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 Thursday November 28, 2002 at 12:14 am Pera, there are Canadians who (likeyourself) now have a much betterunderstanding of how ordinaryGermans didn't know what was goingon. I am one such. The ordinary German people had some excuse.. they did not have ready access tothe facts; the ability to followunfolding events in real time, and were thus somewhat forced to place blind trust in the propaganda they were fed. Twenty years from now, I sincerely hope that this trial is studied in Canadian schools. And when the next generation asks, "how could all this have happened with theapproval and support of Canada" Canadianswill have only one excuse. Theyactively choose to remain ignorantof the facts, for fear of becomingunlike their compatriots. Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario, Canada Thursday November 28, 2002 at 1:17 am Vera Martinovic's latest post only confirms the suspicions of anyone suspecting that C-061 is former Krajina President Milan Babic. If so, he either hasn't been indicted but might be if he slips up, or else his indictment is officially under a secret seal. R. B. Canada Thursday November 28, 2002 at 1:21 am If it is Babic, I know that it would not be the sensation it would be if it were Karadzic testifying, but still, a former President of one of the "racist statelets" (Gwynne Dyer's very prejudiced and typical description) testifying against Milosevic. It should be big news in this unfolding situation. However, as C-061, this changes the complexion of the situation somewhat. R. B. Canada Thursday November 28, 2002 at 3:20 am There is really something strange about the article in the Helsingin Sanomat about Dr Ranta's upcoming testimony. Yes, instead of odontologist, we could just as well say a "dentist". In this light, it is interesting that Hartmann from the OTP still refers to her as a "pathologist". Second, the article says at the end that it was originally the prosecution that made the request to call Ranta as a witness. However, Hartmann says that the prosecution didn't think that it would be necessary to call Ranta as a witness, because they thought her 1000-page report would speak for itself. Let us remember that Hartmann is indeed the spokeswoman for the Prosecution, as the article mentions. Besides, it never stops amazing me how much weight people give to how many pages a report has. Hartmann points out the report had a 1000 pages. The more pages, the more reliable the report, goes the reasoning. I think that reflects Nice's motto: the documents speak for themselves. On the other hand, isn't it obvious that the more pages the report has, the fewer people bother to read it? Then we got a vicious circle. When people know the report has a 1000 pages, they have a nice excuse not to read it, because they think that a report that long can't be lying. However, there are some good things about the article on Ranta. It says Milosevic has referred extensively to the Racak report himself, which suggests that it cannot be worthless to the defense! Notice also that Ranta herself is careful, very careful, not to call Racak a massacre. When the word "massacre" is used, it is always in inverted commas. We even have some amusing situations. One of the links in "Previously in HS International Edition" at the bottom of the Ranta article is titled "Finnish field study Racak Massacre was atrocity". Isn't there something circular in that statement (again)? OK, they forgot the inverted commas here, but if you click on that link, you see that the inverted commas are being used. As far as I know, Ranta has never used her investigation of the Racak deaths to condemn the Serb forces. And indeed, she will have to be careful, because we have had one Belgian (?) forensic expert in the witness stand saying that he couldn't say if the Racak victims were shot at a close range, because in order to determine that, the shots would have had to be fired at a very close range. Calling Ranta as a witness at this point has even surprised the experts Helsingin Sanomat has consulted. Indeed, such a decision is out of the ordinary, because, as the article says, normally the witnesses are called either by the prosecution or by the defense, not by the judges. On the other hand, there seems to be nothing in the Rules of Procedure to prevent this. I am pretty positive about Ranta's testimony, because somehow it seems to be connected with the Wladimiroff incident (my guess). As we remember, May dismissed Wladimiroff's interview in the Haagsche Courant as a mishap, which will not have any effect on this "professional" court. However, the other two judges didn't want Wladimiroff get away so easily, so he was formally discharged. And indeed, Wladimiroff had said that Milosevic would be sure to be convicted of the Kosovo charges "if the trial were to stop at this point". Now, why would the judges call Ranta as a witness at this point, if they were really that sure? Besides, why at this point in particular? Let's not forget that we have had some dramatic developments in the tribunal recently. For instance, some tribunal officials told the newsagencies that Milosevic was given wrong medication. And now that the Crotia phase isn't going so well as Wladimiroff had promised, maybe somebody made a connection somewhere between the poor quality of the Crotia witnesses and the big words that Wladimiroff had used to describe the prosecution's success in the Kosovo phase of the trial. Apparently there is now a faction in the tribunal that wants to clean the house. I hope that they will call that Spanish team that investigated the Dubrava prison deaths! Back to the protected witness business. If the protected witness measures are taken in good faith, why is there such a sudden rise in the number of protected witness after the Kosovo phase closed? That points to Wladimiroff again. He said that the Croatia and Bosnia phase will go even better for the prosecution than the Kosovo phase, because the prosecution has had more time to prepare their case. Well, I wish good luck to the prosecution, because if they are going to win the Srebrenica points with witnesses like this, it is doubtful whether the history books will even mention this trial 20 years from now. Also, when we have this kind of surge in the number of protected witness, there is a risk that the game will spiral out of control. You know, Milosevic might recognize the witness, and there is the real "danger" that he will blurt out the identity of the witness in front of everybody, as has now reportedly happened. So the close sessions are needed to protect the protected witnesses! Perhaps this is what is meant by the "interests of justice" of Rule 79(a)(3). Only, there it is called "the protection of the interests of justice". If Milosevic blurts out the identity of the witness, does May have the power to gag the public? But if he has, why is the public there in the first place? May really has some learning to do. The public is there because the judge, and even the prosecution, is representing the public in this trial. The trial is public in order to allow the public to verify that the trial really reflects the legal views of the public. This is all the more necessary in such a bureaucratic organ as the ICTY, where the bureaucrats think they can make the law. Indeed, they regard themselves as the "luminaries". In some cases, they may even be right. Antonio Cassese, for instance, President of the tribunal, is indeed one of the "luminaries", no matter how low the general standard of the judges is. However, it doesn't matter how enlightened the tribunal staff consider themselves. As long as the Statute says that the trial should be public, it is the public that decides whether the trial is any good. In particular, we, the public, have reason to believe that the protection measures are used to protect the prosecution from public ridicule. Which is all the more deplorable because we think that it is actually the "Western" powers that the prosecution is really representing and not us. Jari Nousiainen Finland Thursday November 28, 2002 at 6:57 am Jovane Kokotovicu,remember that you are the only who is proud Croat here.What you hear from dr Peric is sljivovica speaking out of him.He just want to say that rights of Serbs were disputed which caused the wars.The other one, Stefanovic, knows nothing what the state means.That's something that you learn in family.He agrees with Batic,that ugly muzzle,which is also accused by ICTY for genocide over Smurfs.You obviously didn't realise that Serbs are lunatics.But,let's torture your father :94% of banks in Croatia are possessed by strangers.Maybe that has something to do with wars or it's just this or that nationalism. Momce Makedonce don't be so sensitive.Remember that Macedonian officials were giving us lessons how to build multiethnic society with Albanians.You can expect only support from Serbia but Greeks are also our brothers. Gogol,you are bad forecaster.Seselj has no chance on elections. Tiggelaar why are you so frightened of Seselj?He says that you don't give him visa to come to Hague because he is the threat for Dutch Queen. Frozen Herring you'll get massage for your red Nous. I don't want to hear one bad word about Djindjic here or I'll definitely abandone this disscusion. milan masic serbia Thursday November 28, 2002 at 8:27 am Milan "I don't want to hear one bad word about Djindjic here or I'll definitely abandone this disscusion." Why? Whats so good about Djindjic in Serbian political life? Or were you jesting? I too have my misgivings about Seselj, certainly if I look to the future of Serbia in the world (international arena's,politics, trade, aid etc.) I can see no good comming from him being President given Serbia's current economic situation, he may be good for Serbian national pride but little else. History tells us that national pride and a poor economy tends to lead to war. Simon Joseph Amman Valley UK Thursday November 28, 2002 at 8:38 am Gogal Re C61 in the media. http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Milosevic But nothing on TV that I've seen in the UK. Simon Joseph Amman Valley UK Thursday November 28, 2002 at 9:46 am Thanks Simon, I was truly reffering to newspapers here like the "The New York Time" "Washington Post" and the main TV networks . The news agencies keep some well selected bits around. It is after all their bread and butter. The Guardian and Independent after knowing US agencies are authorised to plant (mis)information in the foreign press I have developed a healthy scepticism about their views. Beware of the very useful dissenting press. Seselj may not win the elections and I would have been the first one to be surprised if he did. Nevertheless the alternative is far worse for Serbia since it is in fact her enemies whom wins. I can only quote an old, Spanish say: Nobody is a prophet in his homeland Jari, It is good in my modest opinion the forensic expert, a dentist or not, is com ing at the request of the judges to clarify things. Mr. Milosevic was succesful in casting serious doubts on the phoney and unproffesionalforensicexpertise presented to the chamber on Racak. The problem with Miss Ranta is that her report caused political frictions and therfor I doubt she is free to tell the truth, at least openly. I am surprise to read Martti Ahtisaari is trying to sell NATO membership to the Finns while President Halonen resists. So maybe Miss Ranta will feel less burden by the NATO fathoms. But as Milan Masic says I am a bad forecaster. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Thursday November 28, 2002 at 11:37 am Milosevic allies called to testify at war crimes trial BELGRADE -- Thursday -- Several close allies of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have been called to testify at their former leader's ongoing war crimes trial at the UN court, Milosevic's party spokesman said today. Branko Ruzic, the spokesman for Milosevic's Socialist Party of Serbia, said that six top party officials have been called by the prosecutors of the war crimes court in The Hague, Netherlands, to appear at the trial, the Beta news agency reported. Milosevic is being tried for atrocities committed by Serb troops during the wars in Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia in the past decade. They are believed to have been largely instigated and directed by the former leader during his time in office. Ruzic said the Socialist officials supposed to testify include a former top government envoy in Kosovo, Zoran Andjelkovic; his assistant, Veljko Odalovic, as well as the former Socialist Party general secretary, Gorica Gajevic. Most refuse to go, Ruzic said, adding the issue is a "political and...a personal one." It wasn't immediately clear whether a potential witnesses can refuse to testify. So far, few Yugoslav officials have appeared at the Milosevic trial, including former Yugoslav president Zoran Lilic and the former head of Serbian state security, Radomir Markovic, who himself is at a trial at home for allegedly organizing a political assassination. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Thursday November 28, 2002 at 12:54 pm Gogol. Indeed, you may be right. I am trying to see things from different viewpoints. The Wladimiroff connection and the clean-up-the-house faction, for instance, are just wild guesses. Ranta will of course be free to say anything she feels needs to be said in her testimony, if the testimony is heard in closed session. And actually, if there is any doubt that she may feel pressured, the session should definitely be closed. We'll see if that happens. The tribunal's policy seems to be to make the Western testimonies public, so the contents of these testimonies can be verified. That is likely to happen in this case too. On the other hand, if RB is right about Babic, we have item number nine to add to our list of reasons for holding closed sessions: to conceal the prosecution's skewed prosecutorial policy. If Babic would qualify as an indictee himself, then why isn't he an indictee but a witness? Actually, this points to the possibility of bribery: the indictment will be kept at an arm's length, if the subject gives evidence against his rival. I must admit Babic is quite a new acquaintance to me, but I guess he ranks as high up as Milan Martic, who has been already sentenced (for using cluster bombs in Zagreb), so an indictment wouldn't in principle impossible. Gogol, don't be surprised about Ahtisaari. After he left office he could just as well be one of those Illuminati or Bilderbergers, who are the darlings of conspiracy theorists. Read his post-presidential "resume" at http://www.ahtisaari.fi/?content=partners . This reads like a bad conspiracy theory. He is chairman of East West Institute, International Crisis Group, Balkan Children and Youth Foundation, and WSP (War-torn Societies Project) International. He is member of International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. He is also a member of a joint advisors' group for the Soros Foundation Network and the Open Society Institute. It was under his chairmanship that the ICG issued the report condemning the de facto division of Kosovska Mitrovica, a little after the UN had applauded all the marvelous development in Kosovo. I read on this forum a couple of days ago that the division of northern Kosovo from the rest of the province has indeed been healed by our hero Djindjic. Jari Nousiainen Finland Thursday November 28, 2002 at 2:11 pm Jihad Peter Taylor Herts/UK Thursday November 28, 2002 at 2:20 pm If Serbs vote for Kostunica, then they are sunk for sure. More IMF, more economic suicide, that is what will happen. He yoked himself to Djindjic just before the election with that recent deal. Djindjic's people keep reminding Kostunica of their unbreakable bond with him, thus yoking him to an unpopular and catastrophically inept government. To say that Seselj has no chance is wrong, unless Serbs are masochists, which is something that cannot be excluded. As for the economy, he can't do worse than the IMF. R. B. Canada Thursday November 28, 2002 at 2:27 pm It's kind of funny, isn't it, with Djindjic telling Kostunica "You'll never get rid of me, never get rid of me" while Kostunica says "I have nothing to do with you, be gone", and Djindjic saying "You made a deal with me, remember, I am part of you" and Kostunica furiously trying to create distance between himself and Djindjic. The reason why Kostunica did so well was because he campaigned against the government. Now, that act has been exposed as yet more fraud by his crew. He goes about signing deals with Djindjic, praising Labus and saying that he will apply his poison on the country. There, his cover is blown. So why should anyone believe him when he says he'll stage another election? He'll make some excuse for waiting until 2004 so that Djindjic can continue to destroy the country. So there is only one way to break this; to vote for Seselj. The Serbian presidency is not that powerful so it's not so bad. He will simply dissolve the government and then people can vote for people whom they consider to be more moderate, whomever they may be, if they think Seselj is crazy and an extremist. R. B,. Canada Thursday November 28, 2002 at 3:28 pm R.B.-there is indeed smt. aboutserbs being masohists - that's another reason for not believing that they (us!) didn't learn anythingfrom the past (to avoid the word history - which is often falsly presented as a science ,btw).They (us!!) must have had learnedeverything by repeating the same mistakes all the time (look only at their (ours !!!) affairs with croats...through recent "history"Must be some kind of masohism involved over here...Look how they (we!!!) tend to vote for our leaders... anything but a serb (by reprezenting serb interests)...and if it happen to be the one (a serb)...we'll deport himto Haag.. m. c. netherlands Thursday November 28, 2002 at 7:49 pm What is very intriguing about the testimony of C-061 is the lack of his previous written statement, something which all other witnesses, protected or not, did have. Apparently, C-061 had been video-taped instead while giving his statement in front of the investigator and the Prosecutor, which was Ms Uertz-Retzlaff. This could only mean that C-061 was investigated very recently (remember when Uertz-Retzlaff joined the Prosecution team?). They obviously kept him on ice, in suspense whether he'll testify as a witness or as an accused. Then he was interrogated on the video and subsequently threatened with the accusation. This double play helped the Prosecution to milk two cows: they got what they wanted from the witness on the stand and prevented Milosevic to demolish their case by comparing written statement with the in vivo testimony, as he previously did almost on every occasion. With the videos it was impossible: he was prevented to show them in the open court because of the witness protection scheme (the face of C-061 had not been distorted on those tapes). What a dirty trickery! They could've played audio only, for instance. The Defence (i.e. Milosevic) has been given an armload of video-tapes, of which he wanted to show only the first one, as an example of how dramatically different the testimony of C-061 had been, but they had to do that in the closed session. See the transcript of the first day of the cross-examination, Monday 25 Nov, page 13421. Back in the open court, Milosevic only managed to mention that Uertz-Retzlaff herself commented on tapes how the statement that they were getting from C-061 was "in complete contrast with what they had, the materials they had". Apparently, the investigator told C-061 on tape that he "had the impression that you're distorting your answers" and he also urged C-061 not to talk about his "feelings and sentiments" in his statement, but to stick to the facts. C-061 said at the end of the tape that he had "things to add", things he hadn't say. To translate all this into the common-sense language: C-061 stated the truth on those videos, then he was threatened with the accusation, conferred with his lawyer Mueller, cut a deal with the Prosecution to be treated more leniently, added the sentence about the "things to add" and lied on the stand. That's why his testimony is so garbled and senseless: he has to accuse Milosevic and simultaneously avoid to accuse himself. When Milosevic asked the witness to explain the total discrepancy, May prevented the answer, by saying that "he gave his answers. It will be for us to judge the way in which he gave them." This is all well and good, but the public was unable to see/hear the taped version. May we trust May to be fair and just? Will this "judge" judge the whole testimony inadmissible due to the obvious perjury? Judging by his "judgements" so far, I don't think so. Jari, good points about the glorious "resume" of Ahtisaari. And, just one correction re Milan Martic: he's not been sentenced yet, he voluntarily gave himself up recently and is awaiting in detention for his trial to start; he had troubles with his lawyer being banned by the Tribunal at first, but finally accepted (a Belgrade jurist Strahinja Kastratovic). Vera Martinovic Belgrade Yugoslavia Friday November 29, 2002 at 3:46 am Vera, I share your doubts about May's impartiality. But the whole thing is getting really garbled. I think there may indeed be something to the connection between Wladimiroff and the upcoming testimony of Ranta. Remember that Milosevic may have been given the wrong drugs to finish him. Any damage to his health - or worse - could have been ascribed to his suicidal tendencies (running in the family), so he had to be sent to the shrink to see if that excuse would work. That would also have necessitated a legal counsel, which would have a relief, not to Milosevic, but to the prosecution! Maybe the psychiatric examination didn't work out too well for the prosecution. Maybe Milosevic simply didn't cooperate, I don't know. But when Milosevic didn't yield to the pressure, someone must have realized that it is better to come clean and leak the news to the newsagencies. So Milosevic wasn't really nuts. The drug scheme only confirmed that he's not even paranoid, but more lucid than most of the tribunal zombies. That meant that Milosevic would continue to defend himself even more persuasively. No legal counsel would take his place (yet). There had also been some pressure from the ICDSM to be elevated to the status of amici curiae. The tribunal decided to end the deadlock about both the appointment of legal counsel and the ICDSM's amici curiae status by appointing McCormick as a new amicus curiae. Somehow the void left by Wladimiroff had given rise to so wild rumours, part of which proved correct, that that void had to be filled. And if Milosevic's "paranoia" about somebody trying to kill him in the tribunal had proved correct, his paranoia might have some truth in other respects as well, as in Racak. And that would necessitate hearing Ranta. I am not sure why Ranta couldn't be left in reserve as a defense witness. Maybe Ranta will not be subjected to cross-examination at all now that she is the judges's witness. Maybe she will be heard outside the so-called contradictory procedure (with examination-in-principal and cross-examination) and instead heard in an inquisitorial procedure by the judges themselves. That again reminds me of the Wladimiroff hearing. Maybe such a direct hearing is the most reliable way to get to the truth, when the lawyers' reliability is in doubt (especially after all the legal showmanship we have seen since the Croatia phase of the trial started). But what exactly do the judges want to hear about Racak? Isn't it obvious that the Serbs did it? Or do the judges really accept the possibility that it may have been made to look as if the Serbs did it? These are really the only two alternatives. So the judges will have to accept the possibility that there much of the "evidence" could have been doctored! I don't think lawyers (read: judges) in general are well-equipped to entertain such options. In fact, that can be detected in the statements made by Ranta. She says in effect that she only knows what she saw and she doesn't know what the lawyers would call it. Doesn't that suggest that the lawyers would call it some name that she wouldn't approve of? But if the Serbs didn't do it, who did? Well, Walker sure seemed eager to attribute the Racak "massacre" to the Serbs. Otherwise it wouldn't have been called a "massacre". So Walker would necessarily have to be implicated somehow. Especially after his "testimony" a few months ago. That would somehow implicate Nato or the US, even if he was nominally an official of the OSCE. That would put the whole image of the ICTY at risk. But maybe the Albanians can be blamed for everything. You know, now it seems the UNMIK has finally indicted some members of the former KLA for the Kosovo war. They will be tried in the Kosovo courts, if I have understood correctly, and it seems the Kosovo courts are more reliable than the ICTY. So what will these KLA members be charged with? Obviously, with some of the deaths in the Kosovo war, all of which have thus far been attributed to the Serbs. At least some of the deaths must have been caused by the Kosovars. That means that some of the "massacres" have to be taken away from Milosevic! That means that the liturgical version of the Kosovo "massacre" will also become vulnerable. If that is true, the prosecution in the Milosevic trial isn't safe. Maybe that explains the latest aggressive moves made by the prosecution, like calling more SPS members to the witness stand. One of them even seems to be connected to the Kosovo war. I don't know if I interpreted Simon's posting correctly, but does it mean that the prosecution is also trying ride with Nato's reputation? Whatever the prosecution does, May is sure to stand by the prosecution. But the appearances shouldn't lead us to undue pessimism. The human race cannot be so rotten that there can't be at least a few good people even in the ICTY. If these people are trying to break the mafia-type code of secrecy, I would say it is our duty to respond. They are taking quite a risk in sticking their necks out! So no matter how stupid the scheme seems, we have to continue our SETI-type of project (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). The Voyager mission will go on in the hope that there will be some intelligent life even in the ICTY. By the way, whatever their faults, the amici curiae Michail Wlafimiroff (sounds pretty Russian) and Steven Kay are/were no newcomers. They were the defense counsels in the first case before the tribunal, Tadic. I am sorry about that mixup with Milan Martic. On the other hand, now that it turns out that he hasn't been sentenced, it is even more what the Trial Chamber will think of the charge of using cluster bombs! Jari Nousiainen Finland Friday November 29, 2002 at 5:37 am Jari, The issue with Racak is about in which circumstances the victims were killed. The prosecution claims following William Walker's (NATO) declarations during his infamous press conference it was a cold blooded massacre of inocent non combatant civilians, a reprisal of civilians. Mr. Milosevic proved cross-examining the many witnesses on Racak, nobody could have come to that conclusion because the investigations that followed were conducted in impossible situations while the ground, the site of the crime and the corpses had been held by the KLA. He acepted as the witnesses did the fact there had been a KLA base, and a rather important one in Racak, in fact the base was located at the end of the town by the foot of the mountain, sheltered by the town and with an open escape route to the forest. A battle took place between the KLA and VJ supported by MUP units. The Yugoslavs did not gain control of Racak until much later and it is preposterous to atribute the victims to a massacre when there is plenty of evidence these people were victims of the battle, in fact the KLA admitted sustaining the very same number of losses and many of their names appeared among the alleged victims! The OCSE observers (NATO) monitoring the situation were without much objection used by Walker to in a cavaliery way provide credibility to the massacre . During his testimony Paddy Ashdown (NATO) described how to create effect in the court, how Walker following the discovery of therapidly developing events called Richard Holbrooke (NATO) and told him: "Rick, something terrible has happened you can forget about your Nobel Peace Prize . . ." Ranta came to the scene rather late and she said nothing conclusive due to the fact it was too late to do any serious forensic examination, they needed more time to examine each corpse, cross reference other collected evidence, etc., all while the NATO media with few exceptions, was asking for military action and soon after Rembouillet, the site of the Wehrmacht HQ during the German occupation of France, action came. The transcripts are pretty clear on this part of the trial. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Friday November 29, 2002 at 5:38 am Sorry. htlm correction. Gogol Charlemagne USA Friday November 29, 2002 at 5:39 am Well did I do it? Gogol Charlemagne USA Friday November 29, 2002 at 5:55 am MODERATOR, I would recommend as an improvement for this site the introduction of a DELETE or EDIT function of one's own postings as a way of avoiding leaving not very well drafted (like my last) ones. Gogol Charlemagne USA Friday November 29, 2002 at 6:17 am LATEST NEWSfrom the ICTY. A journalist stated that in the Milosevic case, when the Trial Chamber appointed the amici curiae last year the court order set out a whole series of tasks for them. He went on to say that the court order concerning the appointment of the new amicus, Mr. McCormack, only talked about international law. Asked if this meant that the new amicus would be specialised, Landale replied that his feeling on the appointment of Mr. McCormack was that he would be an amicus in a more traditional sense of the concept, in that he would probably not be in court on a day to day basis, but would be asked to file submissions and papers on particular points of law that the Judges would like to hear about. * Asked when Mr. McCormack would come to the Tribunal, Landale replied that he did not have a definitive date. He added that he did not believe it was a matter of him arriving at the Tribunal at a particular time. It might be that the Judges would state in court that they had asked him to look at a particular question or point of law and that they would then await his submissions. It did not necessarily require him to be in court, he concluded. * Asked whether this meant that he would remain in Australia, Landale replied that he might well remain in Australia. He believed that he might sit in court a few times. He did not know when the first time would be, he concluded. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Friday November 29, 2002 at 9:00 am It may be worthwhile for May to ask Mr McCormack, the new amicus, an expert on international law, a few opinions on international law... such as those relating to the legality of the ICTY, the legality of the Milosevic kidnapping, the legality of what May has been doing in court and the bias he so clearly reveals, the question of whether NATO has a case to answer, etc. It is a good idea to have a genuine amicus who actually has some notion of international law as May clearly has very little idea of where he is. Not to mention his complete lack of knowledge of (or his disrespect for) the principles of natural justice. That's assuming MrMcCormack is not yet another legal stooge in the service of the New World Order. It's a long way from the Midlands County Circuit to the Hague! Unless you're an amicus of Tony Blair himself. The reason Ranta may have been called in by the Chamber could be that they are actually very concerned that Slobo might call her for the Defence and go to town with her evidence. This way, they call her, because the Prosecution didn't want to call her (I wonder why?, LOL) and they set the questions and the extent of the evidence she will give. Slobo is then restricted only to questions about the evidence she supplies, severely limiting what he can ask. Mission accomplished! Witness is gagged, Slobo is gagged, and we, the public are hoodwinked with our eyes wide open! Clearly the strategy is to pre-empt Slobo. If the Chamber genuinely wanted an inquisitorial (as opposed to adversorial) approach to the trial, they could wait till both the Prosecution and the Defence submitted their cases before calling any witnesses the Chamber felt necessary to clarify outstanding issues. It's all in the timing folks. They're just trying to rescue the Prosecution which has proven to be an embarrassment to the Chamber. How are the noble judges supposed to declare a "guilty" verdict on the basis of the garbage served up by the Prosecution? None of them would get a job in my firm even as cleaners. Then again, considering the dirty tactics, a few cleaners would come in handy. David Australia Friday November 29, 2002 at 12:51 pm It may sound a dumb question, but what is actually the official version of what happened in Racak? I am glad Gogol pointed out that by the looks of it, it might even have looked like a normal combat situation - mind you, in a KLA base! But what are these stories about bodies being moved about? Or is the critical version of the events in Racak that the battle took place just outside Racak, while the international monitors didn't notice anything abnormal in the village itself that night, and the bodies were moved later to the Racak site? Whatever the official version and its exegesis, even if Ranta had come to the site at the right time, it wouldn't have mattered, because Louise Arbour didn't wait to hear the results of the autopsies before she indicted Milosevic. Her reason even seems to have been that the Yugoslav authorities denied her a visa to get to Racak! Which means she didn't see it until the following summer. David, everything is possible, but as I tried to argue, in this set of circumstances, the judges couldn't have waited until the defense had submitted its case. First, I think it is pretty clear that the introduction of McCormick was meant to calm down the overheated speculation on a possible defense counsel Milosevic might appoint, the ICDSM becoming the amici curiae, Slobo being nuts etc. Second, if McCormick is really as good as we all hope he is, it may not be a coincidence that the news of Ranta testifying comes at the time he is installed as the new amicus. He has to find his bearings too in this nuthouse, and if that is what this is all about, I think he started at the right place. Everything doesn't have to be doom and gloom. As the Wladimiroff incident shows, there are powers in the tribunal that can wrest even May's arm. Besides, now that the ex-KLA members are being indicted, some of the atrocities have to be "taken" away from Milosevic and attributed to the KLA! There seems to be some rivalry between the courts in Kosovo and the ICTY. Had it not been for the Kosovo Supreme Court, I think Del Ponte would have amended the Kosovo indictment to include genocide. That was why she needed Srebrenica. Jari Nousiainen Finland Friday November 29, 2002 at 1:16 pm There isn't a real official story for Racak any more than there is a real official story for Srebrenica. Everything is made to be vague as far as details go. For Srebrenica, there are actually newspaper articles that suggest that killings took place in the town! All that you need to know is that the evil Serbs killed some civilian men, end of story. The "separation of the men" ritual is a centrepiece of the Srebrenica story for the most part, and this was re-introduced in some Racak accounts, yet it hasn't taken hold in quite the same way. Even Clinton was confused about what happened and in one of his press conferences, he couldn't be bothered to remember the name Racak at all, referring it to "the village I mentioned earlier". R. B. Canada Friday November 29, 2002 at 1:42 pm The Tribunal is recognised as the guardian of truth by the traitorous government in Belgrade. The Prosecution is supported by Djindjic and his minions. They want as unfair a trial as possible because they serve foreign masters. They are in power because of Vojislav Kostunica.Thanks to Vojislav Kostunica, Javier Solana is going to be the founder of the new monstrosity that is the "Serbia-Montenegro"; how sporting of them to use the State Department's pet name for the country. Thanks to Kostunica, Solana is giving orders that the surrender take place immediately. Thanks to Kostunica, Djukanovic, who was on his way to certain defeat, now will have total victory. That traitor is vindicated. It's sickening that Serbs have allowed this to happen. It's about time that they stop this traitor before he can do any more damage. R. B. Canada Friday November 29, 2002 at 3:39 pm The best single source documentfor Racak is: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/balkans/ and in particular: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/balkans/bc2j1117.doc The story recorded there has a facet which none seem to havegiven sufficient weight to. Itwould appear from my reading thattwo separate conflicts occurredin Racak.. a conflict with theArmy on Friday, and a subsequentconflict with police units on thesaturday. The police units wereseeking to apprehend individualswho had earlier murdered one oftheir own. Comment??? Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario Canada Friday November 29, 2002 at 5:02 pm Transcript of June 6 Racak testimony HERE Forget the US NAvy . . . . Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Friday November 29, 2002 at 9:56 pm Moderator.. please note. Your software is not putting blank spaces between lines when one uses a carriage return to end each line of input. Your software would be well advised to replace new line characters by blanks in translating to HTML. Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario Saturday November 30, 2002 at 3:09 am Gogol,Jari and you know to hit sometimes.But, I must wonder how anyone can be so naive to think that closed session means protection. Someone was god in his homeland for ten years Simon,all stories in Serbia begins with "once upon a time".You need short historical trip to understand what Djindjic represents.Mr Trkla is convinced that he understands that. Seselj is good for Serbian national pride only behind the bars. RB,you are well informed.It must be hard to memorize so much useless information.It's unimportant for you that G17 is becoming a party."Who said what to whom" is daily politics and it's just hiding the essence.There are no surprises-this one is covered ,this one uncovered.How people think will remain mistery for you.Don't make me nervous. milan masic serbia Saturday November 30, 2002 at 3:49 am OK, let's see. It doesn't really matter who wins power because in the end the IMF will rule and Javier Solana will make decisions about the internal affairs of Serbia. It doesn't matter that the IMF has failed everywhere and caused enormous destruction, it doesn't matter at all, since it is inevitable that the IMF will make these decisions, why try and stop it? That Kostunica played some scam game in December 2000, when he had his name put to the DOS list when he knew full well that this would give Djindjic a blank cheque, that doesn't matter either, because someone working for the IMF would have won anyway, why not use a scam to make it happen. G-17 Plus is the IMF group, they are perhaps the worst of them all, applying an economic perscription that fails everywhere. But it's useless to point it out because that will be the perscription that will be carried out inevitably. Who needs Communist predestination when you have that of the New World Order? R,. B. Canada Saturday November 30, 2002 at 5:18 am If we want to keep within the parameters of this trial only, then it is important to know what happened. That is what this trial is about. To find out what happened, it is not important to know what people think. You know, this trial would in theory have the potential to be an interesting event. Things go wrong when the trial is used to conceal what happened, which has been the case with this trial so far. However, there are some basic rules that set the limits to how much the trial can go wrong, and I think we are seeing some of those limits being imposed right now. Suddenly, there seems to be a "parallel trial": the Kosovo phase will be reopened. Why this is done remains a mystery, no matter how much we speculate about it. The potential effects are profound. And that is exactly the point: we are left in the dark. That, in turn, is the reason that people are fed up with this tribunal. That is the bottomline. In particular, people are fed up with the tribunal spokesmen who can't even make sense of what the tribunal is doing. What kind of tribunal is it that tries to cover its own tracks and has spokesmen who talk as much bull as any party official? However, development doesn't have to be linear. There may come an aboutface. The tribunal might want to be a little more ambitious and start changing the way people think. One should have some healthy optimism about McCormick, but some healthy pessimism too. He is an academic, and I think I have explained how "enlightened" the academics really are. Besides, if he knows that there are some problems with the legality of the tribunal, why did he accept the post? Is he going to take the money from the tribunal and tell them that the tribunal is illegal? The service that McCormick might do to the tribunal is to put a nice international legal gloss on the farce that is going on. But we will see. The bottomline about Racak is that you can't change the official version of the "massacre" too much without implicating Walker and that way the US. It really doesn't matter if there is no official version, in which case it would implicate the US to come up with an official version. I think the tribunal should become a little more ambitious in finding out the truth, but being too ambitious may be a suicide for the tribunal. It has been the consensus in this discussion for some time that the closed sessions don't mean protection. The only protection they have is for the prosecution's crumbling case, and even that doesn't seem to be working. It was explicitly pointed out that those who want to find out who the protected witnesses are, will. So far, they haven't, so I don't know how the protection measures are being rationalized. The mugging incident that took place some time ago was too good to be true and has remained the exception that confirms the rule. Djindjic may be a pragmatist, which is a good thing. However, if the measure of a pragmatist is how well things turn out, then Djindjic is not doing very well. He looked like a sucker when he thought that the Western countries would really start pouring money to the country as soon as he gave them Milosevic. The foreign money that is coming to the country is coming with the foreign firms, and that doesn't seem to make everybody happy. The foreign money will leave the country as easily as it entered it. And does pragmatism really mean being pragmatic at the cost of principles? Did Djindjic really hand Milosevic to The Hague, knowing perfectly well that the charges were trumped-up? How pragmatical will that appear in the end? The fact is that he broke the law himself. Is Djindjic going to instill some respectability and decency in the Serbian people with his example, or does he really give a damn? Slobo may have been a disaster, and the more I learn about his career, the more convinced I am that he was. But that doesn't change the obvious fact that this trial is an even bigger disaster. If the Western powers wanted to get rid of him, the absolutely dumbest thing was to send him to The Hague. The most serious mistake that he made was to be too obsessed with the letter of the law. For instance, he would have helped his people by applying for the UN membership on time, even if strictly speaking he might have been right. That way he would have saved his country a lot of public image problems. There is only so much that you can teach the international community about the strict observance of international law. But if Slobo was so obsessed with the law, what is he doing in The Hague? The only really naive people are those who think that this trial should be even going on after the Nato bombing and the Djindjic sell-out. Are we really to be so dumb as to swallow all this crap in the vain hope that the Serbian people will be any better off after it is over? Are we really to sacrifice our reason to "help" the Serbs? Jari Nousiainen Finland Saturday November 30, 2002 at 5:39 am There seems to be a very interesting article in German about Carla del Ponte's activities in Switzerland. Jürgen Elsässer interviews Spanish Felipe Turover, who was one of Carla's witnesses in Mabetex affair in Switzerland. Turover says that she hasn't won a single case in her career. She is primarily for herself and for the Swiss money-laundering interests. And as to protected witnesses, in the Mabetex affair, which involved the Albanian boss Pacolli, who had connections with the KLA, Carla del Ponte gave all the contact information of Turover to the press. The Italian Corriere della Sera even had his mobile telephone number. I will see if this article will be translated into English. J N Finland Saturday November 30, 2002 at 5:51 am As to Milosevic being a disaster in politics, wasn't that the way the Kosovo Albanians wanted it? Weren't they the most disappointed people when Milosevic was ousted, because now they had no bogeyman to blame for all their squalor? Didn't the Kosovars prefer Milosevic over Milan Panic, because with Milosevic they could pick up a good fight? I forgot to mention one thing about Ranta appearing as judge's witness. If the judges call her as a witness, then it is doubtful they could give her to the prosecution first for examination-in-principal and then to the defense for cross-examination. Remember, this is the judge's witness, not the prosecution's. And as the amici curiae are not really the friends of the defendant but of the court, i.e. the Trial Chamber, I think this unexpected move can indeed be traced back to McCormick. In his new capacity he can influence the judges. J N Finland Saturday November 30, 2002 at 3:21 pm Djindjic is no pragmatist. He is a traitor. He has decided to turn against his people in return for favours from his new masters. As governor, he can profit personally from the IMF policies and from these masters in terms of prestige in the wider western world. His main goal is to secure U.S. strategic interests and to have a share in the profits. That's always how these traitors are bought. It's funny that Milosevic all this time was sniped at by the likes of Kostunica for selling out at Dayton and selling out at Kumanovo. When in power, Kostunica then says that he has to sell out for the good of Serbia. What a hypocrite. Milosevic's biggest problem? That Seselj was probably right that if he was to take the opposite line as the Western powers, go all out, go with a radical goal. Don't compromise as Milosevic did, going half way in order to look respectable. He should have shut down the Soros media for real, he should have taken out Djukanovic. For the Western lie machine will pretend you are Hitler even when you do compromise and go half way. Always go all out. If you are branded a Hitler, at least gain as much as possible. The second Milosevic mistake was not having nuclear weapons built. One last thing about Djindjic as a pragmatist. Perhaps he was told by his Western masters that they would be lenient with Serbia if he obeyed orders. Then again, they promised Gorbachev that there would be no NATO expansion. R. B. Canada Saturday November 30, 2002 at 7:44 pm The following is a statement from the article in the Helsingin Sanomat about Dr Ranta's upcoming testimony:: "The judges denied the prosecution's request to call her as a prosecution witness. Instead, they decided to call her to the stand themselves.">?!? I am coming back to this statement since I think that it actually reveals how nicely the ICTY prosecution and judges cooperate. From what I have read in the newspapers, from watching the Racak battle witnesses and their cross-examination I have concluded that Mrs. Ranta's testimony can be very beneficial to Mr. Milosevic. This is what the prosecution know, as well. The proof is that they never asked for Mrs. Ranta to testify in person. What they asked for was to introduce, as her testimony, an interview that she gave on here Racak investigation and results and to link to that her official report. This was unacceptable to the judges since they would look bad if they allowed this and not insist for Mrs. Ranta to testify in person. For the prosecution it was unacceptable to call Mrs. Ranta in person and see her converted to a key Mr. Milosevic witnesses during his cross-examination. It was also unacceptable to the ICTY brother hood (judges & prosecution) to wait and let Mr. Milosevic call her as a witness, because it will be obvious that the results of Mrs. Ranta's investigation were favorable to Mr. Milosevic and that they new it and evaded Mrs. Ranta's testimony purposely. There was a need to find a solution that will make everybody in the ICTY brother hood look honest and fair. Finally a solution was found. The judges will call Mrs. Ranta to testify as their witness. If her testimony turns out to be beneficial for the prosecution this would be grate success. If it turns out to be beneficial for Mr. Milosevic the prosecution would not be embarrassed, because they haven't called the witness that they new that has proof that the "Racak massacre" never happened. The judges will look fair and hard working because they have corrected a "minor oversights" of the prosecution to call for Mrs. Ranta's testimony in person and on time. Pera Bora Canada Saturday November 30, 2002 at 8:19 pm Extracts from “Fighting for Peace” By Michael Rose History is likely to pass judgement on the Bosnian leaders for using these inhuman tactics. Obviously the ICTY is NOT going to pass judgement on the crimes of the Bosnian Muslim leaders and their Western backers. But History is likely to pass judgement on the ICTY’s tolerance of these inhuman tactics. Let’s hope the judgement of History arrives soon. As we crossed the conflict line on to the Bosnian side a detachment of 120mm mortars opened fire close by the road to our left. Bosnian forces were shelling Serb positions on the hills above the city … They always greeted new arrivals to Sarajevo in this way, and the Serbs always responded in kind with artillery fire on the city. Visitors were thus given a practical demonstration of the aggression being committed against the State of Bosnia. In this way, the Bosnian Government hoped to persuade the West to become involved in the war on their side. When I asked about the civilian casualties that this tactic resulted in, Viktor merely shrugged and replied that civilians mattered less to the Bosnian Government than images of suffering and war. In New York, I had mentioned this tactic of the Bosnian Government to Madeleine Albright. She confirmed that the US Administration knew what was happening … Obviously my first task would be to tell President Izetbegovic that this grim strategy of inflicting such horrors on his own people would never succeed … (page 18) The French battalion guarding the airport had managed to pin down one of the firing points that was in the Bosnian-held town of Butmir, close to the confrontation line. On one occasion, a French soldier had actually seen a mortar fired from Butmir, across the airfield, at aircraft waiting to unload on the dispersal apron. The Bosnian forces were evidently doing this to sustain the image of a city under siege. (page 162) I told him (Divjak) that the first UN examination of the bomb crater in the Markele market place indicated that the bomb had been fired from the Bosnian side of the battle lines …the Bosnian Army had removed some of the important forensic evidence before the UN arrived. (page 48) More serious were reports we started to receive from the French in the city that the Bosnian forces were sometimes firing on their own citizens. In one such incident a tram had been fired on from a building on the Bosnian side of the conflict line normally occupied by paramilitary police. In another incident, following a mortar attack near the Residency that killed two children, two more shells had been fired at the same location while a French Army team was investigating the first incident. These secondary shots could only have come from the Bosnian side of the firing line. On the other side of the city, on several occasions, UN and NATO aircraft at Sarajevo airport had been fired at from the Muslim-held suburb of Butmir … Nonetheless, in my view the moral distinction between Bosnian forces firing at the Serbs with the intention of provoking retaliation against civilians and the Bosnians themselves firing on their own people is a fine one. (pages 197-198) By then, they (the Serbs) were using their own artillery and mortars to fire at the Bosnian mortars, one of which had been established in the grounds of Kosevo hospital; a tactic already observed and protested about by my predecessor, Gen. Francis Briquemont. The Bosnians had evidently chosen this location with the intention of attracting Serb fire, in the hope that the resulting carnage would further tilt international support in their favour. The next day limited fighting was still going on, so Viktor and I summoned a meeting with Izetbegovic, with Gen. Delic in attendance. I presented Izetbegovic with the evidence produced by the Cymbeline mortar-locating troop showing that the Bosnian Army had plainly started the fighting and had deliberately fired from positions around the hospital, the Presidency, and even close to my own HQ. Probably for the first time in the war, the Bosnians had been caught red-handed. The evidence was incontrovertible and their actions probably constituted a war crime as well as a violation of the NATO ultimatum, as it is against the Geneva Protocol deliberately to involve civil populations in war. (pages 170-174) A Bosnian Army patrol crossed the demilitarised zone and killed 20 Serb soldiers and nurses in a medical aid and command post. Passing through the zone, the patrol caught the Serbs unawares and most of the victims had been killed in their sleeping bags. A French doctor summoned to the scene found that eight of the Serbs had been killed with knives and most of them had been finished off with a single bullet in the back of the head. Some of the bodies had been badly burned. Four of the victims were female nurses. The next afternoon an open lorry passed us in Sarajevo with a group of black-suited soldiers with black handkerchiefs knotted round their heads waving weapons in the air and shouting "Allah Akbar!" Based on the evidence presented so far, this action constituted a war crime, and Akashi courageously denounced the killings as an atrocity. (pages 184-187) For more examples and General Roses criticism of the West’s bias against the Serbs including that of most of the war reporters read Source given below: Source General Sir Michael Rose was a Commander of the UN Protection Forces in Bosnia. The General was in an unassailable position to know what was going on. Why would he lie about these events and why does the ICTY ignore his testimony? Here there is clear evidence of deliberate Muslim attacks upon their own civilians or of provoking the Serbs to do so: The clear intention being to provide propaganda for the West’s leaders to con its citizens into backing military intervention on the Muslim side against the Serbs. The BIG question is: why IS the West siding with Muslims in the Balkans including Mujahedin and al Qaeda? Blair’s truck with evil: Pictures 6 & 7 Slobodan get in touch with General Sir Michael Rose. Peter Taylor Herts/UK Saturday November 30, 2002 at 10:49 pm Why we don't have a proper prosecution report on events in Racak? To my knowledge, only Yugoslav government attempted to execute proper criminal investigation of the events in Racak. As it is well know international factors did not allow it to happen by allowing the KLA to control Racak and temper with the criminal scene. As we know none of the Yugoslav/Belo Russia team findings are included in the prosecution case. They were bluntly ignored. All their findings are not known because they are investigation secret until a trial. I am sure that Mr. Milosevic will introduce them during his defense. There is no excuse why the Racak crime scene was never protected and why the proper investigation was not conducted in full immediately by the Peace Monitoring Team or after NATO entered Kosovo. The ICTY or rather the New World Order Leadership allowed just for Dr. Ranta's forensic investigation and for collection of the witness statements by the ICTY investigators. As a result the official prosecution story did come out but it is too simplistic for the complexity of the investigated events. My understanding is that it consists of the following few sentences: The Racak massacre did happen in Racak and surrounding area. It started in the morning and ended in the afternoon. Albanian Civilians children, women and men were taken from their houses to the ravine and brutally massacred. The killers are Serbian policemen helped by the Yugoslav army. The only guilty parties are Mr. Milosevic, his governing team and the Serbian people. I am not a legal expert but I know that when an investigation is properly done it results with an official report that covers much more details like: when the event started, what happened, who did what, were it happened and so on ... and that it should be based on the findings of the forensic experts and witness statements and that this official version of the events should be tested and tested again against the forensic results and witness statements until most of the inaccuracies are worked out. Once when this is done testimonies of the witnesses should be tested against the official story and unreliable witnesses eliminated. The same applies for the verification of the forensic evidence. When watching Mr. Milosevic's trial I was expecting to see one whole segment of the trial specifically committed to the so-called "Racak Massacre", i.e. I expected a trial within a trial. As a consequence at the beginning of the segment I expected to see a detailed official story of the events presented by the prosecution backed with tones of data, maps, photos explanations to be continued by the forensic expert findings and testimony and at last to here the reliable witness testimony that will confirm all of the above. Instead I was watching a confused story of events that happened in Kosovo provided by unreliable witnesses that were talking more about other events then ones that Mr. Milosevic is accused of, and jumping around and into and out of "Racak Massacre" story erratically. It was obvious that the prosecution and judges were helping this chaotic happening to go one rather then to prevent it from happening. My expectations for the whole trial were that it would be better structured. For example: It would start, as it was, by Prosecution and Defense statements. It would be continued with prosecution bringing experts in history, current political events and the context of the events in former Yugoslavia. Then that the trial will be segmented and that each of the segments would be focused on one of the alleged crimes that Mr. Milosevic is guilty of. Then I expect the structured defense as above followed by the Defense and Prosecution statements followed by the sentence. Why don't we have a structured trial? Because the proper investigation of the alleged 68 crimes that Mr. Milosevic is allegedly responsible of was never done, since nobody wanted to have a properly structured trail to start with. In order to have a structured trial they would have to have a complete huge crime investigation team assigned to each of the alleged crimes. They knew that Mr. Milosevic is accused of the crimes that he is not responsible of and that in the structured trial it will become even more obvious. So they did not bother to have a proper investigation for each and every of the alleged crimes, since it was waste of time and money for them. Instead they started from the roof down as Jari is pointing out all the time. The prosecution strategy is to prove that Mr. Milosevic has stared the war, that he new, controlled and financed everything that was going on so his is guilty of everything and in particular for the 68 crimes that he is accused of and he should be happy that he is getting just 68 life sentences instead of thousands for he is guilty for the death of every person who died during his time in the office. My conclusion is that this trial is chaotic by design and not by incapability of the ICTY personnel. It is conducted this way to confuse the truth rather then to expose one. Individuals that are running the ICTY show are very capable people selected to execute this show to the best of their abilities. This chaos by design is turning the trial into the entangled mass that is threatening to blow back into its masters. Pera Bora Canada Saturday November 30, 2002 at 11:45 pm Ian, I do not agree that ordinary Canadians do not have a good excuse not to know what is going on. They have it. Our main stream media are just repeating an official government story on most of the political events in the world. In order to follow things in the real-time accurately one has to turn to the www and in particular to the discussion groups like one on the Jurist web site. Very few people are doing it because most of the people even do not realize that they are lied to. I understand this because when I moved to Canada from Yugoslavia I taught that the USA and Canada are bastions of democracy, honesty and fairness. I even supported every move that the USA and coalition did in the Gulf War. The main turning point in my political views and sobering happened when the preparations for the war against former Yugoslavia started. At that time I realized how much lies are pored through the main stream media since they started spilling lies about the country that I knew in and out. For the first 6 months I sincerely taught that they did not know better. I started writing letters, making phone calls and arguing with my co-workers in order to educated people. After six months I realized that I have to start protesting the lies because they were served by design not by lack of knowledge. I do think that it is worthwhile to try to educate people who are open and interested for the other people opinions. From this sobering moment in my life it didn't take me long to realize that the main stream media lie about other countries as well. This realization and the fact that I got an access to the www five years later helped me a lot to get rid of the blindness For the people that always lived in the West and do not select what to read on their own and have no understanding of other counties it is no wander to trust their main stream media and the government to the bitter end and sleep fast and sound. Feeling being above others is too pleasant feeling to resist. Pera Bora Canada