there is sufficient evidence that
(1) there existed a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, the aim and intention of which was to destroy a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, and that its participants committed genocide in Brcko, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Srebrenica, Bijeljina, Kljuc and Bosanski Novi;
(2) the Accused [Slobodan Milosevic] was a participant in that joint criminal enterprise, Judge Kwon dissenting ;
(3) the Accused was a participant in a joint criminal enterprise, which included members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, to commit other crimes than genocide and it was reasonably foreseeable to him that, as a consequence of the commission of those crimes, genocide of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group would be committed by other participants in the joint criminal enterprise, and it was committed;
(4) the Accused aided and abetted or was complicit in the commission of the crime of genocide in that he had knowledge of the joint criminal enterprise, and that he gave its participants substantial assistance, being aware that its aim and intention was the destruction of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as group;
(5) the Accused was a superior to certain persons whom he knew or had reason to know were about to commit or had committed genocide of a part of the Bosnian Muslims as a group, and he failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the commission of genocide, or punish the perpetrators thereof.
324. The Trial Chamber finds no evidence that genocide was committed in Kotor Varos.
The contradiction between the Trial Chamber's rulings over Milosevic in 2004 and Karadzic in 2012 indicates that it is not operating on the basis of consistent legal principles, and suggests a change of policy. A full analysis of the reasons behind this shift will have to await the Tribunal's publication of the text of its decision.
The list of failures, retreats, betrayals and unethical compromises has only grown over the years: the failure even to indict most of the principal members of the Joint Criminal Enterprise from Serbia and Montenegro – Veljko Kadijevic, Blagoje Adzic, Momir Bulatovic, Borisav Jovic, Branko Kostic and others; the failure to indict anyone at all for the destruction of the Croatian town of Vukovar; the indictment of only six officials in total from Serbia and Montenegro for war-crimes in Bosnia, and the conviction to date of only one of them; the sentencing of Republika Srpska vice-president Biljana Plavsic to only eleven years in prison, without making her testify, and her release after serving only seven years, despite her withdrawal of her acknowledgement of guilt; the censoring of the minutes of the Supreme Defence Council, preventing their use by Bosnia in its case against Serbia at the International Court of Justice; the prosecution of the ICTY's own former chief prosecutor's spokeswoman, Florence Hartmann, for having the temerity to reveal its dubious underhand dealings.
 Vukovar. I was there twice in April 1994. The Orthodox church of St Nicholas had been dynamited in situ by Croatian gunmen befire 18 NOV 1991. The building was  too dangerous to enter. The bombs were laid by Croatian "defenders", who were not Vukovar citizens, but  a rabble from the nazi heartland of Herzegovina. The pastor told me that Catholic priests participated, packing heat... A thousand Serbs, including children, were ritualistically slaughtered.  BTW I am by descent, citizebship and upbringing Irish  America Catholic.-- Croatian president Tudjman on 19 NOV 1991 proclaimed Vukovar "Croatia's Stalingrad". Croats were the Germans in this re-run.@
The thing to remember about the ICTY's findings is that they're guided by political concerns, and not by an objective evaluation of the evidence. Convicting Karadzic of genocide in "the municipalities" would have set a politically sensitive precedent and I would surmise that that's why they didn't do it.
What the Serbs did in "the municipalities" is the same as what the Croats, Muslims, and Kosovo-Albanians did to the Serbs in the territories that they controlled. Serbian places of worship were destroyed, their homes were torched, people were killed and beaten, and Serbs fled from those areas in terror.
If the Tribunal had found that the Bosnian-Serbs were guilty of genocide in "the municipalities", then it would have been extremely difficult to explain why Croats, Muslims, and Kosovo-Albanians weren't prosecuted and convicted of genocide when they did the same kinds of things to Serbs in Kosovo south of the Ibar river, in the Krajina in Croatia, and in the FBiH in Bosnia.
The whole point of convicting Serb officials of "genocide" is to stigmatize them and justify the military aggression of the NATO governments who not only bombed the Serbs, but who also provide most of the finance for the Tribunal's operations. Convicting our Muslim, Croat, and Kosovo-Albanian allies of genocide would undermine the propaganda value of convicting Serbian officials.
The Srebrenica massacre is the one and only incident of large-scale organized killing to happen anywhere in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and so setting a precedent with regard to it isn't as problematic, which is why I think they've opted to attach the "genocide" label to it and not to other instances of ethnic cleansing.
However, the problem they have with Srebrenica is that the massacre obviously wasn't motivated by genocidal intent, as evidenced by the fact that the massacre victims were almost all soldiers and military aged men. The identity of the massacre victims strongly suggests that the group targeted for destruction was the 28th Infantry Division of the ABiH, and not the Bosnian-Muslim ethnic group as such.
 AndyWilcoxson Mr WilCockSun with his bullshit again.
 Bosniansurvivor  AndyWilcoxson   I smell the bs.  It is the same argument against the trial of War Criminals going on elsewhere in the world -- "they did it also, why blame us only".  The following is totally unacceptable and downright spiteful:
"Convicting our Muslim, Croat, and Kosovo-Albanian allies of genocide would undermine the propaganda value of convicting Serbian officials."
 bougheyfm  Bosniansurvivor Bosniansurvivor  
Would you care to tell me what happened to almost two-thirds of Croatia's Serbian population, what happened to almost 90% of the Serbian population in the BiH Federation, or what happened to almost the entire Serbian population of Kosovo south of the Ibar river? Hundreds of Serbian churches were destroyed, thousands of Serbian houses were torched, scores of Serbs were murdered, and hundreds of thousands of Serbs were forced out of their homes. Serbia has more refugees in it than any other country in Europe. To argue that ethnic cleansing is only genocidal when it's done by Serbs, but not when it's done to Serbs is hypocrisy.
You might not like it, but "they did it also, why blame us only" is a valid criticism of the ICTY or any other war crimes tribunal. If a war crimes tribunal exaggerates the crimes committed by one party to the conflict and ignores or downplays crimes committed by the other factions, then that war crimes trubunal is biased. If there isn't neutrality in the dispensing of justice, then justice isn't being done by the Tribunal.
Also, whether you like it or not, the ICTY's findings have political ramifications. Singling the Serbs out as the only faction guilty of genocide benefits the NATO governments who provide most of the finance for the ICTY's operations. Singling out the Serbs for condemnation provides political justification for the fact that NATO bombed the Serbs and nobody else.
If the ICTY were to find that Albanians, Croats, and Muslims were guilty of genocide too then it wouldn't be as useful to it's NATO benefactors.
Don't you think it's interesting that nobody from NATO was prosecuted by the Tribunal for bombing Radio-Television Serbia and killing 16 people in Belgrade, yet Gen. Milosevic was prosecuted and convicted for firing on RTV Sarajevo on 28 June 1995 when only one person was killed. How is it that attacking a TV station in Sarajevo and killing one person is a war crime, but attacking a TV station and killing 16 people in Belgrade isn't?
The purpose of the ICTY is to create propaganda for NATO. If it became a political liability to NATO it would cease to exist.AndyWilcoxson

Conversation from Twitter

@michaeldobbs Killing of able-bodied POW cannot be labeled as genocide; and without killing women and children you can't annihilate genus
3 days ago


Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:




"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe