Slobodan Milosevic puts God on trial
Regional, Editorial, 6/29/2001

Slobodan Milosevic, the deposed Yugoslav leader accused of starting wars and causing massacres against civilians has been jailed and sent for trial for the crimes he committed against humanity.

The crimes committed, if true, are some of the ugliest imaginable. Killing, assaulting, raping, starving, making homeless, humiliating, etc.

What stands unique about the coming trial of this man is that he was the leader of the country that perpetuated this crime, and as such, the international community, for the first time, is prosecuting such a man, a positive example of collective will being applied successfully. This sets precedence at the international level and shows the need for international institutions that must deal with such problems at the international level. The US, which supports this trial, opposes a permanent International Criminal Court. But what brought this trial to take place was not the presence of such a court, but concerted international effort, economic for the most part, that shows the collective pressure that can be brought upon any country that misbehaves -- south Africa and others not excluded as a demonstration of such force. This pressure had come not from all the countries, but the most relevant economically. So we can say that if the sanctions on a given country is unanimous, the pressure can be unbearable to any country, and as such a tool for forcing countries to adhere to international law and norms, thus leading us into using international institutions such as a reformed United Nations for conflict resolution and leading us away from war as a means of resolving conflict.

Beyond that, the trial of this man brings nothing new in-and-of itself, other than it being another trial that places God on trial. God is on trial because this trial must eventually decide the punishment of this man for the alleged crimes, and as such God's instruction to us to "forgive" one another and to "love" one another is being put to the test, yet again, as the state, or many states in this case try a human being before a court of law.

How is this crime going to be resolved? The state's way or Love's way? Which is the better way to treat a criminal?

If found guilty, Milosevic should be made to spend time seeing the crimes he committed, and then spend time with the victims that are alive -- the orphans, the maimed, the homeless, the hungry, the raped, and be made to listen to their stories first hand, not as punishment, but rather to bring him to a point of recognition to admit to himself and to the court that he has committed acts that has led to all this pain and suffering, and he now repents and asks forgiveness. And if he is found not to be predisposed (if this is the right term) to kill again, then he should be set free.

He should be set free because we have to decide if we are in the business of punishment or reform and forgiveness. We have to ask ourselves a very simple question. What is to be gained by taking away the liberty of this person as opposed to setting him free? Nothing is gained from such an act. If the argument is that he will serve as an example to others, then it is time to set a better example yet, that of forgiveness and the redeeming power of love expressed so strongly.

No one commits an act thinking it is wrong! They may think that at some conscious level, but at their true consciousness, they think it is right otherwise they would not commit the act -- or the crime in this case. They think they are doing good to themselves, and since good is a relative term, they don't know that good also involves others, and that others well being is part of what is good for them.

The example of the sentencing for a crime will be set to other humans that they will be made to empathize with others. If some criminals cannot be made to empathize, then they have something defective in them, and may need constraint treatment, and not just simple isolation if they are predisposed to commit the crime again.

It took humans a long time to discover the idea of "love as God," and to start to live on the personal side by Love's motto "love, and forgiveness." It is time that the state, and its arm, the courts to discover Love as a sentencing standard and to start applying it, and by doing so, will nearly empty the jails.

For the Middle East, many want to put Israel's Ariel Sharon (and others) on such a trial for massacres against Palestinians. But the test of morality is when one faces his greatest temptation to want to convict and sentence one's enemy with revenge in mind. To convict is one thing, and to sentence is another.

It is much harder to define what should be a crime and what should not be, and there is much to be said here about the abundance of things that are harmless to others that are made criminal. But what is much easier to define is that when a crime is committed and a person is found guilty, the sentencing should be based on the principal of forgiveness. This is a radical notion that its time has come for discussion and application. This way, we will put love into practice not just in our personal life, but also in our public life. We will thus extend the circle where our personal morality applies.

If you have not made the connection between God and Love in this editorial, God is love. So this trial is not just about another man, it is yet another trial where we put God's word on trial.

Previous Stories:
  To know God, you should not fear him   (12/24/2000)
  Good begets Love, Love begets the commandment   (9/30/2000)
  The state, religion, and the individual in public life   (4/12/2000)
  The need and future of international institutions   (1/15/2000)
  The foundation for tomorrow's international politics   (10/18/1999)
  The foundation of good development: rule of law and transparancy   (9/16/1999)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search