As I understand it, Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte was a bigtime mafia-fighter and protege of that famous mafia prosecutor who was murdered in Siciliy. (I know, the last Mayor of NYC was a big anti-organized crime prosecutor too, but still.)
>war, any more than they could make a silk purse out of a sow's
ear. The
>world's media instinctively sense the unsatisfactory character
of the
>trial, pushing it down the front pages to make way for the Enron
>hearings, the revelations in the Naomi Campbell case, and even
the
>skeletons in Jacques Chirac's closet.
BBC World News has been leading with it every night as has the NYTimes every day.
The Bush Administration has been utterly silent about it. They don't want an international criminal court. Unilateralism is all the rage.
In another thread, Hakki says, "Milos was undoubtedly a mass murderer but his defence is on a par with Castro's - what he lacks in Castro's humanism, he compensates with his superior logic. Pointing out that the prosecution showed that there was widespread support for Serb actions in Bosnia and Kosovo, Milos said "Our citizens stand accused, citizens who lent their massive support to me (...) My conduct was an expression of the will of the people."
That's what I call going down in a blaze of glory, a fighting Serb to the end."
I can't eat enough to vomit enough. If Milos was so popular, why did his supporters turn him over without a fight and for just a few bucks? And so all Americans should stand accused for Bush's actions? All Israelis for Sharon's? Smells like OBL logic.
Why doesn't Milos do the Chomsky defense? "Hey, we were a poor country. If we had had more money like you, we wouldn't have gone all genocidal." Somehow I doubt that would fly, though....
Peter