At Long Last, One of the World's Most Wanted Fugitives Is Captured
Radovan Karadzic, indicted on genocide charges in the Bosnian civil war, is in custody
He's been on the run for more than a decade, but former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, perhaps the world's most wanted indicted war criminal, is now in custody, according to wire reports.
Karadzic was reportedly nabbed by Serbian security forces, which U.S. officials for years had accused of helping to harbor him. His continued fugitive status had been a major sticking point in relations between Washington and Belgrade.
U.S. officials had been pursuing Karadzic without success for many years, conducting elaborate operations to track him down.
Karadzic was indicted on genocide charges for his role in orchestrating the bloody Bosnian civil war in the 1990s. He was the leader of the ethnic Serbs during the conflict that erupted after Bosnia seceded from the former Yugoslavia.
He stands accused of masterminding the ethnic cleansing (which included murder, imprisonment, or expulsion) of more than 1 million Muslims between 1992 and 1994. But as U.S. News has written, the legal case will still be difficult to prove.
Karadzic's capture leaves another high-profile fugitive on the run—Ratko Mladic, former top Bosnian Serb general.
Reader Comments
NO EUROPEAN JUSTICE APPLICABLE TO KARADZIC
NO EUROPEAN WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL JUSTICE APPLICABLE TO KARADZIC, CLINTON AND BUSH
Serbia’s Karadzic illegally shot innocent Serbian Muslims in the Serbian defensive civil war; America’s Clinton and Bush illegally bombed innocent Iraqi Muslims in the offensive pre-emptive international Iraq Wars, in support of the Judeofascist Israeli Land Robbers. If Karadzic had bombed, instead of shot the Muslims, how would his war crimes have been different from those of Clinton and Bush? Is Clinton’s whereabouts unknown to the European Union War Crimes Tribunal; and are they waiting until Bush is no longer president, before charging him? Or are American leaders exempt, by special dispensation.
Or are the war crimes of passion, committed by patriotic leaders desperately fighting to prevent the partitioning of their nation, greater that the international war crimes of pre-meditated political and economic gains? What legal precedent shall the European War Crimes Tribunal set for themselves, for the time when they too are desperately confronted by their own terrorist Muslim separatists, and must finally resort to violent ethnic cleansing? And, shall they set a precedent that will greatly encourage Muslim minorities everywhere to start their own promising separatist movements?
Karadzic, the great Serbian nationalist, would certainly have saved his beloved Serbia from partitioning by her Muslim separatists had the American Neo-Con/Neo-Lib military intervention not occurred. Who other than Serbia should have the legal right to try and sentence Karadzic for his war crimes against her own innocent Serbian citizens? But, in the cases of Clinton and Bush, who committed international war crimes against innocent Iraqi citizens; who other than the United Nations of World should have the right to try and sentence them, given that America has failed to uphold its own Constitutional Rule of Law?
In general, European War Crimes Tribunal Justice only applies to members of the European community when their warfare is inter-European. Non-Europeans, such as Middle Easterners and Far Easterners, have alien cultural values and norms; and Europeans have no superior moral or legal or right to try and sentence their war criminals. Without conforming to this Principle of Trial by Peers, justice is neither possible nor acceptable.
NO EUROPEAN JUSTICE APPLICABLE TO KARADZIC
NO EUROPEAN WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL JUSTICE APPLICABLE TO KARADZIC, CLINTON AND BUSH
Serbia’s Karadzic illegally shot innocent Serbian Muslims in the Serbian defensive civil war; America’s Clinton and Bush illegally bombed innocent Iraqi Muslims in the offensive pre-emptive international Iraq Wars, in support of the Judeofascist Israeli Land Robbers. If Karadzic had bombed, instead of shot the Muslims, how would his war crimes have been different from those of Clinton and Bush? Is Clinton’s whereabouts unknown to the European Union War Crimes Tribunal; and are they waiting until Bush is no longer president, before charging him? Or are American leaders exempt, by special dispensation.
Or are the war crimes of passion, committed by patriotic leaders desperately fighting to prevent the partitioning of their nation, greater that the international war crimes of pre-meditated political and economic gains? What legal precedent shall the European War Crimes Tribunal set for themselves, for the time when they too are desperately confronted by their own terrorist Muslim separatists, and must finally resort to violent ethnic cleansing? And, shall they set a precedent that will greatly encourage Muslim minorities everywhere to start their own promising separatist movements?
Karadzic, the great Serbian nationalist, would certainly have saved his beloved Serbia from partitioning by her Muslim separatists had the American Neo-Con/Neo-Lib military intervention not occurred. Who other than Serbia should have the legal right to try and sentence Karadzic for his war crimes against her own innocent Serbian citizens? But, in the cases of Clinton and Bush, who committed international war crimes against innocent Iraqi citizens; who other than the United Nations of World should have the right to try and sentence them, given that America has failed to uphold its own Constitutional Rule of Law?
In general, European War Crimes Tribunal Justice only applies to members of the European community when their warfare is inter-European. Non-Europeans, such as Middle Easterners and Far Easterners, have alien cultural values and norms; and Europeans have no superior moral or legal or right to try and sentence their war criminals. Without conforming to this Principle of Trial by Peers, justice is neither possible nor acceptable.
EUROPEAN UNION WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL JUSTICE
SHALL THE EUROPEAN UNION WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL BE A JUST OR UNJUST INSTITUTION
Karadzic illegally shot innocent Muslims in the Serbian defensive civil war; Bush illegally bombed innocent Muslims in the offensive international Iraq War for the Judeofascist Israeli Land Robbers. If Karadzic had bombed, instead of shot the Muslims, how would his war crimes have been different from those of Bush? Is the European Union War Crimes Tribunal just waiting until Bush is no longer president, before charging him?
advertisement
