Connect with us

Bosnian Serb General Mladic To Stand Trial For Crimes Against Humanity

Published

on

Ratko Mladic, the former commanding general of the Bosnian Serb Army during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1992-1995, having been a fugitive for 16 years, stood in the dock at the International Court in The Hague last Friday, was arraigned, and will stand trial for genocide and crimes against humanity that were committed under his command.

His once pugilistic and braggadocious pose was gone–he had aged considerably and a stroke had left his arm frail.

Mladic’s ideologically driven military operations were  responsible  for the siege of Sarajevo, the longest war exacted on any city in history to macabre results:  the murders of 10,000 people, including 1,600 children. Sarajevans ran out of space to bury their dead and were forced to use a football field as a cemetery. The land encircling a 1984 Olympics facility, that was once the pride and joy of  all Bosnians–but especially so for Sarajevans–had sadly become a burial ground for eternity.

Mladic’s lustful and lethal handiwork was not satisfied with the destruction of Sarajevo. His forces took over Srebrenica on July 11, 1995, a small village near the Serbian border and before the day was done it is estimated that 8,000 Muslim men and boys–all civilians, were murdered by Mladic’s army and buried in unmarked mass graves dotting the beautiful landscape of Eastern Bosnia that belies these monstrous crimes.

Mladic, arrested in Northern Serbia on May 26th, was wanted for some of the most heinous war crimes committed on the continent of Europe since World War II. There are not adequate words to describe the horror this man wrought upon the Muslim and to some extent, the Croat population of Bosnia. He was a monster, whose daughter also suffered for his conduct, when she committed suicide in 1994 while studying at the Medical Faculty in Belgrade during the war.

In the aftermath of the Bosnian War, I was privileged to work on the implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords, brokered by the Clinton Administration in November 1995. As a human rights officer and later as political advisor and spokesperson for the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, I was deeply involved in assisting the peoples and the governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina confront the consequences of the war, while transitioning to a post-conflict, democratic form of government.

 

The lesson is that difference, when demonized by reckless leaders in societies that eventually spiral out-of-control, end up as broken shards of communities, with such deep enmity that it will surely take at least one generation to recover for Bosnia, if not more, as one such example. In America, there are those who still argue the purpose and cause of the Civil War, an occurrance of nearly 150 years ago.


 

This experience changed my life forever and brought me to new understanding about the long-term viability of states, when an effort is engaged to push for reconciliation between former warring parties, it can not be accomplished without providing mechanisms that truly afford those aggrieved parties with some tangible form of justice.

The arrest by Serbian police of Mladic is a huge step forward for Bosnia and provides an opportunity for Serbia to begin a legitimate European Union accession process.

No one should ever forget what Mladic and his cohort of dangerous and grandiose leaders heaped upon the peoples of the Former Yugoslavia. Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic and the subordinates who carried out their orders, directly participated in the destruction of this country out of ideology and hatred of “other.”

An accounting of Mladic’s crimes  has now begun, and so long overdue.

To actually see Mladic standing in the dock at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia brings some sense of justice — that finally, the law caught up with Mladic and he has been justly called to task before an international  court and the world for an accounting of his unspeakable crimes.

Bosnia and countries like it, including in our own (the current hatred exhibited in the U.S. toward immigrants, Muslims, people of Arab descent and LGBT persons), present a cautionary tale about the repudiation of diversity. The lesson is that difference, when demonized by reckless leaders in societies that eventually spiral out-of-control, end up as broken shards of communities, with such deep enmity that it will surely take at least one generation to recover for Bosnia, if not more, as one such example.  In America, there are those who still argue the purpose and cause of the Civil War, an occurrance of nearly 150 years ago.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=g1JyxFoejsI%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

Thus, it is not surprising in the 16 years since the war ended, that a nascent LGBT movement in Sarajevo can barely get itself off the ground without facing violence in 2008. It was driven underground a year later when it chose to celebrate a virtual Pride celebration via billboards and on-line public service announcements and skipped staging a 2010 Pride event altogether as it regroups.

For countries to be sustainable in post-conflict, a safe process must unfold that embraces difference as a strength within Bosnia and the region as a whole. While Mladic’s arrest is important for Serbia, its democracy remains quite fragile and without wholesale acknowledgement by its government leaders, could simply be a “one off” availing a calculating Serbia access to the process to enter the EU, without admitting responsibility for terrible crimes.   Croatia and Kosovo’s leaders must demonstrate that delivering war criminals to the Hague and through their national courts, establishes a resolute respect for the rule of law, thus an accounting that can set new terms for a peaceful future that is sustainable.

So next month at Potocari, when newly identified remains are buried in an annual ritual of sorrow, it will mark the first time that Ratko Mladic, the executioner of Srebrenica, is behind bars. May peace be a gift and a salve to all those sorrowful souls who have suffered such heartbreaking loss. May peace be your gift.

(Image: Srebrenica Coffins Prepared for Burial at Potochari, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2004, by Tanya Domi.)

Tanya L. Domi is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, who teaches about human rights in Eurasia and is a Harriman Institute affiliated faculty member. Prior to teaching at Columbia, Domi worked internationally for more than a decade on issues related to democratic transitional development, including political and media development, human rights, gender issues, sex trafficking, and media freedom.

Read Tanya Domi’s most-​recent previous article at The New Civil Rights Movement, “Weinergate: Las Vegas Bettors Playing The Odds.“

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

5 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

8 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

11 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.