Sri Lanka: Conviction by malicious British media
Our war on terror is now over, guns are silent and it is time to
reflect on how awful it all was. Well-wishers rushed in with sound
counsel on how to move forward to impose a lasting peace - now we have
reached a phase for reconciliation and nation-building. Certainly we
never spared the time to seek retribution as victors for we just
underwent a cleansing ritual to eradicate terror from our nation, and a
bloody one too.
However, one group of people on the planet thinks otherwise.
A section of the British media appears to have a ferocious appetite
to come out against the Sinhala for defeating the LTTE the way we did,
by hook or crook they are willing to prolong the stranglehold on our
nation by bringing sleazy unsubstantiated "allegations" of "war crimes"
despite the fact we just conquered the most ruthless terror outfit the
world has ever seen using conventional warfare methods conducted within
I researched the barebones of their allegations and have come to the
realization that they exhibit a perfect portrait of confusion over the
definition of "war crimes." Let's look at the fundamentals of bringing
such charges anywhere. In short, the burden of proof falls heavily on
the "allegers," rather than on the proof of innocence by the "alleged
perpetrators" of the atrocities against humanity. I must note that the
standard of proving "war crimes" is exceptionally high under any
In the absence of legal scholarly, the British media base their
allegation heavily on dubious interpretations of international law and
highly questionable evidence. They are compelling the rest of the world
to accept unverifiable and manipulated evidence, especially from damaged
goods (the IDPs) that do not have right presence of the mind to know
what they really witnessed as they were traumatized, exhausted, hungry,
some injured etc.
They are basically emotionally flat-lined to provide any accurate
claims of who was firing shells or anything else at whom.
Misplaced truth seekers
Instead of seeking the truth, they pursue unethical exploits like
fabricating evidence colluding with the notorious feigns in the Tamil
Diaspora without any hesitation or having any personnel in conflict
zones to corroborate.
What is callous is their attempt to paint acceptable casualties of
war as true horrific crimes by dealing with unreliable or tampered
These media cheaters always found suckers or allege "victims," who
are in plenty in the Tamil Diaspora, to garnish their stories to
authenticate the "allegations."
Here is my fury, just because the Western media was not allowed into
the battlefield, by default it does not lend to any "war crimes" by the
SLA. This is the dishonest side of these media people, looking for
anything newsworthy to print headlines. The stark truth is we do not
need the Western media to come over and exonerate the SLA.
Moreover, neither the questionable chain of custody for crucial
evidence is mentioned nor can this be verified even in the worst case.
False or inaccurate claims are justified by saying that civilian
witnesses reported to 'foreign' NGOs. Is that the criterion for
collecting evidence of such crime of that magnitude? And most of all why
'foreign" NGOs are the most reliable evidence gathers? All reported
cases of unproven abuse in recent incidents in IDP camps had direct
association with NGOs that lack credibility as partner to their "crime"
of deceit. Therefore, by association all evidence coming from NGOs are
Fictional 'motive' & 'intent'
Hypothetically, let's assume that the charges were brought against
the SLA. To present a successful case of "war crimes" any prosecution
has to present its evidence, for the defence to exercise the protections
and the discovery rights that are available to them, so they can find
out what evidence they need to vigorously defend their client.
A trial process, which I seriously doubt, must be the fairest, just,
and transparent process on Earth that exists to resolve divergent issues
of facts on the ground and must come to a reasoned, solid and just
This can only be achieved if the burden of proof is beyond a
reasonable doubt. It could well be the clash of ideas, the clash of
facts and clash of instigation. The burden for the prosecution is that
they must prove the accused had committed the any "killings" with the
intent of destroying Tamils, in whole or part.
Therefore, whatever the tribunal, it must take the wording to include
a requirement of a "motive," namely, requiring proof of the fact that
allege perpetrators committed these acts because they wished to destroy
a particular group of people i.e. Tamils. A requirement of a "motive"
paves the way for a defence, which was to win a war rather than to
destroy a particular group, Tamils.
In 1948, when the definitions of "genocide" and "war crimes" being
worked out, the concepts of both "intent" and "motive" were understood
However, the common law does not differentiate between general
"intent" and "special intent," and defines a crime includes an intent to
commit some future act as well. What conduct exactly constitutes a crime
under the 1998 Rome Statue has not been solved. Therefore, qualification
of "motive" and "intent" is fundamental to initiate any "war crimes"
There is no consensus of the concept of "crimes under international
law" included in the Rome Statute and are subject to debate as to their
status in current international customary law.
It is understood that international agreement on the criminality of
conduct of under international law many only become possible if the
Court applies the definitions of crimes prudently, in order to win the
confidence of those whose cooperation with the court and whose
participation in international lawmaking is needed.
In its defence, the counter measures of the SLA were propelled by
circumstances beyond their control and no different to any other army in
the West would do in conducting a hostage rescue in the face of the
cowardly LTTE without facing the enemy.
My line of reasoning is that the SLA ought not to feel that they are
bordering on the burden of proof. Without a doubt, there is no proof of
'motive,' willful or otherwise, deliberate or even reckless. These
allegations are unsupported charges against the SLA of harming civilians
without presenting evidence to back any 'motive' for killing civilians.