|
The Washington Times
25 July 2001/PAGE A16
LETTERS
Who watches The Hague's watchmen?
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosvic's reign may have been unsavory
and unsuccessful, but I question whether he should be tried before the U.N. War
Crimes Tribunal.
First, the tribunal is nothing if not political. A majority of the
judges are from countries who were Mr. Milsoevic's enemies during NATO's assault
on Kososo. The tribunal notoriously refused to indict former Croatian
President Franjo Tudjman, whose war crimes were far worse than those of Mr.
Milsoevic but who was needed as a bulwark against him and was thus too useful to
indict. and when Mr. Milsoevic was indicted, the chief prosecutor who
secured his indictment was promptly given her dream job -- the only seat on the
Supreme Court of Canada open to an Ontario resident that was likely to be
available during her professional lifetime.
Second, the tribunal has little of what we would term due process.
There are no juries, merely judges who have asked to serve in The Hague and are
thus predisposed to the prosecution. An acquittal may be reversed on
appeal. There are no plea bargains, no mean consideration in cases in
which the trial maynot begin for a year or more after arrest. Hearsay
evidence is permitted and prosecution witnesses may testify anonymously,
depriving the defendant of the right of confrontation fundamental to our own
system.
Rather than support such an unfair system, we should have left Mr.
Milsoevic to be prosecuted by his own people. That would have been far more
just, especially considering that any conviction in The Hague will be subject to
claims of "victor's justice."
GARY M. GREENBAUM
Fairfax
|
Title: Message
