Mr Eckel's title is appropriate, but for all the wrong reasons. As he implies, the "court" is a western-sponsored, western-supported, western-financed, and western-promoted entity. It has no resonance with ordinary Cambodians, in whose name it purports to speak. 99% of the reporting concerning its activities emanate from western sources; western journalists ensconced in The Australian, Phenom Penh Post, or other predominately English-speaking entities. But, most of all, the trial is an anti-Communist propaganda exercise, designed to prove (a) that Communism is uniquely evil, and (b) only western-style democracy can "save" the Cambodians (and by implication "undeveloped" peoples in general) from extinction, and (c) that the West, and particularly the United States, bears no responsibility for the years 1975-79. No similar trials are scheduled or even contemplated in countries experiencing similar slaughters. The Indonesian massacres of 1965-66 (in which nearly a million leftists were summarily executed), or that country's actions in East Timor in 1975-76 (during which perhaps 1 million were killed by the Indonesian military with the active connivance of the U.S.). These are just two examples. Even the "failures" of the Cambodian court are employed to give added value to western propaganda claims. This is indeed a "kangaroo" court; trouble is, as Philip Short pointed out when this farce began, it had no business being convened to begin with.

Letter from Ang Udom and Michael G. Karnavas, Co-Lawyers for Mr. IENG Sary at the ECCC:

It was recently reported by Mike Eckel in his article Cambodia’s Kangaroo Court (Foreign Policy Magazine, 20 July 2011) that “officials from the court’s main donors, which include the United States, Australia, and others, [were prompted] to intervene directly with [International Co-Investigating Judge Siegfried] Blunk and [International Co-Prosecutor Andrew] Cayley multiple times -- by phone and in person,” concerning the very public controversy over Case 003. Eckel also describes how the US war crimes ambassador, Stephen Rapp had “spoken to Judge Blunk directly, informing him that Washington had warned the Cambodian government not to interfere. But he also suggested that money was as much a factor as jurisdiction in deciding which cases to pursue.” Reports of this nature should raise genuine conerns amongst all of those with an interest in the ECCC. This Court was established to show Cambodians and the wider international community that justice is possible here, free from unwanted political interference. It is suprising and saddening to learn of allegations concerning the very people who should have the best interests of the Court at heart.

Whether the outcomes of Cases 003 and 004 have been predetermined because of political interference by the Cambodian government, or because the UN and the donors want to cut their losses, or a bit of both, is a serious matter deserving serious measures with serious answers. The public controversy over the investigation of Cases 003 and 004 has virtually engulfed the ECCC during the past few months. Fresh allegations of interference are simply adding to this sideshow, distracting attention from the real issues at stake. Since the investigation is expected to be conducted confidentially and since the Investigating Judges are purported to act independently in carrying out their mandate, it may be prudent to be circumspect before casting aspersions and jumping to conclusions. There are procedural mechanisms in place designed to deal with a perceived incomplete investigation or corrupt judicial practices. If there is a belief that one or more of the Investigating Judges are acting unethically, the appropriate solution is to seek their disqualification.

The most troubling aspect of this entire affair is the fact that there are diplomats and representatives from donor counties who think it is appropriate to have private discussions with judges about cases which they are working on. This is not only highly unusual, but highly unethical. Pressure – political interference – can come in many fashions, especially from the end of a telephone from an embassy representing a cash contributor to the ECCC. It is antithetical to judicial independence for diplomats to meddle in the judicial affairs of an ongoing case. Let us be frank, the repugnant quid pro quo is almost a given, even if it is unspoken.

Perhaps some diplomats and government representatives are unaware of the fact that there are procedural mechanisms in place to ensure that the parties can raise objections to the results of the investigation. As limiting and frustrating as these procedural mechanisms can often seem, they are precisely introduced to foster fairness, uniformity and accountability, and to minimize, if not totally prevent the parties and outsiders (such as diplomats and government representatives) from interfering with the integrity of the proceedings. What some diplomats and government representatives are doing, however, is nothing short of calling for interference with the judicial process, thereby engaging in the same sort of conduct which they claim to be fighting against. It is truly reprehensible for donor countries to be using the power of the purse to achieve a certain outcome, which, undoubtedly, they view as the correct one. Engaging in judicial interference through the use of coercive tactics – all in pursuit of effectuating an independent ECCC judiciary –is contrary to the rule of law.

The rule of law should be applied uniformly by all, including the UN and donor countries such as the US. The Investigating Judges should be left alone to carry out their mandate without any direct or indirect political interference from anyone. If there is cause to believe that the Investigating Judges are not acting in accordance with their ethical and professional obligations, immediate action should be taken by using the appropriate avenues. To this end, the ECCC would be better served to allow full disclosure and public scrutiny. This would be far more beneficial to building the judicial capacity of the ECCC, and Cambodia at large, than any clandestine meeting scheduled by a powerful diplomat for the purposes of directing the flow of the investigation.

Ang Udom and Michael G. Karnavas
Co-Lawyers for Mr. IENG Sary

The truth alas is far worse than that. Both America and China supported Pol Pot as a buffer against the Vietnamese when he was on the run. Not exactly something you would want to
sing from the rooftops. When Pol Pot avoided facing themusic via his untimely death interest in this story died.

The reason why more people are not being bought to trial and the past sentences were so minor is that alas so many Cambodians are implicated in killing their own countrymen. The UN made a mistake when agreeing to its compromise with the Cambodian government and are paying for it now,. However full tribute to FP for these two articles. If you want to see some great photography and a picture of pure evil see "Brother No 2" in the other FP article on Cambodia. Not exactly entertainment though.

I thought that
These questions were brought into sharp focus during research exploring the antiquity of the land surface in the Chatham Islands (176° W, 44° S) located c.850 kilometres due east of Christchurch (South Island of New Zealand),
on the Pacific Plate,
well in-board of the active Australia-Pacific plate boundary that runs through mainland New Zealand.

BEST REGARDS:lacey duvalle

She is only on the ticket why so much hate?.......Obomba has "0" foreign policy experience and he is on the top of the ticket.... rio sfr his really shows the despotism of the Demoncrat party..

According to the prosecution's introductory distribution for cases 003 as well as 004, obtained by VOA Khmer from the source close to the courtroom, Ta An is a believe for investigation through the tribunal, along with mid-level Khmer Rouge commanders Meas Muth, Sou Met, Ta Ith as well as Im Chaem. Prosecutors say numerous atrocities were committed through the ev secrets Khmer Rouge under the oversight associated with Ta An, also known as Oam A good, who rose in order to deputy secretary of the Main Zone under the regime’s politics structure.

Ta An’s fate is currently in the hands of the investigating judges, who must now determine whether the charges against him warrant an indictment even as the court prepares for its largest trial to date, of four already jailed Khmer Rouge leaders.

Why isn't the U.N. tribunal to prosecute genocidal Khmer Rouge war criminals going after more bad guys? Letter from Ang Udom and Michael G. Karnavas, Co-Lawyers for Mr. IENG Sary at the ECCC: It was recently reported by Mike Eckel in his article Cambodia’s Kangaroo Court (Foreign Policy Magazine, 20 July 2011) that “officials from the court’s main donors, which include the United States, Australia, and others, [were prompted] to intervene directly with [International Co-Investigating Judge Siegfried publish book According to the prosecution's introductory distribution for cases 003 as well as 004, obtained by VOA Khmer from the source close to the courtroom, Ta An is a believe for investigation through the tribunal, along with mid-level Khmer Rouge commanders Meas Muth, Sou Met, Ta Ith as well as Im Chaem. Prosecutors say numerous atrocities were committed through the ev secrets Khmer Rouge under the over.