MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE
JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive
————————————————————————————— Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court. Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial? ———————————————————————————— NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed. ———————————————————————————— discussion archive Saturday December 07, 2002 at 3:55 am Vera, you asked when the Italians will be sent packing. I am amazed they haven't. When Michael Steiner was inaugurated, he spefically mentioned the rough treatment of the Albanians by the Italians. Maybe there is a connectin here: the Italian zone (in the east) is the only one which is not constantly in the news because of what the Albanians did (well, the Germans are in the south, where there isn't much happening anyway). Now that the case is clearing up, I am increasingly confused about the media. I don't no much about media, as was demonstrated in regard to the Dutch media, but what was the conclusion concerning FreeSerbia? Is the conclusion now that it is a Dutch enterprise, which is why the Dutch say it is a Serbian enterprise? We had a similar encounter concerning B92. It was originally a Dutch enterprise, but Mr T was kind enough to point out that it had become a Serbian enterprise. Lucky for him. What would he have said if it hadn't? Normally he just withdraws from the discussion every time somebody shows him wrong. (That is why he is so quite, by the way.) Just to prove that Mr T is wrong again, I have to say that I would be interested to hear what Michael Rose testified on Friday. And it is a very interesting fact that he was called as a "witness" (remember this is a parliamentary inquiry, not a trial). He is on Boyle's wishlist for indictees just like Karremans, who this inquiry is basically about. So if he appears as a witness in the Dutch parliamentary inquiry despite his "tarnished" (pro-Serb) past (=Boyle's wishlist), there should be no reason why the same wishlist should prevent him from testifying in the Milosevic trial! If you haven't done so, please check Peter Varvejke's latest link about the Prosecution's tentative investigations into the American part in the Croatian offensive. We had a similar piece of news a few months ago, but then Hartmann denied everything, just as she is doing now. How are the rumours then so persistent? And why does Hartmann keep denying them? Is it so hard for her to accept the house-cleaning, no matter how cosmetic it will turn out? I think the Kosovo indictment is clearing up. Once it is confirmed that the 22 men in the gully were shot with AK-47's, there is no earthly reason why we should suspect the Serbs did it? Gogol, did Slobo reach any conclusion in his cross-examination about the AK-47's? I think this is pretty important. The only way you can deny the obvious is to say that an arms embargo was imposed on Yugoslavia, including Kosovo, so the KLA could not have any weapons. But in fact, one KLA officer has admitted they were trained by the Americans in Albania. It is no secret that the arms embargo was violated. So to exonerate the Albanians you would have to put your trust in the Yugoslav Army, which was busy confiscating all the illegal weapons. Indeed, the confiscation list is quite impressive, but this doesn't mean the VJ could confiscate everything. The official publicaton Yugoslav Survey No. 4, 1998 lists on page 26 everything the border units of the VJ had confiscated from the Kosovo Albanians since Security Council resolution 1160(1998) was imposed. This includes 1,098 various rifles, 177 submachine guns and machine guns, 399,502 handgrenades etc. And you must add to this the stuff confiscated or handed voluntarily inside Kosovo: including 9,564 rifles, submachine guns and machine guns. So I don't know how anyone could refuse to look into the Kosovo Albanian provenance of the AK-47's by which the Racak victims were shot. It was said that the Suva Reka incident in the Kosovo indictment was difficult for Milosevic. Later, someone said that it might have been the work of the KLA too, just like Bela Crkva. We will see what the trials of the KLA officers in Kosovo will deliver. The incident that the trial has centred on since it was resumed after the summer recess was the Dubrava prison. Now it seems clear that about 75% were Nato bombing victims and the Prosecution included in the indictment only the 26 which may have been shot by the guards as they were trying to escape! Jari Nousiainen Finland Saturday December 07, 2002 at 7:32 am I can't stop wandering about the media: I haven't found a single report on General Rose's appearance at the Dutch Inquiry Commision. I can't find any references neither to the question Mr. Milosevic put to Milan Babic (ex C61) in regard to his meeting in Geneva with Madeleine K. Albright and their discussion on Operation Storm with president Clinton support. Jari, All the revelations on Racak are spread over the KLA period of the trial. I am sure Mr. Milosevic will have far more conclusive evidence to refute the whole hoax during his defence, if it ever happens. I can now see a glim of hope the judges will revolt, at least the two none NATO judges and try to call this farce to an end. The prosecutor's case after the fiasco of C61 Milan Babic the turncoat and perjurer is dead, it is just that Richard May (NATO) does not know it yet. In regard to freeserbia I think it was Walter who clearly established where the whole thing comes from by following the money trail. Propaganda is a good business and there is plenty of it. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Saturday December 07, 2002 at 11:27 am If this is American Justice is it wonder that nothing is said or written in the Mainstream Media about General Rose and the farce at The Hague. “A man who made a remark about a "burning Bush" during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls was sentenced Friday to 37 months in prison” in his defense the man Richard Humphreys of Portland Oregon said that this was bar talk and “"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush," Humphreys testified during his trial. “I had said that before and I thought it was funny." The Associated Press 12/6/02 2:31 PM This is in part why America incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world. Close to two million Americans are in jail as I write. A good page to visit on occasions is the jurist Legal News page http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issues/index.htm where last week I found the Croat-American link article that Peter Varavejke provided for the discussion page. For those who want a scholarly interpretation of the Hague Tribunal the following is well worth reading “SAILING AROUND THE FLAT EARTH: THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA AS A FAILURE OF JURISPRUDENTIAL THEORY” found at http://www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/fall97/andrews.html Vera, “Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's former bodyguard Nenad Batocanin and another man have been killed in a drive-by shooting in Belgrade” any comment?? the new breed of jihadists are on the way. Walter Trkla Kamloops BC Canada Saturday December 07, 2002 at 1:47 pm Walter This bodyguard who died had link with Maki one guy Interpol looks for right now. Both are connected with mafia, Milosevic government and today DOS goverment. DOS (Dj) had support of so called Surcin clan but not so much it looks like somebody doing cleaning up. Other gang became jealous of Surcin good position. Most gang have political connection and some have secret information on politicans that is maybe reason why they always die. Good thing is even if especially BG and NIS is full mafia mostly innocent people dont get hurt. Arkan is dead but people still talk that he is maybe somewhere on Hawai. Really if he lives then he probably will be C666. A Stefanovic Beograd Srboracslavia Saturday December 07, 2002 at 3:42 pm Thank you Mr. Stefanovic for the above post. A very interesting Web page which provides excerpts (supporting Peter’s post) from Michael Rose “MISSION IN BOSNIA”(Extracts from Fighting for Peace, published by The Harvill Press, London, 1998 found at: http://www.karadzic.org/rat/svedok_rouz_e.html The following Web page provides Decrees issued by Radovan Karadjic. Very interesting reading and maybe the reason Mr. Karadjic is free. http://www.karadzic.org/opste/m_e.html Letter from Radovan Karadjic dated April 17, 2002 to Professor Cavoski found at the following web page http://www.karadzic.org/radovan/obracanja_pismo_e.html a must read. Walter Trkla Kamloops BC Canada Saturday December 07, 2002 at 7:41 pm A striking thing I noticed at the Babic cross-examination. Remember what this part of the trial is about. The Prosecution alleges that Milosevic planned to create a Greater Serbia for the purpose of forcing Croats out of parts of the new state. So here we have Milan Babic arguing that Milosevic was AGAINST Greater Serbia. By bringing up the matter of the Vance Plan, of Babic's opposition on the grounds that the JNA would be pulled out of Krajina, that Babic said that he wanted these forces to remain, that he was sold out by having them not remain, he is saying that Milosevic was against Greater Serbia. R. B. Canada Saturday December 07, 2002 at 10:05 pm The Sentencing Hearing in the Plavsic case before the ICTY is scheduled to take place on December 16, 17 and 18, 2002. Public attention is expected to be high and the Tribunal Live service on Internet to be short of live streams during these days. Should demand for Plavsic-streams indeed exceed supply then we shall stop the audio and video streams from the other two courts, French first, then English, and if need be BCS as well infavor of 'Plavsic'. We kindly ask visitors who have a Windows Media Player installed on their systems to use our Windows Media streams for 'Plavsic'. This will free up RealAudio/Video streams for people using non-Microsoft operating systems. The Bard College 'Prosecutor vs Milosevic' archive will temporarily show a gap for Dec 16-18's sessions. We shall fill in the missing parts during the ICTY's Christmas/New Year recess. The final stages of the Plavsic trial will also become available on Bard's archive server a few hours after sessions in the Hague end - in the RealAudio format and if technically possible in RealVideo as well. Live Milosevic trial video with BCS audio will be available as usual; this stream runs on the Akamai server network. Frank Tiggelaar Amsterdam Holland Saturday December 07, 2002 at 10:31 pm To get the idea of the flimsiness of Babic's testimony (or better, the enormity of the Prosecution's despair), see what they consider as valid evidence. One of the accusations made by Babic (and gladly used and exploited by the Prosecution) was the alleged existence of a sinister plan of Milosevic to use the human material of the Krajina refugees to people Kosmet with the Serbs. A bolder version of this accusation was that he let Krajina perish precisely for that purpose. In order to give meat to that ghost, the Prosecution instructed Babic to dwell endlessly upon the 1995 exodus, of the police forbidding refugees to remain in Belgrade or to leave the motorway, directing them 'further to the south'. Notice how vague the accusation is: he himself remained in Belgrade, he never saw anybody placed in Kosmet, he never retold any hearsay about refugees placed in Kosmet. But the mere mentioning of the refugees being directed 'further to the south' was regarded as a testimony of that sinister plan. In my humble opinion, some numerical data would be required, some places & people & dates should be named. But the Prosecution considers as the valid testimony to Milosevic's control of the Army when Babic says 'Milosevic controlled the Army', so who needs any data or proofs. The moment Milosevic started giving some data, the whole story just crumbled: the previously established existing number of the Serbs from Croatia in Serbia (100,000) were already placed throughout Serbia, and Belgrade was particularly burdened, so this new exodus had to be organized in a way to avoid Belgrade (only those having the closest relatives in Belgrade - parents, siblings - were allowed to stay); others were directed elsewhere, and Kosmet, being 10% of the Serbia's territory, hosted only 1% of the total number of refugees, therefore proportionally so much less than the rest of Serbia). Faced with that, Babic had to admit that he "perhaps mentioned to the investigator once in passing that there might have existed a plan of some administrative body, maybe the Govt. of Serbia, I'm not sure, to populate Kosovo with 100,000 Serbs; but here on the trial I never spoke about this." You see how creative the Prosecution is: this immediately became 'Milosevic's plan to use Krajina Serbs to people Kosovo' and the number 100,000 was the number of actual Krajina refugees already in the whole Serbia, before the last exodus of 1995. Milosevic tendered a copy of the 'Official Gazette of SFRY' containing the Programme of the Displaced Person's Return to Kosmet, published years before wars and explaining economic measures to help the Serbs expelled from Kosmet by the then low-level terrorist Albanian activities to return to their homes. This was the programme for the Serbs from Kosmet to return to Kosmet, public and official government-backed economic effort, not some secret plan involving Krajina. And the factual figures of refugees show how small was the number of Krajina Serbs on Kosmet. But our Prosecution doesn't want to be bothered by the facts. It's easy to realize how superficial, arbitrary and unfounded are the constructions on which the Prosecution based its indictment. It turns out that way if you go from one issue to the next, one by one. Looking at the imposing display en masse , you are led to believe this is a solid fortress; looking from near, each brick is rotten, crumbling and made of too much straw. Another written statement was presented, which was faxed to Milosevic by yet another 2 former Krajina officials, denying Babic's allegations and calling him 'former friend'. This time Robinson spoke, instructing Milosevic that he would support his case better if those people would testify in person; Milosevic said all these faxes are handwritten, signed statements sent him as a reaction of those people watching the 'testimony' of Babic and all the senders are willing to testify. As a parting gift, Milosevic gave Babic a detailed list of some 5,000 names and years of birth of the Serbs killed in Krajina; he also gave the judges a book on genocide against the Serbs in Croatia in 1941-45 and 1991-92, saying 'maybe this could be of help to you'. Embarrassed, May mumbled that 'these two documents will be marked for identification, to be argued later on'. When Tapuskovic got his one hour, he drily clarified some 20 facts vs. inconsistencies, highlighted inaccurate time frames and tendered 54 documents signed by Babic, proving his wanton behaviour and giving ample reason why he had been removed from his position in Krajina (one of these decisions, also bearing Milan Babic's signature, nominates Milan Babic to the position of the Territorial Defence Commander!). Note just few of the stupidities that Tapuskovic unearthed. The allegation was that "Milosevic controlled the Army through Lilic since 1992", and the fact is Lilic became President of FRY (and Supreme Commander of the Army) only in 1993; but the darned indictment covers only 1991-92 for CRO (to avoid Medak Pocket, Storm, Hurricane, Thunder, Whirlwind and other political/meteorological moves of Independent State of Croatia), and Lilic is so meek a person, so convenient to be presented as Milosevic's puppet, as a Supreme Commander who let the vile Milosevic actually run the Army during that terrible year of 1992. The only problem is that Lilic just wasn't the Supreme Commander then! But, damn the fact, the allegation sounds so fine, so we'll include it in the 'testimony'. The other allegation was that "Milosevic controlled the 'rump Presidency' [the representatives of Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Vojvodina, as opposed to the representatives of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Macedonia, who boycotted the Presidency towards the end of 1991] and so prevented the decision to be taken on the action of the Army against all paramilitary units". The fact is that this particular decision was deliberated NOT at the period of 'rump Presidency', but before that, while the Presidency was still complete, and the decisive vote against the decision was from Bosnia & Herzegovina! But, again, who cares about the actual time frame of events, it sounds right to say "Milosevic prevented the decision". Tapuskovic cornered Babic on numerous similar issues, and each time Babic would try to 'card wool', by pretending confusion, but Tapuskovic just spoke to the judges, requesting the witness to be directed to answer the question; and he got a reluctant confirmation of every fact from Babic. To direct questions about his alleged embezzlement of diaspora donation and of the subsequent investigation, Babic answered both times 'I do not remember." He didn't deny it. He confirmed he was a rabid anti-Communist, so much so that he personally signed a decree forbidding the activity of all Communist parties in Krajina, only 1 year after he himself ceased to be a member of the League of Communists of Croatia, and he was the member for 20 years! To a direct question whether he heard anybody giving direct order to any military authority or to anybody else, while listening to those 52 intercepts, Babic had to confirm that he has never heard such a thing. This is important, because those tapes were never played (only few short extracts, totally insignificant) and the impression was given that the others were damning, on account of the story by Uertz-Retzlaff that Babic listened to all those tapes (for 2 full days!) and found them damning. Yet another example of how the Prosecution makes its case: by hinting they have something. Finally, Tapuskovic established that Babic almost never saw anything himself, he was only told things subsequently; he was near the battlefield himself only 3 times in total, and that only far in the rear, so he never even saw the battle. And yet he claimed he knew the pattern of all the battles, who would shoot first, who provoked and who instigated. He was indeed told about that subsequently; probably by the Prosecution. Milan Babic found a grain of courage to de-mask himself at the end, but not enough courage to refuse being blackmailed by a threat of indictment. No matter how good the interpreters are, they always tend to beautify answers, to bring order into sentences, to avoid those little tell-tale bywords and awkward constructions which can only be noticed by listening to the original and which unerringly indicate the story told is not completely true. I can remember only few witnesses so far, whose story had such straightforwardness and simplicity of 'the whole truth', but even some of those witnesses spoke that way only in small parts of their testimonies. Everything else was doctored, rehearsed or clumsily invented on the spot. Walter, re "former Milosevic's bodyguard": according to the statement of the Federal Minister of Interior Zivkovic, Batocanin had been in Milosevic's security team, but not his personal bodyguard (that was an officer called Senta); afterwards he was in the security team protecting Federal Prime Minister and also provided security for any visiting foreign official. But it's much juicier to call him 'Milosevic's bodyguard' (just like mainstream media went on with "Milosevic's lawyer sacked' re amicus curiae Wladimiroff). Also according to Zivkovic, Batocanin was NOT involved with mob, he was a reliable, hard-working fellow, but loved to associate with this wise guy he was killed with (they went to the gym together for work-out). Zivkovic even claims to have warned him against such a company just a few days prior to the shooting; he also said Batocanin was not the target (the other guy was) and he was killed by accident, being in the same car that was sprayed with bullets. Re Arkan's supposedly staged death, I've never heard such rumours here. And one more thing: innocent people DO get hurt in mob shootouts: recently a baby sitting in the pram by it's parents table in a restaurant got a bullet while two wise guys were settling their scores in Pancevo; a woman was wounded in the street of Nis when a gang shooter missed his mark; 2 youths passing by in the Belgrade main street were injured in a broad-daylight shooting. And the number of actual killings is rocketing. Maybe this is some kind of cleaning up, but personally I think the real dirt is at the top. Vera Martinovic Belgrade Yugoslavia Sunday December 08, 2002 at 2:59 pm Ms. Mitrinovic, I, and I assume many others, are very grateful to you for keeping us well informed about the trial in Hague. Although I am a Serb, I have left the country 50 years ago, and my knowledge of what transpired in Yugoslavia in the 1990’s is rather limited. This trial, although a travesty of justice, provides me with much better look at what happened. Much of that thanks to your effort. D. Jovanovic USA Sunday December 08, 2002 at 10:00 pm Vera, You do great work! You write a better analysis of this so-called "trial" than anybody else. Would it be OK with you if I re-published your last 2 posts about Milan Babic on my website? Here is how your article will appear, and with your permission I would like to put it up on the main page tomorrow. Frank, You and I disagree, but I would like to say that I appreciate the fact that your website (domovina.net) is encoding the satellite feed from the Hague and making it available via the internet. I disagree with the political agenda espoused by you and your website, but you are providing a valuable service, and for that I thank you. Andy Wilcoxson Washington, United States Sunday December 08, 2002 at 11:19 pm Andy, you have my permission to use my posts as proposed. Thanks for the interest. I also thank Walter for giving links to the site of the Committee defending Radovan Karadzic - I myself thought it out of place to introduce this here, but I was wrong, it's full of valuable info which will become of interest when the Bosnian segment of this 'trial' start. Vera Martinovic Belgrade Yugoslavia Monday December 09, 2002 at 2:32 am MODERATOR: WHY ARE YOU SENSORING MY POSTS???? The fact that USA spends close to 400 billion dollars annually on the military, the fact that since Sep. 11 the amount spent has gone up by 46 billion, and the fact that this is more than the whole world put together is not a national secret. I wish to make an analogy in regards to the double standard of American diplomacy in Yugoslavia and Iraq and even in Canada where trade issues are concerned. When one compares American “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to Iraq’s it is like comparing an elephant to a flee. Weapons of Mass Destruction are just a euphemism for we want your oil and the money that is paid for it. Others have written on this page about Iraq and their posts were not censored. Why sensor my message where I explained to Jari that someone used my name fraudulently in a comment directed at him or my question to Vera (which she has answered) on Arkan??? PLEASE EXPLAIN????? Walter Trkla Kamloops BC Canada Monday December 09, 2002 at 3:31 am Mr T make a short appearance again, but he didn't address the question of Rose's testimony. Did it or did it not take place? Was Mr T so sure that nobody would be interested in Rose's testimony, or did it turn out that no-one at the parliamentary inquiry was (as I suggested)? Or if Mr T is lying, I think I can say I rest my case. As I said, now that we have people from Boyle's blacklist testifying against each other (Rose v. Karremans), I think it would be a good idea to include the whole of Boyle's wishlist of indictees as Milosevic's defense witnesses. They have some reason for being on Boyle's list. Now we know what the reason for Rose's and Akashi's (and Karreman's) inclusion is: they know the casualties in Sarajevo were self-inflicted. Let us look at Boyle's list for the n:th time. I would say Milosevic and Karadzic are in rather a distinguished company: "Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Kofi Annan, Yasushi Akashi, Bernard Janvier, Rupert Smith, Herve Gobilliard, Joris Voorhoeve, Cees Nicolai, Thomas Karremans, Robert Franken, Thorvald Stoltenberg, Carl Bildt, David Owen, Michael Rose, their subordinates, Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, and Ratko Mladic". I just thought that it is a curious "coincidence" that the Bosnia phase of the Milosevic trial will be saved for the last. One reason may be the weight of the genocide charge. If the international law were to change in the course of the trial in the more lenient direction for the defendent, the genocide charges, which will be the last, will ensure Milosevic will be behind bars for the rest of the trial. But there seems to be another reason. This parliamentary inquiry has to be completed, before the Bosnia phase can begin. We know that the Srebrenica genocide charge is primarily the brain child of Boyle and the "Women of Srebrenica", as he pointed out in his letter dated November 30, 2000. And that means that it is flimsy as hell. Boyle is Mr Genocide, and there is apparently no crime he wouldn't qualify as a genocide, if the victims are Muslims. So to prop up the whole sinking case, the prosecution has to wait for the results of the parliamentary inquiry. There is one nasty thing about this "strategy" of the Prosecution. One has to endure the Croatia phase first! And that has been a dismal failure. The Prosecution has basically revealed all its cards: closed sessions, protected witnesses, doctored evidence, false testimonies, false interpretations of testimonies etc. So rather than getting any support from the parliamentary inquiry in the Dutch parliament for the Bosnia phase of the Milosevic trial, one is starting to wonder about the integrity of the parliamentary inquiry itself! And we know that the parliamentary inquiry is being pressured. The Muslims said that they were happy about the parliamentary inquiry after the NIOD debacle, but if the inquiry didn't satisfy them, they would resort to judicial proceedings. On the other hand, let us remember that this is not the first political hearing on Srebrenica. Obviously the Muslims are looking for a bargain. There were two hearings on Srebrenica organized by the Subcommittee for International Relations and Human Rights of the USA Congress Washington D.C. Hasan Nuhanovic testified at both hearings as one of the key witnesses. The hearings were held on 31 March 1998 and on 20 September 2000. The transcripts can be accessed at the website of the Women of Srebrenica. But isn't it suspicious that the parliamentary inquiry is now held in Holland, which has its fingers in the establishment of new media of Yugoslavia? Mr T even admitted that the parliamentary inquiry was the original idea of some NOS journalist. That is how much power the media has in Holland. It has so much power that some of it seems to spill over to Yugoslavia. And now that there are all sorts of parallel trials going on in form of parliamentary inquiries perhaps, it would be a good idea to probe into the role of the media too! That would be the third parallel level. The trouble is that the media don't like to talk! Mr T uses this discussion as his bulletin board, as if his normal outlets were not enough. As for his answers, he doesn't impress me with his honesty. He has twisted my words about the NOS and the Volkskrant. Obviously it is a crime not to know so much about the Dutch media as he does, which means that we don't really know anything about the Milosevic trial either. I would be willing to learn, but he is content with scoring a point. I don't know much about news theories and stuff like that, but the news theory that is now rampant in new Yugoslavia would seem to accord with what Soros calls "reflexivity". There is a true world, but the human mind makes it. Isn't that some kind of news theory too? If you reiterate a "fact" long enough, it will become a fact. This all smacks of the Marxist news theory of course, so it is renamed "open society". On the other hand, the media seem reflexive about anything else but themselves. When one suggests that the Yugoslav media might be of Dutch provenance, the Dutch deny it a bit too vehemently. Come on, let's be reflexive! Maybe the media just don't want to be too reflexive, because that would make the tribunal look bad. The tribunal is another organ in the service of "open society". The main problem of the tribunal is that it is not adjudicating but playing games with the media, which is also the only trace left of a public trial. But let us come back to Rose. If he can testify against (or in favour of) Karremans, he can appear in the Milosevic trial too. Boyle's blacklist is no hindrance. But if Rose can testify, so can Karremans. Whatever the outcome of the parliamentary inquiry, it is only a parliamentary inquiry, not a trial. Besides, even if it were a real trial, it would still take place within the Dutch domestic jurisdiction, which the tribunal itself wants to keep totally separate from the tribunal. Besides, whatever sanctions Karremans will incur, they don't matter, because now we have another indictee, Babic, testifying against Milosevic. Oh Babic. If Babic is now "un-protected" and indicted, what were the "interests of justice" that dictated his protection? Was it not the fact that he would be kept protected and unindicted as long as he would incriminate Milosevic instead of himself in the testimony? In other words, he was pressured to give false testimony! That is the "interest of justice". Of course, the tribunal is the biggest bogeyman of all, but somehow the indictment of Babic is supposed to preclude that conclusion. One could still argue that the indictment of Babic is one more indication of the anti-Serb bias of the tribunal, but that is why the tribunal opens this "investigation into the American connection" in Croatia! Come on. It would be nice enough if you would even convict some Croats! No need to get to the Americans yet. So Hartmann knows what she is doing, when she leaks this canard to the press and instantly denies it. Gogol, I don't know any more how positive one should be about the defense witnesses about Racak. David may be right. We would have a plenty of good questions about Racak, but now Ranta is the judges' witness. It is reported that the prosecution wanted to call Ranta as a witness but the judges refused. Isn't that a bit too convenient? Now that the Trial Chamber wants to appear even-handed, it can say that it can't allow the defense more liberties than the prosecution, which is why Ranta cannot be called as defense witness. Do you trust the Trial Chamber to put questions about the "provenance" of the weapons? And as the latest encounter between Tapuskovic and the Trial Chamber in the Babic mess shows, the judges may not even be keen on giving the defense the same chance as the prosecution! But if Ranta is for the judges, we must concentrate on the other incidents in the Kosovo indictment. Let us use the same method as in Dubrava and Racak. First, find the forensic report, or the news of it in the press. Second, see if all the victims from the forensic report have been included in the "schedules" at the back of the indictment. Third, find out what kind of weapons the killers used. Fourth, if somebody says that the Serbs could have used Albanian weapons to stage them, look at the other staging efforts. For instance, would the killers in Racak have used Albanian weapons and then thrown the victims to the mass grave (gully)? If the Serbs had staged anything, why weren't they consistent in the staging efforts? Vera, you put it quite well. One trick the prosecution uses is to give the impression that they have something. I think this has been obvious from the start of the Croatia phase. I also think it will be extremely important to know this "strategy" in preparation of the defense phase of the trial. Look at the "schedules" at the back of the indictments, compare them to the original forensic reports, and start wondering if you are on the same planet. By the way, I read in one of Soros's books that Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the federal chancellor of Germany, pressured the EU to recognize Croatia and Slovenia. That is hardly something new. It is just interesting that the method to do that was the pending ratification of the Treaty of Maastricht. In other words, he could say, we will ratify the Maastricht Treaty only if you recognize Croatia and Slovenia. This is the same tactic Greece used to pressure its EU partners not to recognize Macedonia (with the name Macedonia). Greece said it won't ratify the Maastricth Treaty, if the EU recognizes Macedonia. There was even a case before the European Court of Justice between the Commission and Greece. The Court concluded that the EU could influence the foreign policy of the member states only on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty, which Greece was thus blocking. That is ingenious. Ever heard about "object and purpose" of the Geneve Convention of the Law of Treaties? Another interesting detail in Soros's book: Milosevic abolished the autonomy of Kosovo in 1989. OK, I made a mistake too. The border units of the VJ didn't confiscate over 300,000 handgrenades but rifle bullets. That would be a whole lot of handgrenades. The border units confiscated over 3,000 handgrenades. Jari Nousiainen Finland Monday December 09, 2002 at 4:47 am Here is a Yugoslav version of the results of Ranta's forensic report: "The bodies presented only wounds inflicted by gunshot from a distance. There was no trace of other, or subsequent, wounds. None of the wounds had been inflicted after death. Almost forty of the bodies showed traces of gunpowder on the hands, proving that they had handled weapons before they died. All the bodies were dressed in plain clothes, but in several layers. A dozen bodies had foreign-made military underwear and military boots. Several of the younger bodies were dressed in leather jackets and black jeans (the well-known trademark of the KLA "military police")." What does that "almost forty of the bodies shows traces of gunpowder" mean? It means a whole lot. The total number of the Racak victims was not more than 45! This article can be viewed at http://www.b92.net/media/press/090799.shtml (Oh, a B92 site!). The article also mentions that the Serb forces found a mass grave with 54 bodies in the area the KLA had been expelled, so there would be a pattern, if somebody cared to see it. That was in "autumn 1998", thus probably just before the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission entered. The article also mentions that the Finnish forensic team was invited by the Yugoslavs themselves to investigate Racak. That would make it easier to understand why Ahtisaari was chosen for the mission in Belgrade later. The first forensic investigation that was completed was Bela Crkva by the British investigation team (Schedule B). Does someone have any info on this? Remember, the British are "economical with the truth". The Bela Crkva massacre took place on 25 March 1999. The indictment lists over 50 names. Victims belong mainly to three families: Popaj, Spahiu, Zhuniqi. Only four of the victims didn't belong to these families. Yes, there were women and children too. The Zhuniqi family lost three children, aged 4, 6 and 8. By the way, the massacre at Padalishte the following day included only members of the Imeraj family. Somebody sure knows the family connections of the targets well to be so choosy! I had another look at Boyle's blacklist. I can't say I know all of the persons, but it just strikes me as odd that even Stoltenberg is included. Remember the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan? No wonder David Owen is included too. Owen was also involved in the failed Vance-Owen Peace Plan, but being a patriot that he is, Boyle hasn't included Vance on his list, even if Vance was acting on behalf of the US administration but as special envoy of the Secretary-General of the UN. Boyle must really hate these peacemakers (the peacekeepers included). Well, they were pretty generous to the Serbs, weren't they? However, the Security Council condemned only the Bosnian Serb rejection of these plans, not the plans themselves. There is a difference, Professor Boyle. J N Finland Monday December 09, 2002 at 5:07 am Schedule B on Bela Crkva includes 54. However, the reports say that 64 victims of the massacre were later "reburied". In the cross-examination of a witness the figure was said to be 70. Superintendent Bunn says there were 60 bodies: "all shot" (maybe that is his criterion). Milosevic cross-examined a Bela Crkva witness, who admitted his brother was a KLA member. Milosevic also asked why the killers allegedly separated women and men, if they killed everybody randomly. May say that the witness didn't have to know that. The British inspection team had also spoken earlier of a "pre-meditated murder", which isn't necessarily in line with a massacre. J N Finland Monday December 09, 2002 at 9:32 am More about Bela Crkva. Superintendent Bunn said there was one woman over 60 among the victims. There were also seven children under 12. Well, where are they in the schedule, Mr Bunn? There are only three victims - the 4, 6 and 8 year olds - that could be under 12. There are four "daughters" of Xhemal Spahiu, but there ages are not mentioned. But more intriguingly, where is the over 60 year old woman? There are only two adult females in the list, and they are designated as "wives". First, there is Zhuniqi, "wife of Clirim". This can hardly be the over-60-year-old, because Clirim was 40. Second, there is Spahiu, "wife of Xhemal". This could be it. The ages of neither Xhemal nor his wife have been mentioned. So is his wife over 60? Hardly, because to have seven kids under 12 years, we need the four daughters of Xhemal. Is it probable that Xhemal had four daughters under 12 and a wife over 60? Even if he had, where is the third woman mentioned by Bunn? What makes Xhemal's and Clirim's families particularly interesting is the fact that none of the names of these daughters or wives is known or revealed. So there are called FNU (First name unknown). But you have a problem with the ages, so could the first name become unknown just because of that? Aren't these perfectly legitimate questions Mr Bunn? Remember, the British are "economical with the truth", but this is the bloody Scotland Yard! J N Finland Monday December 09, 2002 at 12:20 pm The show goes on. Bard College is plain dishonet, I repeat dishonest pretending to follow the trial when its "feeds" are incomplete, ending well before the real show does and showing an schedule of "09:00 - 13:45" when as in other cases and days judge May (NATO) has ruled the hearing will go on until 2 o'clock -14:00 hours. Most of the time the feed from Bard just stops somewhere . . .why to bother, and I have to say that if this is the degree of seriousness no wonder people like Frank take upon themselves the role of jester-buffon at this forum. Frank, once again what happened to your heralded General (British Army) Rose (NATO)? I finally received some information about the financial support provided by the US Administration to the ICTY. Of course my Congressional Representative is either incapable or just trying to get away from doing what asked to do. The latter is most likely. The information provided is unimportant and we all know more about it than the US Congress or so it seems. However there was something interesting, the US Congress has already allocated funds for the coming International Tribunal for Iraq! I can assume there are people working on it and I can't stop thinking, following Jari's analysis on the Dutch Media and its dedication in broadcasting the gospel of freedom, democracy, free market and the famous open society there is a chance for B92 to become the first free media in Arabic, B92 Baghdad and the Trial of Saddam Hussein in direct. Go, Franck go! Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Monday December 09, 2002 at 12:22 pm Gavnoh! Gogol Charlemagne USA Monday December 09, 2002 at 12:23 pm It does not work? Gogol Charlemagne USA Monday December 09, 2002 at 12:23 pm OK, before I stop for today, let us look at Schedule C (Mala Krusa/Krusa e Vogel). I counted about 101 names. This schedule has not undergone any changes I can find since it was written by Arbour in May 1999. So I think it is interesting what I found at URL http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/dos9912/mn.html . Let me quote: "According to earlier ICTY reporting, 113 bodies were reported at Krusa-e-Vogel, but no bodies were found by the investigators. At Mala Krusa, three separate sites were investigated by ICTY, containing 1,2, and 11 bodies each." If the actual number of bodies found were any guideline, Schedule C would then have to contain 14 names. I hasten to add that the graves with 1 and 2 bodies are not massgraves. Following me this far, Del Ponte? It is very important to find the bodies first, before writing this sort of indictments. So there seems to be a surplus of 87 bodies in Schedule C. Is this schedule based on the initial information provided by the KLA during the bombing? JN Again Finland Monday December 09, 2002 at 1:10 pm Netherlan government is quite involved in Yugoslavia. I just ran into this site: http://www.ccmr-bg.org/ Center for Civil-Military Relationships They are closely working with NATO and B92 and they are as you suspect an NGO Pera Bora Canada