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 Sunday December 29, 2002 at 5:29 am Good husbandry requires weeds to be rooted out. I do not see much evidence of weeding? Peter Taylor Herts/UK Sunday December 29, 2002 at 8:01 am No man is an Island: Commentary on the plea by Biljana Plavsic “Proponents of "global justice" have always pointed to the ad hoc tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as a "trial run" for the permanent court. The blueprint is now clear: Among all the world's conflicts, choose one that fits the needs of a current agenda, selectively criminalize the actions of the "enemy of the month" without regard to the larger context, then fire away the guns of "international law" to finish off the "perpetrator," who has previously been thoroughly demonized by the cooperative, globally ambitious liberal press. Once the instrumentalization of justice becomes fully legitimized, however, ask not tomorrow for whom the bell tolls anywhere on this earth. It will toll for thee.” Aleksandar Pavic http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30222 Peter Taylor Herts/UK Sunday December 29, 2002 at 8:52 am Racist murder of Serbs continues in Kosovo Peter Taylor Herts/UK Sunday December 29, 2002 at 10:34 am Peter: Thanx for the article by Aleksandar Pavic. Beautifully written. Kathryn Love SJC USA Sunday December 29, 2002 at 11:28 am Igor Jaramaz In your view in every case Mesic damed - that is ok but Mesic isnt just for me 'last President' during break up or what he says to Milosevic in Hague. I follow everything he say. It not so important about Mesic' wife realy. What is more important is he is one of Croatia better politicians for Serb refugee return. I care about those people not ones who like to demonize. It very easy to see world in absolutes good / evil, angel monster / witches, hero / traitor itd.. That is why for me its strange when in one moment I listen to somebody say Sloba was the same as nazi and then someone other say he was hero. Truth is always more complicated. Mesic is also Balkanac type at time when Croats pretend they are Austrian or from centre Europe! Nationalist in Croata hate him. There is some story about your enemy's enemy being your friend ok Mesic not my friend but he still better than large majority of Croat politicians. You know more about religion that me but it was clear that protestors thought that English protestant were Catholic. They did not have right to block Patriach Pavle or anybody else to come inside. It not such big deal to me but my father was completely crazy about it to insult the Patriach like that. I am anti American policy with world. It is imperialistic and sometime I hate Clinton (during bombs) and Bush, not hate just dont understand war making stupidity. I am afraid what kind of big war Bush will make in world. But question if we have right to be anti Clinton or Bush and not be anti American then what people think about when Milosevic says when somebody says thing against him is attack on Serbs? I do not feel hurt when someone makes attack on Milosevic for me it doesnt make person anti Serb any more than if someone is against me that is anti Serb. Think how much Bush would love to say anybody who was against him was against America, but maybe it will happen one day. About Plavsic statement. I agree with majority of Mr Trkla words. I wish she did say something about Krajina - not to act politician like Milosevic but to show world their (world's) shame and way the American army help to cleanse Krajina. What hapen to those people was terible. Maybe she believed as she wasnt Croatian Serb leader she didnt have right to say but then she did say about Kosovo. I would stop Mr Trka on one point. I do not think Plavsic said that Serb / Yug goverment was honorable. Everyone, ok most in Serbia knows that it is not like this. I also think that if there were more Croat and Bosnian there like Miroslav Tudjman, Bobetko and Oric that Plavsic speech could help population and world understand. How I said before I dont think Hague is fair because Americans arent there. Also I am afraid that Serbs will be blamed in history. Historical injustice can make repeat of war happen again. At same time I do not see alternative. Look at judicial system (if any you know what going on there) in Croatia, Serbia. Difficult to see alternative to Hague but I wish there was. Last point test to question too much right / wrong view. Biljana Plavsic - who sent her to Hague and when? D Markovic Sombor Yug Sunday December 29, 2002 at 12:38 pm Mr. Markovic writes “I would stop Mr Trka on one point. I do not think Plavsic said that Serb / Yug goverment was honorable.” Mr. Markovic are you referring to my comment that “No, Serbia was bombed, the only region where all the other ethnic groups found a sanctuary.” I did not attribute this statement to Mrs. Plavsic. This is my own conclusion from reading and speaking with immigrants here in Kamloops. Belgrade alone has over 100, 000 Kosovo Albanians, the number of Slavic Muslims in Serbia (million plus), number of Croats ??? and there was only few incidences of conflict and certainly not government orchestrated. Many Croats and Muslims from Bosnia and Kosovo sent their children and spouse for safety in Serbia. Three families who now live here in Kamloops told me that was their experience. Sending their children for safety to Serbia indicates to me how they saw the events there. On the other hand I don’t see any Muslims or Croats on Yugoslav national teams (Soccer, Basketball, and Volleyball) so there might prejudice or are they (Muslims and Croats) refusing to try out for these teams??? Walter Trkla Kamloops BC Canada Sunday December 29, 2002 at 12:57 pm Drasko, Biljana Plavsic gave herself up to the tribunal, she was released on bail, the Yugoslav government provided the "garantees" then she plead bargain pleaded guilty to one charge and the rest was dropped. She had served NATO well, bending to NATO desires implementing Dayton, the US diktat until reaching her limit and then she was charged, for resisting and keeping some degree of independence. Del Ponte wants her cooperation to nail Mr. Milosevic and that she hass refused drawing Carla's ire once more. Del Ponte has until May 16 to present credible evidence to win her case. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Sunday December 29, 2002 at 5:12 pm Consider this "evidence" of nuclear arm development: Remember furor over Aluminum tubes? It was all over the pages how Iraq has a program to make nuclear weapons. Well. do you know when these tubes were purchased? 15 years ago! Read this: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/3645535 Iraqi scientist blasts U.N. experts over interview BAGHDAD, Dec 28 (Reuters) - An Iraqi scientist said on Saturday U.N. arms experts had exaggerated the outcome of an interview with him as part of a hunt for alleged banned weapons. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors interviewed on Friday Kathim Mijbil, a metallurgist from the al-Rayah Company which is an arm of Iraq's Military Industrialisation Commission. The Iraqi Foreign Ministry had given his name as Kathim Jamil but he gave his family name as Mijbil. Mijbil told a news conference in Baghdad that he had been involved in restoring aluminium tubes for possible use in short- range missiles but denied he had any links to past banned weapons programmes or any current such activity. He said Iraq had imported the tubes in 1987 for use in the production of 81-mm missiles with a range of 10 km (six miles). He said the tubes had corroded because of poor storage. A U.N. spokesman said on Friday the scientist had provided technical details of a military programme. "This programme has attracted considerable attention as a possible prelude to a clandestine nuclear programme," he said. The spokesman said the interview "will be of great use in completing the IAEA assessment" of Iraq's nuclear programme. "I strongly deny this," Mijbil said. "Frankly I'm very disturbed...over these statements because they don't relate to reality. Does cleaning an aluminium tube from corrosion with basic chemicals...lead to a secret programme?" He said the U.N. statement bordered on fabrication and was grossly exaggerated. "There may be some political agenda or to escalate the situation," Mijbil said. D. Jovanovic USA Sunday December 29, 2002 at 5:30 pm Truth is indeed a very complicated thing - when you don't know it.. or when you try to manipulate it. It has to be complicated because you are playing metaphisics ...and that has always been a complicated job... As soon as you put the things as they realy are it becomes cristal clear - everything fits and most of times looks simple. When the common belief was that the sun travels around the earth it all looked damn complicated.. Then Copernicus put the sun in the middle - everything became clear ,logical and simple. Yes,yes...most of us have experienced it deeply through this yugoslavian tragedy.. Somehow mr. Milosevic's "trial" simbolizes it all...personalizes it ..and turns into almost unreal reality.... milan c. netherlands Sunday December 29, 2002 at 5:44 pm correction Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario Sunday December 29, 2002 at 5:47 pm Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario, Canada Monday December 30, 2002 at 2:56 am Thanks, Davor, for the translation. Since you want comments, here is mine: I must say I cannot make head or tail of Plavsic's speech. On the one hand she says: "This responsibility is mine and mine alone. It does not extend to other leaders who have a right to defend themselves." But on the other hand, she says: "Tragically our leaders, including myself, abandoned this path in the last war. I think it is clear that I have separated myself from those leaders - but too late. Yet, this leadership, without shame, continues to seek the loyalty and support of our people. It is done by provoking fears and speaking half truths in order to convince our people the world is against us." Here she speaks as a member of the leadership, without repeating that the responsibility is hers and hers alone. Suddenly her responsibility seems to be reduced to her belated separation from the rest of the leadership! And she speaks as if it were a crime (she uses the word "shame") for a government to seek the loyalty and support of the people. I always thought that was called democracy. Maybe Plavsic is now pushing another definition of democracy (as she undoubtedly is) - something more in line with Nato compatibility. And when she says that the leadership "continues to seek the loyalty and support of our people", I really don't know what she is talking about. Is she talking about Milosevic, although she has just said that he has the right to defend himself, or the Nato-compatible governments in Republika Srpska and Yugoslavia? Then why does she say that "as long as we preserve our identity and our character, we have nothing to fear"? And finally, it can't be the fault of whichever government she is talking about, if the Serbs think the world is against them, because the truth is that the world is against them. Just check out what is going on in The Hague! I don't know what Del Ponte is so displeased about. Whatever Plavsic is saying, she makes more sense than Del Ponte. Or maybe what irked Madam Del Ponte was Plavsic's plea that the tribunal should persecute all parties equitably. That can't happen, and because it can't, the subject should not be brought up at all. Jari Nousiainen Finland Monday December 30, 2002 at 3:51 am Oops, now I did it. I said "persecute" instead of "prosecute". Now that the latest disruption is over and done with, one has the feeling that another hurdle has been cleared, but at the same time one wonders: a hurdle on our way to what? Is there some end result that we are trying to achieve? We know that Milosevic is going to get convicted. On the other hand, why does one keep repeating that so often, if one accepts the fact? Let's face it, the world is a cacophonic place. And pretty unjust too. Let's see this abracadabra revolving around legitimacy and morals. Nato said that the bombing was "illegitimate but moral". But if that is so, were the Yugoslav actions then conversely "legitimate but immoral"? And if so, were the Yugoslav actions any worse than Soros's speculation in the Far East, which he himslef admitted was "immoral but legitimate"? Or is the difference between the Yugoslavs and Soros the order in which this concepts are paraded: Soros says his actions were "immoral but legitimate", whereas Yugoslav actions are supposed to be "legitimate but immoral"? But how can the culprit determine in which order these words are put? It seems Soros would require an ad hoc tribunal just to convict him! Or does he think that he hasn't ruined more lives than the Yugoslav government has? Do you accept his suggestion that he speculated with the fortunes of whole nations so that he would have enough money for his philanthropism? Rather, it seems his philanthropism is just another excuse to wreck more lives. That must also be the reason that he is financing the tribunal. By financing the tribunal, he can keep the people - maybe himself included - from thinking too much about all the wrong things that he has done. (Logically, Del Ponte had to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.) Of course, the art of international finance surpasses my capabilities, which means that I can't be certain whether he really is the culprit behind the economic meltdown in the Far East, but I think that whatever is happening with Soros (judging by his books and his "philanthropic" activities) is very human, though not the way he likes to present it in his books. Why does everything have to be wrecked? Is the reason summarized in the old motto divide et impera (which is what Jared Israel would opt) or is it just the urge to make more money? Or is there any difference really? To run an empire you need money, but by running an empire, you can make more money. And let us come back to my old enemy, deconstruction, for the n:th time. Whatever the motivation, I think the current academic craze of deconstruction is a reflection of, and at the same time a justification for, this global demolition business. However, deconstruction is not unbeatable, and if we want to avert the Orwellian nightmare that it speaks to, we had better strike at it first. And that is something anyone can do. Its worst enemy is common sense. Unfortunately, it is only those who make the least sense that manage to make a name for themselves. And they are the ones who change the world. J N Milosevic Monday December 30, 2002 at 7:36 am OK, it can hardly get any more scientific than this. This is a research paper done for the National Science Council of Taiwan. ( http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/cgots/Papers/43.pdf ). It says some critical things about the connection between Soros and the financial meltdown in 1997. However, it is almost remarkable how gently Soros's role is expressed, even if the actual portent betrays the euphemisms. The report says that since serious financial crises had occurred in a couple of countries in the Far East before 1997, the financial crises of 1997 can be attributed to domestic rather than international causes. That is hardly convincing in itself: I think the US economy, just like any other economy in the world, has undergone numerous crises, without collapsing. It cannot be these countries fault that their economies are too fragile to sustain attacks by aggressive speculators. It is apropos that the British economy survived Soros's speculation, because it is robust in itself, even if Soros manage to drive the pound out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. It is up to the speculator to assess the fragility of the national economy with which he is speculating. But then the report comes to the blatantly euphemistic part: "The financial attack by international speculators, such as George Soros, was only the last straw that broke the camel's back." I don't know. Somehow this smacks of the James Harff rationalization: it was the PR firm that turned the opinion against the Serbs, as if that exonerated in any way those who actually turned against the Serbs. In this case, we are supposed to think that the real problem was domestic, and what Soros did was "only" the last straw. Soros has explained that he actually lost money on the Asian market. However, that is hardly an excuse. Does he think he is infallible and that every time he loses money, he did so, because he chose to lose money? If this is his argument, it is self-defeating. He is saying that he loses money only if he chooses to, so in this instance too, there must have been a reason why he chose to lose money - maybe to exonerate himself after things got out of hand. Or if Soros is explaining that he is not infallible (which would suit his dogma of "uncertainty"), he hardly says anything new and in fact fails to exonerate himself, because he could have lost money even if it was he that caused the crisis. In fact, the more fallible he is, the more likely this explanation becomes. And then the obvious question: what has this got to do with Milosevic? The equally obvious answer is: nothing. I just had the feeling that this discussion was not going to make me rich, so I thought I would try my luck on the international currency markets. But there is a not-so distant connection. At http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9707/msg00100.html , we get the news that Soros and the PM of one country used to "see eye to eye" on helping the "besieged Moslems in Bosnia". The latter had lauded the former's magnanimous efforts. That was before 1997. So it is probable that the funding from that country during the first two years of the tribunal's existence (which accounted for more than 90% of the tribunal's budget together with contributions from some other Asian country) was inspired by Soros. That would explain the near cult status of total ignorance that characterizes the tribunal's activities even today. As we can verify for ourselves, those who know the least make the most noise. This same article is again remarkable in its attempt to excuse Soros without ever quite succeeding: "But while Soros may have led the foray, the real push came from other speculators - institutional investors such as mutual and insurance funds, and non-financial corporations". This would be the perfect spot to say "what goes around comes around" in as far as financing the tribunal was an instance of vain do-goodism. I have said to George S before that the tribunal is a bad investment, and I think the terrible retributions incurred by the early contributions by some eager states to such unjust causes confirms the soundness of my financial advice. Jari Nousiainen Finland Monday December 30, 2002 at 1:48 pm One can safely asume Soros does not work on his own but in concert, in fact in conspiracy with some other notorius financial and political institutions to achieved clear goals. Some of the methods employed were in a not too distant past considered illegal, ganster like but now at last "understood" they are taught in the most prestigious schools of economics . It is only a matter for the third world, the tiggers economies, emerging economies, etc., to embrace the gospel and orthodoxy as taught by apostle Soros to enjoy paradise in the near future. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Monday December 30, 2002 at 1:56 pm What is coming: George Soros, one of the world’s biggest currency speculators whose fortune is heavily invested in Brazil, stated frankly that Brazil would not be allowed to elect Lula. “In the Roman empire, only the Romans voted,” he said. “In modern global capitalism, only the Americans vote, not the Brazilians.” The statement provoked outraged protests, including a condemnation from incumbent President Cardoso. Click HERE And yes Soros has much to do with the destruction of Yugoslavia despite the aparent lack of evidence. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USAA Monday December 30, 2002 at 4:22 pm Jari, Thanks for your comments on Mr. Plavsic statement. It opened my eyes, like Walter's and Mr. Aleksandar Pavic's. . In here statement as you point out she says: "Yet, this leadership, without shame, continues to seek the loyalty and support of our people. It is done by provoking fears and speaking half-truths in order to convince our people the world is against us." I agree with you comments on this part of her statement, but there is more to it. At the very end of her statement she contradicts what she just said: "I will, however, make one appeal and that is to the Tribunal itself - judges, prosecutors, investigators - that you do all within your power to bring justice to all sides. In doing this you may be able to accomplish the mission for which this Tribunal has been created." By making this appall she admits that she knows that the Serbs were and are unjustly and faulty accused for everything in Bosnia and that she was not speaking the half-truths in order... In my opinion her statement and acceptance of guilt is hollow, not worthy and fully political in all the aspects of it. Generally she accepts the following: She accepts (admits) that the NATO has right to intervene in the internal conflict in Bosnia which is not a matter of her rights but it is regulated by the international law and here "acceptance" in this regard is irrelevant. She accepts(admits) that Serbian people had no right to be afraid of their Muslim and Croatian neighbors and their Jihad and NATO helpers, which contradicts the facts and as such amounts to perjury. She accepts (admits) that the Serbs in Bosnia had no right of self defense which again is regulated by the international law and here denial of this right to the Serbs is irrelevant. She accepts (admits) that the ICTY has right to prosecute here, which is again beyond her rights to decide, since such matters are regulated by the international laws. She accepts(admits) that the only political right that Serbs had during the war was to follow what ever New World Order Masters are saying, which again is beyond any persons power, and is regulated by the international laws and her acceptance of this is irrelevant. She apologizes to all the innocent victims on all the sides of the war in Bosnia, which is wrong acceptance of guilt because it was beyond her power to cause or stop this magnitude of suffering, which makes her apology superficial, induced and not sincere. Admitance of her guilt: In this department she admits everything and nothing specific. There is no single incriminating document that she admits that she signed as a single person or as a group of persons that lad to the specific crimes. There is no single incriminating decision that she took part of that lad to the specific crimes. There is no single speech that she gave that inspired people to commit crimes. She was never liked or admitted that she was involved in a single specific crime. The only thing that she admits is that she was a part of a leadership that had policies that caused suffering, that she never opposed them and that she distanced from them to late. Even Mr. Milosevic the "biggest" criminal of all the criminals is not accused of everything and nothing specific. He is very specifically accused of 68 crimes and everything else as a background. Even prosecution and the New World Order Masters are admitting that he can not be convicted based on the background even if everything in the background is truth and nothing but the truth, but only for the specific crimes. My conclusion is that since Mrs. Plavsic admitted everything and nothing in specific Mrs. Plavsic should be released due to lack of evidence for the specific crimes that she has allegedly committed. I think that if the ICTY was a real court the panel of judges will come up with such a ruling in no time. We have heard many times that the ICTY is about punishing people for specific individual crimes not about punishing collective guilt. This will not happen and Mrs. Plavsic will become the first verifiable political prisoner of the New World Order. She would be punished based on her induced admittance of alleged crimes and not based on a single piece of evidence linking here directly to any of them. Pera Bora Ottawa Canada Monday December 30, 2002 at 4:34 pm Several years ago I have read this statement: The New World order is based on the simple doctrine: "Capitalists of all the countries get united!" This will be the ruling doctrine of the 21st century. The ruling doctrine of the end of the 19th and 20th century was: "Workers of all the countries get united!" God help us all against such and other similar doctrines!!! Pera Bora Ottawa Canada Monday December 30, 2002 at 5:07 pm Pera, I get the hint and I wish I could count on God's help to deal with such dilemas. I can't stop remind myself the issue we are extensively discussing here is the direct result of this ideological diffrence. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Monday December 30, 2002 at 6:26 pm Gogol, You guessed what I am hinting, but sincerely I do not know what will help us survive in this time of change. Many years ago I was for the capitalists. Few years ago I was more for a number of reasonable people then for capitalists or the God. Jus recently an attack on this forum from a representative of the "reasonable" people has made me nervous. Qvo vadis domino? (God where are you leading me?) As the Latin culture the Serbian culture is based on proverbs. I think that many other cultures are based on their own proverbs as well. In these proverbs one can find more wisdom than in numerous books selling ideology to the masses. This is why they do not teach Latin at school any more (deconstruction). So what I am thinking is that we should avoid mass movements and concepts for the masses and that everybody has a right to make a set of his/Hers own values as long as he/She does not use his/Her values against the other individuals. In order for this to function we need good, independent world justice system, that is not financed by the money masters and governments but by the ordinary people. Am I naive? Yes I am. Every body has a right to dream. As a proverb goes: "I am a straw caught by the swirl wind, a peace of left over cheese." Pera Bora Ottawa Canada Monday December 30, 2002 at 8:58 pm Humour is a form of survival. It has helped like love in times of cholera It is all in the name of the individual, the individual has to perish in order to be saved, as in other times one had to die to achieve eternal glory. Then it was discovered it was better to have as much of that glory while alive and dealing with that brought serious problems, namely revolutions. It is undeniable the happiness of mankind is the goal at least for the main philosophies of the present. The questions is how to achieve it and perhaps even to agree what this happiness consist of. Wall Street and the Protestant's ethics in achieving wealth are the basis of some happiness , equality and some form justice are another. In the long run the individual in order to survive has to seek collective shelter and enterprise and I think equality and justice is a closer element to a collective, social goal of happiness. The current order is trying to prove this wrong and will use all means at its disposal to do it. So far it has failed. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Monday December 30, 2002 at 9:16 pm "Human grandeur", said Pangloss, "is very dangerous, if we believe the testimonies of almost all philosophers; for we find Eglon, King of Moab, was assassinated by Aod; Absalom was hanged by the hair of his head, and run through with three darts; King Nadab, son of Jeroboam, was slain by Baaza; King Ela by Zimri; Okosias by Jehu; Athaliah by Jehoiada; the Kings Jehooiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah, were led into captivity: I need not tell you what was the fate of Croesus, Astyages, Darius, Dionysius of Syracuse, Pyrrhus, Perseus, Hannibal, Jugurtha, Ariovistus, Caesar, Pompey, Nero, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian, Richard II of England, Edward II, Henry VI, Richard Ill, Mary Stuart, Charles I, the three Henrys of France, and the Emperor Henry IV." "Neither need you tell me", said Candide, "that we must take care of our garden." "You are in the right", said Pangloss; "for when man was put into the garden of Eden, it was with an intent to dress it; and this proves that man was not born to be idle." "Work then without disputing", said Martin; "it is the only way to render life supportable." The little society, one and all, entered into this laudable design and set themselves to exert their different talents. The little piece of ground yielded them a plentiful crop. Cunegonde indeed was very ugly, but she became an excellent hand at pastrywork: Pacquette embroidered; the old woman had the care of the linen. There was none, down to Brother Giroflee, but did some service; he was a very good carpenter, and became an honest man. Pangloss used now and then to say to Candide: "There is a concatenation of all events in the best of possible worlds; for, in short, had you not been kicked out of a fine castle for the love of Miss Cunegonde; had you not been put into the Inquisition; had you not traveled over America on foot; had you not run the Baron through the body; and had you not lost all your sheep, which you brought from the good country of El Dorado, you would not have been here to eat preserved citrons and pistachio nuts." "Excellently observed", answered Candide; "but we must cultivate our garden." Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 31, 2002 at 12:44 am This is what happens when some improvements in your home PC system (additional unit, upgrading) are introduced: you can not get Internet connection for five days, and computer people are coming and going daily. Finally, today I managed to see the messages collected in the meantime, stopped carrying diskettes around the town and checked this forum. To D.Jovanovic: yes, Gospoda Glembajevi is in Croatian or the western version of our common language which I'm at a loss how to call now; the author is one Miroslav Krleza, a Croatian writer par excellence, who kept the standard clean, not that far from its Herzegovina origin. Attending elementary and then secondary school in Croatia, I had to undergo all those idiotic, politically-introduced changes which have made a mess of the standard literary language. To Dan A.: No wander IWPR is rehashing the freezer truck story - the man who started it in his crime magazine, Dragan Vitomirovic, got killed in a traffic accident two weeks ago, his car went off the road into a ravine. Naturally, the boot-licking 'independent' media tried to rise suspicions of a foul play ('Are there indications that he was killed for revealing numerous shady affairs?'; 'Both police and judicial authorities should thoroughly investigate the tragic death…'), but the problem was that Milosevic and Radomir Markovic, the usual suspects for such things, were both in their respective cells and besides, his own son denied anything of the sort: "Simply enough, the carriageway was wet and he lost control of his vehicle. Quite certainly, there is nothing suspicious in that." The only interesting fact that popped up in these numerous articles is a close friendship of the late Mr Vitomirovic with a person who is a) Milosevic's political opponent and b) in a position to 'investigate' freezer truck and mass graves around Serbia, conveniently found on the eve of delivering Milosevic to The Hague and subsequently forgotten - the Serbian Minister of Interior Mihajlovic. Now, that is a pure coincidence, isn't it?! Gogol, re the incident involving an Anglican priest and a group of members of the Church of England, including the British Ambassador: they wanted to enter the Patriarchate building (across the street from the Orthodox cathedral), where they intended to hold their Christmas service, as permitted by the Serbian Patriarch, but they were prevented by a small group of youths, who protested against the presence of 'a schism deriving from the Catholic Church' (yes, for those unfamiliar: the Protestants did derive from the Catholics) and a danger of 'creating Uniatism'. Not even an intervention by the Patriarch himself, who came out of the building to talk to the protesters, was of any help: the Anglicans had to go away. The police abstained from the intervention, judging this would only make things worse; after two days, they announced the process of gathering photographs of the protesters is under way. The Faculty of Theology denied any involvement of its students. I'm not religious, but what struck me as odd is the mere fact that the Anglicans apparently held their services in the premises of the Serbian Patriarchate even before this incident. (Why? Were there no other spaces available in the city?) This is just a reaction to the overwhelming and forceful denationalization (HumWarriors call also for a 'de-nazification'), which is imposed by both authorities and NGOs, through media and even in textbooks. Organized religion is political by definition and some romantic nationalistic youths stupidly believed that by preventing the British Ambassador to parade his religion in the midst of their religious symbols, they would prevent him to meddle in their country's affairs. The trial of the General Momcilo Perisic for spying was postponed because he had again changed his mind and decided after all to invoke his MP's immunity; if ever the immunity is revoked, the case will be on trial. Somehow, I doubt it will ever happen while DOS is in power (Perisic being the head of a minuscule DOS party). Even while technically unable to communicate, I did some research: when my mother came to visit, I showed her the list of Ovcara Farm/Vukovar Hospital victims, as stated in the Annex of the Mrksic, Radic & Sljivancanin Indictment. Why did I do that? For two reasons: a) she lived in Vukovar for more than 30 years, worked in a Personnel Office of a major company and spent 3 months of the battle in the town, and b) there is something fishy about that list of names. See the point 14 of the Indictment: 14. Of the 300 men taken from Vukovar Hospital on the morning of 20 November 1991, 261 remain missing. All of these men were alive after the end of hostilities in Vukovar, and all of these men were taken under JNA guard first to the JNA barracks and then to the Ovcara farm. They have not been seen alive since that time. The names of these men, with their fathers' names in parenthesis, and their dates of birth are as follows: Who provided the list of the 'missing men'? Who testified in great detail of their torturing, execution and burial, as described in the points 8-13? (a fly on the wall? a co-perpetrator?) Who performed the exhumation? It was nice to see the old lady using a super-fast optical mouse to scroll through the list (she never used PC before, but she was a pilot when young, quick to learn, still sharp and better oriented in a strange city then me, as she proved when we got lost in downtown Paris once). And I was right: some on that list are Serbs (so, the claim from the point 1 about the killing of 'non-Serb men' is false) and some on that list died long before the end of hostilities and never were at the Hospital at all (so, the claims from the point 14 that these men were 'taken from Vukovar Hospital' and that 'all of these men were alive after the end of hostilities in Vukovar' are also false). How many bodies were at Ovcara? Who were they? How and when they died? Obviously, the Indictment is unable to answer that, it simply lies instead. What I would like to find now is a forensic report for Ovcara Farm site - anyone able to help? Vera Martinovic Belgrade Yugoslavia Tuesday December 31, 2002 at 2:44 am Vera, point 14 seems to have been amended in the "second amended indictment" of M, R & S. I have italicized the changed part: "Of the 300 men taken from Vukovar Hospital on the morning of 20 November 1991, at least 200 were killed at Ovcara. More than fifty other men remain missing. All of these men were alive after the end of hostilities in Vukovar, and all of these men were taken under JNA guard first to the JNA barracks and then to the Ovcara farm. They have not been seen alive since that time. The names of these men, with their fathers' names in parenthesis, and their dates of birth are as follows..." In other words, originally 261 men were missing, now only 50 are missing. So, of the 261 originally thought missing, "at least 200" are now thought to be dead (I didn't say "found dead") and the rest are still missing. The obvious question is: what made the prosecution change its mind? But that is the wrong question. Actually, the trick is the same as in Kosovo: the prosecution only follows the lead up to a certain point. Notice that we don't have a clue who on the list is now thought dead, even the prosecution supposedly thought they were just missing. The list has nothing to do with the dead, it is a list of "the persons taken from the hospital". So the appropriate question is, where is the forensic report, or to be more accurate, that is not the right question either. The right question is, which so-called forensic report is the prosecution using, since there seem to be several! Vera, your account of Vitomiric's death is interesting, since you tie it to the sudden change in the policy of the ICTY prosecution. It seems Vitomiric published some obscure crime magazine. That makes one think of the Men in Black, who are also known to keep up with the most glaring oddball publications. This is getting serious. At least this is a clear indication that the ICTY prosecution has as many mysteries to solve as Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith. Jari Nousiainen Finland Tuesday December 31, 2002 at 3:23 am A word about Soros. He promotes his idea of "open society". Bull. I think the latest scandal in Brazil shows that his dream society is open only to himself, whereas he himself prefers to stay behind the scenes. Should we feel betrayed? Since Soros is such an enigmatic character, it is almost impossible to keep up with his real thoughts, if he has any, or his activities (let alone their real motives). But we do know he is involved in the financing of the ICTY. Maybe he thought this was a good idea to court the favour of a certain country in the Far East (of which I dare not mention the name). The idea may have seemed all the more brilliant after he had caused the economy of that country to collapse (sorry for being so blunt). So ICTY was part of Soros's strategy of appeasement towards the Muslims after his blunder, just the way ICTY was part of the US stategy of appeasement after the Gulf War (which is the common view). And the more we hear of Soros's involvement in the ICTY, the more we identify his "crime" with the financing of the ICTY, while there is some very real misconduct that I think he is trying to hide by his supposed philanthopism. It makes no difference to him if he believe in his philanthropism or not, as long as we think of something else than his role in the economic meltdown in 1997. Maybe Soros is not acting alone, but again it is the nature of the game that it is impossible to know. That is, as I said, one of the characteristics of the open society. It may be that he acts in collusion with others, because in his books he makes so much of ostracism he has experienced during his career (as a red herring). And now the question: is Del Ponte impervious to the interests of the big capital? I see you smiling. Del Ponte is the interest of the big capital, as we saw in the Russiagate (in the interview of Felipe Turover by Jürgen Elsässer). And whatever Del Ponte's merits are as a public prosecutor, she is at least doing the right motions to track down secret bank accounts and stuff when it is considered politically correct. This is what she has done as the last resort in the case against Milosevic, in fact. So I think that this sensitivity to the bank accounts (and in my view busting sanction-busting rings) shows that Del Ponte might understand the need of the giga-investors like Soros too. And how does one know that Soros is not such a good guy as he would have us believe in his books? I think there are several clues. For one thing, it is interesting that he says that the capital market is his way to "keep in touch with the reality". Come on, Mr S! Is currency speculation your idea of "reality"? Or maybe I should be more exact: do you think speculation is the ultimate in productive economic activity? Bull! I can hardly think of anything more unproductive, especially when it is the victims, who didn't participate in the currency markets, that have to face the "reality", not you. Sure, the economic theory has found a way to accommodate speculators and devised a way to make the speculators look useful, but what wouldn't the academia do to curry the favour of the moneymen? I think that economic theory would have us believe that speculation irons out all the untenable economic policies. But that doesn't seem quite logical, unless you define "untenable" as "able to resist speculation". In my meagre understanding it is the speculation that has given rise to these untenable policies in the first place. The bottomline is that it is all about greed, after all a very human trait (which is why Soros has some success in painting himself as a very human guy). Another problem in the reasoning is that it regards the full freedom of capital movements as the pinnacle of the value hierarchy, even if it is not a reality, only an ideal, even in Soros's own admission (that is why he pushes his open society). So after all, even the fine line between law and morality may prove to be illusory. And that means that he can't defend himself by saying that what he did wasn't illegal at the time. Try applying this reasoning to war crimes indictees to see if it will wash. By the way, if all that we have is Plavsic's confession and no evidence, she should go free, because I think nobody can be convicted on the basis of an admission of guilt alone. And as Aleksandar Pavic pointed out in his article (given by Peter Taylor), the dropping of the genocide charges against her shows that there never was much to prove to begin with. J N Finland Tuesday December 31, 2002 at 9:01 am Pera Bora If winter comes,can spring be far beyond ? What will save us...will be a massive motion,almost a mood of universum -... kind of a thing .It certainly won't be any highly organized movement or a reasonable argument - cause the mighty ones are ready and well prepared to fight these ones. Witnessing the whole mass and global confusion they created around ex Yugoslavia (and serbs in particular) - we can see (and feel) they can be quite effective. So,what the world lately learned about us is : lots of everything - but a simple truth. What will save us (probably) is slowly but constantly raising on the horizont.The hurricane of a globalization is at the same time creating a global mood of dissagreement .Big guys need more and more protection forces wherever they decide to meet.Look at the efforts and costs they have to make - just to meet . The global monster they tried to make will eventualy eat them (as a poisoned desert) - and then die. <> Isn't that something people have always been busy with ? milan c. netherlands Tuesday December 31, 2002 at 9:26 am Walter, I agree with you and I have some personal experience regarding refugees from Bosnia taking shelter in Serbia. Their son is a friend of mine. When war in Bosnia started they were "ethnically cleansed" from Bratunac by Arkan. Listening to these stories they barely survived, their elderly mother was almost raped etc. What I found most interesting is that they fled to Belgrade, capital of Serbia to safety. Imagine ridiculousness of this sentence: Muslims are "ethnically cleansed" from Bosnia by Serbs and they find safety in Serbia? It would be as Jews are being "ethnically cleansed" from Poland and they find safety in Berlin? I do have question that I would like to get an opinion: would Milosevic be allowed to use results of Croatian, Bosnian, Kosovo and Yugoslav Census from 2001 as an example of what country kept its ethnic make-up from before the war? I think that numbers speak more than words. Anna Turcotte Canada Tuesday December 31, 2002 at 9:59 am To D. Markovic, if Mesic is damned either way (as you put it) then it is after all his own fault, right? I mean, HE was the one who said to the media and I quote hime "My wife is not Serbian, she is Ukrainian". As far as Serb refugee returns go, not many have returned and it is still a painful process, if you don't believe me then go down to Belgrade and take a look at the line up in front of the Croat embassy. Those people spend less time waiting in front of the German embassy in order to emigrate then they spend in front of the Croat embassy trying to return to their homes and possibly take with them some mementoes. For most, save for the most desperate cases (those living in refugee camps with horrible conditions, or the elderly who will practically die from nostalgia) return IS NOT AN OPTION. Mesic has his share of responsibility in that. If nationalists in Croatia hate Mesic that doesn't make him any more moderate then them. In fact, the people who dislike Mesic are the Herzegovinian Croats rallied around the HDZ. Mesic doesn't have a base of support among them and realizing that in 1993 he distanced himself from Tudjman by saying that he opposed the war against the Muslims in Bosnia and was not for the attachment of parts of BiH to Croatia. However, not once did he distance himself from the HDZ' and Tudjman's policy towards Serbs which was in effect kind of like the 19th century song "Udri udri in der stadt slavo-serbom strik za vrat" (Hit 'em hit 'em in their country, tie a noose around the Slavo-Serb's neck). Don't forget that Mesic was the author of that coy euphemism from the early 1990's (when the troubles in the Krajina began) "The Serbs will not be allowed to take any of Croatia's soil other than that which they brought in on the tip of their shoes". This implied, among other things that Serbs were some kind of invaders and late-comers on some 'Croat' soil and they were pillaging 'Croat land'. In my opinion, such hateful speech only fueled the war and motivated ethnic discrimination and attacks against minorities. To this day, Serbs live in fear in the Republic of Croatia and all opinion polls published in Croatia show that of all nations, the Serbs are the most hated, I believe that the latest one said that 40 % of Croats favored expelling all of the remaining 200-300 thousand Serbs all together, 80 % of Croats nourish harsh stereotypes about Serbs (want to destroy Croatia, are murderers, rapists, conniving etc.) Igor Jaramaz savindan@yahoo.com Tuesday December 31, 2002 at 9:59 am To Mr. Trklja, indeed you are right about Muslims and Croats coming as refugees to Serbia. I can't find the figures right now but there were some 10-20 thousand or more registered refugees, Muslims and Croats who fled to Serbia during the war of the first half of the nineties. Besides, those who did not stay in Serbia (or Crna Gora) actually transited through this country in order to get to a third one. For example, Muslim refugees would go to Belgrad and then from Belgrade by train or bus to Budapest and further on West to Austria, Germany, Switzerland so as to avoid the war zones. Besides, Milos Stankovic, a British soldier who served with UNPROFOR in BiH for almost the whole duration of the war (1992-5) wrote about a secret plan set up by the British. It was called Schindler's List and its aim was to evacuate the most desperate of cases from Sarajevo, 50+ Serbs who wouldn't want to be drafted into the Muslim Army (and end up as cannon fodder, digging trenches or being used as human shields) and mixed marriages. The plan was the following, take the people that were to be evacuated and smuggle them through the Bosnian Muslim checkpoints and away from the Muslim police, then drop them in Republika Srpska, Serb held parts of Sarajevo (Grbavica etc.) or Pale. From there they would carry onwards to Canada or wherever it was they wanted to be. And he makes it very clear that the hardest part was evading the Muslims, the régime of Alija Izetbegovic was forcing all of Sarajevo's residents to stay inside the enclave so that he could claim that so and so many hundreds of thousands of civilians are determined to stay and are being bombarded and so on. Whereas the Serbs did not mistreat one single Muslim or Croat evacuee who found their way on their Serb-held territory (Republika Srpska) because as STankovic writes, the Serbs had some tens of thousands of their own people stuck in Sarajevo whom they wanted evacuated so they were extra careful (the VRS, Army of Republika Srpska, made sure of this, major Indjic) that no Muslim or Croat evacuee had any problems while transiting through the RS. As far as Muslim, Croat, Hungarian and Albanian teammates in sport goes. You are wrong, Igor Duljaj (Albanian from the Šumdija) plays for Partizan Belgrade and the Yugoslav national football (soccer) squad. Matija Kezman is also on the national squad, he is Slovene. Albert Nadj used to play (I don't know if he is still on the squad?), he is Hungarian. In football again, Sinisa Mihajlovic's mother is Roman Catholic (Šokica from Slavonia, most of whom are Croats now). Gyula (DJula) Mešter, Hungarian as well, plays volleyball. As far as Muslims go, I know of Denis Šefik who plays waterpolo. I don't mean to brag, but the Serbs are better in sports, the proof is in the pudding. Yugoslavia, with its 99 % Serb team has won plenty of gold medals in basketball, volleyball, waterpolo and handball. In all four sports and including football (soccer) when the Yugoslav team meat the Croats, they usually beat them and Croat national teams in volleyball, handball and basketall are basically third-rate, they used to have a good team in football (with Prosinecki's mother being Serb) but that generation has retired and they were a major disappointment in 2002 (with the Serb Milan Rapajic coming out the best player). Bosnia (the Muslim team) and Albania go, basketball, volleyball, football, handball, waterpolo are not their sports at all. Ditto for the Hungarians, save for waterpolo in which they are among the top 5 along with Yugoslavia (Serb team), Russia, Croatia and the USA. Igor Jaramaz Canada Tuesday December 31, 2002 at 2:27 pm When it comes to refugees from Bosnia taking shelter in Serbia there are numerous sources that confirm that. One of the best is a documentary made by a TV Ontario reporter. The documentary was made at the time when the stories about Muslims and Croats being taken to Serbia into concentration camps emerged. The Canadian TV crew went to Serbia and did some investigative reporting. They have found large groups of Muslim women and children in the several mountain resorts in Serbia. They were refugees from Bosnia. The Serbian Red Cross took care of them. They enjoyed full freedom of movement. No guards were anywhere around. Nosupervision measures were imposed on them. When one of the ladies was asked why are you in Serbia she said: "The war is going on in Bosnia and Serbs are killing Muslims." She was then asked where her husband is and she answered: "He is fighting Serbs there." Imagine now the Colorado Springs resort during the WWII housing Japanese women and children that ran away from Japan bombed by Americans. Let now Canadian journalists ask the same question followed by an answer: "We are here because bloody Americans are bombing our cities and our husbands are busy sinking some fine American ships. We hope that Americans will be prosecuted at the end of the WWII for their crimes against Japanese people"??? It is known that currently there are about 30000 "internally displaced" Albanians from Kosovo in Serbia. They can not go home because their Albanian neighbors will kill them and mighty NATO can not or will not protect them??? Pera Bora Ottawa Canada