Ad hoc international criminal tribunals

Hartford Web Publishing is not the author of the documents in World History Archives and does not presume to validate their accuracy or authenticity nor to release their copyright.

The real war criminals
Editorial, The Workers World, 23 April 1998. When are war criminals not criminals? The top officers of the Pentagon know the answer. It's when they are cop, judge and jury and only they can bring charges. That's why there is suddenly an upsurge of resistance to the U.S. government's proposal to establish a permanent war-crimes tribunal.
Long-Range Justice Raises Fears for Sovereignty
By Barbara Crossette, The New York Times, 1 July 2001. the law is growing longer and the world smaller for national leaders and others accused of atrocities. What is dawning, human rights lawyers say, is an age of justice without borders and not everyone is happy about it, seeing it as an alarming challenge to national sovereignty and a potentially unpredictable political tool.
International Law Should Not Be Victors' Justice. Indicted or convicted war criminals are all citizens of small, poor countries
By Richard Gwyn, The Toronto Star, 4 July 2001. Arguments that among indictable war criminals are Robert McNamara, the U.S. defense secretary, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, but those actually charged and convicted always turn out to be from small poor countries like Slobodan Milsosevic.
Critics' Attack on Tribunals Turns to Law Among Nation
By William Glaberson, The New York Times, 26 December 2001. Going beyond claims that the military tribunals authorized by President Bush would violate civil liberties guaranteed by American law, some experts are beginning to argue that they would breach international law guaranteeing fair treatment of prisoners of war.