Serbian Kidnapper Appeals Conviction

[TrexLink]

CANADIANS' SAGA PUTS NATO STRIKE ON TRIAL

Adrian Humphreys, National Post  Published: Saturday, June 14, 2008

Captain Patrick Rechner was held by Serbian forces and used as a human shield in an attempt to stop NATO bombing.Reuters File PhotoCaptain Patrick Rechner was held by Serbian forces and used as a human shield in an attempt to stop NATO bombing.

The war in Bosnia stands among the dirtiest of modern conflicts, featuring torture, mass rape and genocide fuelled by ethnic rage that was hardly eased by the United Nations entering the fray. Against this backdrop, the ugly point of contact between two Canadians on that foreign battlefield highlights a divisiveness that still reverberates, with a new chapter set to open Monday in a Toronto courtroom.

Nicholas Ribic left Edmonton to join Serb forces and "fight Muslims." Canadian Forces Captain Patrick Rechner, from Digby, N. S., was assigned to the UN as a peacekeeper.

On May 26, 1995, Ribic kidnapped Capt. Rechner at gunpoint, shackling him to a lightning rod beside an ammunition bunker as a human shield to stop NATO bombers.

Pictures of the bespectacled Capt. Rechner, his hair tousled and face distressed, became an iconic image of the conflict.

That he faced this treatment at the hands of a fellow Canadian has led some to call Ribic Canada's John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban fighter captured in Afghanistan. Federal prosecutor Robin Parker calls Ribic a "war tourist."

On Monday, an apparently unrepentant Ribic will defend his actions -- claiming the NATO bombing was the crime, not his kidnapping.

Ribic's trial in Ottawa in 2005, which found him guilty of hostage-taking and threatening death, is called "one of the most unusual criminal trials in Canadian history" by D'Arcy DePoe, Ribic's lawyer. It was the first time a Canadian was charged for such a crime taking place abroad.

This appeal is equally confounding.

In it, Ribic characterizes the NATO bombing as an assault and an act of trespassing and points to the legal defence of justification: The Criminal Code allows someone to apply reasonable force to prevent an assault or eject a trespasser.

"While this is an unusual form of trespass, it is submitted that NATO dropping 2,000-pound bombs on this property was clearly a trespass," Mr. DePoe argues.

Despite that position, Ribic does not truly want to reduce the vast geo-political events in Bosnia in 1995 to the level of a common criminal charge. He is putting the politics of the war itself on trial.

There is more - check the link.  www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=586429

 

[geo]

Hey...  Mr Ribic chose to go to war as a Serbian combattant.
His decision & his later actions demonstrated that, regarless of what paperwork might exist... Mr Ribic did not act as a Canadian and WAS NOT A CANADIAN and as such, he should not be protected by our laws.  He should not waste our courts' time at this point in his attempts to put the politics of war on trial.

Tell him to go to New York if he wants ... or better yet, go to Belgrade - Permanently!

 

[TrexLink]

Geo - you old softy! Why don't you just come out and say what you think? 

 

[geo]

Heh.... OK... shoot the ba$tard

 

[TrexLink]

Spoken like a Sapper - Chimo!

 

[OldSolduer]

I agree, .....but don't waste a bullet on this scumbag. Lets use something we can recycle, like a rope.
If he loves Serbia so much kick his fat a$$ over there and let his beloved Serbs take care of him. Oh and no pensions or any money for this scumbag.

 

[Blackadder1916]

On first reading the title of this thread WEIRDER AND WEIRDER,  my first instinct was not to view it as I expected it to be something more suited to Radio Chatter.  However, now that I see that it deals with events involving an old acquaintance, I am more inclined to follow the commentary, though I am still wondering what is so weird about this story.

Mr Ribic did not act as a Canadian and WAS NOT A CANADIAN and as such, he should not be protected by our laws.

While it is understandable that most Canadians will have little regard for Ribic, it should be noted that it was specifically because he committed these acts "as a Canadian" that he was extradited from another country, was charged, tried, convicted and punished under Canadian law that he gets to use all avenues open to anyone (regardless of citizenship) who has been subjected to Canadian justice.  Though his participation in the actions surrounding the hostage taking of Pat Rechner (and others) brought him to greater notoriety in this country, let's not forget he wasn't the only one there.  However, we would not have been able get any of them before any court in this country.

This appeal is equally confounding.

In it, Ribic characterizes the NATO bombing as an assault and an act of trespassing and points to the legal defence of justification: The Criminal Code allows someone to apply reasonable force to prevent an assault or eject a trespasser.

"While this is an unusual form of trespass, it is submitted that NATO dropping 2,000-pound bombs on this property was clearly a trespass," Mr. DePoe argues.

Now, this is a little unusual thinking.  It could be compared to an individual justifying the hostage taking of a meter reader as a legitimate method to stop a vandal from damaging his property.

 

[LineDoggie]

Probably. a really dumb question here.

If Ribic was a Canadian Citizen when he took arms against a Canadian Officer, why wasn't he charged with Treason?

To Me this is about as close to a classic case as I can think of.

 

[TrexLink]

If Ribic was a Canadian Citizen when he took arms against a Canadian Officer, why wasn't he charged with Treason?

Not a lawyer due to the inconvenient fact of having married parents, but it you look at the Criminal Code, the key bit on treason would seem to refer to anyone who:

46(1)(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

We were certainly not at war with the Serbs; no formal declaration of war had been signed by either party. As to 'hostilities', keep in mind that how long it took the government to even admit that there had been shooting at the Medac Pocket.  Had a treason charge been used, it would have implicitly acknowledged that we were in a shooting war (how very unCanadian!).  Charging him with hostage-taking and such allowed the government to dodge that.  Or it may have been less political; the call may have been made on the fact that we were not engaged in hostilities with the entire Serb nation or army. It would therefore have offered the defense a loophole. It might have been easier to assume that Ribic's actions were the actions of one man, hence the decision against treason charges.

Just a guess, but, yeah, treason would have been a good call in my books.  Lines in the sand do serve a purpose. There are some hyphenated Canadians out there need to decide where their loyalties lie.

 

[Privateer]

Not a lawyer due to the inconvenient fact of having married parents,

I guess that there aren't too many A-JAGs who visit these pages, or they just swallow comments like these.

 

[TN2IC]

Just a guess, but, yeah, treason would have been a good call in my books.  Lines in the sand do serve a purpose. There are some hyphenated Canadians out there need to decide where their loyalties lie.

Sad, but true with Canadian society these days.

I would have to go with treason too. Now since the truth is out about our engagements, with or without formal declaration. May be we can now bump/change it to treason? Can we do that without the declaration?

I know I'm a late bloomer in this topic, but still.

TrexLink, can you please post a link to your reference? I'"m very intresting into reading more into it.

Regards,
Schultz

 

[TrexLink]

Herr Schultz - Justice Canada has a website which will take you to virtually all Canadian laws and statutes, so far as I can tell.  http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/index.html  Under Title, enter "Criminal Code."

It is my impression that one cannot be tried twice for the same offense.  Given that he has been convicted of those other charges, a treason charge would not seem to be workable.  I could be wrong.

PS.  Privateer - most lawyers I know have a sense of humour.  If I have damaged any fragile legal egos, I will of course apologize.

 

[TN2IC]

Danke TrexLink. Now can't these charges be drop and recharge under treason? Or may be "up it" to treason?

High treason

46(1)(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Regards,
Schultz

 

[TrexLink]

Sind sie, Herr Feldwebel, willkommen.

From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

    (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again.

He's been convicted; he cannot be tried again for the same offence.

 

[TN2IC]

Sind sie, Herr Feldwebel, willkommen.

From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

This may sound a tad immature but it's my zwei Deutsche Mark...

He shouldn't have any rights period. That a sad part of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If someone wants to have fun with the Criminal code, then they shouldn't be protected. I know it may sound awful, but I"m sick of our Justice system and how it works. But that's another can of worms or topic to go on about.

If you play with fire, you"re going to get burnt.

Regards,
Schultz

 

[Old Sweat]

That's not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the legacy of many centuries of the development of English common law. I may not like the guy, but he has been tried and convicted for the crime. He can't be hauled before the bar again for the same incident. That principle of justice is so basic to our way of life that I am a little surprised you are questioning it, legitimate outrage or not.

Think OJ Simpson without the low speed chase.

 

[TrexLink]

Agreed.  If the rule of law in this democratic nation (one of those things we are fighting for in Afghanistan, incidentally) is to mean anything, then it must be universal.  To say that we will strip those rights from somebody who has done something outrageous is the first step down a very slippery slope. If you can justify that, then it becomes easier and easier with each successive case, until people lose all of their rights for trivial offenses.  Moreover, who has more need of the protection of the law? We would all scream for a lawyer if we were accused of a minor offense. Here is a Canadian citizen (an a total scumbag, but that's another list) in trouble over a most serious charge. It's not impossible that any of us could be accused of something equally serious by mistake.

If law is to remain at the heart of our society, it must be universal.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest - highlights mine.....

Court rejects hostage-taker's defence (Globe & Mail, 25 Nov 08)

An Edmonton man who helped abduct UN peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia for use as human shields cannot claim to have been merely carrying out orders from higher Serbian military authorities, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

"There was no evidence in this case of any order concerning the hostage-taking that the appellant was obliged to follow," a unanimous ruling said, upholding two hostage-taking convictions against Nicholas Ribic.

The court also rejected any notion that Mr. Ribic was acting in self-defence or that he had a right to protect Serbian military property from NATO air attacks.

"There was no evidence at trial capable of leaving the jury with a reasonable doubt that using unarmed peacekeeping observers as human shields in the hope of averting or stopping an air strike was a reasonable response to NATO's action," Madam Justice Eleanore Cronk wrote.

She also put a judicial seal of approval on a highly unusual procedure in which Mr. Ribic's defence lawyers were prevented from questioning two Canadian security officials that they wanted to call as witnesses.

Under a trial judge's order, the two officials were instead interviewed by a Crown prosecutor using questions from Mr. Ribic's defence team. Responses that were not seen to compromise national security were then conveyed to the defence....

More on link