sedated patients to the point that they couldn't breathe properly and would need tracheotomy and as you know in the u.s. health care system nothing comes cheap trick out of his own days cost about one hundred sixty thousand dollars a pop this alleged conspiracy between doctors and management is not the first of its kind at this hospital and administrator and five doctors have already been charged for medicare fraud for giving and receiving kickbacks not only is having a hole punched in your neck for money disgusting but it may also be lethal because patients at that hospital in chicago are three times more likely to die than patients at other hospitals from tracheotomies throughout the state now how did the f.b.i. find out about this with three employees ratted out the hospital and worked with the f.b.i. to make a lot of incriminating voice recordings these people risk their jobs and possibly much more to do what was right and i salute them reading out evil is no wrong deed but that's just my opinion.

hello and welcome to all the hard work tribunals i am content to provide tax cuts and the six week inflation as opposed to deter future one time but i think we believe we can solve this national community usually intervening in one of the five campi postmortems feet when it claims to be impartial and we are political considerations multiply the time by sir geoffry nine british lawyer out prosecute somebody on the loss of each of the hague and for our cases before the international criminal court sir geoffrey thank you very much for your time isn't that all tribunals to some extent delivering the. yes.

historically they all delivered a form of victor's justice starting in the first world war second world war. japan and in in germany. when the modern tribunals came about yugoslavia and it was said that they were there to try all sides so that would not be victor's justice and the permanent international criminal court is specifically instructed to look at conflicts in the wronged so that all sides might be prosecuted. unhappily it's not always the case that the tribunals have been able to prosecute all sides the yugoslavia tribunal did attempt to prosecute all sides but the rwanda tribunal failed and there are many people who think that the cases of the international criminal court in africa failed to look at all now i'm sure you encounter that in your legal practice and i saw it in b. years of covering conflicts that what can turn pretty ordinary nonviolent people

into mass murderers and the nature of that transformation is very very complex so i would argue if the war environment without ignoring these facts and judging these people by the norms of peace time doesn't do you want justice doesn't he your question reaches the heart of a problem that the world is. not really willing to discuss when i say the world i mean international bodies everybody knows that what you say about the almost inevitable reality of violence in war is true and therefore the question of moral responsibility for the individual person operating in the field is always. hard to ask. but why nevertheless why then is to ask though because i mean we have these

very high profile tribunal's and we are. politicians and ordinary people are put on trial but. is it really after all true justice because some would argue that the reason these tribunals exist the simpler political to. confirm the historical narrative that is suitable for one side to the conflict or the international community that intervened in that particular conflict it's a problem that has become very clear for example in the african cases but also in other cases around the world but the question that one of the questions that fits with your question is why would these particular conflicts chosen in the first place and not for example conflicts that would involve russia or china or america or britain or went out there and i think we we have we had a couple of cases in history most notably for example the second world war when

many of the countries you just mentioned were involved and i think it is clear again from historical records that of the british the solving of the americans committed crimes against humanity during the second world war you have it were only germans who were prosecuted but when you look at something like for example the bombing of hiroshima or nagasaki beach result that like in more than one hundred thousand of people instantaneously. killed this is are you know on the same level as having gas chambers here nobody broad those people who are often arrive the bombing of nagasaki for no good reason no good strategic reason to justice so again this is this would be an example of not only a very selective justice but actually in a certain powers dominating in dictating what justice really is your absolutely right that there was no investigation of what

so called war crimes or what are called war crimes were committed by the allies in the second world war what's really interesting is that by having these one sided trials. history is itself corrupted because people look back on the result of the trial one sided in the case of nuremberg and the tokyo trials and give less or no attention to the possibility of offenses having been committed by the victorious side one of the real problems for the international criminal court is of course that russia china america are not members of the court but have the power in the security council to refer or to block the referral of other countries to the court now this is manifestly seen as unfair throughout the world and it may actually mean that the international court cannot survive that long because why eventually will african countries and other countries put up with

a system that exposes them to treatment that russia america china and other countries don't have to face now when you look at the recent conflict they were all highly personified indicates if you got sloppy it was the loss of a child was portrayed as the butcher of the balkans in the case of libya it was get dopy the chief criminal and in the case of syria now it is assad who is supposedly . killing his own people i wonder why is there so much out forces on the leaders because clearly they were not driving around and doing all the killing themselves societies in their national criminal systems and international society and its international crime tribunals. needs to be able to divide some people of as having behaved so badly that they should really be regarded as criminals and that's not very much different from what happens in ordinary society but what is

perhaps very important to have in mind is the political and military leaders these days should be counted as knowing what people beneath them will do if they take certain decisions about propaganda about separating societies and accordingly it may be that the focus of attention should be much more on the leaders who bear responsibility rather than on the low level offenders or perpetrators who commit particularly nasty crimes in the course of war leaders absolutely should know that but it would also include the leaders in the so-called civilised western world who often intervene in this conflict on behalf of one of the sides and almost never brought to justice but before we go there live mitchell vission to the tribunal on yugoslavia in which you took part wiping tears thirds of the indictee so far are the serbs is there any way to assess whether this figure is

really reflective of the actual proportion of crimes committed the fact that in a multi sided conflict one side may have committed more crimes than the others and may have committed more serious crimes than the others doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a policy whereby if you're an international tribunal you try and prosecute all sides if you're going to do that you should be honest and open about the fact that you may for example be pursuing. macedonia and or bosnian or kosovo. alleged war criminals for a lower level of criminality than you are applying for sir sir sir geoffrey you are absolutely the easy with the bigger question i'm sorry for interrupting you but the bigger question is of course why isn't the yugoslavia tribunal doing that i mean

if you look at the at the length of the collective sentences for example that was handed out to serbs and crowds and bosnians you know they are they're highly skewed even if you want to argue that the serbs committed the largest amount or the largest number of crimes. you know from the statistics from the data are we got from disturb you know it is clear that it's simply impossible to have such a highly skewed distribution in any given award simply statistically impossible knowing what we know about the nature of war and violence. the second thing that i wanted to say which in part addresses your question is that once you have a tribe you know in operation interested countries can. operate with and through the tribunals or in attempts to write

history that favors them and i'm afraid that many people would say. without in any way excusing. kosovo albanians bosnian muslims bosnian kratz without excusing any of those people some would say that the serbia has been very very skillful. using the i c t y process to rewrite history innes for a verbal away as he come from serbia if you look at the way. serbia it's so resisted the realities for brits and obscure good documentation in order to hide what happened from both serbia and bosnia. listeners or all citizens then you can see how successful you can be sure bring some massacre is

pretty much the only thing that people around awhile know about the war in yugoslavia there are a lot of movies that were filmed about this event a lot of songs popular songs were written about it but. i know that because sr had to deal with that on a legal basis i'm sure you know that. serbs would also say that before the chevron it's a massacre took place there was also a mass killing of serbs by the both me and commander named nasser henri tool as far as i know was acquitted and to your earlier point that the serbia tried we need to many played be the proceedings of the tribunal the if it did hit number off indictments and convictions do not support that but let us come back to this issue off how drastic is really the international justice right after the break.

i would rather as questions for the people who visit our instead of speaking on their behalf. and that's why you can find my go larry king now right here on our t.v. question more. the a.

mood and. welcome back to worlds apart from we are discussing international war crimes tribunal but search after a nice. sir geoffrey i know that your recently had to have been involved with the

international criminal court and the i.c.c. is also fairly often accused of doling out selective justice do you agree with this assessment of the i.c.c. had a difficult start with an unfortunate prosecutor luis moreno ocampo. and he left the very firm impression that the countries he pursued may have been being pursued for political reasons and that was extremely unfortunate. the focus on africa resides with earlier reflects arguably the interest of the international community in avoiding countries like. russia or america. and so on that might have things to answer for in taking a softer target but i'm happily it also reflects the recognition by some african countries for example uganda. of their ability to use the court.

and turn it into a weapon of conflict and why wouldn't man american countries try to manipulate or influence court proceedings when world powers those countries that take pride in being standard bearers of human rights have not been brought to books for they are for they are for the crimes that they committed and here of course i'm alluding to the war in iraq you mentioned earlier that the united states is not a signatory to the i.c.c. and for helen sake let me say that neither is russia but britain is for example so . technically speaking tony blair could have been brought. to corinth war for the british involvement in the iraqi war and let us just say that many of the war crimes were pretty committed there weren't talk him and the use of white phosphorus the false pretext for the war of the torturing the killings of detainees in iraq you. prevent onder be here under the supervision of western

chips so i wonder how you can really try to justify you know court cases against african dictators when you are as a country britain as a country is shielding its own leader from justice of course. countries involved in international tribunals of all kinds are likely to try and manipulate them to their own advantage whether a whether the law of the great powers have manipulated things to their advantage is not something one can answer that simply not quite as simple as your question would suggest without a full analysis of the evidence but that military action goes on is pretty obvious and everyone accepted what that tells us or not accept it everyone acknowledges it what that tells us is that these processes if they are to have a future have to be open to scrutiny by the citizens of the world in whose

service they say they they operate and not to be in any sense obscured now i'm going to just take you back to a really important point that you should have had in mind in dealing with brilliance or what's very clear from the suppression that happened in the court of available intercepts showing conversations between general manager and some of the milosevic now that evidence was suppressed from outside the court and the only conceivable reason one can think that it was suppressed was not just because it would have shown. things had been in srebrenica and how much belgrade was involved too but it may well have shown that because it would have shown how culpable the west might have been for taking insufficient action and these methods of manipulation and not restricted to african countries trying to turn the court.

into a weapon of war against terrorism is these these realities apply everywhere why then given the how much politics influences not only the composition of the trial but the legal procedures who is brought in and on what charges why we would try the integrity of those trials at all why should we give them as the world citizens to whom you alluded earlier why should we give it any chance at all because we know that as you said the world is now is just the distribution of power international power is highly skewed so why have to have these tribunals at all well because you have to start somewhere you have to trust some people and you have to hope that things will. improve and all that good to begin with then maybe. the ability to impose pressure on judges it certainly seems to have happened in cambodia but if you get to know the judges some of them are extremely many of them

maybe most of them are extremely concerned to do the job to the best of their ability let me and let me challenge again the point you're making it's better to start somewhere because i would assume that it's better to start with the countries that again consider themselves to be the flag bearers of democracy and human rights so if anything they're in a much better position to demonstrate their wall of the delivery off true justice than any of their african countries actually speaking about africa i was going to ask you about one of the most recent cases where where the i.c.c. also attempted to intervene and i mean leave you here the i.c.c. was there from the very beginning presumably to collect evidence of war crimes but what surprised me and a lot of international. most is that the chief justice of the

i.c.c. at the time mr accompanied only tried to collaborate and they evidence but also. tried to publicize them let's listen to what he had to say the time we are finding some elements confirming this issue of appreciation of. right before. maybe couldn't. showing the policy. they were binding containers was probably to enhance the books if you do break it is now more or less established that that story was a hoax concocted by the rebels but what surprises me the most is the found body like mr accompany a universally recognized and renowned lawyer would go public with this evidence why the investigation is still ongoing because all we know from the movies i mean those of us who are not lawyers we know how much care goes into shielding the justices

and the jurors and the judges from all that media exposure but you have here the chief justice for the world highest score in convicting mr get off the media court before any legal procedures were even launched let alone complete it he's not the chief justice he's the chief prosecutor if you look at his earlier use of public city in many cases including sudan and kenya in particular it's not surprising that he may find himself being extravagant in the language that he used more than that the whole libyan process some would argue although i have to declare an interest because i have been involved in the libyan case to a limited degree but some would argue that the the court was used in a very obvious way to assist in the process of regime change because first of all the international community or parts of it in england

in particular france recognize the provisional of ministration in libya at a remarkably early date earlier really than international law would have allowed and then they found themselves supported by this extremely swift referral and decision by ocampo absent. the ultimate indictment of the core of them that it was no. only politically motivated in delivering a judgment but it was actually playing a very active role in influencing the events on the ground that's quieten that's quite a charge for any given chord let alone the international criminal court don't you think so. you know you obviously prefer very black and white propositions like absolute indictment but you will understand worse than that i mean i don't know let me for you you have to let me finish i'm afraid it's a very serious criticism that can be made of the court and. if you if we look at

the court it did suffer serious criticism campos time now of the overall purpose of the call many citizens would say or. worthy whether it's going to work for the reasons we've discussed is uncertain but a compass go on this a new prosecutor there and one can only say that one hopes the new court or the newly constructed court will learn from the mistakes that appear to have been made in his time can i just ask you the final question because we really are running out of time also only but you just expressed a hold that possibly via the r.c.c. will learn from the mistakes of its. you know previous members and would alter its proceedings but. you know that the i.c.c. is still very relevant when it comes to leave that not only because of the justices and the the legal counsel that is denied to save gadhafi but also because of the

thousands of the so-called praga off the loyalists who are rocking all across the libyan many many prisons there and it's well documented that the scale of human rights abuses in libya is much greater now than it was ever a jeering bigot off the rule so my question to you is why the i.c.c. that was so concerned about their observance of human rights in libya prior to here the murder of gadhafi why is it so nonchalant about it now. i agree with you and i think the use of the word. is a very good word out all possibly use it in some later filings i make at the court they have shown themselves apparently willing to accept that libya can deliver justice to. saif gadhafi ill and although i suppose this is a new see if that becomes relevant rather than try and. right to have

those men tried in the hague we're still awaiting that decision it may come out and everybody thinks that they will be compelled eventually to say that those people must be handed over for trial in the hague but you're quite right that thus far they have been singularly notional about the level of justice being offered in libya when for example in the kenya case they took a radically different approach and were highly critical of kenya and determined to keep kenya after the president for trial in the hay so yes different standards and very troubling and yet the international justice apparently not kept in touch and think this is all we have time for believe joined up again playing time here on the part.

real damage and complexity of this oil spill is not something you can grasp just by looking at dirty birds we have between four to five million people in this directly affected area of the caus and it's pretty clear why it's not being reported because b.p. can't afford to have a reported all along the gulf coast are clean they are safe. and they're open for business if b.p. is the single largest oil contributor to the pentagon the us war machine is heavily reliant upon b.p. and their oil this is a huge step backwards for the marker see it's a step forward. carex it is toxic is a look a lot like spraying in vietnam it was it was not

a picture that either the government or b.p. really wanted to have out there i don't want dispersants to be the agent. this bill's. little bit. of both. the speed.

with. good. will. come out of line to me a little. secret . sure it. was to build. nuclear doesn't sound anything mission to teach me why you should care about humans. which is why you should care only.

american whistleblower edward snowden remains stuck in the transit zone of a moscow where russian human rights activists urge president putin to help the fugitive. despite a blow to british intelligence from snowden's leaks the u.k. finance chief announces a funding for the country's spying agencies. welfare spending. and america's support for africa and military operations in the region i was shadow barack obama's visit to.