Milosevic dies in jail
 

Scource: http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/News...-MILOSEVIC.xml

I also heard it from numerous German and Serbian sources, so I think that reuters.co.uk is somehow telling the truth.

I wonder how badly this will interrupt the process of justice.

They'll probably continue the trial and posthumously find him guilty on all charges, for closure and shit.

I think you can forget the trial now since he is dead. First Babic, then Milosevic...I wonder how long Seselj and Gotovina will make it.

EDIT:
Or it will be like this, since he has defended himself without a lawyer all the time.

It is really a shame that all war criminals die before they can face REAL justice. Same will happen to Saddam, just wait...

Wasn't what I mean't. Now any suspected criminal brought before the Hague could claim that his life is being put under needless endangerment.

There was a suicide a week ago, so this isn't the first time a prisoner has died in the Tribunal's prison. This might open a whole new can of worms. But we'll see what the results from the atopsy says.

Maybe.

Probably not long. Two within practically one week? Is this the way Europeans handle their death penalty?

Yes, and then they'll execute his corpse. Really, though: this should be done if only to prove to people that he really was a criminal (or so to speak).

I agree! Itzebegovic and Tudjman were also war criminals, but they died before there were some charges. Karadzic and Mladic are still somewhere in Bosnia.

Some of the ciminals are even released from prison like Fatmir Limaj or the charges are dropped for no reason like the ones one Hasim Tachi.

But what about the war criminals like Bush and Blair? Will they face somday "REAL justice"? Somehow I don't think so...

You mean, torture him?

Hopefully he was at least sodomized before he died.

Uhh no dude do I look as if I was a retard? It's just that without a sentence, you're not guilty of a crime, law is easy as that!

Well, that's because the whole trial has incompetence written all over it. As soon as I heard it honestly took them a year to figure out how to charge him with anything I knew they had no clue what the hell they were doing. It's just one big political circus act with incompetent clowns running the show.

Criminals like Saddam or Milosevic should feel the same pain they made their victims feel. But im afraid you cant make someone feel a million deaths -.-

Probably not. That would be too fair. Sometimes people deserve worse things.

Ditto. That is, for Bush and Blair.

That 's right! Why else would it take them over 5 years?

The trial was often live broadcasted on RTS (Radio Televizija Srbija). Always when Milosevic had some very good counter-statements, the judges turned off his microphone.

Wow. I can't say I've heard this sort of thing too much.
Since when are people criminals for starting wars? (Don't get me wrong, I don't like the 'war' as much as anyone else, but to suggest that someone is a criminal for starting a war is asinine. To my knowledge, those two haven't committed genocide.)

To my knowledge, they're just as guilty as any other leading figure for killing civilians and sending young soldiers off to war. Genocide or not, they're just as bad as Milosevic was.

Very good counterstatements?
How can anyone justify attempted genocide and crimes against humanity?

Obviously he was being tried for those sorts of things, but he was never found guilty of them. Thats why they have these trials in the first place. Sure we could just go "YOU'RE GUILTY ITS OVER FOR YOU", but then what about the wrongly accused.

Not to say, that he wasn't probably guilty, but you know.

The Nuremburg trials took four years. So it's not like five years is all that much more. Plus, they were supposively close to a sentence.

Investigation of Milosevic's 90+ counts of genocide and crimes against humanity take's time. Every single count must be throughly proven in the interests of justice.

Because it is not for 100% sure if Milosevic has the full responsibility for ALL massacres in Bosnia commited by Serbs. Karadzic and Mladic made many crimes on their own without Milosevic's oders.

Not exactly, we don't officially recognize the authority of the international crime court.

That doesn't mean they still couldn't try Americans for crimes against humanity, it's just that there'd be no point.

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.

Yet your argument wasn't that people should serve jailtime, but that creating more suffering in the world wasn't what is right. Yet, how can jailtime be interpreted in any way other than suffering? The response then, is to create a prison environment where inmates do not suffer at all, yet if that is the case, then you are essentially rewarding criminals with taxpayer money, and how is that right?

Eh, close minded people will be close minded people. That doesn't mean that opinions shouldn't be discussed or otherwise limited. Singling out Americans is not fair and make's me a sad panda. Could I get a hug from you after this?

Prisons aren't exactly paradise retreats, especially not European prisons.

*edit*
Plus, American prisons actually generate money. All the non-risk prisoners are whored out as cheap labor. Some of which are highly qualified.

Actually, that's pretty much what's happening here in Sweden right now. there are people coming from abroad, committing crimes, only so that they can be caught and be put into prison, because the living-standard in the prison's here is pretty high, they even get better food than we do at school...

But actually, I wouldn't have any problems with prisoners enjoying their time in prison, if it would deter them from committing crimes. The point I have been trying to make, is that I don't think that "justice" is the right way to go. I believe that whatever causes the most happiness is the right way to go, and if "letting Milosevic experience a few million deaths" would cause greater happiness overall in the world than him only getting to spend a few years in prison, or even be freed, than I would think it's the right thing to do. It's just that I do not think people are so sadistic, that the happiness caused by his suffering would be as great as his own suffering.

I don't think that "not creating suffering" is the right thing to do, but creating "most happiness", and sometimes creating suffering might be necessary to deter people from creating even more suffering. And that's why I think the "eye for an eye" logic is wrong.

Yes, of course in reality it's also not possible to see all the consequences of ones actions, but I think one could try and see as far as one can, and do the things one thinks are right. In this case I don't see how vengeance can cause much happiness.

Or the assault on those young boys carried out by British soldiers. Or the use of cluster bombs (which are illegal, mind you) during the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia.

That's true, but my definition of what is morally right is a purely theoretical one. I, as a human being, can never know what is right/best for someone else, so I can never know if what I do is right or wrong. But still I can make some predictions. For example, making someone experience a few million deaths, as in this case, is as far as I can see, not causing more happiness than it is causing suffering.

Yes, that's a dilemma. There are different views on that, some utilitarians think that one should create as much happiness for as many as possible, while others only care about the total sum of happiness minus the unhappiness, i.e. theoretically the right thing to do could be to make just one, or a small group, very happy, if the sum in the end is greatest.

Personally, I'm very split on the issue, and find it very difficult to decide, though I do think/hope that the greatest happiness would be caused by having as many people as possible happy... Maybe this dilemma is the reason I have begun looking at other philosophies ...

Sorry what are you saying there; it's late and I haven't had my nightbooze yet

That however is not utilitarianism.

Sadly, I don't think that will ever be possible...
How does one distinguish between "true happiness" and "not true happiness"?

Yes, probably you're right...I think that we have fundamentally different views on what accounts as "true happiness". I count all happiness as "true happiness, but that's just my definition of it...

But it's good that there are different views on things, else the world would be very boring ^^

I think the discussion has become somewhat off-topic also, considering the topic being "Milosevic dies in jail"...

Anyway, I'm going to sleep now, so good night to you ^^

Again, have you ever seen the movie A Clockwork Orange? I'm assuming that you haven't, because otherwise this dilemma would have become apparent to you, so I'll give you a basic synopsis of what happens in the movie.



In the case presented by A Clockwork Orange, you have an individual who increases his own happiness by causing pain and misery to others. Eventually, this misery is visited back to him by an amoral government, yet he is also eventually rewarded for being a terrible person by said government, which seeks to service it's own ends.

So, the boy derives pleasure from harming others, increasing his own happiness, and reducing those of others. Eventually, he is sent to prison, which serves to increase the happiness of the relatives of his victim, while simultaneously increasing his own. Eventually, an amoral government which seeks to cause the most happiness in society (i.e. a low-cost rehabilitation program to replace expensive penitentiaries) causes an extraordinary amount of pain and suffering to the boy to further it's own ends. Causing more pain and suffering to the boy increases the happiness of the man whose wife he raped, yet this man, who acted in a justifiable manner, is eventually punished, while the boy is rewarded by the government, which seeks to maintain this idealized level of "happiness" by punishing a select amount of Just individuals.

By all acounts, the boy should be executed, yet he is both punished, and rewarded, and put into a position where he could potentially harm more people, all for the sake of self-serving agendas in the assumtion that a greater good is being accomplished.

Ultimately, had he been left to rot in prison, society in general would have been for the better, as he was in a place where he could not harm others.

How do you respond to this?

Uhh basically that people who aren't open to different ideas, aren't open to different ideas because it threatens their close-minded view on life. Also, that it's not right to single Americans out just because some (or the majority) of Americans are small-minded.

The last bit was just crap I thought was funny at the time. You totally killed it for me though.

One last post for today...

Sorry for not answering you last time you asked, I forgot when I read on in the thread...Yes, I have seen the movie, though it was some time ago, so thanks for the good summary for reminding me...

you quoted me saying:
What I think is that, if putting him into prison would cause the greatest happiness overall, then it would have been the right thing to do, so I think it would have been better to put him into prison.

Once again, I do not think that "not causing suffering" is the right thing to do, but "causing most happiness" and I believe that might include causing some suffering, sadly. But I'm against causing unnecessary suffering in the world, only because some people think that it's "just" if someone suffers because of causing suffering.

Yet you're forgetting what happens in the movie, which is that because certain agents acted in the pursuit of "happiness" that more suffering is caused than happiness. Without the morals applied by a just society, the amount of suffering and potential suffering caused in the movie would have been avoided. All of which was caused in the pursuit of ultimately Utilitarian ideals.

That's actually a pretty different ending of the story from what was in the book, if I'm remembering it right (heck, I hadn't even known they made a movie of it).

The book continues on for a while after the point where the movie ends. There is some debate about which ending is better.

Also, how could you not know they made a movie of it?

Illegal or not, this is the NATO. They can do what the hell they want.

Yes, but whatever reason they acted for is not interesting from an utilitarian perspective. It's only the consequences that matter.

So, in this case, clearly the morally more right thing to do would have to be "just", if that's what causing more happiness. Just because someone acts in pursuit of happiness doesn't mean that he's acting morally right from an utilitarian perspective.

Utilitarianism is purely theoretical, and it does not tell people for which reasons they should act, just that the morally right thing to do is the one that causes most happiness. Someone trying to achieve most happiness doesn't neccessarily cause it.

In this case, being just would have caused more happiness, and therefore it would have been more morally right to do than what they did in the movie.

Sorry to butt in here:

It's a bit off-topic, but has anyone read Death Note (manga)?

When I heard Milosevic died in jail of a heart attack, it's pretty much the same premise as the beginning of Death Note (the main character has a book that, if a person's name is written in it, that person will instantly die of a heart attack). Basically, the main character wrote down dozens of names of famous criminals in prison and they all died of heart attacks.

Just a funny coincidence.

Then Utilitarianism is a meaningless philosophy, because if it is impossible to determine whether or not one's actions cause happiness, then there is no objective way to implement moral decision making. It is decisively amoral.

Besides, the pursuit of "Justice" in the case of Alex doesn't necessarily cause more happiness, as it does present a tremendous amount of suffering. That is the problem with Utilitarian thinking, that happiness is created by any number of criteria, and that destructive elements of it are considered good.

Yes, essentially utilitarianism doesn't really help you making everyday-decisions... For me it's simply a definition what is right. Of course I would have to be all-knowing and god-like being in order to act morally right, but having defined "causing as great happiness as possible" as ones goal has other implications, one of them being that justice is nothing one should try to achieve (if it in itself doesn't create more happiness, which I doubt it does in many cases).

Basically, with utilitarianism you can never formulate any principles on how you should act in some given situation, e.g. driving while being drunk might actually, although it's not probable, save someones life, etc...

EDIT: Actually, I think that if everyone would try and cause as great happiness as possible, without any principles on how one should act in some given situation, it would also create more happiness, because humans are highly sociable animals, and we do know quite alot about other people's feelings, etc... although of course there are some extreme cases where this is not true.

I think every philosophy that states some rules on how one can decide whether it's morally right to act in some way or not (like Kant's philosophy, etc..) can never lead to as great happiness as people trying to achieve it by actually *thinking*.

The thing is, I could probably program my computer to apply the "Categoric Imperative" of Kant to actions, but I think that's one thing that distinguishes humans from computers, that we can think about *the consequences* of our actions. And if we try to achieve "great happiness" as the consequence of our actions, I think we will be quite successful.

Like, 2/3 of this thread is not about Milosevic.

How 'bout that guys name, huh? Slobodan? What do you think they called him in grammar school? Slo? Slobo? Lobo? Dan? Bodan?

Guy's got a thousand nicknames.

Yeah, unfortunately you can't do that or else it would have to be major overkill.

I fear that this will have some severe consequences for the so-called hunt for Mladic and Karadzic. Serbia hasn't been cooperating very well, and now that their former president died in a foreign cell, they'll use that as an excuse to stop searching for the last two suspects, since they don't want them to die in a cell. Although nothing's sure yet, since the EU is putting more and more pressure on Serbia, threatening to halt the EU-membership.

As for Milosevic, it seems that he was taking some other medicines, that cancelled the medicines he was taking for his heart and blood pressure. who gave them to him? Did he knew what they were doing, and did he want to commit suicide in the longer run, or was it just to have an excuse to go to Russia for medical treatment?

I'm still puzzling over people's outrage that he dared to die in prison. He was removed from power, was constantly reminded of his crimes, and died alone in a little jail cell. A fitting end to his life, I think.

They were just going to put him to death anyway. Who cares if he kicked off early? Justice was served the moment they took him into custody and threw him in his cell. The people who are incensed that they didn't get a chance to finish his trial and face punishment don't really want justice, they want revenge. People seem to have the two concepts mixed up in their heads.

He couldn't have been put to death, the max punishment for the Yugoslavia court is a life long sentence. People are disappointed because, even though they knew that he would be found guilty, the court didn't get a chance to actually say that he was one of the biggest criminals of the Balkan Wars. Some would rather see him rot away in prison for at least 20 years, than see him death, because it would be the easy way out.

I 'd say that this will have no consequences at all. The "search" for Karadzic and Mladic is nothing more than a joke. And there has been no evidence that tose guys are in Serbia at all since it is presumed that they are still in the Serbian part of Bosnia where they can roam almost freely. Both have many supporters.
Since Karadzic and Mladic are moving through Bosian territory, Serbia can do nothing. Del Ponte is just discracing herself, since she is too incompetent. Mlaic and Karadzic are hiding in an area which isn't even bigger than Maryland and she wasn't able to find them for almost 11 years! It is almost as embarrassing as the "search" for Bin Laden.

It it not HER job to be looking for them, but it's the job of the new serbian government. And even if Mladic and Karadzic are on Bosnian territory, Serbia had plenty of chances of catching them on Serbian territory, it just wasn't possible for them with an unstable government and a higly independant army which still looks up to those two.

What then is her job? Sitting around in the Hague and crying about what nasty boys those Serbs and Croats are?
It seems as it is her job to find those two, since the Serbs have no interest in handing them over. For now Serbia is rather hunting for Karic.
Lets imagine following situation:
The EU tells Serbia to arrest them and hand over to the Hague and then they would have an EU membership. But what guarante would Serbia have that the EU keeps her promise? And so instead of letting Serbia joning in, they let her rather to rot. And so this is one of the reasons why Serbia thinks that it would be better not to trust them and keep the "heroes" in the homeland and since many Serbs see Karadzic and Mladic as their heroes.

It's her job to prepare a case against them, not to organize the search herself, she's only a prosecutor. The reason she's so prominent in the entire search, is ony to put more and more pressure on Serbia and Croatia. She doesn't have the authority to do more.

It's understandable that Serbia is suspicious, and fearing that the EU will break it's promise, but I don't think that it'll happen now. The EU desperately needs to get a positive image, after the mess with the constitution, and if they even try to break one of their promises with Serbia, the public opinion in other countries will only realize that the EU wants to stay an elite club. It's in the EU's best interest to be able to keep that promise.