Aren't they doing it all the time already?

Starting wars, especially when there is, at the time, apparent reasonable cause for the war, is completely different from what Milosevic did, which was basically to directly target and kill thousands of people of an ethnic group merely for the fact that they are in that group.
Genocide and war are different, and if you think they aren't, you need to keep quiet about international affairs, 'cuz you clearly don't really know what you are talking about.

You might still be guilty of a crime. Just because a court hasn't told be that I am indeed guilty doesn't mean I'm not. It just means that the court was not convinced of my being guilty. I mean even though Hitler committed suicide he's still guilty of a lot of bad things, isn't he?

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I've never understood that. Why should you create even more suffering in the world than there already is? I mean why should you make someone suffer because he made someone suffer? That way you're not better than him, because you have caused as much suffering, not? Anyway, as an utilitarian, I think that it's wrong to cause even more suffering than there already is, no matter who is the one suffering ...
Generally I think that justice is the wrong way to go about problems. The world is unfair, it's just the way it is ...

Ultimately the problem with convicting Bush or Blair on warcrimes is proving whether or not they personally implemented policies that lead to Geneva violations or Crimes Against Humanity.

Even assuming they didn't, you could still get Bush on the fact that he is the Commander in Chief of US Armed forces, and that any policies commited by said entity come back on his shoulders, regardless of any ignorance on the President's behalf.

As far as Blair is concerned, since "sending young soldiers to war" isn't an actual crime in any sense, the worst thing I can think of the British being responsible for is compliance with the indiscriminate use of White Phosphorous by Americans in civilian areas.

Would this make it possible to dig up Abraham Lincoln and put him on trial for war crimes, then? What about Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson?

Ramsey Clark and his group want to try Bill Clinton for war crimes, too, actually.

Unfortunately, I think you utilitarianism is incomplete.
One thing you have to take into consideration is the fact that a lot of people will not be happy until justice has been administered. As such, it is a necessary evil for the happiness of the people.

So then, what is your solution for people that commit heinous acts? Slap them on the wrist, and hope that they can be rehabilitated? Tell me, have you ever seen the movie A Clockwork Orange?

You should never say something like that on an American message board, see above to find out why

I'm kind of with gyges on this one. There's a thin line between revenge and "justice", if there is one at all.

Dude died. What would his punishment have been? To die?

That may be true, but is this valid reasoning?

It's not as if we metaphorically dropped his pants and verbally sodomozed him for this. Or are you saying that we're behaving unreasonably?

Ethnic cleansing during the Yugoslavia wars, was participied by all three groups. Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. The Croats wanted to cleanse Croatia from all Non-Croats and to do the same with the Croatian Part in Bosnia. The Bosnians wanted to create with the help of the Mujahedeen, a pan-islamistic state. And the Serbs wanted to annex the Serbian part of Bosnia and the Krajna in Croatia, by force such as genocide.
I can understand if the UN says "We have to do something!" But does this give you a reason to bomb innocent citizens, schools, hospitals and so on?

But what I find it somehow strange is, that the US has started wars without a UN mandate like fo example the bombig of Yugoslavia in 1999 or the war in Iraq 2003.

Well for me the Balkans aren't international affairs since I am from the Balkans, from Bosnia and this has something to do with my homeland, so I think, to be as modest as possible, that I know what I'm talking about if the topic is the Balkans.

So what you're basically saying is that justice is just thinly disguised vengeance?

Whether it is, or it isn't you wouldn't be violating your utilitarianist beliefs by supporting justice. Since I'm pretty sure the victims would be happy to see justice done. The needs of the many still outweigh the needs of the few.

But people can be irrational; so maybe they shouldn't always be given what they actually want.

Since we're speaking in such generalities; not everybody that wants justice wants to see the accused hanged.

Which is why most countries don't have the death penalty. Since in every case it's already too late. Yet justice still needs to upheld, otherwise anarchy would reign.

Clearly the idea of utilitarianism is foriegn to you.
Utilitarianism gives little importance to what is "rational" and really has only the objective of doing the most good for the most people. So, if it is irrational for justice to be administered to Milosevic, but a vast majority of people will be pleased and happy with that, then by all means, justice should be administered.

Maybe somebody else here is up to contesting that. I'm way too cynical for that. Regardless it'd still be a interesting perspective.

I was thinking more along the lines of that most human beings are good and it's really not the fear of the consequences that prevent people from murdering each other.... oh hell I just made the arguement. I don't think I could back it up though.

Sure, you have to take the deterrent effect of punishment into account, and see whether the unhappiness caused by the punishment is smaller or larger than the happiness "caused" by it by deterring people from comitting crimes.
But I do think there is a limit to what punishment can do to prevent crimes, and I don't think that the death-penalty is doing a better job than long prison sentences do. I see no reason why I should punish someone harder, if a lesser punishment is as deterrent as the hard one.

Look, dude, relax, I was just saying that it's dangerous to criticise the "eye for an eye" theory if you're discussing with Americans, worst case American republicans.