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 01, 2002 at 2:22 am Oh great.....its bloody Milan again... so you reckon Serbs are lunatics....you should see the nutter Croatians living out in these parts. and another thing....you can't tease my father anymore about anything. He'll just point to the world map and show you where Croatia is. Personally.......I feel a similar expression....but not of pride merely more of relief. ............... One issue which seems to evade the fine peoples minds on this post is how the Croatians, as a people, were feeling about the imminent breakup of Yugosalvia in the late 1980s. I can't say what they felt...maybe they were afraid, maybe optimistic, whatever the case was....the expectation that something was about to give was equal to..if not greater than the apprehension felt by other peoples in Yugoslavia. ------------------ .....the main point I am making is that in hindsight...I can see why certain views aired here are maintained as the ultimate truth about the breakup of Yugoslavia.... however....I suggest that it is much more blurry than all that..... for example.....it is often maintained here that the Croats were the aggressors....that Croatia's politicians agitated for war........i do not disagree..... but one aspect of this which I have found difficult to extract from any discussions here is....what was the real reason for this????? I have a few suggestions..... however I would rather here first from those with a better/different insight into the events which occured. ivan kokotovic sydney australia Sunday December 01, 2002 at 4:56 am Do we know if the 'victims' of the Racak 'massacre' resided in Racak? Peter Taylor Herts/UK Sunday December 01, 2002 at 11:05 am The Racak Hoax Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Sunday December 01, 2002 at 11:30 am ##### ''Why should I be a minority in your state when you can be a minority in mine?'' Vladimir Gligorov Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Sunday December 01, 2002 at 12:40 pm Ivan: If you are so proud of the independence of Croatia, why is it that you are living in Australia? . Kathryn Love SJC USA Sunday December 01, 2002 at 2:37 pm I am new on this Forum discussion. Just read the above posts by a gentleman from Finland and the one quoting from the book by Sir Michael Rose. ( How can I get this book?. I tried Amazon ,they do not have it.) Then there is Mr. Kokotovich. Why did Yugoslavia split, he asks. My estimate is that the CIA and the US government were exploiting forces within the communist countries, encouraging them to seek separation. On the top of that Germany saw that it had fertile ground to get an ally and access to the Adriatic. Ineptness of the Serbian Milosevic who believed that by well established communist methods, i.e. by force he can establish “law and order” among the republics. Given these initial conditions the civil war was set to go in Yugoslavia. Then the emotion and bitterness of the WWII unsettled accounts took over. And like sheep, the Yugoslavian people played into the hands of “planners” and “globalists” in the U.S. D. Jovanovic USA Sunday December 01, 2002 at 3:19 pm The post by Mr. Pera Bora duplicates almost exactly my transformation from the believer into a great doubter of the “truth” served to the American people by the media and the press. My transformation is perhaps more painful because I came to the U.S fifty years ago from Yugoslavia, got an education here and became an active scientist and an educator. Even during the war in Vietnam I was a “hawk”. Perhaps America was not always like this is now. During the Vietnam war there was objective reporting of the horrors of that war and also the staunch resistance of North Vietnamese. The picture of a young six year old girl running naked, her back ablaze by a napalm bomb, made me change my position on Vietnam. Since then U.S. government realized that by taking the control of the media they can also control the public opinion at large. Whether the news reporters have lost their integrity or the owners of news media do not allow such contrary opinions to be aired or printed I do not know. Yes, indeed the internet has greatly helped the more objective information of those who have time and the interest to pursue it. Alas, the number is rather small. D. Jovanovic USA Sunday December 01, 2002 at 4:13 pm Pera, like you I fully supported the gulf war. I'm a sensible, intelligent, educated individual. It was my good fortune to be in Costa Rica immediately before the war in Kosovo started. I missed the two prior weeks of propaganda, when seemingly Canadians mostly lost their minds. I came back to examine the issue on their merits. I am not (as most assume) mad when I have said and said and said again that this war simply lacked all justification and/or merit. Nuremburg said the supreme war crime, was initiating a war of aggression. It was the opposite of every thing Canadians believe in: Peace, peacekeeping, justice, the UN, truth. We took terrorists and sided with them against all that was lawful. You as a Canadian can surely grasp that. We violated articles 1 and 2 of the UN charter and many articles of the NATO charter. We violated many other international treaties to boot. We deserve to have the book thrown at us. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp1.htm http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm We went to war because the Serbs refused an unreasonable ultimatum, and prosecuted a war despite the fact that Serbia would have meet us more than half way. All they asked was (1) no occupation of all of Serbia, (2) a UN force in Kosovo, and (3) no talk of unilateral separation. On this record I consider that Milosevic won the war in Kosovo, because all of Serbia's demands were subsequently conceeded by NATO, while all that Serbia conceeded were numbers of troops in Serbia to guard borders and religious sites (which it was clear were never going to be permitted anyway). How Canada could think unilateral separation a good thing to demand is beyond me.. our own supreme court has ruled that it is illegal. Given our own problems with Quebec, we should have known better. I tried to tell people these plain truths, and no one wanted to know. They said the war was about a humanitarian intervention, and not about something called an accord or agreement, when it was never more or less than an ultimatum. I said the flood of refugees was a response to the war and again no one believed me. What convinced me that this refusal to look at the truth was deliberate, was the fact that Canadians who thought the war right, refused to read the Ramboulliet text, read Milosevics 1989 speech, or do anything to educate themselves about the issues. When I say that the only excuse Canadians will have 20 years hence for how they behaved is that they were afraid to study the facts for fear of being different from their compatriots, I am not saying this is a good excuse. It is a pitiful excuse for a nation which claims to "Stand on Guard for Canada". Every voice that has the courage to say when we err, is worth ten voices which say when we do right. We do right more often than wrong.. I love this country of mine dearly. But in Kosovo, we behaved no better than facists. I am horrified that we as a nation contributed to the suffering of people who had done us no wrong. But I am as horrified that we as Canadians did the very things that Canadians died opposing in WWII. Out damned spot.. out, as Macbeth might have said of this stain on a Canada I revere. If one thinks what we did right, this is something one can put behind one. But I do not know how to put wrong and guilt so easily behind me. It hurt then, and it hurts still. Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario Sunday December 01, 2002 at 4:49 pm Gogol.. re: ''Why should I be a minority in your state when you can be a minority in mine?'' This was precisely the question asked in Quebec. My answer is that it is better to hang together, than to hang apart. Had Quebec separated from Canada, Canada would not in my opinion have survived. What happened in Yugoslavia could so very easily have happened here. It must be remembered the no vote was only 50.2%, and that only three small regions in the whole of Quebec voted no.. Montreal, the Ottawa region, and one region on the US border. Geographically it was an ocean of YES votes to small islands of NO. The answer to your question lies in enlightened self interest.. it is better to be an important part of a community, even if you don't feel the dominant player in it, than to be nothing to anyone. It is wiser to be safe, than sorry. Quebec's ploy was to promise all the advantage without any cost.. offload all of Quebec's responsibility for the Canadian debt on the Rest of Canada (ROC), continue to allow Quebec citizens to hold Canadian passports, use Canadian currency, it was even suggested that they might continue to vote in a redesigned Canadian bi-partisan institution. What Quebec failed to factor into the equation was that that nice, safe, secure, friendly Canada that had always been there for Quebec might not survive such a separation. When Quebec openly suggested that if things didn't work out, they could always join the USA, they failed to ask whether the US would actually be keen to have a community in its union, which wanted to be a French majority, rather than to operate from the principle that it was at best a rather insignificant future state among fifty, all of whom spoke English. Ian Davis Waterloo Ontario Sunday December 01, 2002 at 6:22 pm ''Why should I be a minority in your state when you can be a minority in mine?'' Vladimir Gligorov Gogorov was the first Macedonian president after separation fromYugoslavia. I can only say, none of the break away republics are economically feasable and politically they are proving unviable. Only a small plutocracy sold to powerful international interests will benefit from this misery. Of all the convulsions in Eastern Europe in the last 10 years the only country which is coming well ahead without trauma is Belaruss. Mr. Milosevic tried to keep Yugoslavia together and I categorically reject the notion he was the instigator, the iniator of the wars, that understably followed the collapse of Federal Yugoslav order. This remains unfinished bussines. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Sunday December 01, 2002 at 7:44 pm To D Jovanovic The book “Fighting for Peace” by Michael Rose is available via www.amazon.co.uk in both hardback and paperback copies. Below are comments from a reviewer with my text bolding: It is odd that a soldier has managed to convey the most balanced account of the horrors of war and politics in Bosnia. Contrary to popular opinion, Rose argues that not only were the great powers involved in an undesirable and often counterproductive way, but also, the bastions of Western free speech, the press and TV, have a good deal to answer for. This book is recommended for everyone who has had an opinion formed by the media over the past 6 years. It should also be required reading for the future when, we, the public sense our opinions being formed, whilst we are fed a diet of emotional journalistic claptrap and a shortage of proper debate and information. The world full of people wearing white hats and black hats belongs in Holywood. Source Peter Taylor Herts/UK Sunday December 01, 2002 at 7:57 pm The link 'Source' given above does not work with the correct URL. However if you connect to www.amazon.co.uk you may locate the book by entering author surname and book title. Source 2 Peter Taylor Herts/UK Sunday December 01, 2002 at 8:17 pm Ian, I agree with your last post. I am as proud Serb as I am proud Canadian. One thing that most of the people do not understand is that the Serbs were the glue of the Yugoslavia. In order to be the glue you have to be tolerant. Here in Ottawa, I know personally quite a number of distinguished Canadians that share your and main position. The number of people growing in that position is getting bigger and bigger, so I will continue my battle as you are doing it in Waterloo. I am just disappointed that the policies established by Mr. Mac Kenzie King and Mr. Lester Pierson are forgotten and not adhered to. Pera Bora Canada Sunday December 01, 2002 at 8:38 pm Mr. Jovanovic I agree with everything that you said, especially with the statement that the biggest looser of the Vietnam War were the USA media. After the war they were blamed for the loss of the war instead of being recognized as the main democratic force that contributed significantly towards stopping the madness. Some of the giants of the USA media like Walter Cronquie and Andy Roony (I am never sure of the spelling, do not blame me for that) share this opinion. Currently the USA is unfortunately very far from recognizing this simple fact. I was shocked to find that Yugoslav media, even under Tito (the communist) was more free that current media in the USA and Canada. Additionally to the picture of the little naked Vietnamese girl I was never able to understand use of Agent Orange. Pera Bora Canada Sunday December 01, 2002 at 9:35 pm I understand that you have right to be proud of being descendant of the Usasa family that put Croatia on the map of the world. Are you proud that members of your family, in order to accomplish this, were running the Usasa Concentration camp of Jasenovac during the Second World War and that in this camp 700.000 Serbs. 20 000 Jews and 10 000 Gypsies were slathered jus in order to make Croatia pure Croat and Catholic state? Are you proud that in this camp 80 members of my family were slaughtered just because they were of the Serbian nationality and of the Christian but orthodox fait? Are you equally proud that in the modern democratic Croatia 300000 ethnically cleansed Serbs are not allowed to come back home and reposes their property? Are you proud that Richard Holbruk when talking about conquer of the Serbian Krajina, during the latest war, have said: "We used Croats as our junk yard dogs"? Do you remember that your grand parents have called their dog Ustasa? Do you remember that in one of the interviews given to the CNN Mr. Holbruk have said: " When we look into war in the former Yugoslavia and its distraction we have not only to look into it as a means to solve national issues but mainly as the vehicle of the NATO expansion in the Balkans peninsula" (quote stops here everything else is my addition) and in order to accomplish this goal we used Bosnians, Croats and Albanians as ... ? Do you understand now why Mr. Holbruk will never be called or allowed to testify in the ICTY Pera Bora Canada Sunday December 01, 2002 at 9:36 pm To my Croatian friend Mr. Ivan Kokotovic of Croatia and Australia. I understand that you have right to be proud of being descendant of the Usasa family that put Croatia on the map of the world. Are you proud that members of your family, in order to accomplish this, were running the Usasa Concentration camp of Jasenovac during the Second World War and that in this camp 700.000 Serbs. 20 000 Jews and 10 000 Gypsies were slathered jus in order to make Croatia pure Croat and Catholic state? Are you proud that in this camp 80 members of my family were slaughtered just because they were of the Serbian nationality and of the Christian but orthodox fait? Are you equally proud that in the modern democratic Croatia 300000 ethnically cleansed Serbs are not allowed to come back home and reposes their property? Are you proud that Richard Holbruk when talking about conquer of the Serbian Krajina, during the latest war, have said: "We used Croats as our junk yard dogs"? Do you remember that your grand parents have called their dog Ustasa? Do you remember that in one of the interviews given to the CNN Mr. Holbruk have said: " When we look into war in the former Yugoslavia and its distraction we have not only to look into it as a means to solve national issues but mainly as the vehicle of the NATO expansion in the Balkans peninsula" (quote stops here everything else is my addition) and in order to accomplish this goal we used Bosnians, Croats and Albanians as ... ? Do you understand now why Mr. Holbruk will never be called or allowed to testify in the ICTY Pera Bora canada Sunday December 01, 2002 at 10:43 pm ''Why should I be a minority in your state when you can be a minority in mine?'' Vladimir Gligorov p>Gogol, I like this post of yours. My question to all people that are minority and that are fighting for more freedoms for them is: " There must be a minority in your ranks are you giving this people the same rights as you are fighting for your selves?" I am always asking this question of my separatists friends from Quebec. They have no right answer for they are denying the same rights that they are having in Canada to the Quebec aboriginal Indian tribes. We know that Kosovo Albanians were fighting for a right to have a veto over decisions of the Yugoslav government and considered denial of this right major reason to start uprising against the Yugoslav government. Additionally we know that they got support for this position from the NATO and the New World Order Masters. Now when Albanians have got total rule over Kosovo why they are denying this right to the Serbs that live in Kosovo. Why don't the Serbs living in Kosovo having a veto power over decisions of their local Kosovo government? 10% of Albanians lived in Yugoslavia. 10% of Serbs should be living now in Kosovo. Our friend Mr. Ivan Kokotovic is saying that Yugoslavia was not a viable state because it was not a multicultural one. (By the way he never lived there, so he does not know what he is talking about.) He never was able to prove that the modern Croatia is a multicultural state and we know that it is not. Croats are saying we were mistreated in Yugoslavia as a minority so we rebelled to gain our rights. I understand that. Now when they are free why are they denying rights to the Croatian Serbian minority their own rights. Don't once "mistreated" Croats understand needs of there own minorities. When this standard: "Treat your minority as you would like to be treated as a minority" is applied to the third Yugoslavia it gets passing grade. How come? The only Multicultural State in the Balkans is and was Serbia and Montenegro and they are not denying rights to their minorities. Pera Bora Ivanka Sunday December 01, 2002 at 11:42 pm Thank you Mr. Peter Taylor. I orderd the book and am looking forward to read it! D. Jovanovic USA Monday December 02, 2002 at 12:23 am Pera Bora, you're absolutely right: this trial is chaotic by design. There are hundreds of witnesses, where 10 consistent, real ones would suffice; few hundreds of thousands garbled pages instead of few hundred to-the-point; deliberate skipping, jumping and superficially back-and-forth touching of issues where systematic covering of one issue after another is required. Quality is being replaced by quantity, orderliness by chaos. But, of course, the opposite approach would reveal the utter non-existence of the Prosecution's case. Why, the Tribunal's spokespersons openly stated that it's not their task to properly investigate anything. That's how you get absurd sentences, like the Krstic one, where the Chamber is "satisfied" that there were 7-8,000 Muslim men and boys killed in Srebrenica, without ever finding/identifying all those bodies. That's how you get a testimony like the current one, of C-061, over-extended, inconsistent and sometimes downright ridiculous for its superficiality, labelled as the testimony that "was enough to earn him the status of the most important Prosecution witness so far", as reports the official scribe of IWPR (or is it ICTY?), Mirko Klarin. The man even ventures to state that this is what "the majority of those that are covering the trial have agreed". Why don't they flash it all over their newspaper pages, then? What attracted my attention in this common propaganda piece, however, was the reference to "Radovan Karadzic, who in 1991 alone had 24 intercepted telephone conversations with Milosevic, played last week before the court". He even quoted some sentences, but somehow I couldn't remeber I ever heard them being played. You know, I happened to watch last week's proceedings, and as far as I can remember, only 6-7 short segments of intercepted phone calls between these 2 were actually played. But then, Mirko Klarin is a senior editor of something, maybe he's right, maybe I made a mistake. So, I took the trouble to read the transcript. I recommend the same exercise to anyone who can afford a bit of time - it's worth it. I confirmed my original observation: yes, only SEVEN little bits of intercepts were played that included Milosevic - the first one on Nov. 19, page 13040; they tried next day to play another 3 of other collocutors, but the sound quality was too poor - CD was a copy of a copy of a copy - too much editing?, so they gave up and continued with reading from the "transcripts" , which were found, in addition, not to be even properly translated (the witness compared it to the Serbian version of the text), so May said "we'll have this matter properly translated". On Nov. 22 the Prosecution introduced another "reading class" of SEVENTEEN alleged transcripts of intercepts - only short bits, luckily (garbled reading, to say the least; but the second one provided some fun with another mentioning of C-061 name, this time by Uertz-Rezlaff, confused by Kwon - "You mean Milan Martic?" and pressed by Tapuskovic - no surname was mentioned, only the name Milan - page 13284); a piece of an intercept of Karadzic allegedly talking to Jovica Stanisic was played; then 3 intercepts of Karadzic talking to Milosevic re Martic's arrest by Izetbegovic (these 3 seemed the only genuine phone calls, perhaps edited just a dash here and there, but not a bit incriminating); the last few bits of intercepts played (page 13321-41) were obviously heavily edited, full of non sequitur sentences; and that was all regarding those "damning intercepts". I also confirmed my impression of amicus curiae Kay and by extension his aide-de-camp Ms Higgins: those two are really trying to give this shameful show some (pretence of?) seriousness. After playing the first piece of an intercept, Uertz-Retzlaff proceeded calmly to read out transcripts of the alleged other intercepts. Ms Higgins stood up to object, May got angry: "Ms Higgins, do you really have a point you have to raise now? Because too much interruption is bad for the flow." (You see, from May's point of view, everything was flowing just swimmingly, the Prosecution was reading something nobody knew the origin nor veracity of and this was considered the witness' testimony.) Ms Higgins was brave to speak: "Your Honour, the very brief point is that if the Prosecution do seek to rely on these intercepts, then perhaps an extract, a short extract, should be played." May: "No. We haven't the time to play 50 intercepts." This was all on page 13045, Nov. 19. So, Mirko Klarin should also read trial transcripts sometimes, methinks. Because, there were not 24 intercepts played; and those quoted sentences were indeed NOT played, but read from the "intercept transcripts". I also found some hilariously funny reading material, which I obviously missed live (probably making my coffee at that time). See for yourselves: Nov. 19, page 13047. Uertz-Retzlaff was gliding in full sail down yet another Karadzic-Milosevic "transcript", full of their plans for disintegration of YU and steps taken for the separation, asking the witness to explain "What they are talking about? What was the plan, so to speak?", when suddenly something was wrong with her papers and she said: "And I would like now to have a look at tab 24, and it is again a conversation between Mr Milosevic and Mr Karadzic, and again there is that issue of separation and who is doing it first… Your Honour, I would now briefly have to go into private session, because a particular issue with the witness comes up… I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I had a wrong script. It's not -- it's Mr Karadzic with the female person. It's not Mr Milosevic. I'm sorry. I had a wrong document in front of me. I'm sorry." [Private session] What!? Discussing separation and who is doing it first with a female person? Ending a love affair over a phone? That's so un-gentlemanly, Dr Karadzic, shame on you. Seriously now, you see what the Prosecution is doing with those tapes: they obviously got all kinds of intercepts of all kinds of accused persons, private calls included, so they could liberally edit whatever they please, form "transcripts" of such concoctions to read from in the examination-in-chief and have them ready in case the Defence would insist on playing them, but have also judge May to ban them being played. When there was a short discussion on admissibility of those tapes (page 13021-32), Robinson remarked to Nice "you said that you would be attaching the law authorizing interception, and that's not attached. That is what I would like to get." Nice: "Very well. I'll see whether we can get a hold of that… It's coming, but it's not here immediately." Ms Higgins: …"The Trial Chamber still does not know how, when, where the intercepts came from. There is no continuity evidence. We don't even know how the intercepts have been dated, or whether they came from a reliable source…Before the Trial Chamber has heard evidence on how these intercepts were recorded, preserved, transcribed, this material, in our view, should not be admitted." May vented his anger by a nitpicking, acid remark: "Your submission, not your view. You're making submissions." Contrary to comments, Milosevic did not object only the legality of intercepting those phone calls; he said these are "allegedly intercepted conversations obtained in an illegal manner because they are montages, … it can be seen that parts of conversations were taken out of context and that the conversations are not logical in the way a normal conversation is conducted." As you know, our troika found a solution by ruling the tapes as prima facie admissible; they just need more details on their provenance. For the sake of appearance, Robinson again insisted on some law to be attached, and May repeated "provenance" is needed, because "We've simply got the authorization at the moment." Milosevic embarrassed them by mentioning they only got a paper from a person called Bojan Savnik as some kind of authorization, and the only body in B&H authorized to make an exception in relation to the right to privacy was the Presidency (in Serbia it was the Supreme Court). Will Nice "see whether we can get a hold of" the decision by the then Presidency of B&H in due time, what do you think? I think it would be just forgotten. Further on, Milosevic insisted that all those intercepts, if admitted, have to be played in the court and recognized by the witness; it's not enough just to claim that. "If evidence is admitted, it has to be adduced here." You saw what May answered to Ms Higgins when she insisted on a short extract only: "No. We haven't the time to play 50 intercepts." But, we obviously have time for the numerous "transcripts". That day (Nov. 19, page 13039), May really blew the top, being rude even to poor, awestruck Uertz-Retzlaff, only because he himself was unable, as often was the case, to follow the proceedings; she gave him the paper listing the tab numbers of intercepts, but he didn't know where to look, so he returned the paper, barking: "No. Ms Uertz-Retzlaff, it's plain what I was referring to if you would listen to what I say." She meekly repeated the same thing as before, only the other way around: …"This document is just the assistance, so that you can follow…", and May finally understood, and never bothered to apologize: "That is all I needed to know. All right. Give it back to me." Milosevic will be additionally personally hated by everyone in the courtroom before the end because May will continue venting his frustration on them all, for being obliged to participate in something so beyond his capacity. Vera Martinovic Belgrade Yugoslavia Monday December 02, 2002 at 3:51 am Vera, thanks for the vivid account. I can imagine what the "trial" is now looking like. I also agree with you that even if this fiasco has been designed to guarantee the prosecution a certain victory, May is just plain incompetent! But maybe that's by design too. One thing that struck me was that some of the tapes were meant to confirm that Karadzic and Milosevic planned the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Er, disintegration? I thought their crime was to try to keep Yugoslavia from falling apart and thus curtailing the self-determination of the subjected peoples. Just as May is incompetent, so is Carla. The "system" relies on the overpaid mediocrities. How else would you explain hiring a prosecutor who has lost all the cases she has ever had (according to Felipe Turover in Jürgen Elsässer's interview)? How would you explain that Mirko Klarin manages to influence the mainstream reporting on the trial with his IWPR reports? I think they have passed some official aptitude test to justify the hiring of their meagre talents. The faceless system can't resist a personality like Milosevic (and that is what he certainly is) and Milosevic knows it. Let me go on asking these dumb questions of mine about Racak. Has Serbia issued any official explanation on Racak? I can't remember reading about any. And yet, if their army and police were active in that area, they should at least try to put some nice gloss on their activities. To my knowledge, all they did was to send an investigation team to the site. And what their investigations revealed, I don't know. All we hear is Ranta, and even then not clearly enough. So this silence of the Serbs is point N:o 1 that needs explanation. Of course, the Western sources say that this silence shows that the Serbs have something to hide. But this silence could just as well be interpreted as an indication that the Serb forces were not active in the region, of if they were, something irregular took place even from their viewpoint. I started wondering about one little detail in that telephone call Walker made to Holbrooke (as I believe it was). Walker said that Holbrooke could forget about that Nobel Peace Prize. It is the would-be recipient of this Prize that I am wondering about. Was Holbrooke or Walker except the Nobel Peace Prize? If their actions had merited it, the Prize would have been awarded to Clinton or to OSCE. But was this suggested at any time? The only thing I know about the speculation on the Nobel Peace Prize at this time is the joke that the KLA might win the Nobel Peace Prize. I heard that joke from the Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie. Maybe that joke circulated in the military circles at that time. So if Holbrooke was to forget about the Nobel Peace Prize, Walker probably meant that the KLA had now shown its ugly side. That would mean that Walker knew that the KLA did it. I think this is also the conclusion arrived at in the documentary on Racak, which was broadcast on BBC with the name Moral Kombat. Some ex-KLA guerrilla even admitted it and explained: "Well, it was war!" Hardly anything surprising after the Markale marketplace and SDA-inflicted deaths in Srebrenica. There is something strange about Ranta. She says she is no lawyer, so she can't call her findings by any legal name, but she still insists that it was a "crime against humanity". Well, that is a legal qualification. I think she means that she can't say who did the killing. No matter how sincere she may be, the report was held secret for about two years. I haven't checked Ian's link which provides the closest thing to an official version of the Racak massacre, but it seems there were two "massacres", one by the army and another by the police the following day. The police were looking for someone who had killed a policeman. Does this sound credible? First the Serbs would send the military and the next day they come with an arrest warrant? There is something fishy about this first "massacre". Maybe this fishiness was what the police had come to investigate. But does it matter? If the prosecution cannot present a consistent account of the events, then it has no case! End of story. And I tend to agree with some sceptics here. Why is Ranta called as judges' witness now? No matter how you slice it, I think it is a sign that the prosecution has not made its case, and the Kosovo phase has to be reopened. But if that is so, Milosevic should be released. The presumption of innocence would mean that he is a free man. And indeed, if the confusion of the trial is so by design, this "dual strategy" will only deepen the confusion. But on the other hand, I don't think the tribunal can go on for ever confusing itself, so in the end I am still pretty optimistic. Maybe Milosevic is not released, because he still has the genocide charges to answer. Besides, the Racak massacre was politically too expedient for the Western countries to really be a crime committed by the Serbs. I think the question to be asked would be cui bono? Who would benefit from a massacre? The Serbs? I think the Serbs were trying everything to calm down the situation in Kosovo while the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (headed by Walker) was in the province. Milosevic had managed to negotiate very favourable terms for the Serbs with the OSCE, and he didn't want the situation in Kosovo to escalate to elicit any large-scale intervention. So the last thing the Serbs would have done was commit a "massacre" under the OSCE's nose. On the other hand, Walker and Friends had everything to win with a massacre. It was the holy month of Ramadan, which the Islamic countries did not fail to mention in the later statement. The US needed a good reason to include the KLA in the negotiations at Rambouillet, after Richard Gelbard had promised less than a year before that the US would never have dealings with the KLA. And of course, the Rambouillet was only a prelude to the subsequent bombing, and the bombing would look better with a preceding massacre. I don't know if the US had any plans to indict Milosevic in the early 1999, but if they had, they needed a concrete crime. This background has everything to do with everything. I think I read somewhere that even the OSCE officials admitted that the Kosovo Verification Mission was gathering target information for the ensuing bombing. Then it is no wonder that there was rampant espionage. Then there must also be something to the charges that the KVM was actually the CIA disguised. Besides, the KVM in itself was an embarassment for the US. How well did it suit Albright's no-dual-keys policy? The Mission didn't even carry weapons. From their viewpoint, it was worse than the Dutchbat in Srebrenica. So the US was obviously trying anything to beef up its presence in Kosovo. When Serbia tried to expel Walker the following day, it had every reason to do so. Only, Walker had managed to sell his story to the West, and the expulsion was interpreted as a Serb scheme to hide the tracks of the massacre. This impression was reinforced when Arbour was denied a visa. The rest is history. Jari Nousiainen Finland Monday December 02, 2002 at 4:45 am Now, finally, I have fathomed the news about the request made by the tribunal to the Nato countries to supply evidence in the Ojdanic case. B92 says that Nato has been asked to supply intercepts for the defense team. This coincides with the appointment of the new amicus and the news about the Ranta testimony. If it is too good to be true, it probably is. But is this really "too good to be true"? The tribunal seems to be taking small steps toward becoming a real court. If May and the prosecution are getting nervous, they should. What would be too good to be true? The wholesale reform of the trial, at the end of which Milosevic will be found not guilty because the prosecution has no case. Or actually even that wouldn't be too good to be true. We would still have to wait until the end of this "trial". J N Finland Monday December 02, 2002 at 5:29 am Jari,memory errors can happen to anyone, but you wouldn't be a champ without new childish beliefs.No logic errors this time. RB,you were doing fine and then you made some salad puting Hitler into it. Kostunica made two conditions in 2000: 1.all DOS members must support him 2.no American support.Calling him hypocrite is not unjust or unfair.It's just stupid.All his life denies that.His only bad side is that he is probably French freemason. [ you know Gogol,Kostunica is pretty, he often speaks that we must keep our cheek clean and when you look him closer you can see that skin on his cheek is unnaturaly white. ] Mrs Albright was there to assure Draskovic and Djukanovic to take part in elections and to throw down Sloba.She didn't succeed.That's unimportant to you.Draskovic is American spy who was first saying that YU couldn't have been divided by administrative borders.Follow the trace. Djindjic is intelligent, hard working, cappable and rotten German spy. Everybody are attacking his government now when he is weak.That makes him look honest.The life of the people depends on his desicions. Germans are loyal enemies,at least. Seselj is a special case. Now,be smart and choose. RB don't tell me that you are a Canadian commie.What are you doing there on the first front line?You should listen,not giving orders. Ivane,I'm not so sure that your father has become a jumper.I promissed that we will make an Ustasha of you. Jovanovicu ,give me one example for "Milosevic who believed that by well established communist methods, i.e. by force he can establish “law and order” among the republics." milan masic serbia Monday December 02, 2002 at 6:19 am There's no way the ICTY could be taking small steps to being a real court as long as May keeps going into secret sessions every time Milosevic has the Prosecution witness on the ropes. As for McCormacks's appointment as amicus, it could be that the ICTY wants an independent opinion on its legality :-) . That way they can abort the trial and send Milosevic to YU for trial. Now that WOULD be too good to be true. :-) As long as YU agrees not to push on about war crimes by NATO, the ICTY show is not all that relevant anymore as it seems nobody is too keen on it these days, especially not the US and Britain who are its principal supporters in the Security Council. It could just add some legitimacy to the need for the ICC which might fix all the ICTY shortcomings. Now that wouldn't do, would it! David Australia Monday December 02, 2002 at 7:33 am It gives me an unique insight into the minds of those who post on this board that I, who have no personal knowledge of any of the events that took place in Yugoslavia, or do today, could prove such a threat to your well preserved and overly used rhetoric........... .......all I did was send a post which reflected an attitude which I think is very important to the future stability of the Balkan region. .......that being.....the attitude of current day Croatia to the breakup of Yugoslavia.......and its role in a stable balkans. .......the mere mention of any kind of Croatian awareness of the most recent wars brought out a horrible barage of ugly sounding words...what was it again Pera??? usasa????? sorry.....not familiar with that one..... and DJ.....your conspiracy theories are wonderfully crafted 10 years after the events.....where were you when it was all happening?????, you could have told everyone about it.. .....at least I have been honest regarding my feelings of independence......bloody oath I am proud of an Independent Croatia...you like that one? ....I'll say it again...Independent Croatia....not least because there are people in this world who were willing to do everything they could to try and make sure that an Independent Croatia could not exist........,.....what I am not proud about is that it was a war.....in which Croatia played a large role in starting. I ask you Pera...to be as honest with me as I am with you....how were you feeling when Wonderboy Arkan was strutting his stuff all up and down Bosnia??.....to know that a petty thief and criminal was defending the rights and was becoming a national icon of Serbianism........, ahem no ..not Yugoslavia.....Serbia......I believe it was all Serbian insiginia he had...yeah thats right, the same Serbian insignia the chetniks had in WWII (what was that.....they didn't really have the same insignia?????.....damn.....I guess he should have told all those poor Croatian and Muslim refugees before he expelled them from their homes that was the case)........... ................... I am sick of the posts in here which draw upon no half-measures when they criticise those they deem to be wrong/different......however these same negativities fall way short of even contemplating breathing a bad word of "their own"........ because that is what is has become, i'm not saying it is anybodies fault....but the responsibility must come down to those who have some kind of integrity..... what I was trying to draw from someone in here is that there has to be a future....and it is not going to be you or I..rather the kids of the region......and if they are brought up in schools believing the half-arsed stories of DJ, and the mixed up patriotism/fascism of my father's mind....then the future will be bleak..... to milan...again....you speak most solidly and most realisticly in here.....its not your fault you are a serb...(only Kidding :))) Ustasa???...to negative mate...plus there is no superstructure to insurge against anymore....only a big bushy silvery beard. .......... to pera......you bring up WWII like you know what I am talking about... man.....what can I say?..with eyes as blinkered as yours (and mine)..whatever I say you will skew it in some way to satisfy your own justifications. ........ To Kathryn...good question Kathryn...maybe it is because I was brought up as a Croatian, you know...wog families....they push their young'uns into wog school..so that for the first year of primary we have to catch up and learn how to speak english. .....anyway.....I live in Australia for the reason that my father and mother left there because there was/is a better life in Australia than there ever was...or could be in Croatia. .....oh yeah..because my father was being forced to say stuff he didn't believe to people he knew also didn't believe it. so thats why I live in Australia.....cos its my home. (Meanwhile Australia wrapped up the Ashes series in record time defeating England inside 3 days in the third test played at the WACA ground) ................ i think i need to say this quite openly.... I am really optimistic about humans in general...i feel that if i am honest with them...that there could be some reciprocation..... however i feel i am being continually undermined by an undercurrent of ....hhhmmm supremacy???/maybe just doubt. ................................ Now I am only the son of Croatian villagers.....I understand the Serbian people have a much stronger cultural and political awareness which is a source of pride and identity...something which Croats cannot really compete with.....but that is the point.....hopefully there doesn't have to be anymore competition of identity.....etc .....the insanity of Starcevic and Pavelic, is in the past...and if not...it hopefully will die out soon enough with the likes of my father...the kids of the schools now are those who will lead in the distant future......hopefully the lessons they learn in schools today, are those which express tolerance and acceptance, that only by peace is there any real future. .......... to have anything else would be to live in the past. and what a mess people like us have made it...... Ivan Kokotovic sydney australia Monday December 02, 2002 at 8:40 am Ivan, unfortunately human nature being what it is, it seems we are all destined "to pay for the sins of our fathers". It is only to be hoped that as you say our future generations manage to rid themselves of the vicious cycle which seems as old as Adam and Eve. From a psychological point, Starcevic and Pavelic ideology seems to have built up a certain paranoia in the minds of many Serbs, such paranoia being exacerbated by the recent (last 10 years) ideological revivals in Croatia and the "unfair" treatment the Serbs have received from the West for entirely "pragmatic" reasons which have nothing to do with ideals and everything to do with the mercenary ethos of hegemonist, imperialist and colonial exploitation. In short, corrupt power politics. You are probably experiencing the current reactionary effects of such paranoia which is usually manifest in generalised verbal vitriol. Although there may be plenty of Serb people who like your father probably follow ideological lines, it is comforting to know that many Serb people are also prepared to treat you like a decent human being and not a stereotype of an Ustasa purely on the basis of your ethnicity, although, they may be somewhat cautious at first until they establish your credentials as a decent human being (it's the "once bitten, twice shy" syndrome). The same applies with many Croats as you probably well know by now. Do not despair, stereotyping is not a new phenomenon but sooner or later we may all learn to avoid it. In the meantime, the price for the sins of our fathers is an extraordinary dose of optimism, tolerance, patience, perseverance and good humour in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I trust that you will still find a good deal of reciprocation in that respect, even in an often heated exchange of views. David Australia Monday December 02, 2002 at 11:20 am Well. It does not matter how white Kostunica's cheeks are. The poor quisling was not even elected despite the 30,000,000 US dollars the generous Americans spent with their team in Budapest to have Mr. Milosevic defeated. Kostunica may have won the second round of the presidential elections but his handlers decided not to take any risk and unleashed the otpor dogs to the street eventually ending burning the un-counted ballots, the evidence Mrr. Milosevic may have won the election after all. This time the Yanks are using other methods, well rehearsed methods of extortion and threats and they have not hidden their intention to bring Yugoslavia to the same torture rack they have used in other semi-dissenting countries. Poor Kostunica, the carrot did not work and the stick is making things worse, Yugoslavia he lost and Kosovo the UNO will not return. So, what is it left for him to keep the EU vague promisses, that if all the ills of the Balkans and Serbia can shake off, corruption, poverty, drugs, prostitution, bad smells, Cyrillic alphabet then the garden of Eden will be yours. Gogol Charlemagne USA Monday December 02, 2002 at 11:22 am Gogol, the first president of Macedonia after the breaking of Yugoslavia was Kiro Gligorov. Vladimir Gligorov, as mentioned in a Susan Woodward’s « Balkan Tragedy » is his son. He appeared at the beginning of the disunion of Yugoslavia as an economic and political analyst. He is now senior economist at The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies. Dragi Metodiev Belgium Monday December 02, 2002 at 11:30 am Re: Jovanovic. Why do you think? "Ineptness of the Serbian Milosevic who believed that by well established communist methods, i.e. by force he can establish “law and order” among the republics." The whole Marxist ideology was based on the assumption (or fact) that capitalism - imperialisam is based on the domination and exploitation. Marxism developed the whole ideology why people and nations shall establish the cooperative relationship. Internationalism was the main focus in Marxist ideology. It was thought that socialist countries would never go to war as soverign nations until 1956 when USSR by force intered Hungary, anyway by that time Yugoslavia and ideology in Yugoslavia was away apart from USSR ideology. The core of Yugoslavia's Marxist ideology was internationalism and social solidarity; on these premises all Constitutional Laws and following laws were designed. That kind of system formed special kind of social behavior: "Olakog davanja" (Something like "Easily granting"); where Serbian nation felt obliged to help others. That kind of behavior was viewed by other nations in Yugoslavia as lordly and arrogant. That is were Croats felt inferior in Yugoslavia, even though they were affected by the same thing. I remember Mesic in one of his speaches saying exactly that. One can see it through a song written in 1990 and sang by Jura Stublic "E moj druze beogradski". There are many examples when Yugoslavia helped other nations giving them funds for free. (Albania, Vietnam, Indonesia etc.) The same thing was happening inside Yugoslavia through federal fund for help for undeveloped. In politics as well: For example the core of Yugoslavia in 1918 was Serbian Kingdam then it included two additional nations Croats and Slovenians, however until 1990s inside Yugoslavia, many other nations were developed, and recognized. No such thing happend anywhere else. And to reply to Jovanovic on the Milosevic's use of force: in 1990 all other nations in Yugoslavia were mobilizing its armed forces, except Serbs. What Serbs did was a partial mobilization without curfew or closed borders were hundred of thousands service men refused service and went abroud. Hundreds of thousands Serbs from Croatia (without Krajina)left. Among these there were the most suitable service men since they were the most consciousnes of the happenings in Croatia, and they felt imminent threat to their lives and their belongings. Partial mobilization among Serbs caused just antagonism inside the nation. In 1990 Yugoslavia was in "Imminent War Situtation" and Presidency was obliged to proclaim it and the subsequent step was to proclaim public mobilisation. - It did not happen and the use of force was avoided. Pero Peric Canada Monday December 02, 2002 at 11:44 am Dragi Metodiev, thanks for correcting my mistake. It seems Vladimir is in "good" hands, well rewarded for sure. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Monday December 02, 2002 at 11:53 am Jari Since you are obviously well informed, I am not sure what is not clear re Racak. Serbian government had issued numerous reports at the time, but whether they are easily available on the net I do not know. I guess we will have to wait for Milosevic to present his defence where he will, no doubt, pay some considerable attention to the Racak. Serbian authorities had paid serious attention to the case and complete required procedure was followed and large files exist. The simple conclusion was that there was no evidence that the victims were executed, but they were most likely killed in combat. The Serbian authorities were adamant that the whole thing was a set up, that the bodies were brought from elsewhere. We know the rest. Let's not forget that 'international community' didn't afford the Serbian side the benefit of the doubt, the Serbian authorities' investigation was branded unreliable before it even begun, 'It is clear what has happened' phrase substituted due investigative and legal process. I think that Ranta was not called in to provide evidence but, contrary, to obscure it. Not deliberately of course. Because everyone was made to wait for her report as for something of supreme and unique value, although it could only form just a small part of the complete investigation - the investigation undertaken by the Serbian authorities, but dismissed outright. While Ranta's report was conveniently delayed. I my mind there is no doubt that the Serbian forces were capable of committing summary execution if they came across a group of KLA (or suspected KLA), which is certainly illegal (and allowed only for NATO use). Also, there is no doubt in my mind that Racak was no such an incident but it was a carefully planned and executed 'special' operation with a deliberate and precise purpose. Bob D London/UK Monday December 02, 2002 at 12:14 pm Gogol Charlemagne. I will try to find more if Vladimir Gligorov was well rewarded or not after the reading of his book Why Do Countries Break Up?: The Case of Yugoslavia, available at Amazon.com Dragi Metodiev Belgium Monday December 02, 2002 at 3:57 pm Pero Peric I was not aware that Krajina was part of Serbia I admit that. I think we agree that people in Krajina had right that was taken from them but you understand today is more important for me than history - maybe when I older I will change. I dont understand this: ...since West cannot justify why they changed borders why they changed universal principal on nation sovergnity rights. As I see West didnt change borders only Bosnia - created Republika Srpska. From what you say I think you do not accept borders of Tito. Is it correct? Nation concept is overrated. Reality is tempory. Today in West soverignty is a lie and it is so here also. Why people pretend that countrys soverign? In future there will be no nation state (but I know you prefer talk about past). I am afraid of new order but realist. This is why I am against romantic ideas - they get you dead. Ok I tell you it not my fight but you tell me it something worth fighting for - then you go fight and let other who support Milosevic here fight. More romantic idea. Ne znam za HDZ. It for me was demokratska zajednica. 'They' could say SPS was Srbija eats everyone. God knows I dont like this kind of talk - some say propoganda. We just must disagree because you making territorial claims wherever Serbs were in majority Bosnia, Krajina. I asked you nice if you think that means any people can say the same over the world and do you support or is it one thing for Serbs and something for other? I dont know about your other question to tell truth I dont understand but not because of language - I think you are not being straight. On one side you tell if Serbs arent existing then they dont have right on other side Kosovo on example they have right. OK I read your words again I so let me get straight wherever there was once Serbs in majority and today still Serbs, Serbs have right to call Serbia? Is it correct? Milosevic insisted on the rights of selfdetermination, since it was the only argument he could use to save Serbian population. That is not true point. Milosevic never cared about rights of Serbs -in Serbia or outside. He used Serbs. I have friends who were in the column they told me about betrayal. I will never forgive. All Serbs and others should remember what Milosevic did to them when they see him at Hague. But give you example what did Milosevic say Tudjman at Beli Dvor. 'O Franjo you must give right to Serbs in Kroatia'. Come on Pero please dont try tell me and people that. You are pointing that there were 10000 people avoided to fight. No I say minimum 10.000 people avoided but again I dont understand about Mohamed Ali. Explain. I should say by way that we were teached about Serbs over Drina but only little. But you know with history here it not what your teacher tell you but what your father say at home. My cousin say that they dont talk about Milosevic at all in history lesson. To pretend nothing happened is not right way. Thank for the link on history it is good information. Pero Peric I was not aware that Krajina was part of Serbia I admit that. I think we agree that people in Krajina had right that was taken from them but you understand today is more important for me than history - maybe when I older I will change. I dont understand this: ...since West cannot justify why they changed borders why they changed universal principal on nation sovergnity rights. As I see West didnt change borders only Bosnia - created Republika Srpska. From what you say I think you do not accept borders of Tito. Is it correct? Nation concept is overrated. Reality is tempory. Today in West soverignty is a lie and it is so here also. Why people pretend that countrys soverign? In future there will be no nation state (but I know you prefer talk about past). I am afraid of new order but realist. This is why I am against romantic ideas - they get you dead. Ok I tell you it not my fight but you tell me it something worth fighting for - then you go fight and let other who support Milosevic here fight. More romantic idea. I think that the one who today support Sloba at Hague never taste war. I think those one should support Bobetka as well. They both smell bad. Ne znam za HDZ. It for me was demokratska zajednica. 'They' could say SPS was Srbija eats everyone. God knows I dont like this kind of talk - some say propoganda. We just must disagree because you making territorial claims wherever Serbs were in majority Bosnia, Krajina. I asked you nice if you think that means any people can say the same over the world and do you support or is it one thing for Serbs and something for other? I dont know about your other question to tell truth I dont understand but not because of language - I think you are not being straight. On one side you tell if Serbs arent existing then they dont have right on other side Kosovo on example they have right. OK I read your words again I so let me get straight wherever there was once Serbs in majority and today still Serbs, Serbs have right to call Serbia? Is it correct? Do other people have same right or just us? Milosevic insisted on the rights of selfdetermination, since it was the only argument he could use to save Serbian population. That is not true point. Milosevic never cared about rights of Serbs -in Serbia or outside. He used Serbs. I have friends who were in the column they told me about betrayal. I will never forgive. All Serbs and others should remember what Milosevic did to them when they see him at Hague. I feel really sick myself sometime that I didnt do something but same time I never made promise Sloba did. But give you example what did Milosevic say Tudjman at Beli Dvor. 'O Franjo you must give autonmy to Serbs in Kroatia'. Come on Pero please dont try tell me and people that. You are pointing that there were 10000 people avoided to fight. No I say minimum 10.000 people just in Bg avoided but again I dont understand about Mohamed Ali. Explain. I should say by way that we were teached about Serbs over Drina but only little. But you know with history it not what your teacher tell you but what your father say at home. My cousin say that they dont talk about Milosevic at all in history lesson. To pretend nothing happened is not right way. Thank for the link on history it is good information. It not nice but your support Seselj make me think about you. Dont you think Serbs want normal life. We had enough suffer for life. A Stefanovic Beograd Solanaland Monday December 02, 2002 at 4:10 pm Because the Mexicans, and other large Latino minorities with the exception of Puerto Rican in the United States don't have a geographical location of residence, a state of sorts they don't have legal Congressional representation. Further Puerto Rico, considered by the UNO a US colony, is not a State and therefor has no voting rights in US Congress. The black population, African-Americans as they are refferred now to give them some national distinction besides just racial distinction has no especial status or reprsentation neither. Now, would that be possible in Yugoslavia, before her break up? Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Monday December 02, 2002 at 4:18 pm Sorry that was repeat. Let me take chance to say Kathryn that insult Ivan is also insult Pero and every diaspora here. You should try to make better comment. I agree with some of your point Masic but let me correct you Kostunica is hypocrite. He lied about to let Sloba be arrested - he knows it and I think you know that. He pretend not to upset his supporter. But then we are bad country for politicans and I admit he is one of little more honest than other ones. When I have time I watching trial also. Vera I think it not fair for you to say witness name - you know he has house in Belgrade. I dont say I support him but he and Sloba deserve the other. Somebody talked about Arkan. He help himself and took some of best criminal from jail in Belgrade. Media said he was hero in this time. A Stefanovic Beograd Havialand Monday December 02, 2002 at 5:03 pm I know a café in the center of the city where I live here in the United States where most of the waiters, cooks, dishwahers etc. are Mexican, Colombian and from other South American countries, normally refferrred to as Latinos in the USA. They all speak Spanish among themselves and occassionaly with some customers. From time to time, some customers of different ethnicity feel offended to hear Spanish being spoken while their food is prepared and they complain to the manager. The manager always ready to please the customers, would tell the Latino employees to stop speaking Spanish while at work saying there will be consequences for them if they insist in using Spanish. Most of them speak, if any a very poor English. They are also very hard and dedicated worrkers. Could an Albanian, for example, an Albanian dishwasher in a Belgrade restaurant be told to stop using his language? Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Monday December 02, 2002 at 5:36 pm Mr. Stefanovic I never said that Krajina was part of Serbia. I never mentioned until now Seselj in any posts of mine. I never said it was 10.000 people who avoided to fight I was repeating words from your post. You can read about history on this site: http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/politics/papers/history/samard.html I understand that I could be the insult for you but why would Ivan and other diaspora be insult for you too? Are you eager to edit Vera's posts? If you want to read about Mohammed Ali just go to Yahoo search machine and enter Mohammed Ali then press search. Watch for the results and pay attention to Vietnam Pero Peric Canada Monday December 02, 2002 at 5:39 pm Young A.Stefanovic, The discussion here is not the guilt or innocence of Slobodan Milosevic. Those of you who are living there know better and would have dealt with him for the actual crimes he committed.. However what we see here going on in Hague is a mockery of justice and court proceedings. It is about that subject that most of dialogue here is about. Mr. Kokotovic, I have left Yugoslavia in 1953 and have visited the place no more than five times for periods no longer than a week or two. The last time was in late September 1989. At that time a trial of a certain individual who was giving speeches in Knin was going on. The press in Belgrade was describing the trial as unfair, whereas Vijesnik of Zagreb was saying the opposite. I came from Dubrovnik to Belgrade and discussed the situation with my brother in law. I predicted that there will be civil war. “No way!, said my brother in law, the Army is united and strongly in support of Yugoslavia.” That was an opinion of somebody well informed living in Belgrade, lawyer and man of recognition. The other incident at that same time happened when I asked a friend of mine from the University of Sarajevo to drive me for a quick excursion into Mostar from Dubrovnik. It is no more than two hour drive. I wanted to take the pictures of the bridge. She used a most bizarre excuse of not wanting to take me there. Only later I realized that she was afraid of taking somebody with a Serbian name into Mostar which was a powder keg at that tiem. Shortly afterwards there was congress of the Communist party of Yugoslavia. Slovenian delegation walked out. That was an indication of complete communist disunity and from there on, things started to unravel. There is a good BBC documentary done by Laura Silber about that time. D. Jovanovic USA Monday December 02, 2002 at 6:00 pm So, perhaps when the Spanish Basque Country breaks away from old Spain NATO will bomb Madrid. And when Barcelona will be the capital city of the Republic of Catalonia, not only Madrid will be bombed but the IMF will move his office to Barcelona. Unity is a symbol of romanticism I hear, what else do they teach now days? Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Monday December 02, 2002 at 6:07 pm Mr. Stefanovic here is the link: Ali Pero Peric Canada Monday December 02, 2002 at 10:32 pm Ivane, I do not have any problem to say that there were war criminals among the Serbs. I think they all deserve the same destiny as other war criminals of the Croat, Bosnian and Albanian side. I have nothing against the concept of the International Criminal Court. But I have a lot of problems with implementation and miss use of it. I am not on this forum to defend Mr. Milosevic but I am here to defend justice. If it helps: "Do I think that Arkan is a criminal"? Yes I do. I am just puzzled that he was captured by Croats and then released at the personal request by Mr. Tudjman without any punishment. After that I was not sure who is he working for? My problem is that it looks to me that you are more concerned about putting Croatia on the map than about what took to accomplish that. You are to proud of your USA allies who enabled you to accomplish it at any cost. This is why I quoted Mr. Holbrook twice. One time to show to you that this war was not about putting Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo on the map of the world but about the NATO expansion. The second time I quoted Mr. Holbrook to show to you how great opinion and respect he has about Croatian, Bosnian and Albanian accomplishment. Simply they abused them and at the first opportunity they will sell them if it need be. I am for reconciliation. For reconciliation to occur there must be a lot of trials to come so that most of the war criminals are prosecuted and all destroyed, burned and looted property rebuild and returned to their rightful owners. It will be done properly when all the ethnically cleansed people from all the nations are allowed to go home and all the "new" countries of the Balkans become multicultural. May be I miss-read you. My impression is that you want reconciliation on the other grounds like: Croats kill Serbs, Serbs killed Croats we all admit it, hug each other, keep stolen property for good an live happily ever after. In order for Balkans to live in peace its people have to unite. If they want to unite they have to loose part of their identity. When Yugoslavia was formed one country disappeared from the map of the World in the name of unity and it was Serbia. Are you ready in the name of unification of the Balkans, future and peace in the Balkans to loose Croatia form the map of the world? When it comes to the accomplishments of the Croatian culture I have no problem with it. I have probably read more good books written by Croats that you will ever do. How come? I attended multicultural education of Yugoslavia in Belgrade Serbia. My uncle was highly respected Croatian intellectual who lived in Zagreb. During the WWII he simply refused to be part of madness and become Ustasa (Are you now happy with my spelling?). The monument of the unknown solder on mountain Avala close to Belgrade, Serbia was designed and build famous sculptor Mr. Mestrovic of the proud Croatian origin. He later decided not to like the Serbs. From my point of view it was his problem. The monument is still there and will be in use for many years to come speaking about Serbian tolerance and mutyculturalizam. Pera Bora Canada Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 2:05 am Whoa! Insulting Ivan? I was asking Ivan a question to which he responded. Ivan writes with a passion for Croatia. Why wouldn‘t Ivan want to take part in the growth of the independent Croatia? If independence means a lot to him, why shouldn‘t he be there to help Croatia in a new beginning. He answered my question, he loves Australia and prefers to live there. I have no doubt that he loves Croatia as well. He is proud of their independence and I say it is sad how it came about. Well, more then sad, a real tragedy. It was nice when the winter Olympics were held in Bosnia. I remember the chanting of “Yu-go-sla via.” and the people at work being so impressed with the unity. It was really a beautiful sight.I wonder if Ivan feels any sadness at all for the breakup and how it came about. I think he does. How could he not? I live in the USA. We all live together and we get along. When something happens Americans no matter what ethnicity or race they are stand together. I would like to see the same thing in the Balkans. No more foreign intervention, no more wars, and a prosperous future for all. Kathryn Love SJC USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 3:50 am Bob D. I have never seen those files the Serb authorities compiled after the Racak massacre. I am wondering about the evidence. But let us put two and two together. I know that Yugoslavia tried to expel Walker shortly after that. And that bears out the Serbian motives, I think. Carrying out a massacre under Walker's nose would have been too risky, and quite useless. But expelling Walker after the massacre would have been downright insane, and doubly useless. It wouldn't make sense. If the Serbs had carried out a massacre, they should have done something to present it in a positive light - and definitely not try to expel Walker. Actually no telephone call from Walker to Holbrooke is needed to prove that Walker worked for the Americans, because James Rubin made a very vehement statement condemning the expulsion plans. If Walker was a bona fide OSCE official, the expulsion would have been no business of Rubin. The Serbian government knew that the expulsion would cost them dearly, and still they resorted to it. The question is not so much what kind of documents the Serbs issued after Racak, because no-one takes them at face value anyway. The question is how reliable the documents are. I think the general behaviour of the Serb government bears out that it was perfectly serious. The refusal to sign the Rambouillet agreement leaves no doubt about that, because at that time, at the latest, it was clear to the Serbs that the US would bomb the country? Would they have remained so obstinate, if they knew that they had committed the massacre? If they had, they would have done some patchwork. Even the mafia tries to clean up its act. After it has consolidated its position, the mafiosi try to do everything to appear as serious businessmen. That is why I believe that the ICTY is trying something in that vein too. If everybody in the tribunal is really "bad", I think they would have finished off Milosevic by now. Who would have stopped them? And the tribunal can do a lot of face-lifting to appear as a respectable court without ever becoming one. So it can go on pressuring Nato to deliver intercepts to the Ojdanic defense team. Does it matter in the end? How deep do the roots of the killing in the tribunal actually go? Well, we now that, in her Swiss days, Del Ponte delivered the press with the identity and the contact information of a witness who should have been protected. Does that encourage a witness to testify against the mob? Does this say something about Del Ponte? We know about the torturing of Rade Markovic. Nothing has been undertaken by the tribunal to investigate the claims. Obviously it didn't come as a surprise. This incident also shows that the prosecution has reliable partners in Yugoslavia. Then it is no wonder that the mugging incident in Yugoslavia of an ICTY witness took place at such a convenient time when criticism was levelled at the protected witnesses and closed sessions. This would have been easy to arrange for anyone who was prepared to prescribe Milosevic the wrong medication. However, these incidents took place after the trial started. Obviously there is a larger network in operation here. If so, it could easily be responsible for the mystery killings before Milosevic was taken to The Hague. Remember, it was Milosevic's friends that got killed. This has been rationalized by saying that he was afraid they might testify against him. However, this would only explain the death of Arkan. I On the other hand, if the British monkey business could mobilize a million people to oust Milosevic, a few sniper shots would be child's play. And does the British monkey business have anything to do with the prosecution? It seems some of the Serb witnesses have demonstrably worked for the British. So there seems to be a connection. If Milosevic has such an extensive sniper network, why has it been so quite after the transfer of Milosevic? A couple of days the former bodyguard of Milosevic got shot. Is that network shooting some of its own to appear deactivated? But what does it then have to hide from? There have not been any assassinations that would appear readily attributable to this gang. So the fears about the witnesses getting shot is groundless. The only danger comes from the prosecution and its cooperation partners. And if Milosevic supporters had such a network, surely they wouldn't settle for the protected witnesses, but the big fish, like Djindic. Would their ambition have sunken from Arkan to some petty thieves that happen to testify in this trial? It is said that Mladic is surrounded by 300 elite troops. His security is "almost impeccable". If Mladic is surrounded by such professional killers, why don't they seem to do anything? But if they don't seem to do anything, why does Mladic have them? Could it be that Mladic would be the real target of the snipers? For instance, when Del Ponte was in Belgrade last time, what did she discuss with some top brass? Obviously, the plan was to organize some Milosevic-type transfer with guns and gusto, but from there it is a non-existent step to snipers. The protective cushion around the scam is enormous. We learned about the evidence that Rose could give. The same goes for Akashi. They know about the self-inflicted Muslim casualties. Is it then any wonder that both appear on Francis Boyle's wish list of would-be indictees? The list appears in one of his letters to Del Ponte: Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Kofi Annan, Yasushi Akashi, Bernard Janvier, Rupert Smith, Herve Gobilliard, Joris Voorhoeve, Cees Nicolai, Thomas Karremans, Robert Franken, Thorvald Stoltenberg, Carl Bildt, David Owen, Michael Rose, their subordinates, Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, and Ratko Mladic. Obviously, Boyle has some authority in the ICTY. In his letter dated November 30, 2000 (about a year before the Bosnia indictment of Milosevic), he wrote to Del Ponte as follows: "In the meantime, both the Women of Srebrenica and the Mothers of Srebrenica and Podrinja anxiously, expectantly and hopefully look forward to your indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for the crimes he committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including and especially the "genocide" at Srebrenica -- the word that you yourself used at our meeting in Sarajevo on October 4, 2000." Notice that at this time it seems to have been uncertain if Srebrenica was a "genocide". Boyle even uses it in inverted commas. So here is a possible explanation why the Trial Chamber was "satisfied" about the deaths of 7,000-8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in the Krstic judgment in August last year. Those who could testify that there was no genocide have been included in the list of indictees. That may not mean an automatic indictment. It may mean a parliamentary inquiry, as in Karreman's case. It may also mean that it is impossible to call these persons as defense witnesses. One final point about that pain in the ass, Mr Massage, who is really begging for a good massage of his purple muzzle. You are certainly not childish. You seem to have such a deep-seated obsession with childishness that your postings are deliberately meant to obscure everything you say. One day you say this, the next day you say that. Oooh, you are so clever. You can even fool the champ! You can always say that you were just speaking tongue in cheek, when somebody holds you accountable for what you say. This divorce between Kostunica, your hero, and Djindjic, your anti-hero, is pathetic. They go together. Maybe you really admire Djindjic, if only for the reason that he got rid of the common enemy of Kostunica and Djindjic himself. But once Djindjic came under attack, you were ready to abandon him. But that doesn't matter. He is not running for president. Kostunica is. Is it a coincidence that your crap gots heightened whenever there is presidential election coming up in Yugoslavia? You are talking so much about spies that you must be one. Yes, the Serbs can implant such moles in the discussions too, and Mr Massage is such a pathetic case that nobody would suspect him. Or is it just post-traumatic stress disorder? Don't worry, I think you're OK. Jari Nousiainen Finland Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 4:41 am By the way, it is obvious that RB is a Canadian commie. He supports Seselj. Let me give you hint: commies support Seselj. You know: "a few thousand Muslims". You said it. Ha ha. I know that Ivan is an ustasha too. You know why? Because he is a commie. But what really puts it all together: Kofi Annan's wife is Swedish. He has been in East Timor. No kidding. Ha ha. J N Finland Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 5:15 am This is my first visit to this discussion and I am intrigued. After reading much of the archives, I am not quite sure where to begin, so I will just do so. Let me begin with the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). Some facts. The Prosecutor is an individual who never found great success in prosecuting defendants in her home country. She is out of The Hague more often than not. The Prosecutor for the ICTY is also The Prosecutor for the ICTR. She appears in Serbia and New York chastising the Serbian government for harboring suspected (or convicted and sentenced, in her mind) war criminals. Is she a politician or a lawyer? Does she know any facts about these cases? Does she have any management over the trial attorneys or does she just show up to claim prizes? The OTP. Do they conduct interviews within the Justice Department or just pick straws? These are some of the worst lawyers on the planet! Have they conducted investigations? Oh, right, they have been to the Former Yugoslavia once or twice on a "mission". Hum, let me see, and they found telephone intercepts? Let me just get to the root of the problem: these are "lawyers" who have come to The Hague on a field trip and believe they completely comprehend the great complexity of the Former Yugoslavia by reading Laura Silber's Yugoslavia, Death of a Nation. The reason why the prosecutors are SO POOR is because they don't understand or take the time and effort to investigate the reality of the conflict. This is why C-061's name continues to be mentioned, for example. Because these "prosecutors" are seeking "justice" with one person's version of the story. And these "prosecutors" will then go home to Justice, winning awards for upholding justice and what is right is this world, when they don't even know how to spell Yugoslavia. The Chambers. Oh, they are a separate arm of the Tribunal, are they. They are housed in the same office space as the OTP. These are distinguished judges from their homelands, but are they competent to hear these cases? Can they understand English or French? Can they comprehend international criminal law doctrine? Are they able to formulate their own opinion and not defer to the OTP? Can they stay awake during arguments (See Celebici and Judge Karibi-Whyte)? Oh, an aside, Judge Karibi-Whyte is Nigeria's nominated judge for the ICC. The Defence Counsel. Are these the best and brightest? First, let it be known that the Registry has the job of appointing and structuring defence teams. Until recently, there were NO requirements whatsoever for defence counsel. Any attorney could submit her resume and ask for a case. It would then be up to a registry staff member to determine whether this person deserves an appointment. This is how Biljana Plavsic can have a lead counsel with only one prior criminal case. Did it ever occur to anyone that the establishment of a Defender System would be appropriate? The excuse is the hasty establishment of the tribual. Well, are revisions permissible or is Ms. Del Ponte too busy blaming the Serbs that she fails to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the organ she represents? To me, INjustice in rampant at the tribunal and a clean house would be the only thing to save it. The tribunal would have been a completely different place if M. Cherif Bassiouni was the Prosecutor, as he should have been. E. Bennett USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 5:26 am Racak Can anyone provide a list of the names of the those killed in the alleged Racak massacre? Supposing this information is available can anyone confirm that these 'victims' were residents of Racak? Peter Taylor Herts/UK Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 5:35 am Jari, Richard Hallbrooke was then at the time of Racak, US Embassador to the UN. His reputation and hopes for the Nobel Prize rested in his "peace" accomplishement at Dayton his diplomacie à la hitler The documentary Yugoslavia The Avoidable War hints to serious rifts among NATO members on Walker's claim on Racak. The US media (and US officials) at the time was pretty eloquent. The trial: Yesterday Mr. Milosevic after showing another of the interview tapes of C 61 asked judge May (NATO) to start an investigation on C 61's perjury since it was clear seeing the tape that was the case. Judge May (NATO) dismissed that possiblity and said the chamber will have to weight C61's credibility. As we all know everything goes. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 5:51 am I meant Holbrooke. Peter, During one of the testimonies your question came up. If I recall the prosecutor tried to reinforce the massacre version of events by showing there was a man among the killed of age above 60. During cross examination Mr. Milosevic had the KLA witness saying the KLA had a policy of not acepting in their ranks anyone above 60 years of age. But that particular man had wanted so much to join the KLA and fight for Albanian's right an exception was made! There was plenty of forensice evidence the corpses had been moved, their frozen postures not corresponding to their position on the grounds, lack of blood by their wounds, pressence of empty cartridges far from the site and none at it and above all the unrestricted pressence of Walker's men pretending to be doing forensic work, in fact tampering with the evidence and making any serious forensic investigation very doubtful and difficult. The Yugoslav judge asigned to the investigation was not able to get to the KLA occupied site because she insisted she needed police scort, a requirement Walker testified was totally unreasonable! Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 6:27 am Jari/Peter, the following has some info on Racak that may fill in some gaps... http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/racakfor.htm David Australia Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 6:38 am This judicial butcher judge May (NATO) is having a feast today. "keep quiet!" he shouted to Mr. Milosevic and to reiterate his dislike of history told him " it is of no assitance to the court to know what happened in 1918 . . .you have to ask concret questions other wise this cross examination will be stoped. . . ." gospodin May I just mentioned 1918 in a large phrase related to the Constitution of SFRY . . . .". Then May (NATO) realizes his mistake, Mr. Milosevic is not talking about history which he does not know but about the very case of the Serb Krajina Republic and C 61 and pretends to be just saying: " . . .go on, go on..." I hope Vera will give you all one of her clear and vivid accounts full of detailed observations which I am witnessing but can't really describe. Judge May, hates Mr. Milosevic, he does not meassure up to him, he sees the prosecutor's (another Englishman) case and witnesses fall apart under the tenacious and truthful cross-examination of Mr. Milosevic, he can't match his energy and passion in defending Yugoslavia, universal rights for all, he gets specially emotional when Mr. Milsovic tells about the multiethnicity of Serbia when the trial is supposed to demonstrate the oposite, then he orders another close session, the weapon not of protection of a turncoat every one despises but of the coward to hide the truth. Shame on you Mr. May and you court of fakes! Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 6:44 am Peter. Likewise on 16 January the UCK calls 22 executing in Racak with names. From them however only eleven on the dead list of the tribunal are logged One of the few. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 7:16 am Complete Analysis of the Incident at Racak on Jan. 15, 1999 Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 7:20 am May seems to be suffering from hormonal imbalances today, he seems unusually cantankerous and ill tempered. After he told Milosevic that the Chamber was not interested in what happened in 1918, he had egg all over his face when Milosevic tied up the history questions with questions about recent events. Solution: go into secret session, not to protect the witness, not to protect the prosecution but to protect himself from further embarrassment. It's quite clear that he has lost the plot and that he is having serious problems following the proceedings. It seems all too complex for his intellectual level. He should excuse himself from the remainder of the trial. What an embarrassment to international justice he is, not to mention to the mighty traditions of British jurisprudence and the great Lords of the English courts. Can't someone please rid us of this apparently neurotic and morally and intellectually deficient stand-in and appoint a genuine man of law and distinction? David Australia Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 7:36 am Secret indictments, secret witnesses, secret sessions... This is now turning into one big secret hearing given the frequency with which May is entering into secret sessions for reasons which are in no way connected to the security and safety of the witness. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the hearings not meant to be public according to the ICTY charter itself? How does one stop May from abusing the process any further? David Australia Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 7:45 am David, The prosecutor Mr. Nice (NATO) claims without the protection of "private" sessions no witnesses will volunteer to come forward. I think the main reason why C61 who was supposed to be C36, has given testimony for 6 days is because the OTP has serious problems bringing witnesses. C 61's extended testimony was traded for 14 other "lesser witnesses", trade the trial chamber accepted promptly before being informed about the names and nature of them. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 11:26 am Thanks for the Racak reference Gogol. From the data given there, that the names of eleven victims only are logged by the tribunal, am I entitled to assume that at most only 11 of ‘the 45 victims of the Racak massacre’ were residents of the village? If so this raises another question: What were the other 34 ‘victims’ doing in Racak during a battle between the KLA and Serbian Security Forces? There is yet another question concerning the eleven people logged by the tribunal. What evidence does the tribunal have that the Serbs killed these people? We have seen statements that it was a strategy of Muslim forces to kill, or cause to be killed, their own civilians in order to enable the Western powers to intervene on their behalf or as punishment for collaborating with Serbs. Indeed several former KLA members are currently facing criminal charges for such acts. Two notable commentators are General Rose in Bosnia and Bujar Bukoshi in Kosovo. Neither of these men has cause to lie. On the contrary by stating the truth Bujar Bukoshi has put his life in danger. What evidence does the court have that the Serbs rather than the KLA killed these eleven victims? It is good that evidence about the killings at Racak is to be re-examined by the court. Not only are there many doubts about what happened there but also this was a pivotal event in the decision of the West to bomb Serbia. As a lawyer, Blair the West’s ‘Moral’ leader knows that the truth about Racak affords no valid excuse for the criminal attack upon Serbia. The consequences of which are appalling with no solution in sight after a period of almost four years. Some ten thousand dead, tens of thousands injured, a quarter of a million exiled and much of Serbia’s infrastructure destroyed. It is ironic that at so much human cost the ‘great’ self-professed multiculturist Blair has created a rabidly racist Islamic state in Kosovo! But what else do you expect from a one time pacifist who now ‘believes’ that one can achieve humanitarian aims by attacking women and children with fragmentation bombs: a one time CND campaigner who sanctions the use of radioactive weapons: a man who flies bombs into buildings in Belgrade and then condemns such acts as heinous crimes in New York. A self-professed Christian who read the Koran and stands idly by while his Muslim protégés continue to destroy a hundred and more churches in Kosovo. A self-professed anti terrorist warrior who has supported Islamic terrorists in the Balkans and harbours them in Britain. Blair portrays himself on the world stage as a man of principle. Oh yes he’s a man of principle all right but not in the accepted sense: on the evidence there is no principle or its contradiction that he will not use. Bukoshi’s testimony. Translation of paragraph 6: “ Everyone in Kosovo knows but none dares to speak about it," says the former prime minister of the exiled Kosovars and current chairman of the New Party for Kosovo, Bujar Bukoshi." After the war the cruellest cleansings took place among the Albanians. Under the pretext that they were 'Serbian collaborators', the leaders of the KLA liquidated their political opponents; old blood feuds were settled, and Albanian civilians were executed by the Albanians themselves." Source of Bukoshi’s testimony Peter Taylor Herts/UK Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 12:00 pm I have been going through David's URL on Racak. It seems that Ranta never checked if the victims had actually fired shots. The Yugoslav team did, and found that the victims had indeed fired shots. Somewhere else I have read that the "paraffin test" that the Yugoslavs used, was too "unreliable" for the Finns, so I guess the Finns never did any test! And that is the cause of the difference between the "international community" and Yugoslavia. Walker was soon talking about a massacre at Racak committed by the Serb police and referred to the forensic report, but Ranta denies he could have referred to her report, because she was at that time the only one who had a copy. Ranta also denied that her report would have settled the question definitely. (Well, I guess not, if they didn't bother to check if the victims had fired shots.) We get this extract: "The "Berliner Zeitung" reported today from OSCE headquarters in Vienna that several leading OSCE members, including Germany, Italy and Austria, are anxious to fire Walker. 'High-ranking OSCE European representatives are in possession of information according to which the 45 Albanians found in the Kosovo village of Racak in mid-January were not -- as Walker declared -- victims of a Serbian massacre of civilians", the newspaper said. Within the OSCE, it has been assumed for some time that the Racak massacre was "staged by the Albanian side", the newspaper noted. This conclusion was reached on the basis of data gathered in the Kosovo Mission's headquarters, independently of the Finnish forensic report on Racak whose publication has been inexplicably delayed (see earlier report). According to the evidence which the OSCE is so far keeping to itself, most of the dead bodies were carried from outlying areas around Racak and placed together on the spot where they were subsequently shown to Walker and Western media. In reality, according to the newspaper's OSCE sources, most of the Albanians died in battle with Serbian artillery, and many of the dead were "posthumously dressed in civilian clothing" before being shown to Walker and the media. This is a technique which recalls the famous December 1989 "Timisoara massacre", in which cadavers from the local morgue were presented to television viewers as victims of a massacre perpetrated by Rumanian security forces. However, about the same time, the Washington Post parrotted Walker and insisted that the Ranta report had refuted the Yugoslav forensice report. The paper also "knew" that according to Ranta's report, the victims were made to kneel before they were shot. Ranta instantly denied that. On the other hand, Reuters admitted that Ranta's report was inconclusive and disappointed the Albanians. And what does Ranta's report conclude? In a printed summary of her findings she said that: + The 22 men found in the gully ``were most likely found where they were shot.'' + ``There were no indications of the people being other than unarmed civilians.'' + ``It is highly unlikely the clothes could have been changed or removed.'' As to the question of whether the dead were involved somehow in a battle with security forces, Ranta said: ``Most likely the answer is no, there was no fight. Gogol, do you recollect if any test was made that could have been used instead of the paraffin test to determine if the victims had fired shots? If not, I think the conclusions are pretty worthless. By the way, it is a pity Holbrooke didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize for Dayton. He should have shared it with Milosevic. That could have saved him. Jari Nousiainen Finland Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 12:18 pm As a further note, the argument seems to revolve around those 22 men found in the gully. It is argued that they could only have been shot at a close range. The question of the civilian clothes is unimportant, because the KLA includes combatants in civilian clothing. In March, Ranta seems to have admitted that no test was carried out to determine if the men had carried arms. Apparently, there was no test to replace the paraffin test. For some reason, she doesn't seem to say if any alternative test was used. Why not? Does she think this is unimportant? Bad faith, bad faith all over. And why does she deny there was a massacre but keep saying there was a "crime against humanity"? What is the difference? (well, actually the difference is that the "crime against humanity" is mentioned in the ICTY Statute.) But whatever happened in Racak was of course no justification for the bombing campaign. On the other hand, the subsequent bombing campaign and the desperate effort to use the Racak massacre to justify it suggests that the forensic investigation is slanted. This is obvious from the sloppy reporting in the Washington Post alone. Bad faith again. J N Finland Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 12:35 pm This is the English translation by Colin Meade of the interview of Felipe Turover in the German Konkret. I am sorry, moderator, but I have to quote this in full. Felipe Turover: "Carla del Ponte told the hit-men where to find me". [Introduction] "Justice is a woman", said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan about Carla del Ponte, currently Chief Prosecutor in the Hague trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Felipe Turover's experience of the Swiss jurist is very different. 37-year old Felipe comes from a Spanish Republican family whose parents fled with him from Franco to the Soviet Union. After the death of the dictator, Felipe returned to his native land before going back at the end of the 1980s to Moscow as a financial expert. From 1992 to 1999 he worked for the Yeltsin government managing debts with Western creditor banks. [Interview] Elsässer: You are the chief witness in the Mabetex case, also known as Russiagate. What is it about and how does Carla del Ponte come into it? Turover: Mabetex is a construction company based in Lugano in Italian Switzerland. It belongs to the Kosovo Albanian Beghijet Pacolli who now has a Swiss passport. In the 1990s Pacolli and his business partner Viktor Stolpovskich won some two billion euros-worth of orders from the Kremlin, supposedly for building and restoration work in the government and presidential complex. It has been proved that billions of dollars vanished from Russia through this operation, with millions being spent on bribes in Moscow in return. Pacolli acted as guarantor for credit cards for Yeltsin and both his daughters, according to the Banca del Gottardo which issued the cards. Carla del Ponte, at that time a Swiss public prosecutor contacted me in 1997 and asked me to be ready to testify in the case. Later she invited the Russian investigating prosecutor Yuri Skuratov to Switzerland and put me in touch with him. At that time she already had a reputation as a great fighter for justice and I therefore did as she asked. That was an almost fatal error. Elsässer: Why? Turover: I was dependent on her honesty and had made it clear to her from the start that my testimony placed my life in danger. I was still at the time working as an advisor to the Russian authorities, i.e. for the very people I was incriminating with these documents. So what did Ms del Ponte do? She gave my full name and job to the press. This was as if I had given information to the US Drug Enforcement Agency about the Escobar Clan out of Medellin and then, while still in the lions' den, read in the New York Times that I was the chief witness against Escobar. In my case, it was Moscow rather than Medellin and the newspaper was the Corriere della Sera but the effect was the same. I was in big trouble and saved my life by hurriedly getting out of Moscow. Since then, for the past three years, I have been living undercover. I have Carla del Ponte to thank for this. She told the hit-men where to find me. Elsässer: Isn't that an exaggeration? How is a Swiss Federal Prosecutor responsible for an article in an Italian newspaper? Turover: Both the Corriere journalists got all their information from del Ponte, including my mobile phone number. They told me so themselves, because they knew my life was in danger. Elsässer: Del Ponte has denied that. Turover: Then she's not telling the truth. And I've already said this many times and she has never threatened to sue for slander. The reason is simple: she has no proof, but I do. Elsässer: Mabetex boss Pacolli is not only a construction magnate, but is also said to have close ties to the Kosovo Albanian KLA terrorists. Turover: That's right. He himself has stated that at least until 2000 his group owned the Kosovo Albanian daily "Bota Sot" which even the OSCE condemned for racist articles. Its agitation was aimed mainly at the Serbs, but it also made an anti-Semitic attack on me as the "Jew Turover". Elsässer: If it were the case that the Yeltsin clan had received Kosovo Albanian bribes, this might explain his behaviour in spring 1999. As NATO prepared for war against Yugoslavia, he didn't lift a finger to help the Serbs, his supposed brother people. At the Rambouillet Conference, when the NATO states took an extremely biased pro-Albanian position, Moscow didn't protest, although its diplomats were at the negotiating table. Did the Kosovo Albanians buy Yeltsin's passivity? Turover: That's possible. We're looking here at a symbiosis of politics, plunder and money laundering on a large scale. Elsässer: And del Ponte? Turover: All the preliminary inquiries in the Mabetex case in Switzerland were politically abandoned at the highest level. Moreover, the documents that del Ponte had received from her Russian colleague Skuratov somehow ended up in Pacolli's possession. He reported back to his Russian friends Yeltsin and Borodin and subsequently Skuratov, an honest and competent lawyer, was shunted aside, in spite of three almost unanimous resolutions in his support from the Russian Senate. The end of Skuratov was also the end of the Moscow Mabetex case - the proceedings were finally abandoned in December 2000. Elsässer: Was del Ponte acting to protect the Albanian Mafia or the Yeltsin clan? Turover: Neither. She acts only in her own interest. She is indifferent to political goals. Look at the point in time when she made public what she knew about the Mabetex case, including my name - the end of August 1999. That was a blow not only to me, but to Yeltsin too. It's true that she later failed to follow through on the case, but at that moment her revelations did serious damage to Yeltsin. The immediate background was the spectacular coup by Russian elite units in Kosovo in summer 1999; after the ceasefire they occupied Pristina airport, getting there before NATO. According to the British head of KFOR, Michael Jackson, this could have led to world war three. Moscow was playing for high stakes. It wanted its own occupation zone in Kosovo to protect the Serbs. In this situation Yeltsin had to be repudiated. The current US Foreign Minister, Madeleine Albright, therefore met del Ponte at London Heathrow airport in July 1999 and probably spelt all this out to her. So then del Ponte went public with her revelations about Yeltsin in Corriere della Sera and in mid-September Albright in a statement on CNN stoked up the heat about Russian government corruption. Yeltsin had to fear an effort to impeach him and then prosecution. He was let off the hook by two bombings in Moscow, allegedly by Chechen terrorists. Russian troops went into Chechnya and public attention was diverted from Russiagate. Elsässer: Was del Ponte acting as an agent of Washington in this situation? Turover: She is no more pro-American than she is pro-Albanian. She acts in Swiss interests, i.e. in the interests of the Mafia in Switzerland. Elsässer: Explain. Turover: Switzerland and the Swiss banks live mainly off money laundering. All the world's dictators and major criminals deposit their money here. Above all the canton of Tessin is exceptionally well placed for this. People simply carry millions in suitcases and glove compartments over the border from Italy. Every politician in Tessin knows about it and benefits from it. And as the canton's public prosecutor del Ponte protected this activity even before the Mabetex case at the end of the 1990s. Take the case of a company in Chiasso accused of money laundering for the Italian Mafia. She stopped the proceedings. But basically del Ponte is pro-del Ponte. She would do anything for her career, even bring a case against George W. Bush. She is in any case a useless lawyer. To my knowledge she has never won a case in her entire career. Her only talent is self-promotion, self-marketing. Elsässer: Her agreement with Albright in any case proved profitable. A little later she became the Chief Prosecutor at the Hague, at Washington's behest. The Zurich Weltwoche expressed surprise: "why the Americans wanted her to succeed the difficult and prematurely ousted Louise Arbour remains a puzzle. After all they had made no secret of the fact that they regarded the Court as a useless waste of time". Turover: Del Ponte and the Swiss government helped Albright and the Americans - they're honest people, they pay their bills - therefore rewarded her with the Hague job. Here too she has sold herself brilliantly. With her, the trial is a total disaster. She has nothing on Milosevic, and legally he ought therefore to be released immediately. And so Milosevic, who himself is nothing but a bandit and con man, can present himself as an innocent victim of persecution and Serb nationalism is on the rise as the recent elections showed[1]. Do people in the Hague really not know that the Swiss Federal Government has appointed a special investigator to look into the del Ponte affair? How can a woman who is herself the subject of judicial investigation at the highest level because of serious crimes stay on as Chief Prosecutor at the UN war crimes tribunal? Elsässer: In March 2001 you reported Carla del Ponte and persons unknown to the police for, among other things, endangering your life and attempted murder (tentato assassinio) in connection with Russiagate. But the Swiss Federal Prosecutor, Valentin Roschacher, dismissed the charges against his predecessor. So how can you say that a special investigation of del Ponte is ongoing? Turover: Roschacher protected del Ponte and I have therefore brought a case against him for bias in her favour. This case has not only been taken up, but in May 2002 the Swiss Federal Council appointed a special investigator, Arthur Hublard, the former public prosecutor of Jura canton. He is investigating my accusations against Roschacher - but the del Ponte case is obviously also involved here. Furthermore, I have laid charges against Switzerland at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Elsässer: Against Switzerland, not against del Ponte? Turover: You can't bring cases against private persons in Strasbourg. But in substance the charges relate primarily to del Ponte because as the Swiss Federal Prosecutor she placed my life in danger. It's preposterous for her to continue to hold office in the Hague when two such cases are pending. Elsässer: You are living in hiding, constantly moving house. How long will you keep this up? Turover: I have to, otherwise I'm dead because of del Ponte. I have of course insured myself by making sure that in the event of my demise even more explosive information than hitherto will be revealed. But that does not provide me with real security. So far at least five prosecution witnesses in the Mabetex case have been cleared out of the way. The most recent victim was Pacolli's personal secretary, a 32-year old woman, who was found dead in the bathroom, allegedly from a blood clot. There was no autopsy and she was cremated the next day. J N Finland Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 12:53 pm Jari, Months ago I asked a good friend of mine now retired from the his proffession as a lawyer if the paraffin test was not in use in the United States to determine if a person had fired a fire arm. He was surprised to know it was abandoned and in his opinion the test was perfectly acceptable. I did some reseach in the net and all what I found was in fact questionning the validity of the test since under some circumstances the results are inconclusive and certainly the faith in technological advances in this country would make anything quaint unaceptable. I have called the forensic lab of what here is the Dept. of Public Safety and spoke to one of their technicians and my fears were confirmed: the paraffin test was abandoned 15 or 20 years ago, it was replaced by 2 other test both involving rather advanced technology, the technician said the main difference betweeen the old test and the new one is sensitivity or the ability to detect microscopic particules of metals, traces of the effect of firing a gun which the paraffin test could not possibly detect. He was not surprised the paraffin test was still in use outside of this country. If the paraffin test is positive there is no doubt the traces of gases and metals are well above the treshold of the other more modern methods. Mr. Milosevic himself told judge May (NATO) the paraffin test was the legal method in Yugoslavia and what the US forensic experts did use in the United States had no bearing to the investigation in Racak. The Yugoslav forensic team investigatin Racak proved the corpses had plenty of firing related traces. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 1:04 pm Since I do not follow the proceedings in Hague live, and the transcripts stop at November 25th, I am at the loss? Has Ranta testified? And has Milosevic cross-examined her? Somebody please, enlighten me! D Jovanovic USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 1:09 pm Bujar Bukoshi lost his Defence Minister, Ahmet Krasniqi on September 21 1998 in Tirana to assassination. He was involved in a rival organisation to the KLA, known as the FARK. The FARK's core was former Yugoslav army officiers of Albanian background. The FARK feuded mainly with the KLA group headed by Commander Ramush Haradinaj, now leader of the AAK, Alliance for the Future. One notable incident involving former FARK elements led to Ramush being evacuated to Camp Bondsteel for medical treatment, then to Germany, in mid-2000. Bujar Bukoshi was also known as the Kosovo separatists' treasurer and the KLA wanted to get its hands on that loot. He was prime minister of Ibrahim Rugova's "republic of Kosova". R. B. Canada Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 1:15 pm Ranta comes later. The judges called her as a witness recently. I don't know the exact date, but I'm sure it hasn't started. R. B. Canada Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 1:21 pm Now Kostunica furiously is claiming that he will bring down the government should he win, and even should the election fail. This is the kind of empty posturing that is expected of a man running as an opposition leader, then making deals with the IMF people behind the economic disaster and with the hated prime minister in order to get his parliamentarians restored to their seats after their illegal dismissal. Kostunica is running as the opposition to the opposition; that opposition being a government that calls itself the opposition, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia. This must be a Serbian innovation, the idea of being government and opposition at the same time. It makes sense that they are absolutely unconstructive, yet they're the opposition, they're just supposed to complain and be against things, except when the IMF and Ambassador Montgomery gives them their orders. R. B. Canada Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 1:42 pm The background of Carla del Ponte as prosecutor for financial crimes in a country (Switzerland) which lives of the financial transactions of the rest of the world is telling. Of course she did not score any convictions, I mean the Swiss are not going to kill the goose of the golden eggs! The Swiss financial community was happy to see her entering the vast and rocky field of international law ! Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 1:49 pm To: D.Jovanovic http://hague.bard.edu/video.html This is a video archive of the trial and today's session is already available. vesa v. france Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 2:01 pm Vesa, The final portion, the end is missing. Here is a good account of today's hearing. Note the clash between judge May (NATO) and Mr. Milosevic is not mentionned, but amici curiae Mr. Tapuskovic considering resigning is. Click HERE and scroll down to the trial. Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 5:49 pm There's an interesting thread regarding the Racak "Massacre" on Freerepublic.com. If you're interested go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/785295/posts Aleks Stajic Germany Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 5:53 pm To: Ivan Kokotovic Where are your parents from? Are they close to Slovenian border - Zumberak? Pero Peric Canada Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 7:34 pm YUGOSLAVIA TO DROP LAWSUIT AGAINST NATO Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic announced on 2 December that the Yugoslav government has dropped a lawsuit filed against NATO with the International Court of Justice, "The Balkan Times"reported. Dropping the lawsuit is one of the preconditions for membership in a number of international organizations, including the Council of Europe and NATO's Partnership for Peace program. UB Kathryn Love SJC USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 7:45 pm Next requirement will be for Yugoslavia to compensate NATO for the expense of the war and pay Kosovo war reparations. It is hard to be democratic it costs too much! Gogol Charlemagne Conn. USA Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 8:34 pm Gogol, freeserbia is a War Party agit-prop site, one doubts it is even located in serbia.......... A.P. Vucelic NY NY Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 9:09 pm YUGOSLAVIA NOT TO DROP SUIT: In other news, Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic announced Saturday that the Yugoslav government has decided not to drop its lawsuit against NATO. Yugoslavia is suing the alliance before the International Court of Justice for damages inflicted during the 1999 air strikes in Belgrade. Dropping the suit is a pre-condition for membership in certain international organisations, including NATO's Partnership for Peace programme. (Tanjug - 30/11/01; B92, Tanjug, BBC - 01/12/02) http://www.balkantimes.com/default2.asp?lang=english&page=news_archive&date=12/2/02&ns_list=yes Dan B. Ottawa Canada Tuesday December 03, 2002 at 10:06 pm I'm trying to follow today's proceedings, but there's yet another private session imposed, lasting an hour already. Roughly speaking, yesterday and today the ratio was almost 50-50 between open- and closed-session time. And only once did I perceive a direct link to possible revealing of identity by the Milosevic's question; all other cases when May announced private session were to prevent Milosevic getting his point in a series of questions and/or to express sheer malice and spite. See this. Milosevic asked wasn't the governmental, police, and military organizational structure of Krajina completely different to that of Serbia; C-061 answered with yet another non sequitur , a totally unrelated answer, a mechanical repetition of "the army and the police of Krajina was controlled by DB [Drzavna bezbednost = State Security] of Serbia and you". Milosevic merely started to ask another question: "Well, do you…" , when May barged in with: "Private session!" Why this interruption? Perhaps to warn C-061 off camera to stop answering like a programmed parrot? Hardly. Isn't May worried about 'interrupting the flow' (like he was when Mr Higgins tried to ask something during the examination-in-chief)? Another trick by May was to interrupt Milosevic, even before C-061 would start to answer, saying the question is not clear to the witness (?!), then rehashing crudely the question himself, reading from the transcript on this screen, but in such a way to devoid the question of any meaning or punch and thus help C-061 to escape tight spots. May plays dirty, so Milosevic stroke back. These 2 days were interspersed with his acute comments, aimed not only at stinging C-061 but more at summing up and actually explaining the context. Strictly speaking, this should not be allowed (but then again, should May's behaviour be allowed?), and May prevented and interrupted many such attempts, but many hit the mark. Have your pick: Milosevic summed up the whole testimony of C-061, his tapes with the investigator and his answers to the cross-examination so far as those of a person who thought one thing, spoke something else and acted differently from both; then he said it's understandable why C-061 in his current situation holds his current attitudes; then he established that C-061 just made the allegation about someone, but moments ago at the closed session he attributed this to himself, 'or rather to that person who was your alter ego ; then he explained C-061 to be a narcissist schizophrenic, as diagnosed by his political predecessor in Krajina, a psychiatrist Dr Jovan Raskovic; then he inquired whether C-061 is familiar with the famous verse by Njegos "Strah coveku kalja obraz cesto" = fear often smears a man's face, makes him loose his face; then he elaborated this later on by saying C-061 is renouncing his previous principled positions out of fear; informed him of the exact number of pensioners in Krajina, budget, relevant percentages, data unfamiliar to C-061 (May defended him by saying 'This is not a memory test'; Milosevic quipped that "he's entitled not to know, but he's not entitled to lie'), because all he did was parading around in uniform and attributing all credits to himself; then he offered his sympathies to his state of inertia that drives him to automatically answer all the questions in the negative, even those which would be useful to answer differently; then he advised him to verify a specific point by checking his own statements, 'although I know they're long and it's difficult for you to follow what you did and didn't say'. My personal favourite was a short exchange regarding the situation in CRO right after the elections in 1990: C-061 reluctantly admitted the anti-Serb campaign, atmosphere of terror, dismissals, persecutions, unlawful arrests, but had a problem to admit there were killings (his present "position" is that CRO Govt wasn't that bad, that the Serbs could've somehow come to terms with it; the problem is he didn't think so then, the killings were real, and even one member of his extended family had been killed in this campaign before the war). Listen to the exchange. Milosevic: "You don't know anything about the killings of the Serbs in 1990? C-061: [looong silence] "I do not remember." Milosevic: "Since you wish to keep all this at a higher, political level, and not to deal with individual, peripheral things like murders, let's talk politics; but this answer of yours is extremely important to me." Such quips annoyed May no end, but helped cracking C-061 open: he became aware of the fact that he wasn't now talking to some foreign officials/investigators, that his audience is over here, that those who know him inside out are listening in disgust. He developed a tiny, nervous cough, preceding and interspersing his talk. His answers lost almost any connection to actual questions, they became repetitive, he stopped even bothering to change the wording: the first word of the rehearsed mantra would start the whole of it. True, not every ordinary person could respond to a life-destroying threat from the Prosecution with a moral fibre equal to that of Radomir Markovic; and it is truly humiliating to watch this blackmailed man's torments; but this doesn't make him a witness and Milosevic understandably shows no mercy. Yes, Gogol & David, May manifested his dislike for history; people tend to fear the unfamiliar. One of the newly established Official Truths about the Serbs (in addition of being "murderous bastards", as Dick Holbrooke so diplomatically put it) is that they're obsessed with history. Not so; I realized most of them just see a broader picture of things. (By the way, I've noticed that people presumably un-obsessed with history would like to forget their own history of yearning to change the history and their ugly way of changing it, freeze the present moment of history favourable to them and prevent any future history to happen. Don't feel so guilty, Ivane; Ego te absolvo. ) History is not a dusty old book, it goes on happening, it's a flowing river. And the Chinese say: "If you sit on the river bank long enough, and you're being patient long enough, one day a cadaver of your enemy will come floating by." Witness discrediting? Milosevic tendered a 4-pages list of the Serbs from the US, naming those who donated USD 169,417 handed over personally to C-061 by one of them and embezzled by him, for which he had been investigated at the time, but the inspector in charge Velebit had been murdered under mysterious circumstances. Also, statements by the former Krajina Assembly MP Dobrijevic and the former Krajina Prime Minister Mikelic were read, denying and ridiculing each allegation of C-061. What do you think, do these people know the identity of C-061?! (The info unknown to me before: Jovica Stanisic, the Head of Serbian DB, married a girl from the village Djevrske near Knin way before the war, hence his visits - to his in-laws!) The most absurd situation for C-061? When Milosevic referred to one of the intercepts played, the one with "coded" conversation mentioning food, but really meaning weapons. C-061 self-importantly said: "This is what I've interpreted as a mildly coded language." Milosevic: "OK, so if the expression for the ammunition was "flour", what was the expression for flour? C-061: "Well… it was also flour." Milosevic: "Good, so "flour" meant sometimes flour, and sometimes ammunition?!" By the way, do you know that those 2 talking on that tape about flour, foodstuffs, stocks, also mentioned there were mice in the storage, so that the last harvest flour had to be removed. Let me guess, mice were eating ammunition, perhaps? Or maybe they were just talking about convoys and convoys of trucks with food openly going to Krajina from Serbia, as was known to everybody? The second most absurd situation? When cheeky Milosevic said: "So, Milan Babic tried in every possible way to remain in power?" C-061 answered: "As far as I know, Milan Babic endeavoured to remain in politics." And then he proceeded to address even Milosevic in the third person singular for a while! But, what left me breathless was the tape played by Milosevic, obtained from the Prosecution in that gigantic batch of intercepts disclosed to the Defence. This one was never played by the Prosecution; I even doubt they knew what's on it, otherwise they would have removed it. It is a genuine intercept of a telephone call between Franjo Tudjman and the Federal Minister of Defence, General Veljko Kadijevic, talking ceasefire regarding besieged Army barracks throughout CRO in 1991. I urge you all to read it as soon as the transcript of Tuesday, Dec. 3 appears. This contains all that the beginning of the war in CRO was about, who did what militarily, and above all shows the moral and human fibre of both men: you need not know them or anything about them, but after the first few minutes you'll see that a moral slime called Franjo is talking to a normal man Veljko in a way Uriah Heep would. Great, revealing stuff. Vera Martinovic Belgrade Yugoslavia