Just when you thought times were changing...
From The Australian -
No way! A brutal Ethiopian Marxist dictator is going to get the chop, right? I mean, things must be really improving in Africa if they are holding their own to account for their crimes, huh.
But then ...
Ok. He fled to Zimbabwe, but surely the local authorities will turn him over, right? Especially with Mugabe being a favorite down at the UN and all, and the UN being so big on cracking down on genocide and bringing brutal dictators to justice. So he will be sent back to where he came from, I'm sure. Especially with these fanatical internationalists on the case.
Oh. So the trial was pretty pointless, eh? But wait, internationalist group Human Rights Watch has something important to say.
Huh? So Mengistu isn't allowed to retire in comfort, yet he walks free in Zimbabwe, ruled another bloody-handed dictator, Mugabe. So the entire thing was a waste of time, as far as actual justice goes.
But wait! The article goes on ...
Oh, so they include another dictator that they actually managed to find. But he is going to The Hague. How did that Milosevic trial go again? He died of old age before the trial was even half over. Go figue.
So on one side we have a dictator in Mengistu who has been found guilty of genocide, in his own country no less, yet he is free to hang out with his other dictator friend Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and so therefore the verdict from the trial of Mengistu is meaningless, and no action can be taken against him, and probably none ever will.
Then on the other side, we have Charles Taylor's future trial occuring in The Hague, which will take years if not decades, assuming that everyone involved in the process doesn't die of old age first.
And then we have the mass murdering former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who is actually in the country he is being tried in, and has recieved a sentence ensuring he will not retire in comfort - it involves rope and a crossbeam. But it seems that Human Rights Watch likes to talk about justice, but doesn't like it actually happening
Oh no! Not international practice, which seems to be trumpeting convictions that will never be carried out, or having trials which never even get to the judgement phase, for some of the most ruthless bastards of the 20th and 21st centuries.
And that is assuming that instead of eliminating these bastards, the internationalists don't applaud them, like when Mugabe got up in front of the UN and likened Bush and Blair to Hitler and Mussolini.
So it seems that we have four current and ex dictators here, and all are to be treated differently -
1) Mengistu : Convicted in absentia, however extremely unlikely to ever actually be arrested or for the sentence to be carried out due to his hanging out with dictator # 3
2) Taylor : Arrested and to be tried under international process, and likely to die under it (from old age).
3) Mugabe : Still in power, still starving his people and destroying his political and tribal opponents.
4) Saddam : Will most likely hang for his crimes at the hands of his own people, in his own country, reasonably soon.
Only one didn't rely on international processes during the proceedings, or lack thereof (in Mengistu's and Mugabe's case). Guess which one?
ETHIOPIA'S brutal Marxist dictator, known as the African Pol Pot, became the first fallen leader to be found guilty yesterday of genocide in his own country after a 12-year trial.
No way! A brutal Ethiopian Marxist dictator is going to get the chop, right? I mean, things must be really improving in Africa if they are holding their own to account for their crimes, huh.
But then ...
Former president Mengistu Haile Mariam, who fled to Zimbabwe in 1991, was accused along with top members of his military government of killing thousands during his 17-year rule.
Ok. He fled to Zimbabwe, but surely the local authorities will turn him over, right? Especially with Mugabe being a favorite down at the UN and all, and the UN being so big on cracking down on genocide and bringing brutal dictators to justice. So he will be sent back to where he came from, I'm sure. Especially with these fanatical internationalists on the case.
Human rights groups welcomed the verdict, although President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has made it clear that he is not prepared to entertain any extradition requests.
Oh. So the trial was pretty pointless, eh? But wait, internationalist group Human Rights Watch has something important to say.
"Verdicts such as this build up pressure and send the message that leaders who are bloodstained must not be allowed to retire in comfort," said Peter Takirambudde, Africa head of Human Rights Watch.
Huh? So Mengistu isn't allowed to retire in comfort, yet he walks free in Zimbabwe, ruled another bloody-handed dictator, Mugabe. So the entire thing was a waste of time, as far as actual justice goes.
But wait! The article goes on ...
Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president, was in exile for many years in Nigeria, but was arrested this year and will go on trial next year in The Hague.
Oh, so they include another dictator that they actually managed to find. But he is going to The Hague. How did that Milosevic trial go again? He died of old age before the trial was even half over. Go figue.
So on one side we have a dictator in Mengistu who has been found guilty of genocide, in his own country no less, yet he is free to hang out with his other dictator friend Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and so therefore the verdict from the trial of Mengistu is meaningless, and no action can be taken against him, and probably none ever will.
Then on the other side, we have Charles Taylor's future trial occuring in The Hague, which will take years if not decades, assuming that everyone involved in the process doesn't die of old age first.
And then we have the mass murdering former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who is actually in the country he is being tried in, and has recieved a sentence ensuring he will not retire in comfort - it involves rope and a crossbeam. But it seems that Human Rights Watch likes to talk about justice, but doesn't like it actually happening
The HRW report (into Saddam's trial) says: "The significance of the trials is difficult to overstate.
"For the first time since the post-Second World War Nuremberg trials, almost the entire senior leadership cadre of a long-lived repressive government faces trial for gross human rights violations committed during their tenure."
But the report concludes that the court did not take account of this international significance, and seemed unaware of international practice.
Oh no! Not international practice, which seems to be trumpeting convictions that will never be carried out, or having trials which never even get to the judgement phase, for some of the most ruthless bastards of the 20th and 21st centuries.
And that is assuming that instead of eliminating these bastards, the internationalists don't applaud them, like when Mugabe got up in front of the UN and likened Bush and Blair to Hitler and Mussolini.
So it seems that we have four current and ex dictators here, and all are to be treated differently -
1) Mengistu : Convicted in absentia, however extremely unlikely to ever actually be arrested or for the sentence to be carried out due to his hanging out with dictator # 3
2) Taylor : Arrested and to be tried under international process, and likely to die under it (from old age).
3) Mugabe : Still in power, still starving his people and destroying his political and tribal opponents.
4) Saddam : Will most likely hang for his crimes at the hands of his own people, in his own country, reasonably soon.
Only one didn't rely on international processes during the proceedings, or lack thereof (in Mengistu's and Mugabe's case). Guess which one?
posted by Stuart at 4:17 PM
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home