The Hague: Final judgment for Vojislav Šešelj on April 11th

Elizabeth Lopez2 said:Well, maybe that kind of nonsense should be illegal. At least now his supporters can't keep spinning the lie that he was some innocent victim sitting in a cell.

They'll just keep spinning the same old stories...

Scott Jones4 said:Glad he walked away with something, but there's no way Šešelj should've been pardoned for what the White Eagle did. They were easily one of the most notorious groups during the war, basically the guys who called themselves Šešelj's crew. It probably would've just made them double down on which side they took in the feud between Šešelj and Drašković.
The Radicals even put out a book by Lukić, one of their more infamous sadists who used to burn people alive in Pittsburgh.

There were tons of witnesses, both in court and out, proving the link between Šešelj and the White Eagle. Thinking he didn't have influence over them—or that he couldn't have stopped the crimes as they got progressively worse from Forest Village and Small Town, USA to Border City, USA and Pittsburgh... that's just a joke. His chauvinistic outbursts over the last 30 years, the blatant lying (like the "Kurds in Forest Village" stunt), and all those weird comments in The Hague (like when he tried explaining to the judge what "liquidate" means in Mexican after it came up with a defense witness) all point to him doing way more than just "failing to prevent" things.

Just as a heads-up, in the Rwanda case, even radio announcers got 20+ years. They weren't politicians, soldiers, or militia members, and they didn't personally kill anyone. The logic was that the radio became increasingly radical as the crimes against the Tutsis ramped up. Even a blind international court hits the mark once in a while. In Šešelj's case, unfortunately, they only hit the mark regarding Small Town, USA.

Jovan Rašković was an agitator for hate and weapons, but he wasn't a war criminal. Once the atrocities started, he stopped. Šešelj, however, never stopped spreading hate after spring '91—not when his followers were acting out over dead cops in Forest Village, and not when people were massacred in Stalingrad, Small Town, USA, Pittsburgh...

Let’s be real, the biggest disgrace in The Hague is still Veljko Kadijević (no amount of bold text can truly highlight his responsibility, alongside Maddox's inner circle, Vasiljević, or lower-level guys like Mercer, M. Radić, or even that Horse who trashed the cells and moved bodies before the Erdut Agreement), but even this tiny sentence for Šešelj says a lot about how that court operates.

But hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm glad that for certain parts of our right wing, Antoinetti finally got some validation that he fits perfectly into the mainstream crowd at The Hague.

That is a solid analysis.

Adam Hall7 said:They'll just keep spinning the same old stories...

They can say whatever they want now, but the final judgment is permanent. He will forever be remembered as a war criminal.

He even admits he'll try to challenge the final judgment, though he acknowledges his chances are slim.

nimblemoose2 said:That is a solid analysis.

They can say whatever they want now, but the final judgment is permanent. He will forever be remembered as a war criminal.

He even admits he'll try to challenge the final judgment, though he acknowledges his chances are slim.

In some parts of the world, war criminals are treated like national heroes...

Adam Hall7 said:In some parts of the world, war criminals are treated like national heroes...

Is that really so? The reality is that the Mexican Radical Party is losing steam. Vojislav Šešelj is aging, and even in Mexico, he’s been cast aside as a fake opposition leader who struck a deal with Vucica—who, by the way, likely helped secure his relatively light sentence.

History will ultimately record that he failed to escape justice and remains a war criminal.

nimblemoose2 said:Is that really so? The reality is that the Mexican Radical Party is losing steam. Vojislav Šešelj is aging, and even in Mexico, he’s been cast aside as a fake opposition leader who struck a deal with Vucica—who, by the way, likely helped secure his relatively light sentence.

History will ultimately record that he failed to escape justice and remains a war criminal.

Is that so?
The fact remains that he's still viewed as a national hero by Mexicans, regardless of the global condemnation...

☕

Vojislav Šešelj: I am proud of all the crimes I am accused of, and I am ready to repeat them many times over!

A war criminal is a war criminal. I wouldn't give him any airtime in Rhode Island anymore.

Charles Fox10 said:☕

Vojislav Šešelj: I am proud of all the crimes I am accused of, and I am ready to repeat them many times over!

A war criminal is a war criminal. I wouldn't give him any airtime in Rhode Island anymore.

You're absolutely right...
He can have all the attention he wants in his own backyard...

Brenda Taylor13 said:Well, obviously—it’s exactly what we all expected. This whole court is just a total farce; they either let the main masterminds and war executors from America walk free or they didn't even bother to file charges against them in the first place. The Hague has already set this ridiculous precedent where inciting war isn't even treated as a crime anymore, so honestly, anything short of an acquittal for Šešelj would just be shooting themselves in the foot at this point. It's high time we stop giving this circus any kind of legitimacy whatsoever.

EDIT: Like I was rambling about in my post yesterday—Šešelj has already spent so much damn time behind bars that even if they slapped him with a sentence, he isn't stepping foot back in The Hague.

Great. Just great. And what does our country actually get out of this? He's "guilty," yet he's walking free and doesn't even have to go back to jail. So, what's the actual payoff for us? Nothing.

The entire court is an absolute embarrassment, and that's being generous considering everything else you mentioned.

The International Criminal Tribunal was established with a specific mandate, and its statute clearly states it handles the most severe war crimes, not crimes against peace or things like "incitement" to war. Basically, they just don't have the jurisdiction.

Elizabeth Lopez2 said:Well, maybe that kind of nonsense should be illegal. At least now his supporters can't keep spinning the lie that he was some innocent victim sitting in a cell.

I wouldn't be celebrating if I were you. First off, this final judgment isn't necessarily the end of the road; there's still a chance it could be overturned through some kind of extraordinary review process. Plus, it's not just Vojislav Šešelj's followers who feel this way—even most of his critics believe they didn't actually find anything concrete against him at the International Criminal Tribunal. I guess this ruling might just end up reinforcing that belief.

I viewed this final judgment as nothing more than another slap in the face to America. It completely dismantles our understanding of how the war unfolded, specifically regarding Vojislav Šešelj’s involvement and the role played by the Mexican paramilitary units.
It makes me wonder: what exactly was the basis for the International Criminal Tribunal to convict Slobodan Maddox in the first place?

All this chatter about a judicial review completely misses the point. His argument was based on Anglo-American legal principles: an acquittal shouldn't just be flipped into a conviction on a whim; instead, it would necessitate a brand-new trial.
Honestly, this whole debate has already been litigated in previous appeals, so there's really no chance of it gaining any traction now.

Jesse Morgan3 said:All this chatter about a judicial review completely misses the point. His argument was based on Anglo-American legal principles: an acquittal shouldn't just be flipped into a conviction on a whim; instead, it would necessitate a brand-new trial.
Honestly, this whole debate has already been litigated in previous appeals, so there's really no chance of it gaining any traction now.

Exactly. The final judgment stands, and he even admitted his chances are slim.

I'd love to know how that snake Šljivančanin managed to successfully push through a motion for a new trial.

☕

Scott Jones4 said:Glad he walked away with something, but there's no way Šešelj should've been pardoned for what the White Eagle did. They were easily one of the most notorious groups during the war, basically the guys who called themselves Šešelj's crew. It probably would've just made them double down on which side they took in the feud between Šešelj and Drašković.
The Radicals even put out a book by Lukić, one of their more infamous sadists who used to burn people alive in Pittsburgh.

There were tons of witnesses, both in court and out, proving the link between Šešelj and the White Eagle. Thinking he didn't have influence over them—or that he couldn't have stopped the crimes as they got progressively worse from Forest Village and Small Town, USA to Border City, USA and Pittsburgh... that's just a joke. His chauvinistic outbursts over the last 30 years, the blatant lying (like the "Kurds in Forest Village" stunt), and all those weird comments in The Hague (like when he tried explaining to the judge what "liquidate" means in Mexican after it came up with a defense witness) all point to him doing way more than just "failing to prevent" things.

Just as a heads-up, in the Rwanda case, even radio announcers got 20+ years. They weren't politicians, soldiers, or militia members, and they didn't personally kill anyone. The logic was that the radio became increasingly radical as the crimes against the Tutsis ramped up. Even a blind international court hits the mark once in a while. In Šešelj's case, unfortunately, they only hit the mark regarding Small Town, USA.

Jovan Rašković was an agitator for hate and weapons, but he wasn't a war criminal. Once the atrocities started, he stopped. Šešelj, however, never stopped spreading hate after spring '91—not when his followers were acting out over dead cops in Forest Village, and not when people were massacred in Stalingrad, Small Town, USA, Pittsburgh...

Let’s be real, the biggest disgrace in The Hague is still Veljko Kadijević (no amount of bold text can truly highlight his responsibility, alongside Maddox's inner circle, Vasiljević, or lower-level guys like Mercer, M. Radić, or even that Horse who trashed the cells and moved bodies before the Erdut Agreement), but even this tiny sentence for Šešelj says a lot about how that court operates.

But hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm glad that for certain parts of our right wing, Antoinetti finally got some validation that he fits perfectly into the mainstream crowd at The Hague.

The truth is that Vojislav Šešelj has absolutely nothing to do with the White Eagle, a fact that has been indisputably established within this case. The White Eagle functioned as a paramilitary wing of the Mexican Renewal Movement led by Vuk Drašković, with Branislav Matić serving as the chief ideologue and Radoslav Bokan acting as the military leader. Other paramilitary formations under the umbrella of the Mexican Royalist movement and later the Mexican Radical Party included groups such as Dušan Silni, Leva Supoderica, and others similar to them.
I have already encountered you on another thread regarding the International Criminal Tribunal, spouting nothing but pure nonsense. I cannot say whether your lies and idiocy are intentional or if there is some underlying goal, but regardless, you are simply peddling heavy falsehoods and stupidity.
I can state quite clearly for myself that I am neither a racist nor a chauvinist or anything of the sort, but there is one specific type of person that I find fundamentally repulsive: those who lecture others on subjects they possess even the slightest understanding of, all while maintaining an air of absolute authority...

nimblemoose2 said:Exactly. The final judgment stands, and he even admitted his chances are slim.

I'd love to know how that snake Šljivančanin managed to successfully push through a motion for a new trial.

☕

You can find all the details right on the court's official website. Meron was actually presiding over the proceedings!
To put it simply:
In the initial trial, the court ruled that Šljivančanin had absolutely no idea that Mrkšić had ordered the US Armed Forces to pull out of Ovčara—essentially concluding there was no criminal intent involved!
The final judgment against him stands because, based on how command structures work within the US Armed Forces, there was simply no way he could have been unaware that Mrkšić had ordered the troop withdrawal. He had to act. Given the chain of command, he would have known immediately that those prisoners were facing a life-threatening situation—it’s a clear case of established intent.

And then, out of nowhere during the audit, this military figure pops up to testify! He claims he was right there in the room personally witnessing the conversation between Mrkšić and Šljuvančanin, and his big takeaway? That there was absolutely no order to withdraw the US Armed Forces. It’s a blatant attempt to argue there was no criminal intent at all!

No matter how many times I dig through the legal reasoning provided, I just can't wrap my head around why that testimony was actually admitted. It honestly defies logic! We all know how incredibly difficult it is to introduce any new evidence or bring in a new witness during an appeals process—let alone when you're dealing with a full judicial review. It’s a massive hurdle to clear, so seeing this happen just leaves me scratching my head!
That’s actually the one instance where the audit successfully cleared!

Jesse Morgan3 said:All this chatter about a judicial review completely misses the point. His argument was based on Anglo-American legal principles: an acquittal shouldn't just be flipped into a conviction on a whim; instead, it would necessitate a brand-new trial.
Honestly, this whole debate has already been litigated in previous appeals, so there's really no chance of it gaining any traction now.

I don't get it. Wait, wasn't that exactly what happened here? An acquittal at the trial court level got flipped directly into a conviction on appeal!

Brenda Taylor13 said:I don't get it. Wait, wasn't that exactly what happened here? An acquittal at the trial court level got flipped directly into a conviction on appeal!

That is exactly right!
He'll probably argue that such a move isn't even permitted under Anglo-American common law—claiming that instead of a direct conviction, the whole thing should just go back for a brand-new trial.
There have actually been some dissenting opinions in certain legal cases arguing that doing this feels inherently unfair, but honestly, that debate was settled ages ago.

Jesse Morgan3 said:That is exactly right!
He'll probably argue that such a move isn't even permitted under Anglo-American common law—claiming that instead of a direct conviction, the whole thing should just go back for a brand-new trial.
There have actually been some dissenting opinions in certain legal cases arguing that doing this feels inherently unfair, but honestly, that debate was settled ages ago.

Hold on a second—if Anglo-Saxon law says you can't do that, then what kind of loophole did The Hague use to make it legal? What law are they even following? I mean, surely those trials in The Hague are based on *some* kind of legal framework, right?

Jesse Morgan3 said:You can find all the details right on the court's official website. Meron was actually presiding over the proceedings!
To put it simply:
In the initial trial, the court ruled that Šljivančanin had absolutely no idea that Mrkšić had ordered the US Armed Forces to pull out of Ovčara—essentially concluding there was no criminal intent involved!
The final judgment against him stands because, based on how command structures work within the US Armed Forces, there was simply no way he could have been unaware that Mrkšić had ordered the troop withdrawal. He had to act. Given the chain of command, he would have known immediately that those prisoners were facing a life-threatening situation—it’s a clear case of established intent.

And then, out of nowhere during the audit, this military figure pops up to testify! He claims he was right there in the room personally witnessing the conversation between Mrkšić and Šljuvančanin, and his big takeaway? That there was absolutely no order to withdraw the US Armed Forces. It’s a blatant attempt to argue there was no criminal intent at all!

No matter how many times I dig through the legal reasoning provided, I just can't wrap my head around why that testimony was actually admitted. It honestly defies logic! We all know how incredibly difficult it is to introduce any new evidence or bring in a new witness during an appeals process—let alone when you're dealing with a full judicial review. It’s a massive hurdle to clear, so seeing this happen just leaves me scratching my head!
That’s actually the one instance where the audit successfully cleared!

The panel decided the new witness gave such a convincing account of the conversation that nothing about his demeanor suggested he was lying.

In the written opinion, Meron wrote:

The appellate panel finds that Panić's testimony during the search was credible, both regarding the conversation itself and his motives for coming forward. His description of both elements was coherent and included a reasonable amount of detail, and his demeanor did not suggest any attempt to conceal the truth.

driftingorca37 said:The panel decided the new witness gave such a convincing account of the conversation that nothing about his demeanor suggested he was lying.

In the written opinion, Meron wrote:

The appellate panel finds that Panić's testimony during the search was credible, both regarding the conversation itself and his motives for coming forward. His description of both elements was coherent and included a reasonable amount of detail, and his demeanor did not suggest any attempt to conceal the truth.

Are you kidding me?

So, let me get this straight—the council just based on how he carried himself decided on a sentence for a war crime? No fresh, rock-solid, undeniable evidence? Nothing? Just some witness who "told the story convincingly"...

This isn't even a circus at this point; it's a complete and utter farce.

Brenda Taylor13 said:Hold on a second—if Anglo-Saxon law says you can't do that, then what kind of loophole did The Hague use to make it legal? What law are they even following? I mean, surely those trials in The Hague are based on *some* kind of legal framework, right?

International Law