• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Yet another intelligence failure?

C

charrison

Lifer
linkage

With time running out, the chief UN war crimes prosecutor said Wednesday that she had yet to prove her case of genocide against Slobodan Milosevic and that the next few months would be critical.


The prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, said in an interview that crucial evidence would soon be presented to the tribunal regarding the former Yugoslav president's involvement with the massacre in Srebrenica and the bombardment of Sarajevo.
Click to expand...

I thought this was an open and shut case on genecide.
 
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.

More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
 
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.

More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Click to expand...

Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.

More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Click to expand...

Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
 
You also have to realize that thier is a huge difference from proving that Milsovec is a bad guy who killed a lot of people to proving the charge of Genocide which carries very specific legal requirements. The case must be built very carefully in order to ensure the fariness and legitimacy of the proceedings.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.

More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Click to expand...

Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

Who exactly said this was an "open and shut case" by the way?? Where are you getting that. I can't imagine that any of the proescutors said that.

 
Also, we are not talking about intelligence in this case. The realms of intelligence and criminal investigations and evidence collection for a criminal prosecution are very different. A criminal investigation and the building of a solid case against the defendent requires very high standards not present in a lot of intelligence estimates as we have so recently learned.
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.

More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Click to expand...

Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

Who exactly said this was an "open and shut case" by the way?? Where are you getting that. I can't imagine that any of the proescutors said that.
Click to expand...


Well given the media coverage a few years back....
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.

More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Click to expand...

Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?

 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Odd that you didn't quote the third, and most positive paragraph of the article. It says the prosecutor has till the end of the year to present her case, and that she is confident that she will win a conviction for genocide. Furthermore, it says that Slobodon has a whopping two years for defense. I'm no expert on international crimes against humanity, but i guess they take a long time.

More importantly, what exactly are you implying by posting this?
Click to expand...

Why does it take 2 years for what is supposed to be an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

Who exactly said this was an "open and shut case" by the way?? Where are you getting that. I can't imagine that any of the proescutors said that.
Click to expand...


Well given the media coverage a few years back....
Click to expand...



So now you judge the process of justice by what the media says??

Remember the OJ trial? Give me a freaking break.

You do realize that we are talking about a 66 count indictment for events in the early 90s in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Croatia, etc. as well as later charges for the Kosovo actions. Actions spanning over a decade with only relatively recently the subject being turned over to the tribunal. Very very complex case.
 
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?
Click to expand...

Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
 
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?
Click to expand...

Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
Click to expand...
OH it is? There aren't thousands of witnesses, and reams of evidence? OH you are right Saddam and his regime was actively covering up his program *gasp*. Possibly even he destroyed as much as he could when we came in. That would mean less evidence, fewer witnesses.

You are right, I think finding the WMD is even harder.

 
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?
Click to expand...

Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
Click to expand...
OH it is? There aren't thousands of witnesses, and reams of evidence? OH you are right Saddam and his regime was actively covering up his program *gasp*. Possibly even he destroyed as much as he could when we came in. That would mean less evidence, fewer witnesses.

You are right, I think finding the WMD is even harder.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. "We know where the weapons are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." All you have to do to prove that WMD exist, is to find some.

Totally different thing to prove crimes against humanity. Apples and oranges.
 
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?
Click to expand...

Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
Click to expand...
OH it is? There aren't thousands of witnesses, and reams of evidence? OH you are right Saddam and his regime was actively covering up his program *gasp*. Possibly even he destroyed as much as he could when we came in. That would mean less evidence, fewer witnesses.

You are right, I think finding the WMD is even harder.
Click to expand...

What point are you arguing? Are you being sarcastic? I honestly can't decipher your response.
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Thier is no such thing as an open and shut case when you are dealing with an international tribunal and charges of genocide on massive scales. Thier are thousands of witnesses over many countries, reams of evidence etc. The tribunal also has a large set of procedures for the defense as well. It is a very painstaking process.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the same thing would apply to a WMD program in a country that had many years to hide it?
Click to expand...

Making a comparison between the complicated legal process of building a war crimes case to be tried before an international tribunal and the process of looking for 10,000 liters of WMD in a country that is being occupied by the greatest military history has ever known is obviously reaching for straws.
Click to expand...
OH it is? There aren't thousands of witnesses, and reams of evidence? OH you are right Saddam and his regime was actively covering up his program *gasp*. Possibly even he destroyed as much as he could when we came in. That would mean less evidence, fewer witnesses.

You are right, I think finding the WMD is even harder.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. "We know where the weapons are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." All you have to do to prove that WMD exist, is to find some.

Totally different thing to prove crimes against humanity. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, I didn't realize you were a former international war crimes tribunal member AND a weapons inspector. Cause they both sound pretty darn tough to me.
 
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Check out the indictment and tell me that is an open and shut case.

Link to Full text of Indictment
Click to expand...

Definatly a bad guy, but was it genocide?
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. Mister Open and Shut case. What are you arguing here? It escapes me.
Click to expand...

So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
 
Originally posted by: charrison

So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
Click to expand...

And so he admits that this is just yet another thinly veiled partisan attack against President Clinton.
 
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: charrison

So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
Click to expand...

And so he admits that this is just yet another thinly veiled partisan attack against President Clinton.
Click to expand...

Did I say anything about Clinton?
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: charrison

So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
Click to expand...

And so he admits that this is just yet another thinly veiled partisan attack against President Clinton.
Click to expand...

Did I say anything about Clinton?
Click to expand...

Sorry bro, you don't have George Tenet to fall on his sword for you.
 
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: charrison

So since it is not an open and shut case, it seems we might have sent troop to oust milosovich on bad intel...
Click to expand...

And so he admits that this is just yet another thinly veiled partisan attack against President Clinton.
Click to expand...

Did I say anything about Clinton?
Click to expand...

Sorry bro, you don't have George Tenet to fall on his sword for you.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about Tenet?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top