# Serbian Kidnapper Appeals Conviction



## TrexLink (14 Jun 2008)

> *CANADIANS' SAGA PUTS NATO STRIKE ON TRIAL*
> 
> _Adrian Humphreys, National Post  Published: Saturday, June 14, 2008_
> 
> ...



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


----------



## geo (14 Jun 2008)

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 (14 Jun 2008)

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


----------



## geo (14 Jun 2008)

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


----------



## TrexLink (14 Jun 2008)

Spoken like a Sapper - Chimo!


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Jun 2008)

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 (15 Jun 2008)

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 (18 Jun 2008)

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 (18 Jun 2008)

LineDoggie said:
			
		

> 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 (18 Jun 2008)

> 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 (18 Jun 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> 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 (18 Jun 2008)

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 (18 Jun 2008)

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 (18 Jun 2008)

_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 (19 Jun 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> _Sind sie, Herr Feldwebel, willkommen._
> 
> From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
> 
> ...


_

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 (19 Jun 2008)

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 (20 Jun 2008)

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 (25 Nov 2008)

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 authoritie*s, 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.
> 
> ...



_More on link_


----------

