| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2006 04:42:47 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
Mar 9th 2006 | FREETOWN
From The Economist print edition
But does an international search for justice hurt or help the pursuit
of peace?
HITHERTO, the world's worst tyrants have usually managed to avoid being
brought to court for their crimes. Some, of course, were killed. Hitler
took his own life. But Stalin and Mao died in their beds. Pol Pot,
responsible for the slaughter of 2m Cambodians in the 1970s, lived on
in Cambodia until his death in 1998. Idi Amin, Uganda's brutal
dictator, saw out his days in comfortable exile in Saudi Arabia;
Ethiopia's Mengistu Haile Mariam continues to live in Zimbabwe. The
list goes on. But with the spread of international justice over the
past decade, the noose is tightening. It is now accepted that there can
be no immunity for the worst violations of human rights, not even for
heads of state.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
11 Mar 2006 09:07:58 PM |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
Mar 9th 2006 | FREETOWN
From The Economist print edition
But does an international search for justice hurt or help the pursuit
of peace?
HITHERTO, the world's worst tyrants have usually managed to avoid being
brought to court for their crimes. Some, of course, were killed. Hitler
took his own life. But Stalin and Mao died in their beds. Pol Pot,
responsible for the slaughter of 2m Cambodians in the 1970s, lived on
in Cambodia until his death in 1998. Idi Amin, Uganda's brutal
dictator, saw out his days in comfortable exile in Saudi Arabia;
Ethiopia's Mengistu Haile Mariam continues to live in Zimbabwe. The
list goes on. But with the spread of international justice over the
past decade, the noose is tightening. It is now accepted that there can
be no immunity for the worst violations of human rights, not even for
heads of state.
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year. After ten years on the run, Ratko Mladic, the
Bosnian Serb army chief held responsible for the Srebrenica massacre, is
expected to be arrested any day. In Chile, Augusto Pinochet is finally
facing a real possibility of trial 17 years after the end of his
dictatorship. Hissène Habré, a ruthless ex-president of Chad, exiled in
Senegal for the past 16 years, could soon be extradited to Brussels to
face trial for crimes against humanity under Belgium's “universal
jurisdiction” law. Polish prosecutors are preparing to bring charges
against Wojciech Jaruzelski, their last communist leader. And Saddam
Hussein, Iraq's former dictator, faces near-certain execution at the end
of his trial before a special tribunal in Baghdad.
Debate has long raged about the best way to deal with gross violations
of human rights. Is it more important to punish the perpetrators or to
bring an end to the atrocities? Can one, in other words, secure both
justice and peace, or are the two naturally antagonistic?
In the 1980s the concept of “truth and reconciliation” began to be the
rage, and justice was relegated to the back burner. Truth-telling,
perhaps encouraged by amnesties, appeared a good way of revealing the
previously suppressed stories of the victims and (much less often) the
perpetrators of the covert state-sponsored violence (death squads,
“disappearances” and such like) in Latin America. Indeed, the first
truth and reconciliation commission was set up not in South Africa, as
many still believe, but in Chile, in 1990. Others followed in quick
succession in El Salvador, Chad, Haiti, South Africa (1995), Ecuador,
Nigeria, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Korea, Uruguay, Timor-Leste, Ghana,
Panama, Congo, Liberia and Morocco, the first in the Arab world.
Algeria, Afghanistan and Burundi are now considering following suit.
But for many, the idea that genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture and
other such horrors should go unpunished became increasingly troubling.
Under the principle of national sovereignty, nation states were supposed
to have responsibility for enforcing their own criminal justice. But all
too often they had shown themselves unwilling or incapable of
prosecuting the worst culprits, either because those responsible were
still in power, or because they had taken refuge in other countries and
were now out of reach. Hence the turn to international justice.
In 1993, the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia
(ICTY) in The Hague became the first international war-crimes tribunal
to be set up since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after the second world
war. It was followed a year later by the UN tribunal for Rwanda, based
in Arusha, Tanzania. Like their post-war forebears, the two courts
operate exclusively under international law and are staffed by foreign
judges. Since then, five other war-crimes tribunals, all with more or
less international input, have been—or are being—set up to deal with
atrocities in Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lebanon has now asked the UN for help in setting up a “tribunal of
international character” to try the assassins of Rafik Hariri, the
former Lebanese prime minister who was killed a year ago.
What man can do to man
The Special Court for Sierra Leone, set up jointly by the UN and the
Sierra Leonean government in 2002, was the world's first “hybrid” court.
Financed by voluntary contributions from UN members, it operates under
international law but with a mixture of local and international judges.
Based in Freetown, Sierra Leone's capital, it was also the first modern
war-crimes tribunal to be based “in theatre” (ie, in the country where
the crimes were committed). Desmond de Silva, the court's chief
prosecutor, recounts his first visit to an amputee camp in the town four
years ago: “I saw a little girl with no arms saying to her mother:
‘Mummy, when will my arms grow again?’ Nearby was a baby suckling at his
mother's breast: neither had any arms. These were sights that said to
me: do something. This is evil beyond belief.”
Most conflicts, especially third-world civil ones, are marked by
atrocities. But the wanton cruelty of Sierra Leone's 11-year bloodbath
was particularly barbaric. Although hacking off limbs became the special
trademark of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), the main rebel group,
all sides were guilty. Child soldiers, some not yet in their teens,
would rip open pregnant women's stomachs after taking bets on the sex of
the fetus. Women's vaginas were sewn up with fishing line. Mouths were
clamped shut with padlocks.
Children were forced to batter their parents to death and then eat their
brains. One man was skinned alive before having his flesh picked off and
eaten. Another had his heart torn out and stuffed into the mouth of his
87-year-old mother. Thousands were burned alive in their homes. In all,
some 50,000-200,000 people were killed (there is no accurate count) and
three-quarters of the country's 6m inhabitants were forced to flee their
homes. Should such crimes really be forgiven and forgotten?
Charles Taylor, Liberia's ex-president and a notorious warlord, is
regarded as one of the greatest villains of the piece. Accused of arming
the RUF rebels in exchange for “blood” diamonds, he was indicted three
years ago by Sierra Leone's court, but managed to flee into exile in
Nigeria after the collapse of his own regime a few months later. Since
then, he has been living undisturbed in a seaside villa, courtesy of
President Olusegun Obasanjo. The Nigerian leader granted him asylum as
part of a peace deal brokered by Nigeria, Britain and the United States.
But prosecutors claim that Mr Taylor has broken the conditions of that
deal by continuing to meddle in politics, in Liberia and wider afield.
Both America's Congress and the European Parliament have demanded his
transfer to the Special Court.
But Mr Obasanjo has said he will not hand Mr Taylor over unless
requested to do so by a democratically elected Liberian government. In
November, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was elected Liberia's new president. She
may not yet have made the request; in any case, Mr Obasanjo has made no
move. African leaders tend to watch each other's backs for fear that it
could be their own turn next. But the pressure is building up. In
November, the UN Security Council told its peacekeepers in Liberia to
arrest and transfer Mr Taylor to the Special Court if he sets foot in
the country. And the United States, hitherto reluctant to upset a
valuable ally, has begun to speak out. “We think Obasanjo has an
international responsibility and we fully expect him to carry it out,”
Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, recently told reporters.
If the Special Court does get Mr Taylor, it would be a tremendous coup
both for it and for international justice. Mandated to try only “those
with the greatest responsibility” for the atrocities, the court has
indicted just 13 people (compared with the 162 indicted by the ICTY).
The trials of nine of them—three from each of the two main rebel groups
and three from the pro-government Civil Defence Force (CDF), in a
demonstration of even-handedness—are already well under way. But the
four chief culprits are either still at large, like Mr Taylor, or dead,
like Foday Sankoh, dreaded leader of the RUF rebels. Their absence has
led some critics to question the continued existence of a tribunal which
many Sierra Leoneans see as irrelevant to their lives.
The court's decision to try Chief Samuel Hinga Norman, the former CDF
leader, has provoked particular anger. Many Sierra Leoneans regard the
former government minister, who helped oust a savage rebel junta in
1998, as a national hero. “Surely there has to be a difference between a
group of thugs and killers who go round butchering people mindlessly,
for no particular reason, and people trying to defend their lives, their
homes and their children,” protested Peter Penfold, who was British high
commissioner to Sierra Leone in 1997-2000. Mr Norman should never have
been indicted, Mr Penfold told the court last month. To such objections,
which recur whenever an admired national leader is prosecuted, Mr de
Silva is wont to reply: “You can fight on the same side as the angels
and nevertheless commit crimes against humanity.” Hence, again, the need
for international courts.
Sierra Leone's court is in many ways regarded as a model, with its
two-to-one mix of foreign and local judges, ambitious “outreach” (public
relations) and victim-protection programmes, tight timetable—it expects
to complete its work in under five years as opposed to the Yugoslav
tribunal's 17 years—and relatively low budget, less than $30m a year, a
quarter of the ICTY's. Admittedly, the competition is not exactly
fierce.
The Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals, while doing good work, are regarded
as slow, costly and remote, while the special tribunals in Cambodia,
with its majority of local judges, and in Iraq, where Mr Hussein's trial
before an all-Iraqi bench keeps threatening to collapse in chaos, are
regarded by many as counter-examples, lacking both impartiality and
competence. With results so mixed, it is perhaps not surprising that
people have begun questioning the need to finance such tribunals.
The court they love to hate
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the world's first permanent
war-crimes tribunal. It is also the first not to have any direct UN
involvement and has faced strong opposition from America. Set up in The
Hague in 2002, alongside the ICTY and the UN's International Court of
Justice (the much older body which rules on disputes between states), it
is designed to provide a fairer, cheaper, and more effective way of
dealing with the most serious violations of international humanitarian
law.
Last October, it issued its first indictments—against Joseph Kony and
four members of his savage Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda.
More indictments are expected soon relating to the slaughter in Congo,
where war has claimed 4m lives since 1998. The court has also been
mandated by the Security Council to investigate the current horrors in
Darfur, in western Sudan, and continues to keep watch on developments in
five other violence-racked countries, including Côte d'Ivoire and the
Central African Republic.
Yet the ICC's reach is limited. Under its statutes, it cannot bring a
prosecution unless the accused's country of origin is “genuinely unable
or unwilling” to do so. This is a potential minefield: Sudan, for
example, insists it is perfectly capable and willing to try those
responsible for Darfur and is refusing to co-operate with the court. It
may not prosecute crimes committed before its inception in 2002. And it
has jurisdiction only over nationals of countries which have ratified
its statutes—100 have done so to date—or over those whose crimes were
committed in a country which has. The exception to this rule is if the
Security Council refers the matter to the ICC, as in the case of Sudan,
a non-member. The ICC is further hampered by the refusal of many of the
world's worst human-rights violators to sign up to it. Zimbabwe, Cuba,
Uzbekistan, North Korea, Syria, Belarus and Saudi Arabia are all
non-members. So are the United States, China and Russia, all three
veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council and thus able to
block any Security Council referrals.
Imperfect justice
The purpose and value of the ICC and the other ad hoc war-crimes
tribunals are now, in their turn, coming under scrutiny. Critics
complain that they are selective and politicised, deliver only partial
justice and perpetuate the bitterness, thus preventing social and ethnic
reconstruction. All too often, suggests Dominic McGoldrick, professor of
public international law at Liverpool University in Britain, they are
seen as an attempt by the West to impose its own concept of justice and
morality on the third world.
Others, however, argue that ending impunity is vital, not only to reduce
the victims' anger and resentment, which might otherwise fuel a
never-ending cycle of reprisals and counter-reprisals, but also to deter
further atrocities. Without justice, says Paul van Zyl of the New
York-based International Centre for Transitional Justice, you may be
able to bring a temporary stop to the killing, but there can be no
sustainable peace.
Does deterrence work? It is easy to point to the apparent failures.
Despite Nuremberg, genocide has continued. The creation of the ICTY
failed to prevent the massacres in Srebrenica and Kosovo. The indictment
of Mr Kony and his henchmen has not stopped the Ugandan killings. And
since the referral of Darfur to the ICC, the violence there has got even
worse. But to be effective, deterrence has to be credible. It works only
when the potential culprits have a reasonable expectation of being
apprehended and punished. It is too early to judge what effect the ICC
and the other tribunals will have, says Mr van Zyl, but he adds that
there is no doubt “that there is a growing trend in the world toward
justice for the top dogs.” He believes Mr Taylor's capture would send a
very strong signal to other potential tyrants.
But what about the lower-level perpetrators—the middle-ranking officers
who simply follow orders out of fear for their own lives, or the child
soldiers, dragged from their homes, brutalised and forced to commit
atrocities often under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Should they,
too, be held accountable? Here some kind of truth-telling mechanism,
backed up by traditional methods of mediation and reconciliation, might
be appropriate, argues Kenneth Roth, head of Human Rights Watch, another
New York-based lobby. Aimed only at the worst culprits, international
justice is at best a blunt instrument. But he is adamant that blanket
amnesties are generally counter-productive, except (a big exception)
when used as a temporary expedient to bring warring parties to the
negotiating table, with the possibility of being “undone” once peace is
restored.
In Sierra Leone, Mr Roth points out, the amnesty negotiated as part of
the 1999 Lomé peace agreement with the rebels did not prevent the
resumption of atrocities a few months later and was therefore annulled.
In war-torn northern Uganda, a five-year-old government amnesty, while
successful in bringing thousands of middle- and low-ranking rebels in
from the bush, has failed to get Mr Kony and his pals to lay down their
arms.
Prosecution is by no means necessarily an impediment to peace, Mr Roth
insists; the absence of any amnesty provision in the Dayton peace
agreement on Bosnia, for example, did not stop Mr Milosevic from signing
up to it (because he never dreamt that he, himself, would be
prosecuted). Nor did it prevent Afghanistan's warring parties from
reaching a peace agreement in Bonn. Furthermore, he says, the amnesties
that have been introduced in the past are beginning to be unpicked in
the courts, as in Chile in 2003, or annulled outright, as in Argentina
the same year. It is now generally accepted that, under international
law, amnesties can never apply to gross violations of humanitarian law.
Truth, reconciliation and punishment
Even South Africa's lauded truth and reconciliation process, presided
over by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, provided no automatic amnesty. Under
the slogan “revealing is healing”, perpetrators were invited to confess
to crimes committed under the three decades of apartheid, and apply for
an amnesty. But if their misdeeds were deemed too heinous, amnesty could
be denied. More than 7,000 applications were accepted, but 5,400 were
turned down. In addition, those who refused to confess remained liable
to prosecution. For a long time, it looked as if no charges would ever
be brought. But now South Africa has announced that it is ready to
prosecute five people (no names yet given), with 15 more likely to
follow.
Reconciliation and punitive justice are both necessary in the view of
Messrs Roth and van Zyl. Far from being antagonistic, the two approaches
complement one another. Much depends on local circumstances. Sometimes,
as in South Africa, it is better to start with truth and reconciliation,
and prosecute later. At other times, as in Iraq, prosecution comes
first, and truth and reconciliation may follow when or if the violence
ends. Sierra Leone is the only country that has set up a truth and
reconciliation commission and a war-crimes court at the same time.
Locals grumble, but the wounded little country's bold experiment could
set a trend.
/end
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
11 Mar 2006 11:22:54 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
....which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of the
Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of death
unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Chicago 3 (March 9)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, March 12 at Omaha, 5:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
12 Mar 2006 02:12:53 AM |
|
|
In article <szkmzfwck41.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com> wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of the
Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of death
unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Apparently he did have a heart condition, but who knows?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
12 Mar 2006 04:47:42 PM |
|
|
On 11 Mar 2006 23:22:54 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of the
Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of death
unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Indeed, but I understand he wasn't in good shape with a bad ticker.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
13 Mar 2006 01:18:38 AM |
|
|
In article <679912d56ae0f9gkhgeg06fm1f461t8i8n@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 11 Mar 2006 23:22:54 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of the
Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of death
unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Indeed, but I understand he wasn't in good shape with a bad ticker.
The preliminary reports said heart attack, but of course heart attacks
can always be induced.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
13 Mar 2006 06:15:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:18:38 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <679912d56ae0f9gkhgeg06fm1f461t8i8n@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 11 Mar 2006 23:22:54 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of the
Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of death
unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Indeed, but I understand he wasn't in good shape with a bad ticker.
The preliminary reports said heart attack, but of course heart attacks
can always be induced.
Of course, and prisoners who are unable to raise their hands above their
shoulders are fully capable of hanging themselves in (cough) 90
seconds... {Herr Hess or a double)
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
14 Mar 2006 12:58:49 AM |
|
|
In article <ol2c129m2s03epf2a98p1kalm5a8bn9sst@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:18:38 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <679912d56ae0f9gkhgeg06fm1f461t8i8n@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 11 Mar 2006 23:22:54 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of
the
Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of
death
unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Indeed, but I understand he wasn't in good shape with a bad ticker.
The preliminary reports said heart attack, but of course heart attacks
can always be induced.
Of course, and prisoners who are unable to raise their hands above their
shoulders are fully capable of hanging themselves in (cough) 90
seconds... {Herr Hess or a double)
However, the plot thickens:
ABC News: Milosevic Drug Normally Used for TB
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=1718862
Milosevic Drug Normally Used for TB
Drug Milosevic Apparently Took Used Primarily for Treatment of
Tuberculosis
By The Associated
The Associated Press
- Rifampicin, the apparently unprescribed antibiotic that a Dutch
toxicologist said he found in former Yugoslav leader Slobodan
Milosevic's system earlier this year, is used together with other drugs
to treat tuberculosis. It also can be used alone to treat certain
bacterial infections or asymptomatic carriers of a type of meningitis.
According to the U.S. prescribing label, the drug affects enzymes in the
body to speed metabolism of a host of other drugs, meaning higher doses
of those other medications may be needed to compensate. It also can
cause liver damage.
---
Hmmmmmmmmmmm...
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
12 Mar 2006 05:09:51 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 11 Mar 2006 23:22:54 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of the
Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of death
unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Indeed, but I understand he wasn't in good shape with a bad ticker.
Either way, he's gone...too bad his fellow Serbs couldn't have 86ed him a la
Ceausescu.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Chicago 3 (March 9)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, March 12 at Omaha, 5:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
13 Mar 2006 06:13:29 PM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2006 17:09:51 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 11 Mar 2006 23:22:54 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of the
Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of death
unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Indeed, but I understand he wasn't in good shape with a bad ticker.
Either way, he's gone...too bad his fellow Serbs couldn't have 86ed him a la
Ceausescu.
Or the relatives of his victims.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
13 Mar 2006 09:29:38 PM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 12 Mar 2006 17:09:51 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 11 Mar 2006 23:22:54 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of
the Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of
death unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Indeed, but I understand he wasn't in good shape with a bad ticker.
Either way, he's gone...too bad his fellow Serbs couldn't have 86ed him a la
Ceausescu.
Or the relatives of his victims.
Indeed...and he'd still be alive and in pain, if they'd gotten hold of him.
(Deservedly so, I'd say.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Omaha 6, Houston 1 (March 12)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, March 15 at Chicago, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
14 Mar 2006 01:16:30 PM |
|
|
On 13 Mar 2006 21:29:38 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 12 Mar 2006 17:09:51 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 11 Mar 2006 23:22:54 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of
the Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of
death unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Indeed, but I understand he wasn't in good shape with a bad ticker.
Either way, he's gone...too bad his fellow Serbs couldn't have 86ed him a la
Ceausescu.
Or the relatives of his victims.
Indeed...and he'd still be alive and in pain, if they'd gotten hold of him.
(Deservedly so, I'd say.)
'Jesus' would be 'Frenching' him.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Bringing the wicked to the dock |
13 Mar 2006 06:03:10 AM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2006 17:09:51 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 11 Mar 2006 23:22:54 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:
On 9 Mar 2006 14:42:47 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
Bringing the wicked to the dock
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601334
[...]
Serbia's president, Slobodan Milosevic, was indicted for war crimes in
1999 and is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment when his trial
ends later this year.
...which won't happen, now that the news has arrived that the Butcher of the
Balkans was found dead in his cell earlier today (March 11), cause of death
unknown. It wouldn't surprise me if he pulled a Hitler.
Indeed, but I understand he wasn't in good shape with a bad ticker.
Either way, he's gone...too bad his fellow Serbs couldn't have 86ed him a la
Ceausescu.
At least we have the satisfaction of knowing he spent the rest of his
life after capture in jail and the courts listening to his crimes
being repeated to him. The strain of that killed him
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
