Khmer Rouge tribunal ending work after 16 years, 3 judgments

You're confusing whatever argument it was you thought you were putting forward, now introducing the "efficiently" concept when you first started on the line of:

The quote unequivocally calls doubt on the efficiency of the procedures, getting a result with an unjustified amount of time and money means the results were not obtained efficiently.

I specifically asked what made him an authority on how qualified he was to judge this, and you replied to that comment, which means you mistakenly argued that him being involved made him an authority on the topic, this is still false, and he has made no such claim.

So, mixing up your points. Or just trying to escape from the corner where you were schooled on the actual facts.

What actual facts? you have presented none pertinent to your claim that he is an authority to judge how justified (how efficient) the spending is, again, that is not his claim this comes solely from you, without any basis.

Because you say so? What sources do you have to back that up?

No, because you have failed to prove so, it was your claim and when asked for sources you provided none, which means the claim is unsupported. By recognizing there are no sources that can support your personal claim then your appeal to a supposed authority you are granting is invalid and remains so until you can provide such references.

Once again, you claimed something, and failed to support it with evidence when asked for it.

You certainly aren't.

How can you know? Are you still trying to guess what other people are and use it as argument? do you have any objective evidence of what other people are or do? or is this yet again another time where you make baseless accusations so the moderation can delete your comments once you understood you have no basis for your claims?

His personal feelings about getting some kind of justice are not even about how efficiently he go it.

You're confusing whatever argument it was you thought you were putting forward, now introducing the "efficiently" concept when you first started on the line of:

 it seems that spending hundred of millions of dollars and one and a half decades is not justified, 

So, mixing up your points. Or just trying to escape from the corner where you were schooled on the actual facts.

That does not make him an authority on the efficacy of the judgment,

Because you say so? What sources do you have to back that up? What do you think an expert in this case requires? Do you have any idea? Just trolling as usual after your argument gets demolished?

Except he has not, ever.

Except that is his job.

Again, I have never said I am one on this field, but I have never baselessly pretended other people to be as you are trying to do.

You certainly aren't.

He is the expert evaluating the topic

According to whom? not him of course because he has never said so, so can you provide proof of his expertise? what kind of qualifications has he about efficacy of tribunals? His personal feelings about getting some kind of justice are not even about how efficiently he go it.

He isn't a random person stopped on the street for a soundbyte.

That does not make him an authority on the efficacy of the judgment, neither you saying he is. Absolutely none of the arguments you make has anything to do with his qualifications to judge if the money and time dedicated are appropriate, justified and much less if they are to be considered an efficient expenditure.

yes, if you spent a few minutes to look him up you would know this basic piece of information.

Except he has not, ever. You just want to consider him so without any basis to make an invalid appeal to authority he has never made.

You're not one.

Again, I have never said I am one on this field, but I have never baselessly pretended other people to be as you are trying to do.

No, I am saying his opinion is about his personal feelings of gain from the veredict, but has absolutely no relevance about how efficient the process was, which is the criticism done and that you don't address at all in your comment, do you have any expert evaluating the topic that says the expenditure is justified?

He is the expert evaluating the topic, which is why his statement is mentioned. He isn't a random person stopped on the street for a soundbyte.

He is the foremost expert on crime of the Khmer Rouge.

He was a founder of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations in The Hague .

He is one of the persons behind the trial of these men in the first place.

He is the authority.

His opinion speaks for victims since he is part of the group representing the victims.

You have no clue about this.

Has Youk Chhang even said to be an expert evaluating the efficiency of tribunals? because you are trying to make an appeal to an authority the own person is not making.

yes, if you spent a few minutes to look him up you would know this basic piece of information.

I have never made an appeal for myself being an authority,

You're not one.

You mean this interested person, Youk Chhang, who was named one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the Heroes and Pioneers section doesn't have a valued opinion on this?

No, I am saying his opinion is about his personal feelings of gain from the veredict, but has absolutely no relevance about how efficient the process was, which is the criticism done and that you don't address at all in your comment, do you have any expert evaluating the topic that says the expenditure is justified?

Has Youk Chhang even said to be an expert evaluating the efficiency of tribunals? because you are trying to make an appeal to an authority the own person is not making.

I have never made an appeal for myself being an authority, I gave only my personal opinion about it, you are the one trying to criticize it with a baseless appeal to authority from someone that has not made that appeal in the first place.

So because one interested person say it is happy to get at least some results this means the process was efficient? that makes no sense.

You mean this interested person, Youk Chhang, who was named one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the Heroes and Pioneers section doesn't have a valued opinion on this?

How about the opinion of someone that actually can evaluate if the costs and time are justified?

You mean Youk Chhang, who was the director of DC-Cam whose work focused on documenting the crimes of Democratic Kampuchea, and which published a textbook on the Khmer Rouge period is not able to evaluate this; but we are expected to listen to your opinion telling us this was not justified?

unintended consequences

Yeah I don’t think so. Think about it. Did the CIA have a re-stabilize plan? No. You can’t intentionally destabilize a country then say “sorry. Ooops. We didn’t want that to happen”.

And I also think you should use the correct vocabulary. The word “supported” is just a lie.

invalid CSRF

And Cambodia is still fighting corruption and lawlessness…

Thanks to having communist nations as benefactors that prevent the rise of a democratic and accountable government there.

Wrong. Check out the definition of “covert operations”. By the CIA military coup in March 1970, they permanently for the near future and purposefully destabilized the nation, which then later brought in the KR

The US supported the Khmer Republic against Prince Sihanouk hoping to install a more western leaning government there. The result was instability that allowed the Khmer Rouge to gain power and run the Khmer Republic out. That is a far cry from the US actively supporting the ascension of the Khmer Rouge. It is a case of unintended consequences, not a deliberate policy choice by the US.

An oft-claimed but completely fabricated story from Stalinists who will say anything to deflect away from their cancerous ideology.

I suppose it’s possible some here are on a different timeline. Myself, I’m speaking of the late 1950’s and into the 60’s.

As far as your comment, I have no clue what it means.

Prince Sihanouk was a known Marxist-leaning Prime Minister - look up his history. 

Really? Marxist leaning? Is that why he took 550 million in aid from the US between 1955-63? Many folks forget, or really don’t understand how tense things were back in the Cold War days. All the while the CIA is actively supporting Sihanouk’s rivals.

He was motivated enough to write about it. See below.

My War with the CIA: The Memoirs of Prince Norodom Sihanouk

https://www.amazon.com/My-War-CIA-Memoirs-Sihanouk/dp/0394485432

But the United States neither brought the KR to power nor supported it. 

Wrong. Check out the definition of “covert operations”. By the CIA military coup in March 1970, they permanently for the near future and purposefully destabilized the nation, which then later brought in the KR.

invalid CSRF

Lostrune2 is correct although I have to say that the US connection to the prince brought it into a closeness to The KR that brought me unease at the time.

But the United States neither brought the KR to power nor supported it.

That is persistent communist propaganda.

And Cambodia is still fighting corruption and lawlessness…

Sorry lostrune....

The KR came to power with the support of the US, inconveniently for the ordinary people of Cambodia, the enemy of my enemy (Vietnam) was the US friend.

No, you do not know the history of Cambodia. Prince Sihanouk was a known Marxist-leaning Prime Minister - look up his history. He was a frequent visitor to Beijing and Moscow.

That's why he was overthrown by the Khmer Republic with the support of the US. The Khmer Republic was the enemy of the Khmer Rouge, which was supported by both China and communist North Vietnam. The "Rouge" in their name means "Red" - as in communist red

Later, China and North Vietnam had a falling out, as well as the Khmer Rouge and North Vietnam had a falling out. That's when the Khmer Rouge and North Vietnam became enemies, but that occurred after the Vietnam War.

It doesn't make sense for the US to support the Khmer Rouge. First of all, Khmer Rouge are clear-as-red communists supported by China and at first North Vietnam. The US supported the Khmer Republic in overthrowing Prince Sihanouk who leaned towards China and Russia, the enemies of the US. Why would the US support the Khmer Rouge in overthrowing the Khmer Republic, when it was the US that supported the Khmer Republic in overthrowing the marxist Prince Sihanouk?

Sorry Mr. Kipling, ya don't seem to know the complex history of Cambodia. You just see the US and you see little Cambodia, and you immediately think the US supports anything that destroys Cambodia. Cambodia's history is more complex than that, with its other neighbors China and Vietnam also having their parts in the play

Another one left out of the history books. Cambodia was a thriving developing country until the US started their little Soviet/China communism adventure. Today? Same US adventure, different players. Warmongers are united.

An oft-claimed but completely fabricated story from Stalinists who will say anything to deflect away from their cancerous ideology.

The US also killed more Cambodians by bombing during the Vietnam war than the KM did during their time in power.

No, this is wrong too

Estimates for Cambodians killed by US bombing ranges from 50,000 to as high as 500,000

That's a big range and that's a lot of people, but still nowhere near the Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge - which ranges from 1.5 million to as high as 3 million

History lesson kids

Sorry lostrune....

The KR came to power with the support of the US, inconveniently for the ordinary people of Cambodia, the enemy of my enemy (Vietnam) was the US friend.

Yes, the KM were terrible. But supported by the US administration for more than 15 year.

No, the Khmer Rouge was supported by the China and Communist North Vietnam (before the falling out)

The US supported the Khmer Republic after Prime Minister Prince Norodom Sihanouk was overthrown (and he fled to China) in 1970

Although the Khmer Rouge originally fought against Sihanouk, on the advice of the CCP, the Khmer Rouge changed its position and supported Sihanouk after he was overthrown

When the Khmer Republic fell to the Khmer Rouge in 1975, Sihanouk was appointed as its Head of State, a ceremonial position - but in reality, the true power was Pol Pot

In the 1970s, the Khmer Rouge were largely supported and funded by the Chinese Communist Party, receiving approval from Mao Zedong. It's estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid which was provided to the Khmer Rouge came from China

After spending $337 million and 16 years to convict just three men of crimes.

I understand these kind of trials are extremely important and can be very complicated, but somehow it seems that spending hundred of millions of dollars and one and a half decades is not justified, specially when it only sentenced 3 people.

They're hoping people don't search a little deeper in the history books.

No doubt. And a deeper search will show how they came in to power. Another one left out of the history books. Cambodia was a thriving developing country until the US started their little Soviet/China communism adventure. Today? Same US adventure, different players. Warmongers are united.

the Khmer Rouge carried out a reign of terror to establish a utopian agrarian society, causing Cambodians' deaths from execution, starvation and inadequate medical care. It was ousted from power in 1979 by an invasion from neighboring communist state Vietnam.

This rather tame explanation by AP is quite telling. They're hoping people don't search a little deeper in the history books.

In fact, the communist Khmer Rouge killed around 2 million of their own people, around 25% of the entire population. Some estimates claim 3 million. The KR destroyed the family unit and enlisted children to carry out many of the most heinous acts.

Child Soldiers in Genocidal Regimes: The Cases of

the Khmer Rouge and the Hutu Power

Péter KLEMENSITS, Ráchel CZIRJÁK

coscription concerned 10–12 year-olds, who after indoctrination were to be the most brutal cadres of the regime at the ages of 12–15. There are no records available for how many chil- dren were used as combatants in Cambodia, but their numbers can be estimated as tens of thousands during the 1970s and 1980s.8 For the brutal Khmer Rouge regime the youth were the perfect soldiers as “it is [...] easy for the commanders to give orders because the children did not have a conscience and are illiterate [...] they don’t know what is good what is bad. So, they simply follow the orders the commanders give them.” 

THIS is communism in a nutshell.

Never forget and never assume it can't happen again.

They gave the Nazis a run for their money in mass murder as an instrument of state policy.

And most of them got away with it.

Mao cultural revolution entered the chat , estimates up to 80 million died under his rule

Nemo....

 The KR was the very personification of evil in the late 20th century.

They gave the Nazis a run for their money in mass murder as an instrument of state policy.

Yes, the KM were terrible. But supported by the US administration for more than 15 year.

The US also killed more Cambodians by bombing during the Vietnam war than the KM did during their time in power.

Brzezinski and Kissinger should also have been in the dock.

It’s a shame that Pol Pot never stood in the dock.

For those too young to remember, The KR was the very personification of evil in the late 20th century.

They gave the Nazis a run for their money in mass murder as an instrument of state policy.

And most of them got away with it.