Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Of course it's biased. Look at the judges - 90% of them are from NATO countries.

Of course it's biased. Courts are ALWAYS biased to reflect political orientations. From the Inquisition to modern day Italy (where Berlusconi has completely fucked up the legal system for his personal benefit).

Of course it's biased. The ITCY will never bring to trial those who ordered and executed NATO bombings against civilian targets in Serbia - against the Geneva convention and without UN approval.

Of course it's biased. Whereas a large portion of the Serb political and military LEADERSHIP has been indicted and convicted (or died in the process of), the same treatment was NEVER applied to Croats, Albanians or Muslims.

Of course it's biased. The ratio of indicted and convicted to civilian casualties from the 4 ethnic and/or religious groups STRONGLY SUGGEST that Serbs are getting the most severe treatment...

I completed a statistical analysis to test whether the difference between the means of the Serb data set and the non Serb data set was significant. The results indicated that, indeed, the means were significantly different with a 95% confidence interval.

Jake and Migeru have criticized this that and the other assumption, indicator, test used, etc. to demonstrate that in fact... what? What is it that you want to demonstrate? That the ICTY isn't biased? Is that what you believe? If yes, can you offer evidence to back your claim?

by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 03:51:13 PM EST
Of course it's biased. Look at the judges - 90% of them are from NATO countries.

OK, there's a point. It would have been better to have Russian, Chinese, African and South American judges as well.

Of course it's biased. Courts are ALWAYS biased to reflect political orientations. From the Inquisition to modern day Italy (where Berlusconi has completely fucked up the legal system for his personal benefit).

So we might as well abolish the whole silly notion of independent judicial review? Trials are always scams designed to cover the actions of repressive state intervention with a veneer of plausible deniability? Judges are universally corrupt and submissive to the whims of shadowy political masters?

Of course it's biased. The ITCY will never bring to trial those who ordered and executed NATO bombings against civilian targets in Serbia - against the Geneva convention and without UN approval.

And that is relevant to whether Serbian indictees committed war crimes in which way, again?

Of course it's biased. Whereas a large portion of the Serb political and military LEADERSHIP has been indicted and convicted (or died in the process of), the same treatment was NEVER applied to Croats, Albanians or Muslims.

[Citation Needed]

Of course it's biased. The ratio of indicted and convicted to civilian casualties from the 4 ethnic and/or religious groups STRONGLY SUGGEST that Serbs are getting the most severe treatment...

[Citation Needed]

I completed a statistical analysis to test whether the difference between the means of the Serb data set and the non Serb data set was significant. The results indicated that, indeed, the means were significantly different with a 95% confidence interval.

No, it did not. It indicated that your understanding of statistics is significantly deficient, with a 95 % confidence interval.

Jake and Migeru have criticized this that and the other assumption, indicator, test used, etc. to demonstrate that in fact... what?

That you have not made a case.

What is it that you want to demonstrate? That the ICTY isn't biased?

That there has been no good evidence on display so far on ET that would indicate that the ICTY is significantly biased.

Is that what you believe? If yes, can you offer evidence to back your claim?

You're the one making a big production about that court.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 04:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
  1. You're concluding (wrongly) taht we should abolish the entire legal system. I never said that.

  2. Who said it's relevant to Serbian indicteed? It's relevant to the case that the ICTY is biased! Which is the subject of this diary.

  3. You need a citation to know that, for one, Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic weren't indicted?

  4. Because I should have used the Poisson distribution? Because I should have treated all conflicts in which Serbs participated as one single war (through a weighted average)? C'mon.

  5. You conveniently skirt the issue of your own beliefs. What's your position Jake? Is it biased or not?
by vladimir on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 02:25:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is not a convincing metric to your case; it just expounds your hunch that made you start these calculations.

If it is your aim to show bias using statistical means, I'm all ears to what you've got to say and kudos to you for posting them here. I've read both diary and discussion with interest - up to now.

However, two of ETs capable mathematicians have heavily argued against your choice of method. The right thing here would take note, make proper adjustments to your calculations to see if they can withstand the adjusted tests. Waving harder won't help your case.

by Nomad on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 04:21:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm familiar with Poisson, but I'm not familiar with Bernouilli... and am therefore likely to go astray. May I suggest that Migeru and Jake (both being more competent mathematicians) do the calculations?
by vladimir on Tue Mar 17th, 2009 at 04:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series