Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.

Milosevic's trial and Saddam Hussein's war crimes proceeding in Iraq were widely seen as together constituting the most important legal test for the international community since German and Japanese leaders were tried after World War II.

Both trials drew stiff criticism over frequent interruptions and the ability of the defendants to use the courtroom as a stage to launch vitriolic anti-Western diatribes. Reveling in the spotlight, Milosevic insisted on being his own defense lawyer.

Of course, there was also a significant difference between the two. Milosevic was not on trial in his own country, where he still has some popularity. The historical significance of an international war crimes tribunal is still debated, with many believing that it is best for example to have Saddam Hussein on trial in Iraq, by Iraqis. As a general question, this view does not seem to address the question of who has been wronged by Hussein. But with Milosevic, since his actions exceeded the borders of his own nation, his prosecution could not be brought without an international court, even if he had left the presidency and had been unpopular enough for some Serbian official to try to bring charges. His extradition for trial was the first against a sitting head of state, and it was expected at that time to set a precedent, as had the Nuremberg Trials after WWII.

Walter Cronkite ran a story on NPR a few weeks ago about the significance of having German war criminals tried in a court that was (politically) outside of Germany. I found it interesting and I recommend it.

Speaking of NPR, they also ran a story last fall about the trial of Milosevic and its lack of media coverage, which is a little ironic considering that one of the popular criticisms leveled against the trial has been Milosevic's attempt to use it as a stage to denounce the west. But when was the last time the trial was in the news? It is just as well that he died in prison, because the most severe sentence he could have received would have been to spend the rest of his life behind bars. The lack of political closure for his war crimes may be an issue for many in the Balkans and the Middle East, where any conflict between Muslims with non-Muslims is followed closely. But the fact that the trial was given a serious attempt should be statement enough.

It is possible that the international community will develop a knack for bringing world leaders to trial for genocide and other war crimes. Perhaps, one day, the international community will also consider something more proactive about men like Slobodan Milosevic.