RSS
Print This PageMy Soda with Radovan (Addendum Added)
I met my client yesterday for the first time. For obvious reasons, I cannot recount the substance of what he, I, and his legal associate, Peter Robinson, discussed. But I thought readers might be interested in my impressions of the visit and my sense of Dr. Karadzic, which bears little resemblance to the image portrayed in the media.
First, the UN Detention Unit itself. You can see what it looks like in the photo above. The prison is located in a very nice part of The Hague; indeed, it is abutted by a series of pretty little row houses. As an American, that was a bit of a shock – we hide our prisons in the middle of nowhere, especially those that house inmates convicted of the very worst crimes. (Compare the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, which housed Timothy McVeigh and continues to house Omar Abdel Rahman, Jose Padilla, the Unabomber, and Eric Rudolph.)
Once inside, the Detention Unit resembles most any prison: lockers for your stuff, a badge identifying you as a visitor (which I wished I could have kept), a metal detector. Peter and I made it into the first waiting area, where we chatted with the Orthodox priest who was scheduled to hold a Christmas mass for Dr. Karadzic and the other Serbian detainees until the guards came to escort us to the visitation area. We passed through two more controlled doors, then walked to the cell block that houses the ICTY detainees. The cell block itself was barren and overgrown with weeds on the outside and rather dingy inside — very much 70s institutional style, all beige and plastic. Having seen it first-hand, I am more than a little bemused by the ICTY website, which tries to convey the impression that the Detention Unit is almost Club Med. The photos on the website were obviously taken for the media’s consumption after a thorough spring cleaning.
Once inside the cell block, the guard showed us into one of the small meeting rooms. We sat down and chatted for a few minutes until Dr. Karadzic arrived. (Peter told me an amazing, and more than a little surreal, story about sitting with Dr. Karadzic in the same room and watching Charles Taylor shoot baskets in the exercise yard.) I have to confess that I wasn’t at all sure what to expect, given everything the media has said about him. But I felt at ease the moment I met him — a reaction facilitated, no doubt, by his casual clothes, warm smile, and the blue plastic box full of drinks, snacks, and documents that he was carrying. He shook my hand, introduced himself, and told me how happy he was that I was in The Hague and how much he appreciated everything I was doing for him. He then gave Peter a Fanta grape soda — his favorite, Dr. Karadzic told me — and asked me to choose between that, an orange soda, and a Coke. Following in Peter’s footsteps, as I often do, I went grape. We then all sat down, and I spent the next five minutes or so telling Dr. Karadzic, at his request, a little about myself and about how I came to be involved in the case. The conversation then veered into more substantive matters that I am not at liberty to discuss.
That said, I can offer a few comments about what Dr. Karadzic is like. None of the following is spin, although readers are certainly entitled to be skeptical.
The first thing I noticed was how at peace he seemed to be. I’ve sat across the table from enough accused criminals to know when someone is putting on a show for me. Dr. Karadzic wasn’t. He has no illusions about his situation, but he emphasized again and again that he wants the trial to be about the facts and the law — not about him. He has obviously accepted the possibility — indeed, the overwhelming likelihood — that he will never again be a free man. That cannot be a happy prospect, but he genuinely seems okay with it. As he said to us, he can read and write and think anywhere.
I was also struck by Dr. Karadzic’s evident intelligence. He speaks very good English, is extremely well-read and articulate, and has a keen interest in world politics. Indeed, we spent as much time discussing the situation in Gaza as we did the situation in the former FRY. (We also discussed Monty Python’s Life of Brian, but that is definitely a protected conversation.)
Finally, I came away from our meeting feeling very comfortable with Dr. Karadzic’s decision to represent himself. I would, of course, prefer that he hire Peter as his legal counsel. But nothing he said to me indicates that his behavior in the courtroom will bear any resemblance to Milosevic, much less to Seselj. I don’t know whether he believes that the ICTY is legitimate; I didn’t ask him. I do know, though, that he views his trial as an opportunity to challenge the ICTY’s often problematic jurisprudence and to ensure that the Tribunal’s official narrative of the events in the former FRY does not exclude the Serbian view. Moreover, I know that he recognizes his limitations and appreciates the legal advice that he is receiving from Peter, from me, and from the many academics and law students we have brought into the case.
I understand why the media simply assumes that Dr. Karadzic is guilty, although I wish they would wait to convict him until after they have seen the evidence and heard the legal arguments. What I don’t understand is why they insist upon portraying him as a crazed lunatic who lives only to follow in Seselj’s footsteps. (See, for example, this article from the normally excellent Institute for War & Peace Reporting.) Such armchair psychologizing has absolutely no basis in fact, accomplishes nothing, and runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Then again, the media is only part of the problem. The Registry has taken the indefensible position that Dr. Karadzic is not entitled to give interviews, because media contact would undermine the security of the Detention Unit by exposing its inner workings to the public (despite the fact that you can take a video tour of the Unit on the ICTY website) and would run the risk of “sensational reporting” (unlike Serge Brammertz’s public insistence that he will “unequivocally prove” Dr. Karadzic’s guilt). With such draconian restrictions imposed on Dr. Karadzic — even though, at this point, he has not been convicted of anything — it is impossible to counter the negative images of him that circulate endlessly in the media.
Anyway, so it goes. No one ever said that advising the world’s most notorious criminal defendant would be easy. Regardless of the difficulties that lie ahead, meeting Dr. Karadzic was a remarkable experience — one that I won’t soon forget.
ADDENDUM: In response to a comment and a few private emails, I just want to make clear that I am advising Dr. Karadzic out of principle, not for pecuniary gain. My work on the case is pro bono — I have not, and will never, receive a penny for my efforts.
Related Posts
30 Responses
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
-
[...] My Soda with Radovan | Opinio Juris - I can offer a few comments about what Dr. Karadzic is like. None of the following is spin, although readers are certainly entitled to be skeptical. [...]
-
[...] Kevin Jon Heller: He then gave Peter a Fanta grape soda—his favorite, Dr. Karadzic told me—and asked me to choose between that, an orange soda, and a Coke. Following in Peter’s footsteps, as I often do, I went grape. [...]
-
[...] wanted to link to this post about meeting Radovan Karadzic in prison. The writer comes across as a bit naive — gosh, the ICTY cell block is dingy! Karadzic, a [...]
-
[...] Heller has an extremely interesting post on his first meeting with Radovan Karadzic in the UN Detention Unit in the Hague. It’s a [...]
-
[...] in Prosecutor v Radovan Karadžić. This decision inter alia concerns whether statements made on Opinio Juris by one of Karadžić’s legal advisers can serve as an evidence for establishing that Karadžić [...]
-
[...] that everything be translated into Serbian and use cyrillic script. The Chamber refers to recent blog entries by Kevin John Heller at Opinio Juris as evidence that the defendant is comfortable [...]
Well, Kevin, did you really expect him to look like this?
<img src=”http://www.theforce.net/kids/coruscant/probe_droid/palpatine.jpg” width=”400″ height=”300″ alt=”Evil Palpatine” />
Of course he is going to do his best to look more like this
<img src=”http://lonestartimes.com/images/Bramanti/palpatine.jpg” width=”320″ height=”283″ alt=”Apparently Benign Palpatine” />
(Incidentally, unopened soda cans are probably okay, but I wouldn’t be accepting any food from him if I were you.)
at 7:55 am EST Marko Milanovic
God, why aren’t these html tags working? I hate to see a good joke (well, taste-dependent) go to waste…
at 8:00 am EST Marko Milanovic
Good post. More please.
at 9:38 am EST John Tan, tourist guide
During my brief work in an NGO that focused in the situation in prisons in Panama City, Panama, I would often find people questioning my commitment to human rights because according to them I was defending the rights of people that should not have rights at all. Judging from your previous posts on the issue and considering that you client is, as you point out “the world’s most notorious criminal defendant”, I can only imagine how unhelpful for you public opinion is going to be in years to come.
Although Marko does have a point in his joke, it also brings to mind Michel Foucault’s 1974-1975 lectures at the College de France, published under the title of “Abnormal.” Dr. Karadzic is already is been casted as the evil palatine in the long ICTY saga, and although I can’t blame the victims of that war for doing that, it does feel like society has not evolved much in the last 200 years. We still see the supposed criminals as abnormal persons that have to be taken out of our sight.
at 12:44 pm EST Carlos Iván Fuentes
Thank you for this interesting post.
Looking forward to your lecture in Asser Institute too.
at 4:41 am EST passer-by
I believe that image tags are intentionally disabled for this forum, as they can either destroy formatting, or, in some rare cases, allow the server and/or end-user computers to be compromised.
I found Mr. Heller’s story quite illuminating.
at 11:17 am EST M. Gross
Kevin Jon Heller is only the latest Westerner to internalize the
talking points of a demagogue as if they were true. Those who
remember the Bosnian war will remember President Clinton’s
administration repeating Slobodan Milosevic’s argument that nothing
could be done about the problems in Bosnia because they stemmed from
“ancient hatreds,” an argument historians of the Balkans had
thoroughly debunked. Military leaders in the West also echoed
Milosevic’s line that Western military intervention would mean an
endless war for the West, since Serbia had “tied down six German
divisions in World War II.”
And now, Mr. Heller, charmed by his genial host in The Hague, repeats
the view of Karadzic and his followers that the media is to blame for
the world’s image of Karadzic. Of the media, Heller writes: “What I
don’t understand is why they insist upon portraying him as a crazed
lunatic who lives only to follow in Seselj’s footsteps.” Mr. Heller
might look at raw film footage of Mr. Karadzic taken without a media
filter and ask himself if Mr. Karadzic hasn’t given the world this
portrait all by himself. There is the film of Mr. Karadzic from a
Bosnian parliamentary session in 1991 when, in a speech that might
most neutrally be described as “animated,” Mr. Karadzic threatened
Bosnian Muslims with “annihilation.” And there are the well-known
Bosnian Serb home movies (now available on YouTube) of Mr. Karadzic
escorting a visiting Russian writer to observe Bosnian Serb snipers
and artillerymen as they fire on the besieged city of Sarajevo and its
civilians. Indeed, Mr. Karadzic’s geniality as a host allows the
visiting Russian to play sniper and take a few shots himself. Would
Mr. Heller have taken the same cheerful view of Mr. Karadzic had he
been offered a sniper’s rifle instead of a soda?
at 11:23 pm EST Janet Bogue
The things we do to get ahead in the world… everyone may be deserving of legal representation in some abstract sense, but it’s still YOUR choice whether it’s you who is the one providing it.
at 12:07 am EST Kevin, Kevin, Kevin
I fail to see how the examples cited by Janet Bogue counter the post. Karadzic may very well be guilty of terrible crimes, as the post acknowledges. That doesn’t mean that he is a raving lunatic. It is quite possible to be intelligent, well read, charming, and in control of oneself and to commit unspeakable evil. Indeed, that is the point of Hannah Arendt’s observations on the banality of evil.
at 4:47 am EST Bill Poser
In her desire to make her political point, Janet Bogue completely misrepresents what I said. The comment she quotes had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Karadzic’s guilt or innocence. It referred solely to the media’s tendency to portray him as (1) mentally imbalanced as a result of his 12 years of being in hiding, and (2) intending to turn his trial into a farce, as Seselj has done with his trial.
Next time, I suggest that Ms. Bogue reply to what I actually said, not what she imagines — wishes? — I said.
at 4:47 am EST Kevin Jon Heller
As for “Kevin, Kevin, Kevin,” he or she simply regurgitates the dismissive criticism that is always leveled at defense attorneys. The criticism refutes itself: if every defense attorney took that advice, controversial defendants would receive no counsel at all.
But, of course, in “Kevin, Kevin, Kevin”’s worldview, criminal defendants only deserve counsel in an “abstract” sense. That pretty much says it all.
at 4:51 am EST Kevin Jon Heller
My comment and Bill’s were simultaneous. My thanks to him.
at 4:52 am EST Kevin Jon Heller
I understand the morality of advocacy, based on the premise that in a contest between well-qualified advocates, truth will emerge. I also understand the attraction of creative (Dr. Karadzic is the author of a book of childrens’ poetry; see my prior post re *Sarajevo Blues*), intelligent and sophisticated persons who rise to positions of power in the Balkans.
I do not think that Dr. Karadzic is mentally ill; I think he is evil. Not in the sense made famous as “banalilty” by Hannah Arendt in *Eichman in Jeruslaem*, nor in the sense defined by Christopher Browning in in *Ordinary Men*. I mean “evil” in the sense of an intelligent, sustained, deliberate, malicious attempt to manipulate followers to believe that fellow human beings are the proximate cause of their suffering, and therefore appropriate targets for snipers.
I am sure that Mr. Heller will perform his role with due diligence, professionalism, and the highest standards of care. I hope he fails for justice’s sake, and I hope that - for his sake, given his intelligence and his adherence to professional ethics - - he never realizes the nature of the monster for whom he is working.
at 10:22 pm EST David Fisher
It’s not so much the “banality of evil” as the banality and overwhelming self-absorption of Mr. Heller’s observations that strike one when reading this post. Despite (self-proclaimed) significant experience as a criminal lawyer, he is apparently still surprised that jails are institutional, furriners can speak English good, and alleged war criminals can be suave and charming.
Although “dingy”, the Detention Unit’s meeting rooms must at least be pretty roomy if they can accommodate Dr. Karadzic, his extensive range of snacks, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Heller, and Mr. Heller’s ego.
at 10:22 pm EST Clytemnestra
Actually its nothing new that Karadzic can turn on the charm and is quite an intelligent person. Foriegn and domestic journalists have noted this before, he has that quality of making a person want to like or believe him.
I would add something to David Fisher’s comment above:
‘given his intelligence and his adherence to professional ethics - - he never realizes the nature of the monster for whom he is working.’
The burden that members of this burden have to carry is such that lawyers quite often develop an ability to deliberately behave naievely. I conversely wish that they would all open their eyes, in the end they are paid handsomely and in my opinion should have the emotional intelligence to accept that they may be doing an immoral but necessary job.
at 5:02 am EST bganon
This is an absolutely fascinating post… thanks for writing it.
at 3:11 am EST Natalie
Response…Mr Heller, thanks for such a nice text. It’s rearity in this world to see someone who still possess soul in his body..
Although it is not the topic, I would ask certain commentators are Clinton or Bush or Blair.. monsters? How many children were killed in Bosnia and Serbia by NATO bombing? And how many Serbs were expelled from Sarajevo or killed by muslims? You do not have to answer, just look into Your soul if You still possess it…Well, there was the war in which one had to defend himself and his own innocent people - that one was Dr Karadzic.
at 1:33 pm EST Janet
The burden that members of this burden have to carry is such that lawyers quite often develop an ability to deliberately behave naievely. I conversely wish that they would all open their eyes, in the end they are paid handsomely and in my opinion should have the emotional intelligence to accept that they may be doing an immoral but necessary job.
Two responses: (1) there is nothing immoral about defending someone accused of crimes, no matter how heinous those crimes may be; (2) for the record, I am advising Dr. Karadzic pro bono — I don’t receive a penny for my work.
at 7:10 pm EST Kevin Jon Heller
Would you defend Hitler out of principle?
Can you expand on your principles?
You won’t receive money but you will receive something else. Attention of the media. Paradoxically, this of course can lead to many things in your professional career.
I’m glad meeting Radovan was a remarkable experience for you and the one that you won’t soon forget. While you’re in a stage of everlasting remembrance to the architect of murder please don’t forget the hundred thousand people that were systematically slaughtered. To plan and execute this indeed does take intelligence, mathematics to be precise.
I hope you fail.
I found your story quite illuminating (zing)
at 4:41 pm EST amel
The degree of contempt some readers feel for defense attorneys is genuinely distressing — as if those who defend people accused of horrible crimes cannot remember or feel sympathy for the victims of those crimes. How anyone can consider themselves committed to human rights while caring nothing about the right to a fair trial is literally beyond me.
As for defending Hitler: no, I would not have — but not because I don’t believe that he would have deserved an excellent defense had he lived to be tried by the IMT. I would defend anyone, no matter what their alleged crimes, that I felt I could defend with the zeal that the right to a fair trial requires. I could not have defended Hitler with that zeal, for the simple reason that I am a Jew of Polish and Russian descent and could never have been objective about Nazi crimes.
I completely understand why someone would want our team to fail and Dr. Karadzic to be convicted. But anyone who does not want Dr. Karadzic to have a good defense because that will make him easier to convict should be ashamed of himself.
at 4:54 pm EST Kevin Jon Heller
It’s not contempt just bewilderment. I’m pretty sure you are capable of feeling sympathy for victims of any slaughter but you’re obviously very capable of putting aside one’s personal reactions regardless of the situation and to carry on. That is, being professional. I’m pretty sure he’ll receive a free trial and that he’ll be convicted. Even he knows that. This doesn’t change the fact that you are lusting over Karadzic’s “human side”, that the media — the same one he used during the war to propel his mythology of east vs west — is to blame for not showing him in “true light” and that he has a right to a fair trial while the man accused took people’s right to live. Those who perished at the orders of this animal are unable to say “I can read and write and think anywhere”. You have to be a real tool to ignore this and remain professional.
It’s just astonishing that you can wake up in the morning and write such enlightening prose (i.e. “Oh, my God, he drinks grape soda! Can I have one? This seems so normal to me”) about Karadzic – especially given your background — and then say that you wouldn’t defend Hitler because of what he did to your people. What’s the difference between WWII Holocaust victims, Srebrenica genocide victims, innocent children in Gaza, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and many others? Nothing. They were systematically murdered by evil distorted minds who were at peace with themselves, accepting of any situation, had evident intelligence, were well-read and articulate and, gee whiz, had interest in world politics.
I think you understand but not completely since you never felt Karadzic’s wrath at work. This modern day hydra ordered people to death and decay. I don’t know how anyone after writing about him in revered light can call themselves good defense that will make him easier to convict. That’s a shame.
at 12:52 pm EST amel
For me its not a problem that everybody should have the right to a fair trial.
What I’m talking about is the personal morality of lawyers who represent these characters. Personally speaking I would have trouble sleeping at night if I helped assist getting somebody proclaimed innocent, who I knew was guilty.
How does that work exactly? I mean to represent a man like Karadzic one closes one’s eyes and tells oneself that the man is presumed innocent and he deserves to be defended? Or does one suspect that the man may well be guilty, but at the same time one will try to help get the man acquitted? Or the third option of convincing oneself that the man is innocent?
Either way some kind of doublethink is necessary, or at least deliberate myopia, so that sanity (or morality) can be maintained.
You mention principle as being the reason why you are willing to assist in his defence and that its pro-bono. Fair enough, but tell me where is the principle in admitting that as a Jew you wouldn’t represent Hitler, but you are happy to represent somebody else’s Hitler? (No I don’t think Karadzic was a Hitler, but nevertheless some see him that way). Again some pulling the wool over ones own eyes is necessary, its either that or to admit that it is rather unprincipled to be willing to represent one man accused of mass murder, but not another.
I hear that Johhny Cochran was a good guy and respected by most in the profession, but we all know what he will be remembered for. I wonder at the end if he felt it was worth it?
at 4:29 am EST bganon
JUST BREEZING THRU SHOWING SOME LOVE GOD BLESS YOUR BOY KHA
http://WWW.MYSPACE.COM/FULLYFOCUSENT
at 11:44 am EST KHA
Janet Bogue…Karadzic did not “threatened
Bosnian Muslims with “annihilation”” but was warning them (Izetbegovic most likely) that their actions, and most importantly ideas, like Robert Nisbet once said, have consequences. Just read Izetbegovic’s Islamic Declaration and his call to Jihad.
at 5:49 pm EST Michael