The secret life of Tony Cascarino ?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

04/08/2004, 12:06 PM
lopez

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

Point taken. But where's the convincing first hand evidence regarding the charges?

The evidence that makes the case is with the ICTY. Courts based on judicial systems that we find in Europe don't put people on trial without evidence. Its sometimes flawed, sometimes withheld, but I'm yet convinced that this is some sort of conspiracy. The CIA claiming that 90% of crimes were committed by Serbs sounds reasonable, but it doesn't mean that the 10% should get away free just because two of the three biggest 'lowlifes' amongst them are still free. Mitigating circumstances - the most obvious revenge - should be taken into consideration, but this doesn't excuse that a case has been brought and that Gotovina is evading justice. Even Blaskic was guilty of a crime that got him 8 years and early release because he did not dodge his duty to the court and showed remorse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

Yes, but you've automatically assumed that this would be a fair trial and this is where we disagree. I refer you back to Blaskic & Co, where was Lionel then? Surely this confirms 'gross errors' and in fact in the appeals own words 'a miscarriage of justice' had occurred? As well as the previous case I pointed out.The Blaskic case being the more relevant of course due to the sweeping cover all options charge of 'Command responsibility.'.

I could argue that the British criminal system was biased towards Irish and Black people after the miscarriages of the seventies and eighties. With regards to the B6, G4, M7 and Judith Ward, these were political trials needed to seek retribution for an IRA campaign that seemed unstoppable. Had the trials been held in a neutral court then perhaps either the cases would have been thrown out or the appeals procedure would have found the incarcerated innocent far sooner. I take it that the ICTY would no accept a withdrawn confession as evidence unless it is corroborated?

However, despite these cases, what course of action is left to the Irish and Black communities of Britain. One could argue that with a couple of IRA trials in the nineties where the defendants were released and the convictions of loyalist paramilitaries that the suggestion by its apologists is true: British justice is one of the best in the world.

The alternative is of course to let the General go on trial in Croatia. This has been proved to be unacceptable - as unacceptable in putting either a Serbian accused on trial in 'Srpska' or Belgrade or indeed putting a Serbian on trial in Croatia for crimes committed in Vukovar or Osijek. The Hague is the best place for bringing justice and I take it, it was given full support from Tudjman and co. when the Serbs were being indicted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

All the other indictments specify how the accused is connected to the criminal group and the actual crimes. Not so Gotovina's..

I'm not reading the other indictments so if you say so, then so be it. Gotovina's indictment is there for all to see. Specific details are missing which is not unusual for what is a media statement of a case under sub judice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twelfth Apostle

Lopez, yet again, it is not my responsibility to provide evidence, which I have, to counter your libel, rather your responsibility to prove it's not libel. You made the accusations so go on and prove me wrong! Show me and everyone else how you concluded the Irishman who fought for Croatia known as Tony cascarino was a soldier of fortune. Was he mentioned in that '97 Guardian report? Have you ever seen it written or stated anywhere? Admit it was, like your allegations against gotovina, completely unfounded and then we'll be friends.

Well I don't know about the friends bit, but it's been a pleasure cyber-rumbling with you. And no hard feelings on my part. It was I admit a cheap shot about the 'soldier of fortune, sorry, latter day George Orwell' and I concede that I had no grounds for this allegation. As too is the allegation about the General 'shooting anyone who takes his fancy.' However you can't deny that mercenaries were not in evidence in Croatia, nor that the behaviour I implied of the general has never happened with generals, one I can think of became the head of state of a major European country for almost 40 years.

But I still believe you're Tony. And the General is in my eyes still a war criminal. Only his trial will prove to me otherwise.
04/08/2004, 12:17 PM
Twelfth Apostle

Good post Lopez, and likewise apologies on my part for any comments I may have made which you may have found unwarranted. No hard feelings on my part either. :)
04/08/2004, 12:54 PM
Twelfth Apostle

I don't think I've got so much a problem with the ICTY per se, or certainly in theory, but surely it needs at the very least a gigantic kick up the ass for the outrageous goings on regarding the aforementioned cases?

If we return to the original miscarriage of justice against the three Bosnian Croats. The appeals court rejected it saying it was "critically flawed" that the "case against them cannot stand" adding that the charges had been "too general and vague" and that the Prosecutors had built a weak case based on "unreliable witnesses." The court said the trial court had accepted the testimony of shaky witnesses who had identified the three Kupreskic relatives as participants in the dawn offensive on Ahmici and the surrounding villages in April 1983.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/artic...579667,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in315519.shtml

Then we have the miscarriage of justice and wholly erronous Blaskic case...

And a prosecuter's office which issues indictments to Serb officials for a "criminal conspiracy and illegal state," then subsequently indicts Croatians who fought against it, and uses a non-indicted high ranking official of the same criminal illegal state, who still openly advocates it, to provide the main evidence against the Croatians, resulting in vague unspecific charges and a glowing reference for the criminal in order to raise money.

But I think we've all seen enough about the 'flaws' in the trials. Why don't we now take a look at some facts about the chief prosecuter herself and her prior track record?

The Agence France Presse July 24, 2003 reported that no less than 60 Non-Governmental Organizations in Rwanda signed a letter to UN secretary Kofi Annan strongly urging him not to re-appoint Carla Del Ponte - Hague�s chief prosecuter at the ICTY for her �dismal record�; which is confirmed on the UN�s very own site:
http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20030724/449_6883.asp

NGOs in Rwanda oppose Del Ponte's renewal to criminal tribunal

DATELINE: UNITED NATIONS, July 23
Sixty Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) operating in Rwanda on Wednesday asked the United Nations Wednesday not to reappoint Carla del Ponte as prosecutor on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
The NGOs argue Del Ponte has not been effective enough in bringing those responsible for the African nation's 1994 genocide, which took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans, to justice. "We, the sixty undersigned groups, urge the UN Security Council to strongly consider the dismal record of Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda when deciding her renewal in September 2003," the NGOs said in a letter to UN secretary general Kofi Annan.
Del Ponte, a Swiss citizen, has served as the ICTR's, UN-appointed, prosecutor since September of 1999.
��
Last month, 60 Rwandan nongovernmental organizations sent a petition to Annan and the council complaining about Del Ponte's "dismal record," which they said "has undermined the likelihood of Rwandans receiving the full and fair justice that they deserve from this tribunal."
http://unwire.org/UNWire/20030808/449_7358.asp
��.

Or what about the Coalition for Women's Human Rights who complained that Del Ponte was �denying rape victims justice�, �whose record shows no commitment to develop evidence and bring charges despite the overwhelming proof of sexual violence� and �indicates she does not care�, called on her to �end her neglect of rape victims and to fulfill her legal mandate by investigating and prosecuting sexual violence crimes fully and fairly� and also �urged the U.N. to take into consideration Prosecutor Del Ponte's dismal record..�
http://www.peacewomen.org/news/March...anjustice.html
��.

At the end of the day it's not justice that gotovina's evading - it's injustice.

He's made several offers to meet the prosecuters and each one of them has been turned down by Carla Del Ponte.
04/08/2004, 12:58 PM
Bowsy

I'm feeling the love on this thread now. :D
04/08/2004, 9:05 PM
lopez

OK lads, break it up! This site is not the place to pat each other on the back and agree with one and other. There's other sites for that sort of thing.

Without going over old ground, every legal system needs a kick up the a*se now and again. This week in Britain it is Sion Jenkins to bring the system into question. The sad case about this is that even if Jenkins is found innocent, the Police will say 'hey, we did all we could' and so therefore f*ck justice for his foster daughter Billie-Jo. Then the 'cot death' cases. How the hell did these women ever get convicted with just the say-so of a doctor and a mathematical equation? I shook my head in disbelief when the solicitor went down. But still the justice system is not totally to be discredited

Funny that Del Ponte is accused of not bringing people to justice. I think much of this rests with the forces on the ground rather than with herself. If she is deliberately ignoring a rake of war criminals that is one thing, but there is a danger here that she's doing the same with Gotovina if she allows him to just wander around. It must also be added that 90% of war crimes will not necessarily make up 90% of war criminals. Serbian crimes came from the very top. Milosevic is in the Hague. Biljana Plavsic has been tried, Milan Martic is in the Hague too (??), while Arkan is sadly drinking with Satan. Only Mladic and the Psychiatrist remain of the big cheeses to be caught. On the other hand if the ICTY absolves Gotovina of any wrongdoing, it will be left with the foot soldiers who had committed these atrocities to be tried, because they cannot say the old 'I was only obeying orders.' I don't think the ICTY had a cat in hells chance of getting Tudjman even if he was still breathing.

I'll leave the last word to our guest here. Personally I still find the Yugoslav mess depressing. It's a story you couldn't make up. For years military men like Franco, Pinochet, Amin, were seen as the psychos and civilian politicians the voice of reason. Not any more, with someone whose daytime job was considered to be helping the sick, included as the number two worst scum to be found here. Yugoslavia taught us two things: Don't trust the politicians any more than the generals. And of course, don't trust your neighbours if you're different from them.

Perhaps the vicious outcome of these 'ancient hatreds' was inevitable, but I'm still in awe that the present time continuum started with one politician deciding to send his deputy to a deal with complaints from Serbs in Kosovo in April 1987, because he was too busy to go himself. That politician - former Serbian president during communist rule, Ivan Stambolic - ended up with the indignity of being found dead in a forest pit last year. The deputy - Slobodan Milosevic - meanwhile will probably die in a Dutch jail and whose legacy is to be the most hated person in Europe - Jim Davidson excepted - since Hitler. Sweet ending? Can we now have the defence for Arkan?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page