Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Traitor's Reward

The Hague Inquisition convicted Momcilo Perisic today, sentencing the former Yugoslav general to 27 years in prison for "aiding and abetting" alleged war crimes.

It is worth noting that Perisic was deemed guilty of nothing he actually did, but of what the Inquisition thinks he could or should have done to prevent the asserted atrocities from taking place. By that "standard", every single general officer is a war criminal - which is why it only gets applied to the Serbs.

What's ironic here is that Perisic was a CIA asset. He was caught in 2002 - by the bumbling DOS police, no less - conspiring with a U.S. embassy official, who turned out to be a CIA operative. Subsequent investigation revealed that Perisic had been working for the U.S. since 1997. Facing Serbian military justice, he surrendered to the Inquisition instead. Yet not even his service to the Empire could save him from being sacrificed at the altar of Collective Serbian Guilt.

This does nothing to change the fact that the ICTY is a false court, and that all its verdicts ought to by rights be null and void. But it does provide a fitting reward for treason, I suppose. Treason runs wide and deep in today's Serbia. Perhaps, now that they know what "rewards" await them in this world and the next, the other traitors might repent. I'm not holding my breath, but still.


Eugene Costa said...

"This does nothing to change the fact that the ICTY is a false court, and that all its verdicts ought to by rights be null and void. But it does provide a fitting reward for treason, I suppose...."

Indeed--this whole piece of theater looks suspiciously like a rerun of the British series "The Prisoner", complete with its own Number Six.

1968, was it?

Court? Debord would be smiling--more a kind of back-up generator of the Spectacle used to produce just the right headlines at just the right time.

Doot said...

Strange to see you advocating for Gotovina's release.

CubuCoko said...

Why? I consider Gotovina guilty as sin, but *that* institution has no right to put anyone on trial.
Or did you think I would support it when it persecutes non-Serbs? You obviously haven't read "Injustice for All"...

Eugene Costa said...

In the first book of his Histories (I.96ff.) Herodotus retails the much neglected story of Deioces, the first King of the Medes. The Medes at the time were disunited and in the midst of universal lawlessness and anarchy.

Deioces, whose secret aim was sovereignty, built a reputation of right judgement in solving the disputes of his fellow villagers. So impressive was his justice—dikaiosune--that his fame spread from village to village and he became sought after as a judge by all the Medes.

As the crowds coming to him for justice increased, suddenly Deioces went on strike, saying that being a judge was leading him to neglect his own business and that he was getting nothing in return.

The Medes, thirsting for justice, thereupon made Deioces their King, building him a large palace and fortified city, from which he became more and more an absolute monarch, who was soon spying on the people and dispensing Draconian “justice” to all.

The historicity of the story is subject to much wrangling, but at the moment that is neither here nor there. Two aspects interest. First, that in the story the dispensation of justice is an avenue to regal power. Second, that Deioces was from the beginning aiming at his own power rather than justice.

In effect, justice was his means to an end, which was monarchy.

At the same time it is interesting that in Herodotus' opinion, the justice Deioces dispensed, whatever his motive, was at first genuine and only later tyrannical and self-interested.

Consider now a new and perverse variation on the Deioces story—to wit, when, to win power not justice but merely the appearance of justice is sufficient, an appearance manufactured and broadcast by a cooperating and one-sided media that is part of an already installed empire and indeed a key tool in its operation.

Consider also the following model. A and B are involved in violent conflict.

An outside power, D, represents to the world that it will dispense “justice” in the conflict by virtue of an “international criminal court”.

This “court” is then trumpeted by the same D's media as somehow impartial, despite the fact D has already intervened on the side of A against B.

Sound familiar?

Of course just to add to the appearance of “justice” D throws to the lions, not only many high officials of B, but a few of the worst of A.

In the end, by acceding to D's claim of justice, not only B, but all the rest, including A, will be subject to a new and perverse Deioces soon enough.

The added fillip is that D, capitalizing on (and often fomenting) the hostility between A and B, in prosecuting the stray A for appearance, now actually expects all members of B to support its “justice” against a member of A, because A is their enemy and the charged is clearly guilty.

There is nothing particularly new about this psychology, which is just another version of divide and conquer.

Indeed, this psychology and all its perverse variations, executed with profound hypocrisy, was a specialty of the British Empire—including the supposed justice offered to the world under the absurd rubric, “the White Man's Burden.”

Is it a surprise that it is also an integral part of the psychology of the Atlantic Empire?

The only surprise is how long it takes for some of the “burdens” to catch on.

CubuCoko said...

Spot on. And I like the explanation - much more straightforward than anything I've put together over the years. Mind if I translate that?

Eugene Costa said...

"Mind if I translate that?"

Not at all--one is flattered.