The Srebrenica Prosecutors Had NO PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION

The Srebrenica Prosecutors Had NO PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION

Postby solutions » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:10 pm

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Srebrenica and Prosecutorial Discretion
From: Pat
Date: Wed, May 31, 2017 9:32 pm - MDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

I have just finished reading your posting entitled “Who Absolved The Dutch For Their War Crimes At Srebrenica” in which, after noting that our Author Rosa Brooks had said in Chapter 11 of our focus book (p. 215) -- “none of the Dutch U.N. peacekeepers were ever brought up on criminal charges for their failure to protect the civilians they were pledged to protect” -- you said:

“Rosa Brooks SHOULD HAVE DOUBLED the length of her Chapter 11 to discuss why each of the Dutch U.N. peacekeepers was guilty as an "Accessory Before the Fact" of ‘genocide.’ ….. IN ADDITION, Rosa Brooks’ brief paragraph, in noting these egregious failures to prosecute, FAILS TO NAME THE PROSECUTORS who decided NOT to prosecute the Dutch U.N. peacekeepers ….. And fails to discuss whether their decision NOT to prosecute should itself be viewed as criminal. Which would make an interesting ‘Law School 101’ exam question. The non-humble opinion of Yours Truly??? In theory, there should be NO REASON why a decision NOT to prosecute should not make the prosecutor an ‘Accessory After The Fact’ which makes the Prosecutor guilty of the “genocide” that s/he has refused to prosecute!!!”

I have often heard the term “prosecutorial discretion.”

Why wouldn’t “prosecutorial discretion” absolve the prosecutors from their failure to prosecute the U.N. Dutch Peacekeepers?

Regards,

Pat


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Srebrenica and Prosecutorial Discretion
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Thu, June 1, 2017 11:47 am - MDT
To: Pat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Pat,

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

Black’s Law Dictionary (which was every law student’s “Bible” when Yours Truly attended law school 1964-1967) currently defines “prosecutorial discretion” as --

“A privilege given to the prosecuting attorney in deciding whether to prosecute or plea bargain, recommend parole, etc.”

However, Black’s Law Dictionary does NOT explain the reasons for Prosecutorial Discretion, of which there are only two.

The first regards the chances of conviction. There is virtually no case that is so “air tight” that the chances of conviction are 100%. Accordingly, prudent prosecutors will accept a “plea bargain” that accurately reflects the percentage chance that the miscreant might go free if the matter proceeds to trial.

The second regards the limited resources (time, budget, etc.) that often face a prosecutor. If the taxpayers have NOT provided sufficient resources to prosecute EVERY crime, then obviously the taxpayers intend that the prosecutor exercise her/his discretion to pursue only the most important cases.

********************
Application to the U.N. Dutch Peace Keepers and the Srebrenica “Genocide” (as the International Court of Justice at the Hague – the U.N.’s Supreme Court – found the slaughter to have been)

*****
The first excuse for prosecutorial discretion -- less than 100% chance of conviction???

This excuse obviously does NOT apply!!!

There should have been no difficulty in identifying every member of the U.N. Dutch Peace Keeping Force at Srebrenica!!! Each of whom, of course, is guilty of “genocide” if s/he was an “accessory before the fact” in standing aside to permit the slaughter!!!

Indeed, the capital of The Netherlands is Amsterdam, whose governmental offices are less than 40 miles from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia located at The Hague, Netherlands!!!

And even if the Commanding Officer of the Dutch Peace Keepers had believed that all of his troops would be killed if they did their sworn duty, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia decided by a 3-2 vote in the case of Drazen Erdemovic that the threat of death is NOT a justification for homicide!!!

And the excuse of any member of the Dutch Peace Keepers that s/he was only following orders IS INVALID because the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia decided in the case of Drazen Erdemovic that following orders IS NOT AN EXCUSE for homicide!!!

Enough already with the first excuse for prosecutorial discretion!!!

*****
The second excuse for prosecutorial discretion – insufficient resources (time, budget, etc.)???

This excuse obviously does NOT apply!!!

The U.N. established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to prosecute war crimes such as the Srebrenica “genocide.”

And the prosecutors only managed to prosecute ONE CASE!!!

And the case they prosecuted against Drazen Erdemovic WAS BASED SOLELY ON HIS CONFESSION!!!

So where is the lack of resources???

Enough already with this second excuse for prosecutorial discretion!!!

**********
Possible Sources Of Your Confusion About Prosecutorial Discretion

You have probably been confused by all of the U.S. news reports in recent years about the failure/refusal of Presidents Clinton/Bush/Obama to enforce the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. [Even President Trump is NOT, at least so far, enforcing the “E-Verify” Requirements of the 1986 Act.]

Two observations are appropriate.

First, UNLIKE THE U.N. PROSECUTORS, U.S. prosecutors do indeed have insufficient resources to prosecute every law violation!!!

Second, what prosecutors do IN ONE OF THE 193 MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS under the excuse of Prosecutorial Discretion, should have no bearing on how United Nations Prosecutors behave (or misbehave!!!)!!!

**********
Conclusion

Thank you again for your query.

Since it provided an opportunity to explain why I thought the U.N. Prosecutors had NO PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION with regard to their solemn obligation to prosecute the U.N. Dutch Peace Keepers as “Accessories Before The Fact” for “genocide.”

And why the failure of the U.N. Prosecutors to perform their solemn obligation makes the U.N. Prosecutors themselves guilty of “genocide” as “Accessories After The Fact.”

If you have any further comments or questions, please let me know.

Your friend,

John K.
solutions
Site Admin
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Return to Participant Comments - How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything by Rosa Brooks – June 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron