Glenn Greenwald asks two questions about the cases of Osama bin Laden and Ratko Mladic. Helpfully, the second answers the first.
(1) The NYT says that, for Europe, Mladic’s arrest “has a resonance on the magnitude of the killing of Osama bin Laden for Americans.” That’s understandable, as the crimes of which Mladic is accused are at least as grave and serious as those bin Laden allegedly committed. Mladic is almost certainly responsible for more deaths than the Al Qaeda leader was. There is probably less doubt about his guilt worldwide than there was (and is) about bin Laden’s. And when he was found, Mladic “had two pistols with him” (though “he made no attempt to use” them).
In light of all that, what’s the point of arresting Mladic and putting him on trial? Why is that considered “bringing him to justice”? Why not just pump his skull full of bullets and dump his corpse into the ocean, and then proclaim that “justice has been done”? For those who have embraced the idea that we are “at war” with Al Qaeda, one could argue that that “war” is still ongoing while the Bosnian war has long been over, but, beyond legalisms, why is that a difference that matters? If “justice” demands that this heinous Serbian war criminal be arrested and tried before being punished, why was the same not true for bin Laden?
Well . . .
(2) This European fixation on apprehending Mladic was the ultimate exercise in “Looking Backward, not Forward.” His accused crimes took place more than 15 years ago in a war that has been over for more than a decade. He’s now 75 years old, completely stripped of any remnants of power, and reportedly in ill health (“he appeared disoriented and tired, and [] one of his hands appeared to be paralyzed, possibly because of a stroke”).
Precisely right.
