USA/Canada provided asylum for war criminals

Not only those two countries but some other allied countries like Australia had provided asylum for war criminals from Yugoslavia. I can understand that Spain did it since Franco's fascist regime was in power as well as Argentina but I want to discuss about those allied countries.

Yugoslavia demanded their extradition but in most cases they rejected the demand. For example Ustasha minister Andrija Artuković's extradition was rejected in 1959, 8 years after Yugoslavia had sent the request. In 1984 he was finally sent to Yugoslavia for trial at the age of 85. He found the asylum in the USA.

Another example is Momčilo Đujić, chetnik commander of Dinara division. He also found the asylum in the USA and lived there till his death in 1999 at the age of 92. Number of extradition attempts was sent but none of them were successful. Even during the wars in Yugoslavia in the 90's he openly supported the ideas of Greater Serbia and killing of other ethnic groups. He held speeches in Canada and the USA to brainwash Serbian immigration there. I guess that's what you call "the freedom of speech".

There are a lot of Croatian and Serbian communities in Australia and Canada today which support war criminals from Yugoslavia. There are statues of war criminals and Chetnik/Ustasha flags in Croatian and Serbian culture houses in those countries.

I'd like to discuss this and hear about what people from those three countries think about this...and others too of course.

 

Anyone?

 

They say:

The United States maintains diplomatic relations but [...] does not have extradition treaties with the following countries:
[...]
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia.

[...]
Generally under United States law (18 U.S.C. § 3184), extradition may be granted only pursuant to a treaty.

 

That explains it.

 

No...No it does not. In the case of Andrija Artuković it has absolutely no bearing on the matter. Concerning Momčilo Đujić, it only has a bearing on extradition attempts after the dissoltion of Yugoslavia.

You see...There was a US-Yugoslav extradition treaty in force since 1901, and it remained in force until the dissolution of the country
The text of the Treaty can be found here: https://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/bosnia-and-herzegovina-former-yugoslavia1.pdf

Concerning Artuković, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in 1954, determind that the Treaty was still valid, and in force.:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/211/565/186712/

The CIA had this to say in 1961: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/ARTUKOVIC,%20ANDREW%20%20%20VOL.%202_0036.pdf

And many years later, in 1987: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/ARTUKOVIC,%20ANDREW%20%20%20VOL.%202_0078.pdf

 

Thank you for the post Takao! It's interesting to see the original documents from the period.

 

Crimes of a political nature were specifically excluded by Article VI of the Treaty, only criminal offences were covered. And his crimes were of a political nature.

And according to Article V: Neither of the high contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens or subjects under the stipulations of this Treaty.
So people who acquired US citizenship were excluded too.

 

I imagine a good part of the refusal was that, at the time, Yugoslavia was COMMUNIST (if I am not mistaken) and there was the whole 'Cold War' going on. I don't see Democratic America making any friendly deals with a Communist Country at the time.

 

In the end, regarding the case of Mr. Artuković, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California disagreed with this.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/628/1370/2595944/

You misread or misunderstood what you read...

Neither of the high contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens or subjects...

Basically, the US can extradite a citizen or subject, but it is not required to do so.

For instance, if a US citizen went to Yugoslavia and murdered 50 Yugoslavians, and then returned to the US...He does not automatically get a pass at extradition from the US. The US could decide that it is in it's own best interest to deport said US citizen to Yugoslavia to face trial there.

 

Who knows, the US is not that eager to extradite their own citizens to friendly countries either: for example to Romania (2000), South Korea (2002).

 

Any women gets raped by a US sailor in Darwin gets fronted by the US navy...if they are sailing or in another port, they still get sent. No problems with US extradition from us.

 

The problem with your two examples is that concern serving members of the US military. The US military, in the main, refuses extradition of their personnel, whenever and wherever possible.

In addition, serving members and their families tend to fall under different rules and regulations concerning their treatment. For example, in the case of South Korea, the US Army personnel fell under the "Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Korea (SOFA)"
http://www.usfk.mil/About/SOFA/

Conversely, this American, Arthur Patterson, was extradited to South Korea...Despite his claim that he was covered under the Korean SOFA, since he was the son of a US service member living in Korea at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaewon_murder_case
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/05/04/13-56080.pdf
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/710246.html

 

Actually, USA had pretty good relations with Yugoslavia especially during the JFK era. Yugoslavia was a communist country but unlike the countries of the Eastern Bloc it had good diplomatic relations with almost all of the countries in the world mostly because it was neutral. Don't forget that Non-Aligned movement was established in Yugoslavia.

 

Artuković's or Đujić's crimes?

 

Given the postwar context of Cold War and the race towards the MAD bottom, I'm reasonably sanguine, and certainly not surprised, about how potential expertise was plundered by both sides in lieu of other concerns.
"This guy knows about rockets. Lots & lots about rockets."
"Bit of a Nazi though. Slave labour camps etc.?"
"ROCKETS!"

View attachment 25571 View attachment 25572

 

The USA has been undercover Fascists for decades, so that's no surprise. Communism was always the enemy, and "national security" trumps all, no pun intended. Central authority is placed more and more into the federal government, and our civil rights have slowly been eroding since 9/11 and the invasions of privacy allowed by new technologies.

 

Yugoslavia under Tito was also not a Soviet puppet, and he was a big reason the Nazis were defeated in the Balkans. He worked with the British SOE and developed friendly relations with one of their top agents that was sent to help the Yugoslav resistance.

 

It doesn't matter. Criminal offence - for one's benefit. Crimes of a political nature - for the benefit of a political group, party, or country. If they were leaders, politicians it was all politics.

 

It's no surprise that we immediately smuggled out and started using the Gehlen Org in the CIA. The corporate Fascists of America such as the Dulles brothers had a similar outlook to the European Fascists, with a common enemy.