How to Prosecute a War Criminal

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

    Length: 16:10 minutes (14.81 MB)
    Format: Stereo 44kHz 128Kbps (CBR)

War crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte has dedicated her career to bringing the world’s worst human rights violators to justice. As chief prosecutor for the United Nations War Crimes Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, Del Ponte successfully prosecuted some of the most powerful masterminds of mass murder, including Serbian strongman Slobodan Miloševi?.

Her recent memoir, Madam Prosecutor, details her experiences in The Hague. I spoke with Del Ponte’s co-author, Mother Jones contributor Chuck Sudetic, by phone from Croatia. (Del Ponte, now a Swiss ambassador to Argentina, has been barred by her government from speaking publicly about the book—for the backstory, listen to the podcast).

Two quick highlights from our conversation:

Mother Jones: In terms of strategy, Carla Del Ponte argues that it’s actually cheaper to pursue tribunals, as opposed to humanitarian aid and military inventions and peace keeping missions, and all the subsequent reconstruction efforts and development efforts, that the tribunals themselves are actually less expensive.

Chuck Sudetic: Exactly. A lot of people complain when they see the costs of the tribunal where you employ hundreds of people at a pretty high pay-grade in a pretty high-cost part of the world. But if you compare that to a U.N. mission in Bosnia, for example, that went on and on and on and spent untold billions to enforce a peace that didn’t exist, or when you talk about interventions in places like Rwanda, the tribunals are much, much cheaper. It still isn’t a foregone conclusion that tribunals will solve the problem in the long run, that they will create enough of a deterrence, but its at least worth the gamble because the cost compared to the alternative is significantly lower.

MJ: Toward the end of the book, Del Ponte offers a few lessons for prosecutors. She says that prosecutors must remain objective in the face of these horrendous crimes, and I just wonder if that’s even possible. I mean, these are the most heinous crimes crimes committed, and so how do you actually remain objective?

CS: Well you do it by being professional. And you do it by constantly questioning whether your evidence and whether your theory fit the case, and fit the law and the indictment. These are tough cases to proof because people who are presidents, people who are ministers of defense, or ministers of internal affairs, the police ministers of countries, they generally sit in offices that are air-conditioned and nicely furnished in places that are far away from the venues where execution squads are killing, or where men are going into villages and killing wholesale and raping women wholesale. What you’re required to do is to create a link between the crimes taking place on the ground and the orders given by the individuals, men and women, on high. It’s not a slam dunk, these are not show trials. These are places where inquiring minds have to be nay-sayers, and have to question everything, and it’s a good thing they do.

There’s a huge degree of cognitive dissidence involved in this. On the one hand you have to look into the faces of survivors of horrible events, who in many cases have been reduced to utter penury by the conflicts in which they’ve been victimized. Meanwhile, in an international justice system where the U.N. gets involved and the rights of the defendants have to be protected, the defendants in the jails are actually living better than the victims in the villages that have been burned and looted and all the women taken off and raped. These are difficult things to factor with some kind of common denominator. In the end, you get torn apart by this.

We go on to talk about how prosecutors prioritize who to prosecute (only those with no hope of being prosecuted in their own countries, it can be a painful process of selection); how to deal with the inflated ego of war criminals (don’t let them represent themselves in court); and whether Del Ponte has any advice for those seeking prosecutions of Bush administration officials (be steadfast, even though we love international justice for other countries, no one wants their own people tried).

Click here to listen to more Mother Jones podcasts.

Read sections of Madame Prosecutor.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate