Rebuttal to a childish point of view

Slobodan Milosevic's death just two days ago has set off both tirades and celebrations in Europe. Some people say he got what he deserved and him having passed away in jail was his punishment for his crimes. Still others argue that his death has left many victim still searching for a cathartic end to the nightmare they have lived for the past 16 years. Both arguments have their place and deserve to be duly noted.

However, I have to take issue with atleast one argument that is being bandied about with increasing regularity and that is; that the slew of charges brought against Slobodan Milosevic was erroneous, meaning that if the prosecutors had picked just a few of the major incidents and looked to prosecute Milosevic as a war criminal on those grounds, they could have had this case wrapped up years ago and he would have bene sentenced to jail much earlier. Such an argument aptly proves why someone somewhere a long time a ago said that a little information can be a dangerous thing. And we won't even mention how it can lead to childish arguments.

This is an argument being fronted by only those that have not been personally afected by the massacres which Slobodan Milsoevic directed. If the International Court @ The Hague looked at this case solely with the aim of getting a conviction which would put Milosevic in jail forever, they could have easily done this by indicting him for crimes against humanity in regards to the Srebrenica massacre. But they did not do this. Why? Because the aim of these trials is not to just convict Milosevic but to learn of how his system worked, to attain every drop of information, to give the families of those that have lost someone the true catharsis they require - not some phony half conviction that just shuts the man up for years and still leaves the families in the dark just as they had been when their loved ones dissappeared.

People need to realise that these complex trials are here for a reason. To come to terms with such a tragedy you need to hash out its details, so that people feel comfortable with what they know, and realise that things have changed. If you don't get any information at the end or during the trial what will make you believe that things have changed? So what if one guy got locked up? Their was a system behind him that aided the atrocities, people that believed in him to believe in the killings, these things have to be addressed and all cases have to be tried- no matter what the cost or signioficance. One murder is as brutal as ten others.

The part of this argument that really bugs me is when people draw a paralell between what happened with Slobodan Milsoveic and what iscurrent happening at Saddam Hussein's trial . Sure, his trial is a mockery at this point, and yes, his antics have disrupted proceedings more than once. But that does not mean we should take away some of the charged just to seem him punished in jail. Where is the justice in that? I would rather have him sit there in his comfy chair wearing his striped grey suit and listen - listen to the mothers crying for sons that were murdered decades ago, listen to the wails of those that still suffer from his poisonous gas attacks, hear from the brothers and sister that saw their siblings killeed before their very eyes. That is justice, both for the bereaved and for the accused. I do not want him to be sentenced until he has heard every last word of all that stand against him. And he will, because no matter what antics he pulls, in the end, he will have to hear what they have to say.

You do not look at justice just from the perspective of a conviction, you look to see how your proceedings are be able to balance right and wrong - to serve the cause that is just. That is justice.