Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Journalist excused from War Crimes testimony

By imrdkl in News
Thu Dec 12, 2002 at 05:20:28 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)

At the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, a controversial subpoena was set aside this week. The subpoena would have compelled a war correspondent to testify in one of the trials being held there, based on a report he wrote during the war. The reporter convinced the appeals judges that giving testimony could "jeopardize journalists' safety and independence".

Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
According to one British lawyer, the Tribunal's appeals court has shown "remarkable understanding of the needs of journalists which many courts don't", by setting aside the subpoena of the Washington Post reporter, Jonathan Randal. Randal was ordered to testify in the trial of ex-Bosnian Serb Deputy Prime Minister, Radoslav Brdjanin. Brdjanin is charged, along with others, with war crimes against Croats and Muslims during the mid-nineties conflict.

The lower court entered the news report issued by Randal as evidence against Brdjanin, and the defense wished to cross-examine. Randal was summoned to testify in May, and the Washington Post appealed the summons. Randal and the Post claim that the original report was accurate, but did not wish to reveal more than that. The lower tribunal court ruled against Randal in June, saying:

"No journalist can expect or claim that once she or he has decided to publish, no one has a right to question their report or question them on it. This is an inescapable truth and a consequence of making public one's findings,"
The case has divided journalists, some arguing that to testify would cast doubt on their independence, while others prioritize duty as citizens. Meanwhile Randal no longer writes for the Post but has recently written a book about terrorism, says that he's "never felt safer while writing (his book), because he can't get close to anybody". Perhaps this ruling will put him back among the juicy sources.


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


The Tribunal Appeals Court
o Ruled correctly 61%
o Should have compelled the testimony 30%
o Is nothing without Judge Roy Bean 8%

Votes: 36
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o set aside
o summoned to testify
o ruled against Randal
o divided journalists
o Also by imrdkl

Display: Sort:
Journalist excused from War Crimes testimony | 45 comments (39 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
This sucks (4.60 / 5) (#3)
by rhino1302 on Wed Dec 11, 2002 at 06:34:18 PM EST

Essentially Brdjanin is not being allowed to cross-examine his accuser. Whatever we think of this Brdjanin feller, he should have a fair trial.

At least the judge should have not allowed the interview to be submitted as evidence if the interviewer could not be forced to testify regarding it.

Additionally, as the journalist is hoseing the "bad guy" by not testifying, you would think that journalists would have less access to and more danger from said "bad guys"as a result.

You almost got it right (4.12 / 8) (#4)
by trhurler on Wed Dec 11, 2002 at 06:38:30 PM EST

The fact is, the court should NEVER have allowed a newspaper story as evidence. This would never have been a problem if war crimes tribunals weren't kangaroo courts that allow in all manner of speculation, hearsay, and questionable evidence.

More reason why war crimes tribunals should be abolished entirely. They serve merely to punish the defeated, regardless of what actually happened.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I was not aware (4.25 / 4) (#6)
by imrdkl on Wed Dec 11, 2002 at 06:53:05 PM EST

that the Serbs lost the war against the Croats. Are the defeated being punished here?

[ Parent ]
Heh (2.00 / 1) (#18)
by trhurler on Thu Dec 12, 2002 at 07:16:06 PM EST

The war against the Croats wasn't what led to this tribunal. There would never have been any tribunal had the US(er, excuse me, UN,) not decided to get involved, and at that point, without so much as a single battle, the Serbs lost what they'd been fighting for. Almost immediately the calls for a tribunal started.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Story was an Interview (4.33 / 6) (#7)
by rhino1302 on Wed Dec 11, 2002 at 07:01:49 PM EST

As the newspaper story in question was an interview with the defendant in which the defendant said things relevant to the complaint, I think it could be evidence (depends on if the published story was a transcript, or was massaged). That is, provided the interviewer could be cross-examined regarding context, etc.

Of course, IANAL, especially not one familiar with this strange court.

[ Parent ]
No (2.00 / 1) (#17)
by trhurler on Thu Dec 12, 2002 at 07:14:14 PM EST

An interview published in a newspaper is edited material separated from the source material by a huge gulf of intellectual credibility. Journalists frequently change peoples' words(despite claiming otherwise,) omit questions whose answers they don't like, and so on. At best, they're hearsay, and in truth, most interviews of controversial figures are deliberate attempts to cast them in a certain light, be that positive or negative. Such "evidence" should never be admissible.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Not Hearsay (3.00 / 1) (#24)
by rhino1302 on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 10:21:27 AM EST

You have a good point about the power of the interviewer to cast the interviewee in which ever light they choose.

However, this interview was not hearsay. The defendant spoke directly about his own actions and intents. It would be hearsay if he spoke about a third party's actions or intents.

[ Parent ]
You're missing the point (2.00 / 1) (#25)
by trhurler on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 12:20:27 PM EST

The interviewer and his editor are telling the court what the interviewee said. That's hearsay. Putting it in written form does not change the fact that they might have incorrectly reported his words, either by omission, honest mistake, or outright fraud. (The last is more common than you think.)

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I don't think so (3.00 / 1) (#29)
by rhino1302 on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 01:04:51 PM EST

If I tell someone that I committed a murder, that person should be able to testify to that fact in court. Hearsay is if the person to whom I confessed tells a third person and that third person testifies.

I agree with you completely, though, that unless the interviewer can be cross-examined regarding omissions, mistakes or fraud the interview should not be allowed as evidence. That's why this sucks.

[ Parent ]
hearsay (3.00 / 1) (#33)
by ethereal on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 05:49:53 PM EST

If I tell you that I did something, you can reliably report that I told you that. You can't report that I actually did it, though. There's a difference. You can only vouch for things you've witnessed; you've witnessed my making a statement but not my doing the actual crime.


Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

Of Course (nt) (2.00 / 1) (#34)
by rhino1302 on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 06:03:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Question (2.00 / 4) (#11)
by ti dave on Thu Dec 12, 2002 at 04:41:29 AM EST

Do you consider the Nuremberg trials to have been worthy of abolishment?
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Yes (3.50 / 2) (#19)
by trhurler on Thu Dec 12, 2002 at 07:19:10 PM EST

Doubtless many of the defendants were guilty as charged, but what if one of them was innocent? It isn't as though he'd have been FOUND innocent. Those tribunals accepted hearsay and rumors, took estimates as hard figures, took the testimony of people who admitted a history of dishonesty, and generally violated every rule of running an honest and fair inquiry.

Their job was to hang Nazis - not to determine guilt. I hate Nazis, but I hate dishonest courts too.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Nuremberg Trials (4.00 / 2) (#20)
by linca on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 05:05:32 AM EST

Actually, many of the defendants were innocents and, guess what, they got acquitted! The job of the Nuremberg trial, except possibly for the top Nazi hierarchy, and even there many got "only" prison sentences, was to determine who had commited actual crimes and who hadn't. And many Nazis were judged innocent.

[ Parent ]
The problem remains (3.00 / 1) (#22)
by transport on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 05:22:25 AM EST

The thing is, in an atmosphere created by several years of war, preceded presumably by a long period of animosity of one kind or another, it is impossible to have a court which all sides beleive is impartial. This in turn fuels further animosity. Regarding the Nuernberg courts, I think few would consider them fair and impartial, even if the acquittals suggest that it could have been much worse. And the Hague is most certainly hated in Serbia, and since the US apparently have things to hide, only Europe supports it (Asia? Africa? I have no clue), ... sorry, I'm going ranting, I'll stop now.

[ Parent ]
Well... (3.00 / 1) (#23)
by linca on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 05:36:30 AM EST

Does Zacarias Moussaoui regards the US court as impartial? no.

Do people in the muslim world see the US court as impartial? no.

Has the atmosphere created by 9/11 cooled down enough to grant Moussaoui a fair trial? that sounds doubtful, but possible.

Should Moussaoui be tried?

[ Parent ]

Courts and jurisdiction (none / 0) (#42)
by transport on Tue Dec 17, 2002 at 09:50:09 AM EST

As I see it, there is a fundamental difference between war crimes courts and national courts.

Should Moussaoui be tried?

Sure he should be tried. As to where, I would tend towards the US court. But the thing is, there is to all intents and purposes (believe it or not) world wide consensus that 9/11 terrorists should be punished. Of course the US court is not impartial! It would be inhumane otherwise. But it is imperative that this partiality is consciously kept to a minimum, and that everybody can see that this is the case (and I think that the US court is at least as well suited for this as any other national court). But the partiality matters less in this case because of the consensus, since there is no need to discuss if this was actually a crime, only whether he is the criminal.

The thing is, partiality is more likely to influence the latter discussion than (influence) the judging of the crime. Properly presented evidence speaks for itself, and can link a criminal and the crime, but you cannot prove whether or not a given act is a crime - that is based on morals. And was there ever a thing as subjective as morals.

War crimes are IMHO still at the stage where "the winning side writes history", thereby preemptively erasing any 'potential' war crimes on its own side. While atrocities are undoubtedly committed, I have never yet heard of a conflict where perpetrators from both (all) sides were subsequently punished. Also, the slightest amount of thought makes it obvious that it is a non-trivial matter to link a president (for instance) with the concrete actions of soldiers, let alone civilians. Thus, there is this grey zone where a crime is not a crime is a crime ....

Do people in the muslim world see the US court as impartial? no.

I actually beleive that the population of the muslim world (*) is as divided over this issue as the US population. And I am certain that there are at least as many muslims who wish to see him hang (of course his mother is not one of them) as there are americans. Especially if you count american muslims in both groups.

(*) There are a billion muslims in the world today, and most of them live in the far east: The two countries with the largest muslim population are Indonesia and India.

[ Parent ]
9/11 terrorrists (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by linca on Tue Dec 17, 2002 at 11:09:30 AM EST

Well, Moussaoui was in custody of the US government on that day.

Of course the US court is not impartial! It would be inhumane otherwise.

Then it is not a court of justice for the same reasons a war crime tribunal is not a court of justice.

I have never yet heard of a conflict where perpetrators from both (all) sides were subsequently punished.

The Hague court seeks to try both Croats and Serbs and Muslims...

since there is no need to discuss if this was actually a crime, only whether he is the criminal. /

Since that  can describe the working of about every tribunal...

It is the job of the law-maker to decide what is a crime. The role of the Court is to apply it.

/And I am certain that there are at least as many muslims who wish to see him hang as there are americans

Which is unrelated to wether they think a US tribunal is impartial. Also don't forget not all Americans are in favour of the death penalty. The Canadians don't even have it. Why do you think Moussaoui will be tried in Virginia instead of in New York?

That choice by itself is not impartial.

and about your (*), remember that Moussaoui is French.

[ Parent ]

No... (3.50 / 2) (#27)
by trhurler on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 12:29:00 PM EST

As another posted points out in reply to my above post, three people were found innocent, and as I pointed out, that's the usual ploy - find a couple of unimportant nobodies innocent so that people will believe in your credibility, allowing you to railroad everyone else. If 500 people are convicted and 100 of those are killed, and then you let 5 go, do you really believe those results? No pre-trial investigation is ever that accurate, or ever has been.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Low level nobodies (4.00 / 1) (#28)
by linca on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 12:53:51 PM EST


The "three low level nobodies" were acquitted in the "Major War Criminals" trial. That kind of contradicts the "low level nobodies". Many more were acquitted in other less important trials.

[ Parent ]

Two things (3.00 / 1) (#31)
by trhurler on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 04:15:27 PM EST

First of all, the German government(a puppet arrangement set up by the Allies, more or less,) put all three "innocents" in prison anyway under laws crafted for that purpose.

Second, who were they? Well, they were a radio announcer(obviously not guilty, his job was to be acquitted to make the proceedings look fair,) an ambassador and vice chancellor(the latter title almost purely ceremonial,) - again, an acquittal plant who was never even charged with any real crime, and a banker who was accused of nothing more than violating the Versailles Treaty on orders of his superiors(hardly a war crime,) and again would never have faced trial except that they needed someone to find innocent.

Who did they convict? Some very guilty men(four or five of them,) plus a dozen or so flunkies whose only options were to play along or end up dead or in prison anyway, including at least two or three seriously mentally ill men. Sentences? Totally disproportionate to the crimes. Men who merely knew of or should have known of some crime or other were hanged, and men who ordered atrocities got ten or fifteen years in prison. People who were repentant were killed, and people who were unrepentant went to prison.

Rudolf Hess. Alfred Jodl. Joachim von Ribbentrop. Alfred Rosenberg. Fritz Sauckel. Julius Streicher. None of them were good men. They were mostly all slimeballs. But, every one of them was hanged, and not one of them was accused of any sort of crime which justifies such punishment. Why were they hanged? Because they were the enemy. They stole from people. So did Stalin. They forced labor. So did Stalin and a whole host of Communists under him, including a couple of later Soviet leaders(Kruschev, for instance.) Hell, Stalin and his goons slaughtered innocents. These guys didn't. Why weren't the Russians on trial? Because they won the war, that's why.

These "courts" are a sham, and should be abolished. Such trials cannot be conducted fairly, so they should not be conducted at all.

You ask elsewhere whether we should let Moussaui free. The truth is, we should hand him over to his home country. They'd execute him without even a trial, in all likelihood, but what do we care? He's just another illegal alien with friends nobody trusts or likes. If they let him free, let our intelligence services trail him, and maybe they'll find some of his friends. If not, it isn't like they're ever going to use him against us again anyway; he'd be a red flag a mile wide.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Hess was not hanged (n/t) (3.00 / 2) (#35)
by ElMiguel on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 09:28:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There were three acquittals at Nuremberg. (3.50 / 2) (#21)
by ti dave on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 05:05:43 AM EST

Maybe they weren't as dishonest as you believe?
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Heh (2.00 / 1) (#26)
by trhurler on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 12:26:28 PM EST

Well, if you don't acquit at least a couple of low-level nobodies, your sentences might be overturned down the road on the grounds that you were unfair! By acquitting a couple of chumps, you can put the final nails in the coffins of the rest. Big fucking deal. Kings and generals have been using that trick since the dawn of recorded history.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Heheh (3.50 / 2) (#30)
by ti dave on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 04:14:07 PM EST

"We will be martyrs. Fifty years from now they will erect statues of me all over Germany."
~Herman Goering to his fellow defendants, on the nature of the proceedings.

I haven't seen any statuary erected there in his honor, so I'll continue to accept the verdicts.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Two things (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by trhurler on Fri Dec 13, 2002 at 05:13:05 PM EST

First, German society has had a massive attack of political correctness ever since WWII. This is reinforced by their government, which was basically set up by the Allies. I'm not saying they'd erect statues of Goering, but they're not about to criticize the tribunals either, even though the historical record clearly supports doing so. I suspect this will change in 50 or 100 years when the people who remember actively supporting the Nazis are all dead and their children's children have more or less forgotten the stories or blown them off as ancient history.

Second, Herman Goering's fanciful imagination really has nothing to do with the fairness of the courts. While statues in his honor would certainly make him right, their lack does not make his view of the proceedings themselves wrong.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Your mistake (4.50 / 2) (#36)
by ogre on Sun Dec 15, 2002 at 06:47:21 PM EST

... is in assuming that a war crimes tribunal is a court of justic. The tribunal is an extension of the war, a cleaning-up phase in which the victor takes revenge on the people on the losing side who pissed them off the most. It also gives a voice to others who felt victimized by the loser, like the Jews in the case of WWII.

However, seen in this context it is much superior to the alternative, where the generals would go around killing people who pissed them off personally, raping their women (just to hurt them more, of course), and ransaking the countryside for loot all the while. The war crimes tribunal at least makes a gesture at civilized behavior and at least (usually) gives the loser a chance to get his side of the story on the record.

Besides, it acts as a constraint on behavior. Wartime leaders aren't common (dumb) criminals who seem to have no concept that their actions might have consequences. When an intelligent person thinks about committing some atrocity, he has to think about the possibility that he will be hanged for it later. I think this tends to reduce the number and scope of atrocities. If punishments were more common it would help even more.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

In that case (none / 0) (#37)
by trhurler on Mon Dec 16, 2002 at 12:13:11 PM EST

Maybe they should admit up front what they're doing. Of course, if they did that, nobody on either side would stand for it. If you have to lie to yourself to do something, you shouldn't be doing it.

As for the "constraint on behavior," it doesn't seem to me to be working very well. Every conflict around the globe has dozens of accusations of atrocities, many of which are substantiated. This is because of a second mistake(or lie that people tell themselves,) namely, that war is fought by rules. Once you start killing people in massive numbers(or trying to do so,) there ARE NO RULES. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking clearly about what it means to kill people.

War should not be fought, unless it is to be fought totally. This, of course, would rule out most wars and render the few that happened much more horrible - but our present alternative, which is to tell men, "go and kill our enemy" and then to expect them to behave in a civilized manner while simultaneously acting as savages or even animals - this is ridiculous. War is not civilized behavior.

Then we punish the ones who are honest about what they're doing. That's clever.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
I think they are being honest (none / 0) (#38)
by ogre on Mon Dec 16, 2002 at 05:34:39 PM EST

When someone says "this person needs to be punished for what he did" he is being just as honest as someone who says, "he pissed us off and we need to kick his ass". The difference is one of style, not honesty.

As to whether it works, I don't think either one of us can really say with any confidence. Since I'm apparently more cynical about human nature than you are, I think things could be a lot worse. Dozens of attrocities is small potatoes compared to what has happened historically in warfare. If just half of the officers constrain their actions for fear of consequences I consider that a major gain.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0) (#39)
by trhurler on Mon Dec 16, 2002 at 07:33:42 PM EST

Keep in mind that people tell themselves(and others) that "this is a court of justice." They do not say "this is an instrument of revenge," and they are usually offended if you say so(as I frequently do, actually, which was the point of this whole argument I've been having.) Pointing out to them that they're after revenge makes them mad precisely because they want to believe they're "above that." I'd say that qualifies them as dishonest.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
The only difference between revenge and justice (none / 0) (#40)
by ogre on Mon Dec 16, 2002 at 08:47:50 PM EST

... is the attitude you have when you carry it out. Revenge is motivated by hatred and bitterness while justice is motivated by anger. Anger can be a positive emotion while hatred and bitterness never are. Another difference is that revenge is generally unbridled while justice is handled responsibly, measured to the level of the offense, and intended to stifle the cycle of violence rather than perpetuate it.

None of these distinctions is perfectly precise, so that two reasonable people can differ on whether a given act is an act of revenge or justice. When you say that the actions of a war crimes tribunal are revenge, you are implying that they were motivated by hatred and/or that their actions were irresponsible. But the situation is never so simple. The judges may themselves not feel hatred but they understand that many of the victors do, and by giving harsh penalties they hope to assure that violence against the losers is reduced. So in this sense the actions were motivated by hatred (second-hand), but they were undertaken responsibly.

It's always a complex issue, and I don't mean that you shouldn't criticize war crime tribunals, we need people to do that. What I'm objecting to is your assertion that all such tribunals should be abolished. They serve an important function in bringing the war to an end and in protecting the losers.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

We disagree (none / 0) (#44)
by trhurler on Tue Dec 17, 2002 at 11:50:50 AM EST

In particular, we disagree on the meaning of "justice," but my notion of it is predicated upon an awful lot of things, and probably you don't want to go into it. As far as I'm concerned, any "justice" that's just a way to vent anger in a "civilized" fashion is a sham.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
OK, we don't have to go into it (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by ogre on Wed Dec 18, 2002 at 01:38:42 AM EST

But I didn't want to leave the impression that I think justice is just a way to vent anger in a civilized fashion. I believe that ethical properties are objective and irreducible.

Everybody relax, I'm here.
[ Parent ]

Re: Thus sucks (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by rkent on Thu Dec 12, 2002 at 12:36:31 PM EST

Essentially Brdjanin is not being allowed to cross-examine his accuser.  At least the judge should have not allowed the interview to be submitted as evidence if the interviewer could not be forced to testify regarding it.

This is something of an exceptional case, though; the interview contains statements made by the defendant which are pertinent to the trial, and furthermore, it's a published account, so there's no reason it should be suppressed.

I don't think the journalist should be compelled to testify, however, because it would endanger journalists in the field (contrary to your claim, addressed below).  Basically, it should be assumed that the journalist would vouch for the veracity of the story, and the defense, if they so desire, can call testimony that questions the journalist's credibility.  There's really no reason for him to take the stand.

That said, there's plenty of reason for him not to.  He's not just "hosing the bad guy" by not testifying; if he were to take the stand, it would certainly be to say that "what I wrote is true, he did these bad things," and that would fry him, too.  

The reason this is ostensibly dangerous for war correspondents is that their work centers on getting statements from all sorts of people on all sides of the conflict.  To do this, deals are often cut about what will be reported, "I'll print what you said but not mention the skull on your passenger seat," and things like that (admittedly, these are often "deals with the devil" that are morally questionable).  But if journalists can later be made to disclose these things, to break these agreements, why would people ever speak to them in the first place?

In the end, it seems to be a question of expediency.  What he published was useful.  His full knowledge, field notes, tape recordings, etc, would be more useful, but if they were made available, it would occlude the ability to collect even the publishable parts, resulting in an eventual loss of useful information.  By letting him off, the tribunal is very forward-looking; I hope they can convict this guy without the journalist's testimony, to allow war correspondence to continue safely.  Er... a little less dangerously.

[ Parent ]

It still sucks (4.33 / 3) (#16)
by rhino1302 on Thu Dec 12, 2002 at 06:59:06 PM EST

"I'll print what you said but not mention the skull on your passenger seat"

In this hypothetical situation, the context hurts the defendant. However, I can imagine other situations which could bolster the defendants case. For example, what if his superior was present at the interview and the defendant felt pressured to act tough?

IANAL, so I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe in other cases of professional privilege, for example doctor-patient, the patient can force the doctor to testify. The privilege protects the patient from the doctor's testimony, not the other way around. The same should be the case for this supposed "interviewer-interviewee" privilege.

As for the defendant getting hosed - clearly the defendant thinks that the journalist's testimony will help his case. Otherwise he wouldn't want to put the journalist on the stand. Note that the prosecution didn't seem to care to put the journalist on the stand.

[ Parent ]
Must agree (none / 0) (#41)
by Dogun on Tue Dec 17, 2002 at 05:13:14 AM EST

IF the defense is not permitted to cross examine the witness, then the witnesses testimony should be discarded. I'm apalled at the sad state of war crimes trials, if they let this kind of thing happen.

[ Parent ]
Kosovo War Crimes? (4.33 / 6) (#9)
by cronian on Wed Dec 11, 2002 at 11:39:02 PM EST

The whole tribunal is a kangaroo court. I mean, they only seem to prosecute the leaders of countries defeated by the US. Besides, I think Milosevic wanted to call Clinton among others to testify, but he wasn't allowed because they weren't interested in testifying. I'm not how much to believe, but tenc has extensive documentation supporting their view as Milosevic defenders.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
Milosevic and the Hague (2.00 / 1) (#15)
by smallstepforman on Thu Dec 12, 2002 at 04:37:03 PM EST

Milosevic will die from health related reasons before he can get Clinton, Blair, Solana and others to testify. Hell will freeze over before the powers that be allow a cross examination of the above mentioned politicians. If he miracously manages to live long enough, then they'll resort to a prerecorded video testimony (ala Lewinski) which still doesn't allow cross examination.

[ Parent ]
Let's see.... (2.84 / 13) (#10)
by Demiurge on Thu Dec 12, 2002 at 01:08:08 AM EST

international war crimes tribunals are good when the US opposes them, but bad when enemies of the US(as well as humanity itself) are put on trial?

How can you fault the United States for refusing to take part in such a system, but then criticize the courts when they fail to follow the basic concepts of jurisprudence.

Journalist excused from War Crimes testimony | 45 comments (39 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!