Friday, April 6, 2007

Milosevic found not guilty by the International Court of Justice

After years of incarceration ending in his death, with no finding of Milosevic's guilt for war crimes in Kosovo and genocide in Bosnia and Croatia by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Court of Justice found that Serbia was not responsible for genocide in Bosnia.

Here is an excellent article on the bias of the New York Times in reporting on this ICJ ruling and Yugoslavia in general:

Marlise Simons and the New York Times on the International Court of Justice Decision on Serbia and Genocide in Bosnia: A Further Study in Total Propaganda Service
by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson

The article concludes:

On these two gravely important issues—"genocide" and the "supreme international crime" or aggression—the ICJ has shown a troubling proclivity to run in parallel with the ICTY. For its part, the ICTY does not concern itself with the "supreme international crime," the Nuremberg-class crime that the ICTY's sponsors committed when they attacked Yugoslavia in 1999 (and, later, Afghanistan and Iraq as well);[46] but it is very aggressive in pursuing lesser crimes, as it has done on a selective basis in the case of Yugoslavia. Similarly, Yugoslavia in 1999 failed to persuade the ICJ to hear its case against NATO without first securing the consent of the military alliance then attacking it; needless to say, none was forthcoming. But several years later, this time cast in the defendant's role, Yugoslavia was brought before the same ICJ, and a verdict rendered. What this plainly shows is that the international system, even at the highest level embodied by the International Court of Justice, the "principal judicial organ of the United Nations," systematically fails to address crimes against the peace when committed by supreme international criminals, but somehow or other makes itself available to pursue lesser criminals, even those whose crimes occur as they resist the perpetrators of the “supreme international crime.”

It is remarkable that with all the mass killings of the post-war period, the ICJ and the world media featured Bosnia - Herzegovina, and Srebrenica in particular, as the first test-case in which the application of the Genocide Convention to armed conflict was adjudicated. In the case of Bosnia, the grand total of civilian deaths in the years 1992-1995 was on the order of 66,000; and in the case of Srebrenica, the ICTY's "likely" total was a “majority” of 7,000 - 8,000 (i.e., some indeterminate value over 3,500), mainly or entirely military-aged men. So this still counts as “genocide,” and worthy of concentrated attention. But the 200,000 mainly civilian deaths in East Timor, a million deaths from the “sanctions of mass destruction” in Iraq, the possibly half-million Iraqi deaths in the wake of the U.S.-British invasion-occupation of 2003-2007, the several million killed during the U.S. aggression against Vietnam and all of Southeast Asia, 1962-1975—each of these fail to qualify for adjudication and punishment for “genocide.”

This harks back to the wise aphorism that “The greater the crime, the smaller the penalty.” But that, in turn, rests on a simple rule—that the powerful define whom the terrorists and genocidists are, and exempt themselves and their allies. This is why, in John Laughland’s words, contemporary adjudications are a “travesty” and “corruption of international justice.”

For a radically different view of the events in Yugoslavia from that of the New York Times, see the articles linked here:

Others articles on Yugoslavia by Herman and Peterson:

John Laughland also sees through the lies:,,2023025,00.html

John Laughland is also a 9/11 skeptic:

No comments: