Hillary Clinton should stand trial for crimes against humanity

In May of 2011, Ratko Mladić was arrested in Serbia for alleged crimes committed during the civil wars which transpired during breakup of Yugoslavia. After his arrest, his lawyers argued that his health was too for him to be deemed fit to stand trial. His claims were ultimately rejected and Mladić remains imprisoned in the Hague.

With questions of Hillary Clinton’s health now unavoidable and questions of her orchestration and complicity in war crimes fully exposed thanks to Julian Assange and Wikileaks, there is a highly important question one must ask. Is Hillary Clinton fit to stand trial for her war crimes?

In both ordinary criminal courts as well as international courts and tribunals dealing with war crimes and genocide, questions of a defendant’s physical and mental fitness to stand trial are often an important issue. Debates over such matters can have the effect of perpetually delaying the beginning of trial.

In other cases it has historically allowed alleged war criminals to escape justice. German industrialist Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach was for example deemed unfit to stand trial at Nuremberg due to his paralytic condition.  He stood accused of supplying the tools of war to Hitler’s fascist regime but ultimately only his son and heir faced trial.

Long before questions over Hillary Clinton’s physical health became a mainstream topic of discussion, many people including myself questioned Mrs. Clinton’s psychological health due to decisions which could reasonably appear to be the product of an unhealthy and unstable mind.

Her pugnacious agitation for war on Libya is just one example.  This was a country that  Britain, France and the US had all reconciled with during the governments of those well known peacemakers George W. Bush and Tony Blair. 

Hillary Clinton used her power as Obama’s Secretary of State to push for aggressive war against Libya, which had not invaded any other country.  She  was then caught laughing about the cold blooded torture and execution of Libya’s leader – without trial of course.

More recent revelations from Wikileaks have vindicated Donald Trump’s line on Hillary Clinton being one of the ‘founders of ISIS’.

Her current policy statements point to a Hillary Clinton more ready for new wars than ever before.  The prospects for the world if she were ever to become President are increasingly grim and frightening.

I have no doubt in my mind that the charge sheet against Hillary Clinton would be enough to qualify her to stand trial for war crimes, even though one must admit that it seems that in the 21^st century one has to be either from Africa or the former Yugoslavia to face such charges.

In spite of this unjust fact, it is still necessary to question whether Mrs. Clinton would be fit to stand trial under the clear precedents set out both historically and in recent cases.

There is no threshold of fitness, physically or mentally, which must be met in order for someone to be deemed fit to be President of the United States.  There have also been many cases of ailing world leaders who continue to run their countries despite their  increasingly poor health.

But when it comes to fitness to stand trial, there are clear legal precedents. Should these perhaps be analysed by a combination of medical and legal experts in order to help American voters ascertain the feasibility of a vote for Mrs. Clinton?  It certainly couldn’t hurt to inform the public of such expert opinions.

As I said before, I hope Mrs. Clinton is physically fit and recovers from her current ailments. I also hope that the international system of global justice becomes truly international, so that people like Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton can stand trial for their crimes against humanity in spite of the fact that they are both white and that neither speak Serbian.