MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 5:41 am
  Definitely the trial of Milosevic is NOT fair.
  
  Gusztav Farkas
  Cluj
  Romania

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 8:18 am
  I am a longtime reader of jurist with great interest, also informed about Milosevics struggle and supporters. Now, I feel the need to join the dicussion because of the outragous attack of Mr. Wilcoxson, who takes part in jurist discussion. Mr. Krsljanins response is the answer to that Mr. Wilcoxsons open letter, which obviously was widely spread on the internet: Mr. Krsljanin, You're destroying the ICDSM. You know that President Milosevic personally made the decision to remove Ramsey Clark from the post of ICDSM co-president. You acknowledged that he made the decision, and you said that you tried unsuccessfully to get him to change his mind. With the e-mail you circulated under the subject heading "adopted conclusions of the ICDSM" you have forced ICDSM members to choose between Milosevic and the committee. For me it's no contest, I choose Milosevic. I do not recognize Ramsey Clark as the ICDSM co-president. In my opinion a Milosevic defense committee that ignores the wishes of Milosevic isn't worth anything. Your objective is for the IAC to be in de facto control of the ICDSM. You want an organization that spies on the U.S. Government's political opposition to control the ICDSM. The U.S. Government bombed your country and killed your people, and now you're trying to hand Milosevic's defense committee over to them. You talked about having a November demonstration at The Hague, is the point of that to have Ramsey Clark speak there so that you can showcase him? I wrote you an e-mail on January 1st 2003 warning you that Ramsey Clark was a U.S. Agent. I told you about his history of spying on socialists and anti-war activists in the U.S.A.. You replied in an e-mail of January 2 by saying, "thank you very much for the warning. Of course we know even more than you wrote. And we are and will be cautious." [1] (see complete e-mail correspondence below) I wrote you that there is clear evidence that Ramsey Clark is a U.S. Government agent. You went one better by saying "Of course we know even more than you wrote." So you are saying that Clark is even worse than I sad he was. Tell me, why is Clark, the man whom you admit is a spy, more valuable to you than the wishes of President Milosevic? You said that President Milosevic has accepted the positions adopted in your e-mail regarding the so-called "conclusions of the ICDSM". I challenge you to state very specifically which positions in particular that the President accepted - Why don't you share with us what he wrote? In your original discussion paper drafted by Klaus Hartman he conceded that Milosevic's position was that "one president might be more adequate [than 2] for the International Committee, otherwise including just members." But you say that there should be 2 presidents, one of whom being Ramsey Clark. I am curious to know why this part about Milosevic's views regarding the organizational structure of the committee was omitted from the 2nd discussion paper that you circulated. It is clear that prior to last May there were 2 ICDSM co-Presidents until Milosevic ordered the removal of Ramsey Clark, leaving only the one ICDSM president. If you really did communicate with President Milosevic; I would like to know what his reaction was when you told him that you and Mr. Hartman had decided to overrule him and return Ramsey Clark on as co-president of HIS committee in spite of HIS objections. Or is it your claim that President Milosevic suddenly changed his mind? Please make this point clear. If you continue with this coup attempt in the ICDSM you will only expose yourself. You may have deceived a lot of people but it is crystal clear to me, and to a lot of other people, who you are and what you're doing. When I went to Belgrade, I was the guest of the SPS Youth. I was in Belgrade for 10 days, and I found the SPS Youth and the party at large to be real socialists and completely devoted to President Milosevic. After having no direct contact with you since 29 May 2003 I was shocked to receive the following e-mail from you after I returned from Belgrade: -----Original Message----- From: Vladimir Krsljanin [mailto:slobodavk@yubc.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:14 AM To: Andy Wilcoxson Subject: OK great! Importance: High Dear Andy, I have just learned from Jurist that you have been here. When I returned from The Hague a week ago I've heard a rumor that there is some guy here recommended by Nico, who is filming and making interviews. But I had no idea that it might be you. I must say that I am very dissapointed. If it is because of Ramsey Clark that you decided to ally with people who sold Slobo and who are still selling him and to ignore those who die for him - than I really have no other comment except - you should be aware that it is a wrong way. So have a nice trip! Vlada To join or help this struggle, visit: http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association) http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic) http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council) http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM) http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center) http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/ (an independent web site) First of all, you knew full well that I was in Belgrade, it was announced on my website, which I until I went to Belgrade you linked to in all of you e-mails, so don't play dumb. While I was in Belgrade I tried to arrange a meeting with Sloboda only to be avoided by you. Secondly, I find the accusations that you made against the Socialist Party of Serbia to be scandalous and offensive. You know full well that I was the guest of the SPS Youth while I was in Belgrade. How dare you say that by my going to Belgrade that I allied myself "with people who sold Slobo and who are still selling him and to ignore those who die for him..." Are you saying that the SPS, and in particular the Socialist Youth, are the ones who sold Milosevic to the Hague tribunal? I'm sure you're aware that President Milosevic met with those so-called "traitors" from the SPS only 9 days after you sent me that insane e-mail of yours, and by all accounts President Milosevic had a good and productive meeting with the self same people whom you accuse of selling him out. Mr. Krsljanin, you can continue to betray Milosevic at your own peril. When I went to Belgrade I saw how devoted some people are to him. I have never seen people so devoted to one man. Woe be unto the man who pretends to be Milosevic's friend only so that he can stab him in the back. Signed, Andy Wilcoxson ICDSM Member and Webmaster: www.slobodan-milosevic.org FOOTNOTES: [1] -----Original Message----- From: Vladimir Krsljanin [mailto:vlada@sps.org.yu] Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 10:05 AM To: Andy Wilcoxson Subject: Re: Ramsey Clark Importance: High Dear Andy, thank you very much for the warning. Of course we know even more than you wrote. And we are and will be cautious. President has all the information (this is what we particularly care about) so that he can make responsible decisions. We try to note all expressions of support. Considering how many topics they try to cover, IAC certainly could have done more. But we need every public effect towards truth, especially in the leading imperialist countries where media are almost completely closed. The cause of President Milosevic is a great one. And everyone who wants to sound progressive will, sooner or later, support it. HAPPY NEW YEAR with best wishes, Yours Vladimir To join or help this struggle, visit: http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website) http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals) http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic) icdsm temporary address: http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/index.htm for your donations: http://emperor.vwh.net/icdsm/donations.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Wilcoxson To: vlada@sps.org.yu Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 10:35 AM Subject: Ramsey Clark Dear Mr. Krsljanin, Please keep an open mind while reading this e-mail. I am somewhat concerned with the interaction between the SPS and the New York-based IAC/A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition. I am especially concerned with the direct personal involvement of Mr. Ramsey Clark with President Milosevic. Ramsey Clark has a very sordid past that involves the persecution of Socialist and Leftwing movements. As you may know Ramsey Clark was the Attorney General of the United States (1967 - 1969.) The U.S. Attorney General presides over the U.S. Department of Justice. During Mr. Clark's time as U.S. Attorney General; the Dept. of Justice (specifically the FBI) pursued a domestic counter intelligence program known as COINTELPRO. COINTELPRO's main purpose was to infiltrate and disrupt Socialist and Communist movements in the United States. The CPUSA (Communist Party USA) and SWP (Socialist Workers Party) were severely targeted by COINTELPRO activity. COINTELPRO spied on American anti-war protesters and dissidents. COINTELPRO agents also sought to manipulate the media. In one case one of their agents wrote an editorial for CBS news smearing the CPUSA's presidential candidate. COINTELPRO also sought to infiltrate and disrupt the Black civil-rights movement in the United States. As an example of how COINTELPRO operated here is the text of a COINTELPRO report dated July 10, 1968 (during Ramsey Clark's tenure) regarding the Black-American civil rights leader Stokley Carmichael: ************************** It is suggested that consideration be given to convey the impression that CARMICHAEL is a CIA informant. One method of accomplishing the above would be to have a carbon copy of informant report reportedly written by CARMICHAEL to the CIA carefully deposited in the automobile of a close Black Nationalist friend. The report should be so placed that it will be readily seen. It is hoped that when the informant report is read it will help promote distrust between CARMICHAEL and the Black Community. It is suggested that carbon copy of report be used to indicate that CARMICHAEL turned original copy into CIA and kept carbon copy for himself. It is also suggested that we inform a certain percentage of reliable criminal and racial informants that "we heard from reliable sources that CARMICHAEL is a CIA agent". It is hoped that these informants would spread the rumor in various large Negro communities across the land. **************************** It was none other than the Attorney General, Ramsey Clark who was filing federal criminal charges and imprisoning young American men for refusing to take part in the American aggression against Vietnam. I urge the SPS to use extreme caution when dealing with Mr. Clark and his organization. I find it unbelievable that a man who once worked to thwart and persecute Socialist and anti-war movements is now the one who is supposed to be leading them. But what better way would there be to infiltrate and ensure the ineffectiveness of a movement than to lead it yourself as Mr. Clark is doing? I want President Milosevic to be made aware of Ramsey Clark's past. I know that President Milosevic has met with Mr. Clark on multiple occasions and I want to make sure that President Milosevic knows about Ramsey Clark so that he does not divulge any strategies that he might have to Mr. Clark. I do not believe that Ramsey Clark can be trusted. I think that Ramsey Clark is still an American agent. If Ramsey Clark did indeed have a change of heart, the U.S. Government would have had him killed long ago. As the Attorney General, Mr. Clark was privy to all manner of secret government information and documents. The U.S. Government would kill him rather than take the risk that this "turncoat" would spill state secrets to their enemies. Please consider what I have said and forward this information to all relevant officials in the SPS, the ICDSM, and the Freedom Association. Best Regards Andy Wilcoxson ------------------------------ It looks like Mr. Krsljanin finally (after his "Call for Unity" some weeks ago) decided to protect Slobo's struggle publicly once for all from those people! ZP
  
  Zorica P
  Germany

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 10:09 am
  What has been revealed during the trial so far is the fact that the Croatian and Bosnian forces provoked the JNA to attack them. Not that this is much of a revelation, but rather a logical necessity. The JNA had been in the two countries for about half a century, so the JNA had no real target to shoot at until the Croatian and Bosnian forces materialized. One cannot argue that the JNA started the war, because the JNA was there to quell the war. That what troops stationed in their own country are supposed to do.

  This is important because the prosecution (along with many others) is trying to argue that Milosevic started the war. Suppose Milosevic defends himself by saying that the Bosnian troops started the war, so the JNA couldn't start the war. We know what May would reply: "Irrelevant! This trial is not about who started the war, it is about who organized the war crimes".

  But May would be contradicting himself. He lets the prosecution go on for months arguing that Milosevic started the war, but the minute Milosevic tries to refute that by demonstrating that others did, May rules the argument irrelevant. Not that he has done so in so many words, but one would not be surprised to see him do that some day. In any case, that would be the day when it became patent that this was no real trial at all: you can't even refute the central premise put forward by the prosecution.

  The presiding judge may have valid reasons for letting the prosecution go on for months about who started the war. Maybe this is circumstantial evidence that Milosevic is indeed a genocidal maniac. But if this is May's reason for letting this show go on, he should at least ask the prosecution what they are driving at with this evidence that seems irrelevant at face value. You can't allow this sort of evidence without making sure that the trial doesn't degenerate to the level of trivialities as it now has.

  Even then, allowing this kind of evidence on the sole premise that it leads to the conclusion that Milosevic was a genocidal maniac is a circular reasoning. When the judge allows this sort of evidence, he has already made up his mind about the conclusion. At the very least, he should then allow the defence to refute that by presenting equally preposterous evidence, but there are no signs that May is going to let Milosevic do that. On the contrary, he justifies this inequality of arms by reminding everybody at carefully selected times that this trial is not for making political speeches.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 10:52 am
  To J W, Canada
  re. Appendix B of Rambouillet negotiations

  The Rambouillet "Interim Agreement" unequivocally contained Appendix B and was dated February 23, 1999, i.e. long before the end of the negotiations. It was made abundantly clear to Yugoslavia that unless it signed the whole thing, it would be bombed. Appendix B was neither optional nor something that was added afterwards. The only "obscure" thing about it is that it was initially hidden from (and still downplayed in) the media.

  Appendix B clearly spelled the occupation of Yugoslavia by NATO. Its authors must surely have known that it could not possibly be accepted by the leadership of a sovereign country. The only plausible reason for its inclusion (certainly at the initiative of the American team) was to secure a Yugoslav refusal and, thus, a good pretext for at least a limited bombing campaign. It is a document of indisputable legal validity and immense historical importance. It can and must be used as a powerful legal and historical weapon to expose those who systematically sought to devastate Yugoslavia.
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 11:15 am
  "Zorica P" from Germany claims to be "a longtime reader of JURIST...(and)...informed about Milosevic's struggle and supporters."

  Hm?

  Now "Zorica P" feels the need to "join the discussion" because of "the outragous attack of "Mr. Wilcoxson, who takes part in jurist discussion."

  What "Zorica P" does however is not to "join the discussion" but merely to document "Mr. Krsljanin's response" (or: answer to) "Mr. Wilcoxson's open letter",

  which (according to "Zorica P") was "obviously...widely spread on the internet".

  Hm? Was it?

  Following his documentation of a (wider) correspondance between Mr. Krsljanin and Mr. Wilcoxson "Zorica P" concludes, that:

  "It looks like Mr. Krsljanin finally (after his "Call for Unity" some weeks ago) decided to protect Slobo's struggle publicly once (and) for all from those people!"

  Hm!

  Question for "Zorica P": Who would "those people" be?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 12:37 pm
  JW wrote:
  "The presiding judge may have valid reasons for letting the prosecution go on for months about who started the war. Maybe this is circumstantial evidence that Milosevic is indeed a genocidal maniac. But if this is May's reason for letting this show go on, he should at least ask the prosecution what they are driving at with this evidence that seems irrelevant at face value."
  Is it possible that the question has been asked in one of those innumerable closed sessions? How can we know on what basis the judges will make their final decisions. How can we even know the ground rules in this trial when so much has been secret?

  MODERATOR -- could you please adjust the length of this section? I have to go to the cybercafe again to read this forum. Thanks.
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 12:43 pm
  Regarding the letter ICDSM, the letters, Ramsey Clark, etc. I must say that I don't understand a bit of it. If the defence needs help, as has been posted on this board, how does one decide where to send it??? Do we have to do a scholarly study of who is helping Milosevic? What does Milosevic want done in his name?
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 1:19 pm
  Agreed, the US wanted to destroy Yugoslavia, but it should not have needed its own airforce to do the job. It was more in line with American strategy to use proxy forces, like the KLA.

  If you take a look at Appendix B, it is hard to say what makes it more objectionable than the rest of the "agreement". At least it was open to negotiation. Point 23 of the Appendix provides: "Failing any prior settlement, disputes with the regard to the interpretation or application of this Appendix shall be settled between NATO and the appropriate authorities in the FRY." Obviously, such a "prior settlement" should have been discussed in Rambouillet.

  The Rambouillet Accords did not contain anything that Yugoslavia could not agree to. In fact, Yugoslavia did in effect agree to it three months later. The only objection may have been that the operations were to be carried out under NATO flag.

  The role of NATO was in turn in line with the developments in Bosnia. Appendix B to Annex 1A of the Dayton Accords contained similar provisions concerning the status of Nato in Bosnia. It is interesting that Milosevic agreed explicitly to these provisions. In a letter dated November 21, 1995, Milosevic wrote to Mr Balanzino:

  "On behalf of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, I wish to assure you that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia shall take all necessary steps, consistent with the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to ensure that the Republika Srpska fully respects and complies with commitments to NATO, including in particular access and status of forces, as set forth in the aforementioned Agreements.

  Sincerely, Slobodan Milosevic"

  This letter can be found in http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/bosnia/day05.htm .

  The US promised the KLA to use force against the Serbs only after it became clear that even the KLA wasn't going to sign the Agreement. Surely, such an outcome was not what the US had intended, and that is why it was prepared to resort to extreme measures to avert it.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 2:05 pm
  
  My Bell-wether

  From time to time I question a relative regarding the situation in Serbia and its province of Kosovo and upon the trial of Milosevic: to see if any general enlightenment is taking place.

  Yesterday evening was the occasion of such an event and I never cease to be appalled by my findings.

  This is a thoroughly decent man, a retired professional with an exemplary record as a soldier and thus an ally of the Serbs in WW2.

  He believes that Milosevic is guilty: ‘why else would he be in the Hague’. Is this International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia a just court when it does not prosecute the KLA terrorist leaders I ask: He seems bemused and admits he may be naïve. He still believes that the Serbs slaughtered tens of thousands of Albanians in Kosovo for no good reason.

  When I point out to him that there were no more than some two thousand victims of Serb actions he replies ‘what about the “mass graves” there was another one reported just recently’. When I state, quoting official sources, there were no mass graves found and there is evidence that the KLA and Nato killed many more than the Serbs whom they admit to provoking he demands ‘where do you get your information from: you are sourcing this from people with axes to grind. The BBC and the media would have reported this if it were true.’

  When I point out that a quarter of a million of Kosovo’s minorities and loyal Kosovars have been displaced and some three to four thousand murdered he justifies this by claiming ‘But Kosovo is peaceful now’ and ignores my protestations to the contrary. I feel it is pointless to elaborate on recent rocket, machine gun and firebomb attacks by alluding to the axe murder of three Serbs in their beds a few weeks ago preceded by a deadly machine gun attack upon a Serbs teacher and sundry other such ethnic assaults.

  He goes on about how he will never forgive the Serbs for the destruction of Mostar his favourite holiday venue. The propaganda is so ingrained my task is hopeless. In a previous discussion I had asked him to research the fact that the destruction was the result of warfare between Muslims and Croats and had nothing to do with the Serbs. I blame BBC programmes on the destruction of the bridge and other horrible events between these two warring factions that were so misleading that it was not surprising this myth that these were Serb atrocities was cemented in his mind.

  When I bring up Blair’s atrocities such as flying bombs into public buildings and the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs he replies with obvious sympathy for Blair: ‘Yes it is terrible but war is terrible and mistakes are made especially with bombs.’

  My god the BBC has a lot to answer for: there must be tens of millions in the UK who have been brainwashed with Blair’s propaganda that the media has never bothered to effectively correct.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 2:16 pm
  
  ‘Europe's Last Hard Cases’

  Extract from the article above by Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, 4 August 2003.

  Now its (Serbia’s) new prime minister, Zoran Zivkovic, is but one of the heads of government seeking to forge a "strategic alliance" with the Bush administration -- and as a teaser, he's offering to send the (Serbian) army crushed by U.S. air power to support American soldiers in Iraq

  .

  Does anyone know if this is true?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 2:34 pm
  "The US promised the KLA to use force against the Serbs only after it became clear that even the KLA wasn't going to sign the Agreement..."

  JW, - I never knew, that the U.S. "promised the KLA" this? How could they?

  In any case the U.S. threatened the use of armed force, such as "air strikes against targets on FRY territory" long before the Rambouillet Accords were "negotiated", e.g. by NATO´s Statement of 28 January, 1999.

  I appreaciate your account (of August 03, 2003 at 9:20 pm), which could serve as a starting point for a conclusion to the "JURIST discussion". However I find the comments by mr. Crotoniatis and others very valid, - and would like to forward a small comment also on the "Racak incident":

  The socalled "massacre" at Racak on 15 January, 1999 (which involved some 40+ dead bodies for the World to see) served to prepare the general public in NATO countries for stern action against the FRY, - you may call it "the Rambouillet process".

  No one ever suggested that this "massacre" was "carried out by the Americans," but William Walker, the American CIA Head of the OSCE KVM would certainly have no reason for surprise! Neither did he show "surprise" - but (very bad) acting.

  When did Walker first "learn about it" anyway, JW? On the 15th in the evening, as he is himself suggesting? In The Hague Walker also was claiming, that he "never heard" of the village of Racak prior to the incident. Do you believe that too, JW?

  In any case it wasn't Walker's job "to force the Serbs to the negotiating table", or to "play ball with the Kosovars," whatever. He was there as KVM Head to ophold the (Holbrooke) agreement, wasn't he?

  It is quite clear that whoever "carried out" or rather: rigged the "massacre" at Racak thought of it superficially as a "photo opportunity" and did not wish it to be subject to the scrutiny of ICTY - or of anybody with integrity.

  If the KLA had regarded William Walker as a man of integrity, they would never have dared to rig the whole thing in that primitive way.
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 3:07 pm
  Peter, - curiously I have more or less the same experience with a relative of mine, maybe as decent.

  As you and I are not relatives we may conclude, that there are few or no holes in the solid wall of disenlightenment with regard to "Kosovo". I mention this mainly I suppose to point out, that this general black out is not all due to BBC and mr. Bliar, but to some extent to overseas efforts too (if one could call it that).

  I'm afraid I know not of Zivkovic's offer to support American soldiers in Iraq. But would I be surprised?

  Some time ago a Serbian lady, who always opposed Milosevic, came to Copenhagen to talk about human rights etc. I noted her stating, that Serbia had been offered a reasonable share in the "reconstruction" of Iraq, - and that they (the Serbs) were "very grateful for that"...

  Life goes on, I suppose?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 3:51 pm
  To Godfred Louis-Jensen. I saw people asking about what Mr. Krsljanin was responding to. So I just wanted to paste Wilcoxsons "open letter to Mr. Krsljanin", which is the one Krsljanin refers to. I guess Mr. Wilcoxson's open letter (besides my remark in the very end, the whole content was taken from Wilcoxson, HE obviously made public an internal e-mail dialogue!) made me very angry. I respect the ICDSM and its work very much and I just had enough about all those attacks going on recently which are obviously harming the struggle. Just look at Nicoles question about whom to support now-it showes, that some people seem to start question the ICDSM's authority which is bad. An ICDSM letter, which was sent around in public a couple of days ago, shows, that they and in particular Mr. Krsljanin from Belgrade are responsible for the work and that Mr. Clark is still part of ICDSM (and they say that the letter includes all remarks made by Slobodan Milosevic himself!).
  
  Zorica P
  Germany

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 5:19 pm
  Jamie Rubin in his book explicitly states that they told the KLA that the only way the US would use force against the Yugoslavs would be for the KLA to sign Rambouillet.

  
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 5:36 pm
  
  Sniper kills UN policeman in Kosovo

  "A brutal and unbelievable crime. The reason is not yet known, but it is clear this was a sniper attack on an international police officer by cowards who intended to kill him," Said Feller, Head of UN Police.

  The acting head of the UN mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), Charles Brayshaw condemned the killing as "a despicable act".

  Do I detect a large dollop of doublespeak here?

  When the KLA was murdering scores of Serb policemen Blair and his ilk did not condemn these murders as ‘unbelievable, brutal and despicable acts’ nor did they do anything to help the Serbs to stop them.

  Instead Blair ganged up with these “cowards” and dropped cluster bombs on Serbian civilians, which Blair described as acts of “humanity”.

  That’s the trouble with Blair: He does not fracture the English language in the manner of his rough hewn deputy, Prescott: In his telegenic fashion and with pretend messianic belief he renders it convincing but by its contradictions utterly meaningless.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 5:38 pm
  

  We try to note all expressions of support. Considering how many topics they try to cover, IAC certainly could have done more. But we need every public effect towards truth, especially in the leading imperialist countries where media are almost completely closed. The cause of President Milosevic is a great one. And everyone who wants to sound progressive will, sooner or later, support it.

  Great stuff. . . .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 6:58 pm
  Yes, all right, Zorica P...so now everybody knows "what letter this in regards to" (as Dan was asking, Sunday August 03, 2003 at 11:57 am )?

  ...except I am still rather uncertain about this "exchange" between Wilcoxson and Vladimir Krsljanin:

  1) What is THE DATE of Wilcoxson's OPEN LETTER (alledgedly widely spread on the internet: "Mr. Krsljanin, You're destroying the ICDSM. You know...)? What circulation (I, for one, never saw that letter)?

  2) WHEN was Krsljanin's answer, letter of response "posted on a message board in Serbia"? Why does Dan let us know, by the way?

  What was THE DATE of Krsljanin's RESPONSE anyway, - and if it was meant for (all of) us, - then why was it merely "posted on a message board"? Where "in Serbia"? It just sounds strange...

  The "technicalities" of this "correspondance" appear to consume a lot of time - which presumeably we can ill afford (and in the circumstances I feel rather embarrassed as a JURIST discussion participant).

  While I appreaciate your efforts, Zorica P, I still believe (as suggested in my posting of August 03, 2003 at 3:57 pm) that Andy Wilcoxson (and/or Jared Israel?) owe all of us complete and immediate clarification.

  Where is Andy Wilcoxson in the matter?

  It must be clear, that "we" shall see an increasing lot of adverse, even destructive efforts, postings, articles etc. which is mere propaganda or aimed at obscure purposes. This cannot be done away with once and for all. It is certainly not enough merely to suggest, that it is all "a lie" and that there is "no room for these sorts of allegations and deceptions" etc.

  They will abound anyway!

  To seek the truth is a neverending effort, - in this matter as in any matter. My own position is, that while I respect mr. Milosevic for what he has done for his country, and I am aware of what is required from him to succeed in his truly ardous task ahead, I shall continue to fight for achieving in my own surroundings what Peter Taylor is calling "any general enlightenment regarding the situation in Serbia, its province of Kosovo and the trial of Milosevic."

  In other words I always was focused on the (sad) fact, that Denmark as a NATO-member country was on the wrong side in this situation, the "Kosovo conflict" and "trial" - and my efforts will be directed towards setting that domestic record straight.

  I trust that I do so in accord with "the struggle led by President Milosevic" - and that there is room for and good reason for each of us to work in parallel like that.
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 7:32 pm
  

  Meeting of the Witches
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 7:42 pm
  I CANNOT QUITE BELIEVE DEL PONTE SAID THAT...

  "In our view, the connection is there," the Chief Prosecutor is quoted for saying during a recent interview, monitoring the Milosevic "trial" on a television screen from her second-floor office. "The difficulty is to bring the evidence in court."

  Can YOU believe it? The difficulty for the Prosecutor is "to bring the evidence in court"?

  Come on, Ma'am!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 7:42 pm
  I CANNOT QUITE BELIEVE DEL PONTE SAID THAT...

  "In our view, the connection is there," the Chief Prosecutor is quoted for saying during a recent interview, monitoring the Milosevic "trial" on a television screen from her second-floor office. "The difficulty is to bring the evidence in court."

  Can YOU believe it? The difficulty for the Prosecutor is "to bring the evidence in court"?

  Come on, Ma'am!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 9:11 pm
  

  After four months spent as a prisoner in the chateau of Beaurevoir, Joan was transferred to the English in exchange for 10,000 livres, following the usual Burgundian policy of extracting money from their allies for almost any service rendered. Pierre Cauchon, a longtime supporter of the Anglo-Burgundian faction, was given the job of procuring her and setting up a trial. He had been given many such tasks in the past - there's a surviving letter from Duke John-the-Fearless of Burgundy (dated July 26, 1415) authorizing Cauchon to bribe Church officials at the Council of Constance in order to influence the Council's ruling concerning a murder which the Duke had ordered. They now needed someone who was willing to engineer a murder under the guise of an Inquisitorial trial, and Cauchon again got the job. English government documents record in great detail the payments made to cover the costs of obtaining Joan and rewarding the various judges and assessors who took part in her trial , and we know that the clergy who served at the trial were drawn from their supporters. Some of these men later admitted that the English conducted the proceedings for the purposes of revenge rather than out of any genuine belief that she was a heretic.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 10:22 pm
  Here is the documentation of Krsljanin & Wilcoxson's dialogue regarding Ramsey Clark:

  1. Wilcoxson's e-mail to Krsljanin warning him about Ramsey Clark

  2. Krsljanin's response to Wilcoxson's suspicions about Ramsey Clark

  3. Klaus Hartmann's original discussion paper regarding the future work of the ICDSM
  See Subsection B - Item 5

  4. Klaus Hartmann & Vladimir Krsljanin's final draft of the discussion paper regarding the future work of the ICDSM
  Notice that the section containing President Milosevic's views regarding the organizational structure of the ICDSM has been omitted.

  5. Wilcoxson's first open letter to Krsljanin
  I received this letter from Mr. Wilcoxson on August 1st.

  6. Krsljanin's response to Wilcoxson's letter.

  7. .Wilcoxson's 2nd Open Letter to Krsljanin.
  I received this letter on August 4th.
  
  Sergi Lazarov
  Johannesburg
  South Africa

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 11:07 pm
  Our public CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) reported, in the crawl underneath the TV news, the killing of a UN Policeman in Kosovo. They followed with a statement that this was the first attack on the UN Police in Kosovo since the end of the bombing in 1999.

  That addendum is absolute rubbish. It appears as gratuitous information, but the inclusion of such an outrageous lie must have been calculated. Will it never stop?

  
  
  M Donne
  Canada

• Monday August 04, 2003 at 11:26 pm
  Godfred,

  I have found that some people put on their 'thinking caps' when asked why there has been little to no coverage of what was billed as the 'Trial of the Century'. The response is often: 'I was wondering about that'.

  I believe that in the back of many minds there are mounting thoughts of that nature and that the lack of reporting may itself prove revealing. So don't despair -- a tenuous seed of doubt planted in dark recesses could eventually sprout out into the light. Most of us usually have to sleep on new thoughts before they take root.
  
  M Donne
  Canada

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 6:18 am
  What the hell is going on at ICDSM? I wish Milosevic would issue a statement so we knew for sure. Andy Wilcoxson please enlighten us and inform us what in your own words is happening. All the information so far is second hand. Lets hear it from the horses mouth.
  
  Alf Bentley
  UK

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 6:41 am
  

  The Emperor sans habits will no doubt profusely explain most likely to out regret.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 6:42 am
  
  
  G C
  SG

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 6:57 am
  

  " . . . made people believe that they were weavers, and declared they could manufacture the finest cloth to be imagined. Their colours and patterns, they said, were not only exceptionally beautiful, but the clothes made of their material possessed the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who was unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid."

  Hans Christian Andersen
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 7:01 am
  M Donne, I don't despair, really - but share your experience, as you describe and believe in your conclusion (August 04, 2003 at 11:26 pm).

  Little peep holes in the wall of disenlightenment will eventually lead...
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 7:02 am
  
  British American Tobacco

  … confirmed it had won the tender for Duvanska Industrija Vranje, one of Serbia’s two state tobacco companies. BAT will pay €50 million (£35 million) for a 67.8 per cent stake in the company and invest at least €24 million to upgrade and modernise its facilities.

  I will not bore you with the details of scores of other acquisitions.

  To all those cynics who never believed Blair’s spin that the invasion of Serbia was purely a “humanitarian” act: Suspicious perhaps of his indiscriminate use of cluster-bombs.

  It seems you were right!

  Post Scriptum: Now that Anglo/US forces are finding they have bitten off more than they can chew in Iraq - they do not have enough forces to rotate - what are the chances of a revival of the AMBO project: to ship Caspian Sea oil via a pipeline through the southern Balkans?

  It’s curious that while the truth of the matter is staring us in the face most of us still believe in the Good Fairy Tony and his fables.

  Incidentally now that Serbia is well and truly part of the empire - even offering up troops to guard the outposts of empire - whatever will become of the KLA?

  We don’t have to speculate: Its back in business and up to its old tricks ambushing and murdering policemen and blaming it all on the Serbs.

  Local Albanian politicians were blaming "Serb extremist elements" for the shooting.

  (-: Don’t be surprised if del Ponte adds this killing to the Milosevic indictment :-)

  The wheel turns full circle.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 8:05 am
  Well, - to add this killing to the indictment against Milosevic, Mrs. del Ponte would have to find "the connection" once more, wouldn't she?

  I mean, - there is no doubt, that it (all?) "is there". There "is" some sort of standard "connection", ready made and freely available...or there must be?

  Surely the connection "was" there, wasn't it?

  The difficulty is/was just "to bring the evidence in court," as the Prosecutor said (to the Public).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 8:21 am
  
  Godfred: Local Albanian politicians have blamed "Serb extremist elements" for the killing.

  Carla del Ponte has never needed more than the word of the likes of Thaci to indict Serbs.

  Although according to the principles of Justice it ought to: It doesn't seem to work in reverse?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 8:22 am
  Thank you, Sergi Lazarov in Johannesburg, - for posting the documentation of Krsljanin & Wilcoxson's dialogue regarding Ramsey Clark.

  I believe, that Alf Bentley will accept this as first hand info?

  Demonstrating our capabilities for thinking ourselves is definitely the best way to be giving "the horse" a welldeserved break, I think.

  Little contributions as from Gusztav Farkas in Cluj, Romania on Monday August 04, 2003 at 5:41 am no doubt are valuable in this respect, too:

  "Definitely the trial of Milosevic is NOT fair," Gusztav Farkas said.
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 8:51 am
  It doesn't seem to work in reverse?

  Peter: While I accept, that "Carla del Ponte has never needed more than the word of the likes of Thaqi to indict Serbs," I also believe that she now appreaciates, that "the difficulty is to bring "evidence" in court."

  That's what she said, - wasn't it? Surely that is what she has been demonstrating (her lack of ability to do).

  None of us can know, I suspect, who committed the most recent murder of a policeman in Kosovo; not until we have an investigation report, anyway. We can make our assumptions, - even Carla del Ponte is capable of that - and some of us (like William Walker, say) are capable of dreaming up a lot on his own, singlehandedly.

  Still "the difficulty is to bring the evidence (to bear) in court," - as the Prosecutor said to the Public.

  If it is difficult even for Del Ponte, who has been called to her job as a Chief Prosecutor in order to do just that, to bring the evidence (in chief) in court (and who undoubtedly aspires to continue doing so!), - then, well...there is a problem, right?

  The apparent ease in ICTY's adding this and that to what "is" already there, and which would be more than enough if only it were true, only serve to demonstrate, that Del Ponte never had a case against mr. Milosevic. This trial is lost for NATO, - and for your mr. Bliar, who is in Downing Street 10 still only because you would not know who else to fit in there...
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 9:02 am
  Now that we have the "lirics" from del Ponte we have to wait for a musician to complete the ICTY anthem to stupidity
  
  Milan Prika
  Rep. of Panama

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 9:25 am
  There it is again -- from our CBC, & also from the UK Guardian -- "He was the first member of the International Force to be killed there (Kosovo) since the end of the war, four years ago."

  A perfunctory google search finds "Two UN police killed in Kosovo" VOA, March 11, 2003 & several attacks on the UN police station &, from CNN, "UN police stoned in Kosovo", Feb 21, 2002. At least the Guardian lied a little less with the modifier, 'deadly' whereas the CBC stated 'first attack on UN police.

  What rubbish; what coordinated rubbish; why such coordination of rubbish now?
  
  M Donne
  Canada

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 9:57 am
  Godfred I dont know. A few months ago I read here that Clark had been removed from ICDSM. Now I read from a link here (although it isnt said directly) that Andy, Jared and Co are in danger of being thrown out. Which is the truth?

  Dont you feel a bit of a mug for sending out the appeal for money when you dont know who its going to and who is in control of ICDSM? Im thankful I didnt send any money to this Mr Krsljanin for Milosevic's defence if he's not trustworthy. Or is he trustworthy. I just dont have the information. I'd expect everyone wants this cleared up so we can focus on what is important.

  I think the only way is if we hear a statement from Milosevic himself although Andy Wilcoxson must clarify - please.
  
  Alf Bentley
  UK

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 11:04 am
  I second Alf Bentley's appeal today at 9:57am. See my post yesterday. If the financial situation is desperate give us the answers immediately -- not long letters that we have to study.Those who want to help can then do so with confidence.
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 11:13 am
  The Independent says today:

  ...While the US initially seemed anxious to scale down its force in the Balkans, it has been having second thoughts. Washington sees the region as increasingly important for counter-terrorism operations, and has been less enthusiastic about the EU's military ambitions since the transatlantic rift over Iraq...

  Quelle suprise!
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Belgium

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 11:19 am
  Alf Bentley, right - "not knowing" is a respectable starting point, - and in my opinion we are in the process of a (possibly muchneeded!) clarification about the ICDSM. I do appreaciate your contribution towards this clarification, - I would not myself be able to do more than that.

  That said, "we" must admit, I suppose, that "we" do not even know, who "we" are, - except a group of people worldwide largely sharing the same views that this ICTY "trial" against mr. Milosevic (and others!) is unfair. "We" know - and to quite a degree we do trust each other - from what we are saying, from the views, that we are expressing in this JURIST Forum.

  I am not myself a member of the ICDSM, - hence not in a position to "know" all particulars (as with yourself, maybe). I do not feel "a bit of a mug" however, as I was relaying, not "sending out" the appeal for money. I was relaying the message in my own name, - however the appeal for money was made in the name of mr. Krsljanin, the ICDSM Secretary, - whom I have no reason not to trust entirely in that capacity!

  As you will understand, I have no influence whatever, on whether "we" (the JURIST Forum) shall hear "a statement from Milosevic himself" in this matter. If we do, and if that settles things for you, then that is fine with me. I any case we seem to agree, that we still do need clarification from Andy Wilcoxson, - and in the light of the above from mr. Krsljanin as well, I'd say.

  That might even be a joint statement, I suppose?

  Well, - these "complications" tend to overshadow the real issues, even the immediately underlying issues - which I too have tended to shun. Anyway:

  As regards mr. Ramsey Clark my confidence in the former U.S. Attorney General stems from the work he did in relation to the NATO war in 1999, specifically the document entitled "The Complaint", published in his name. Then later I have briefly met mr. Clark once (in Copenhagen) and I have no reason not to trust him.

  I may be overstretching this a bit, but as time is short (even if it is not "running out"), I'd say, that I trust mr. Milosevic also from what he is saying, - very much for the Speech the President gave at the Kosovo Polje way back at the 600th Anniversary of the Battle, but certainly also very much for what is now in the "trial transcripts".

  These statements do not deceive you, I'm certain of that - even if they do not tell you everything!

  (By contrast I would not trust mr. William Walker for one second - even if I had not been scrutinizing his witness statement of 11-12 June last year).

  Let me conclude by repeating you: Andy Wilcoxson must clarify - please.
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 11:25 am
  The prosecution's case is a non-issue. Here is how it goes.

  Milosevic was on amicable terms with NATO and obviously NATO was on amicable terms with Milosevic after the Dayton Accords, so we may surmise that they were on amicable terms with each other at least until that time. This is important, because this implies that Milosevic was not implicated in crimes under the ICTY Statute at that time. If he had, NATO, and the US in particular, should have cut relations with him. That is what the US did when Milosevic was indicted in 1999.

  If Milosevic had been implicated in crimes under the Statute, the US would have been the first to know. Del Ponte herself bears eloquent testimony to this. The reason she did not open an investigation of the "collateral damage" caused by the bombing campaign was that the NATO sources generally reliable! If that is true of the bombing campaign, it must certainly be true (from the prosecution's viewpoint) of the Bosnian war, where the US did not even have to defend itself against similar allegations.

  If, on the other hand, Milosevic was implicated in genocide or war crimes and the US knew about it, then the US itself is implicated in the crimes "committed" by Milosevic every bit as much as Milosevic is implicated in the crimes allegedly committed by Karadzic and Mladic. But this cannot be true, because NATO sources are generally reliable. If they were not, Del Ponte would have to open an investigation of the bombing campaign.

  That means that the indictments related to Bosnia and Croatia are a non-issue. And so is the indictment related to Kosovo. The prosecution obviously felt that the indictment related to Kosovo would not stand, so it issued the two other indictments after Milosevic had been transferred to The Hague.

  This shows that Milosevic is quite right to argue that he was seen as a peace-maker by the West. That is his best defence, although it may go down badly with a lot of Milosevic supporters.

  Things changed when Milosevic became Yugoslav president in 1997. The "international community" was still hopeful about him, but the situation had changed. Maybe the reason was that Yugoslavia was now home to about a million refugees from the Balkan wars and Yugoslavia was not going to listen to sermons on human rights situation in Kosovo. That is understandable. That is also why Milosevic must have seemed a changed man to the West. The Western capitals must have reached the hypocritical conclusion that Milosevic must have put on an act all the time, and the reason that he did not respond to Western wishes the way he had used to must have been the enjoyment he now got from bullying the Kosovars. They argued that Milosevic was such a good actor that he had even fooled the US in Croatia and Bosnia. On the contrary, Milosevic must have felt that his perceived soft approach in Croatia and Bosnia was eroding his power base at home. He felt he had to tighten his grip, and there may indeed be some truth to the allegations that he had rigged the presidential elections. That was all the excuse the West needed to turn against him. But that doesn't changed the way things were before.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 11:37 am
  
  Walter Mitty

  Milosevic’s principle protagonist, UK Prime Minister Blair, portrays himself as a man of impeccable moral standards. The facts of the matter are somewhat more sinister even without the cluster-bombs.

  Dr Kelly you may remember was Britain’s foremost expert on chemical and biological weapons who assisted in compiling the first ‘Dodgy Dossier’, probably before it became dodgy, then briefed the BBC on his reservations over Blair’s claims about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.

  During the ensuing furore he advised the government that he had discussed such matters with BBC journalists and then - obviously under some sort of threat - Dr Kelly, probably, took his own life.

  Following his death Blair made these comments: "I’m profoundly saddened for David Kelly and for his family, He was a fine public servant who did an immense amount of good for his country in the past and I’m sure would have done so again in the future. There is now, however, going to be a due process and proper and independent inquiry and I believe that should be allowed to establish the facts. And I hope we can set aside the speculation and the claims and the counter-claims and allow that due process to take its proper course. And in the meantime all of us, the politicians and the media alike, should show some respect and restraint."

  Yesterday, two days before Dr Kelly’s funeral and three days before the effective start of a judicial enquiry by Lord Hutton into the causes of his death Blair’s senior press spokesman at Number Ten, Tom Kelly, was exposed as the man briefing the media that the government regarded Dr Kelly as a Walter Mitty type. First Number Ten denied involvement in this character assassination then, when the media revealed Blair’s spokesman’s name as the source, Tom Kelly made an abject apology: but the damage has been done. Make no mistake: in spite of the denials comments from Blair’s office such as this would not have been made without his approval. Clearly Number Ten did not expect to be found out to be the source of this gratuitous calumny. In other words it is the government’s smear campaign claim - in spite of Blair’s fine words above of the need for due process instead of speculation before the start of Lord Hutton’s enquiry and in spite of calls for respect and restraint before the funeral - that Dr Kelly is a ‘Self deluding fantasist’. The intentions of Blair’s office were clear: surreptitiously and falsely to blacken Dr Kelly’s character and thus influence the judicial enquiry.

  This is the true character of one of the principal architects of the ICTY trial of Milosevic!

  There are a several unpleasant words and phrases which describe different aspects of behaviour such as this but one stands out. If Blair is serious about claiming ‘impeccable moral conduct’ then he must be self-delusional: a true “Walter Mitty”.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 11:49 am
  With thanks to JW may I hereby - once again - just RELAY the following:

  IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS FOR DONATION MONEY TRANSFERS

  Dear friends,

  Please, find bellow the information and SWIFT-Codes necessary to transfer money in different currencies to the German ICDSM bank account, which at the moment is the most efficient banking mechanism to put your donations on the disposal of Sloboda for the defense of Slobodan Milosevic.

  To make your donation by an international money transfer, just provide your local bank with the instructions valid for your currency.

  Sincerely,

  Vladimir Krsljanin, SLOBODA/Freedom Association

  1. Payment in EUR from inside EU

  Just use the IBAN (International Banking Account Number) DE 5150 8900 0001 0201 3409 for further credit to account of Mr. Peter Betscher, favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG, SWIFT-Code: DAVODE55

  2. Payment in USD

  Payment via Bank of New York, NY (SWIFT: IRVTUS3N) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no. 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher

  3. Payment in GBP

  Payment via Lloyds Bank PLC, London (SWIFT: LOYDGB2L) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher

  4. Payment in SEK

  Payment via Svenska Handelsbanken, Stockholm (SWIFT: HANDSESS) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher

  5. Payment in DKK

  Payment via Danske Bank, Copenhagen (SWIFT: DABADKKK) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher

  6. Payment in CHF

  Payment via Berner Kantonalbank, Bern (SWIFT: KBBECH22) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher

  7. Payment in AUD

  Payment via ANZ Bank, Melbourne (SWIFT: ANZBAU3M) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher

  8. Payment in CAD

  Payment via Bank of Montreal, Montreal (SWIFT: BOFMCAM2) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no. 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher

  9. Payment from Poland and Russia

  It is recommended to pay in EUR or USD using the following instructions:

  Payment in EUR

  Just use the IBAN (International Banking Account Number) DE 5150 8900 0001 0201 3409 for further credit to account of Mr. Peter Betscher, favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG, SWIFT Code: DAVODE55

  Payment in USD

  Payment via Bank of New York, NY (SWIFT: IRVTUS3N) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no. 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher

  For further questions, please contact Volksbank:

  Anja Folkerts

  Tel.: +49-6157-980-230, Fax: +49-6157-980-262

  Volksbank Darmstadt eG

  Hügelstr. 8 - 20, 64218 Darmstadt/Germany

  SWIFT: DAVO DE 55

  BLZ: 50890000

  Bankverbindung:

  LZB Darmstadt (BLZ) 508 900 00

  USt.-Nr. 007 220 01153

  USt.-ID-Nr. DE 111 609 637

  Or Mr. Peter Betscher, who is in charge of the ICDSM account in Germany:

  e-mail: Peter_betscher@freenet.de

  To join or help this struggle, visit:

  http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)

  http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic)

  http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)

  http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)

  http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)

  PS: Somehow I feel inspired to add the following: "I refuse to be a member of a club which accepts me as member". Groucho Marx.

  (Groucho was the Gogol Charlemagne of his days, I suppose?)

  May I also add that - like a number of participants in this JURIST discussion - I shall be looking forward to clarification from Andy Wilcoxson on the exchange of e-mails etc. with mr. Vladimir Krsljanin of the SLOBODA/Freedom Association at his earliest convenience!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 12:17 pm
  To: J W, Canada
  re. Fundamental difference between Rambouillet & Kumanovo

  "The Rambouillet Accords did not contain anything that Yugoslavia could not agree to. In fact, Yugoslavia did in effect agree to it three months later. "

  Have you appreciated the fact that Appendix B of the Rambouillet document (in contrast to the Kumanovo agreement) was referring not only to Kosovo but to the whole of Yugoslavia?
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 2:20 pm
  Bumped into this nice peace of falsehoods:

  Writing in "The Washington Times," Jeffrey Kuhner, who is currently writing a book on the Croatian-Serbian conflict in the former Yugoslavia, discusses the indictment of Croatian General Ante Gotovina. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is currently reconsidering its 2001 indictment of Gotovina for his so-called "command responsibility" over alleged war crimes during a 1995 Croatian offensive. The operation, known as Operation Storm, took place with the approval of then-U.S. President Bill Clinton and succeeded in regaining Croatian territories annexed for Serbia by forces loyal to former President Slobodan Milosevic.

  Kuhner says Washington approved the Croatian offensive because it "rightly viewed Croatia as providing the strategic balance of power that would finally put an end to Mr. Milosevic's rampage." Not only did it regain Croatian territory, "it also prevented a Srebrenica-style massacre from occurring in Bihac." Gotovina's troops "smashed the Serbian lines encircling the city, causing Mr. Milosevic's forces to retreat to their stronghold of Banja Luka."

  Kuhner writes: "General Gotovina is not a war criminal. Instead, he is a hero who finally accomplished what the United Nations and Western diplomacy had failed to do after nearly four years of [bloodshed]: Deliver a fatal blow to Mr. Milosevic's revanchist ambitions."

  "It now seems that the tribunal is also finally coming around to that same conclusion," Kuhner says. Prosecution testimony at Milosevic's trial at The Hague has revealed the expulsion of Krajina Serbs attributed to Gotovina was, in fact, ordered by Milosevic.

  Full version of this bullocks at

  http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030804-090706-1701r.htm
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 3:08 pm
  Peter, there may be no postings on this site, that I appreaciate more than those of yours. For several reasons I believe.

  There is however but one small favor, that I would ask from you, if I MAY:

  Kindly consider the word (or "title" of) "architect" before writing, say, thus:

  "This is the true character of one of the principal architects of the ICTY trial of Milosevic!"

  You see, Peter - I AM an architect (in the sense, if maybe hardly of the talent of a Phidias or Michelangelo, Christopher Wren, Frank Lloyd Wright, Walther Gropius, Arne Jacobsen, Jørn Utzon...just to mention some honorable collegues).

  Does that matter in this context?

  I think so: I was using my skills and experience as an architect to "imagine", to foresee (back in October 1998) what would happen if those buggars did in fact attack the FRY! I "took action" (albeit modest) against my own Danish Gvt. on the basis of this "analysis" - and my background in judging physical operations in January 1999 enabled me to "see", that whatever happened at the village of Racak, then that was certainly NOT as described by NATO (or in the media).

  I was right! Hence I have some respect for the visions of architects, real architects, who are used to work with "real estate", - and cannot easily cheat (themselves) as can the bliars...who work with words only and may have no "true character" or moral standards anyway...

  Otherwise: Great posting, as they say!

  BTW: I agree with JW in that "the indictments related to Bosnia and Croatia are a non-issue."

  I think JW has embarked on a good job at the right time...for us to finish this "trial" discussion at some reasonable point.

  I have been wondering if we should organize (or at least spark off) a "Milosevic Trial Conference"?

  Don't you think we could have a couple of rooms in Downing Street for a weekend?

  Finally concerning the trial funding: i would like to see some solid proof, that "Serbia", the Serbs are financing the defence of thei President, sho stood up for them, when it mattered. It that unreasonable? Unfair?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 3:39 pm
  If Serbs of Croatia were ordered (by Milosevic) to leave their homes why don't they go back and why does Croatia have such a hard time of leting them return? But you can not expect more from the Soros dog Kuhner.
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 4:00 pm
  To: J W, Canada
  re. Fundamental difference between Rambouillet & Kumanovo

  soem big differences between Rambouillet and Kumanovo

  1) UNSCR 1244 vs. Rambouillet's 3 year interm period until a independence vote

  2) NATO accepted conviction of some 1,200 KLA terrorists which were removed from KosMet by Yugoslav Government and sent to prison in Northern Serbia

  3) UNSC in charge of occupation, not NATO

  4) Yugoslav Legal system and laws enforced by occupation authorities and remain sole basis of law in KosMet

  5) NATO/UN responsible for safety and security of entire population.

  Arguably, the Yugoslav Government won significant concessions from the Aggressors via a spirited defense. The Russian Prime Minister (Chenomydin sp?) stated that Washington came begging to him to provide a way out for them.

  Effectively, Washington capitulated on every single one of their war aims. Clinton spelled out his major war aims very clearly at the beginning of the war. He achieved not one.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 5:43 pm
  Kumanovo is not an alternative to Rambouillet. Kumanovo is a Military Technical Agreement, and some such MTA would have been concluded even if Rambouillet had been signed. Maybe that is what Point 23 of Appendix B of the Rambouillet Accords meant by "prior settlement". In UNSC resolution 1244(1999), the Rambouillet Accords mentioned four times, and the gist of it is that the parties have to take the Rambouillet Accords into full account. After the spirited defence, Yugoslavia had to accede to the Rambouillet Accords anyway.

  The five war aims may have been forfeited by Clinton, but the fact is that they were never clearly articulated to begin with. The only thing one remembers of them is that there were five aims in all and that they kept changing all the time.

  Yes, the UN, or UNMIK as it is now called, is in charge of the police, the judiciary (mostly international, along with the lawyers) and public services. NATO is now called by another four-letter abbreviation, KFOR, but what is the difference? KFOR, or NATO, is not mentioned in UNSC resolution 1244(1999) at all. Does that mean NATO is out of the picture?

  Make no mistake about it. The bombing campaign is called "illegitimate but justified". Maybe it was justified from the perspective of the NATO countries, but that doesn't mean that the bombing was any less illegitimate, which is how the argument is presented. Even if the bombing may have appeared justified at the time, the fact remains that it was illegitimate, and NATO countries should face the consequences. That would also guarantee that NATO's aim was true.

  Conversely, Milosevic may have made a political mistake. The defence was not just spirited, it was also costly. But it is no crime to defend one's own country. Little wonder the case plays out at the ICTY.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 6:01 pm
  To: Dakic Ana
  Re.: Who oils the Jeffrey Kuhner propaganda machine?

  From his writings and a quick internet search, Kuhner appears to have very close relationship with the Ustashe fascists. He is probably their preeminent lobbyist in Washington. I could not find any connection with Soros / OSI. Both gangs have a lot of blood in their hands, but I believe they are not related to each other in any significant way.
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 6:36 pm
  Mr.kuhner comment is nothing but "looney tunes" , and if the "U"'S are financing him , he's doing a poor job and they better look for an alternative like Rubin or maybe Hilary . As far as Mr.Soros ,actual peruvian President Mr. Toledo during his 2001 campaign accepted that Soros invested about 2M on his behalf
  
  B P
  Peru

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 6:43 pm
  On the subject of war crimes, contrast:

  Geneva Convention 1980

  with Results are 'remarkably similar' to using napalm
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 6:44 pm
  
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 8:09 pm
  More on that subject:

  U.S. troops and Iraqi police raids "suspected attackers"...as part of the effort aimed at capturing or killing Saddam.

  Five 60 mm mortar rounds, three AK-47s, a number of loaded AK-47 magazines and a crate of ammunition were seized, according to U.S. Central Command.

  http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/05/sprj.irq.main/index.html

  How favourably would these U.S. "raids" compare to the incident at Racak in Kosovo in January 1999?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 8:21 pm
  ...of Crime and Stupidity:

  ...killing Saddam (in a U.S. attempt to stabilize Iraq)!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday August 05, 2003 at 11:09 pm
  Yes, the UN, or UNMIK as it is now called, is in charge of the police, the judiciary (mostly international, along with the lawyers) and public services. NATO is now called by another four-letter abbreviation, KFOR, but what is the difference? KFOR, or NATO, is not mentioned in UNSC resolution 1244(1999) at all. Does that mean NATO is out of the picture?

  The fact is that UNMIK is charged with enforcing Yugoslav Laws as the occupying power is significant indeed. They are not 'in charge', they can only enforce Yugoslav laws. They can not change laws, etc. For example, that is why KosMet privatization is only being done using 99 year leases. UNMIK has zero authority to change title of KosMet property

  Strictly speaking NATO units report to the UNSC. The fact that NATO units do not respect this means they are in violation of both UNSCR 1244 and the MTA.

  The Yugoslav defense in 1999 was as valid/useful as the Finnish defense in 1940

  BTW, Clinton's war aims were spelled out explicitly in his speech to the nation annoucing the aggression. When the War Party started losing, they then began confusing the issue and obscufacating.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 12:11 am
  
  Godfred: I believe you are teasing me yet again?

  In any case I must tell you that in the English language the word ‘architect’ not only means a designer of buildings but MAY also have the meaning: contriver or schemer. That is a designer of schemes. This is not a NICE distinction. Therefore you should not be too sensitive to its proper use in this alternative meaning. Perhaps your sensitivity occurs because there is no such alternative meaning in the Danish language?

  By coincidence the profession of my ‘myopic’ relative was that of an architect. Tell me how do I get him to see the truth of the Kosovo debacle. Tell me as an architect: How do I build a bridge to guide him to this knowledge: In Italian: del PONTE?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 12:22 am
  Nobody can deny that NATO knows how to throw a bone to its enemies to get its will through. Saying that the war in Kosovo ended up in victory for Yugoslavia is not quite accurate, and there is no need to explain why.

  Neither is it accurate to say that the UNMIK can't change the laws in Kosovo, if by that statement is meant that it cannot adopt legislation of its own. In 2000, for instance, the UNMIK adopted no fewer than 69 regulations, which had to do with such fundamental matters as number, names and boundaries of municipalities. The UNMIK regulations from 1999, 2000 and 2001 can be found in http://www.reliefweb.int/hcic/departaments/regulations/unmik_regulations.htm . (The links don't work, though.)

  Kosovo also has a Albanian-majority parliament, which is a legislative organ.

  As to the relation between NATO and the UN, the Rambouillet Accords envisaged a similar arrangement that is now in place. Article I in Chapter 7 says this: "The United Nations Security Council is invited to pass a resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter endorsing and adopting the arrangements set forth in this Chapter, including the establishment of a multinational military implementation force in Kosovo."

  That provision of the Rambouillet Accords was carried out by UNSC resolution 1244(1999) the following June.

  But the point is that Milosevic doesn't have to be a hero in this trial. His political merits or demerits are irrelevant, although everybody seems to be making them the pivot of this trial.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 12:58 am
  
  Blame the victims again: The Serbs

  Although UNMIK and KFOR continually deny acts of terror by Kosovo’s new rulers - pals of phoney Tony and his ilk who cluster-bombed them into power - it is not difficult to see the red hand of Thaci and his associates behind the thousands of continuing murders of Kosovo’s minority populations and innocent Kosovars.

  In spite of UNMIK and KFOR’s reluctance to admit the facts the motive for the murder of a UN policeman, two young girls, a Kosovar man and the injuring of several others in the past week is revealed below:

  Coordinating Center for Kosovo and Metohija head Nebojsa Covic assessed that the target of Saturday's attack in Pec was Rexhep Kelemendi, who was seriously injured in the attack, and served as a witness against KLA leader Daut Haradinaj, sentenced for crimes committed in Kosovo and Metohija.

  Kosovo’s Ethnic Albanian politicians have pinned these atrocities on the Serbs.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 4:57 am
  RE: "...While I appreaciate your efforts, Zorica P, I still believe (as suggested in my posting of August 03, 2003 at 3:57 pm) that Andy Wilcoxson (and/or Jared Israel?) owe all of us complete and immediate clarification..." (Mr. Godfred Louis-Jensen) I guess if you want to get a "complete clarification" you should not only look out for a statement of ONE side of the conflict, which Wilcoxson and Israel certainly are. I guess that became quite clear. I share your conclusion that there is no reason to question Mr. Krsljanins authority. For me, it is obvious from many of his statements, including all most recent ones, that he is one of very few in charge and obviously very close to Milosevic. For sure, I would not trust individuals from the US who claim to know better what is going on around Mr. Milosevic. It is just unbelievable how they just produce the impression that SLOBODA -Slobos OWN organization-in Belgrade, or Mr. Krsljanin in particular, could only "claim" to be responsible. That is a very dangerous enterprise, only intended to do great harm (what else is the outcome than confusion?!).
  
  Zorica P
  Germany

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 6:37 am
  Soros: Patriotism Ends at the Stock Market Wes Vernon Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2001 WASHINGTON - A major uproar may be coming in the halls of Congress over top-dollar investors who are betting against the economy and helping to push the market down. One such investor is noted financier George Soros, a major backer of Bill and Hillary Clinton This financial attack by short-sellers like Soros is going on even as small investors are sinking their meager cash reserves into the American economy to help their country in time of war. Well-placed sources tell NewsMax.com that regulators are aware of this, but so far have merely tried to apply pressure through back channels. Amidst the patriotic fervor encouraging Americans to "invest in America" so as not to let the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks wreck the economy, there are those who not only are not participating, but also are actually working against it. Hedge-fund managers have been making bets against transportation, hotel and auto stocks. Hedge funds manage billions and can get extremely high leverage in the futures markets. A relatively little-noticed article in one of the inside sections of the Sept. 20 Wall Street Journal reported widely circulated rumors that "U.S. regulators urged large hedge funds to temper the size of their bearish bets on Monday." Those regulators, presumably with the Securities and Exchange Commission, get their operating budgets from Congress. Members of the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees have aides who scour newspapers for precisely this kind of information. Many who know what's going on hope these influential lawmakers will soon speak out. An insider in the financial services industry tells NewsMax.com, "We had calls from small people trying to invest $100 to $500. The people were attempting to be patriotic and wanted to invest in America. I find it absolutely sickening and heartbreaking that billionaires investing money for extremely wealthy people are helping to push the markets lower." The hedge funds, he explained, can "amplify the effect [of] using leverage." This bet against America has nothing to do with "orderly markets or the invisible hand of capitalism," he adds. While Joe and Jane Six-Pack were calling in to place their faith in America, well-known hedge-fund manager George Soros was telling a group of business leaders in Hong-Kong, "I don’t think you can run markets on patriotic principles." On issues from the death penalty to environmentalism to drug laws to gun control, Soros is notorious for using a large part of his considerable fortune to propagandize left-wing positions. The Journal article singles out hedge-fund managers Soros and Leon Cooperman. The latter is quoted as saying, "I'm very patriotic. I have a flag in front of my home. I cried a lot over the weekend. But I owe it to my investors to do what is rational." So they're sending a message that investing in America is not "rational"? To some inside the industry, it smacks of hypocrisy to tell small investors to put up their money while the elites are working against them. "The crushing of the markets will cost more jobs, make more people depressed and frightened, and will hurt America," an industry source observed to NewsMax. He called it the equivalent of "a second attack being done by 'Americans' against Americans." Several insiders are alarmed that the SEC and the Treasury Department have not worked to curb the hedge funds or reduce the leverage they are able to generate. That may change. Joe and Jane Six-Pack are willing to carry their share of the load until they sense they're being played for suckers. If they vent some outrage to their elected lawmakers on Capitol Hill and regulators at the SEC, those who seek to make a killing from America's misfortune may be in for a surprise
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 6:51 am
  Right, Zorica P!

  Confusion may not be entirely avoided, I suppose, - then there is some consolence in knowing, that on "the other side" del Ponte is still grabbling with the connection, which "is there" - right in her second-floor office - but may be too difficult for her to bring in court (August 04, 2003 at 7:42 pm).

  Someone in Denmark said: Når jeg ser mine modstandere, fatter jeg atter håb...
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 10:07 am
  Peter Varavejke,

  That editorial by Kuhner is interesting. First of all Kuhner has accused Canada of lying.

  That article Kuhner makes reference to from the National Post says:
  "Eight years ago, Canadian peacekeepers witnessed one of the late 20th century's most brutal attempts at ethnic cleansing. In August, 1995, over a span of just 64 hours, Croatian soldiers forced 200,000 Serbs from their homes in Croatia -- the largest single act of ethnic cleansing of all the Balkan wars between 1991 and 1995. The military action -- dubbed Operation Storm -- involved the Croats' entire 100,000-man army. Canadian soldiers stationed in the area documented the Croats' efficiency. Colonel Andrew Leslie, for example, reported that of the 40,000 people who lived in the Serb stronghold of Knin, barely 1,000 remained once the operation ended."

  Kuhner directly contradicts the Canadians and says that:
  "Rather than being the victims of an ethnic-cleansing campaign by Gen. Gotovina's forces, the mass expulsion of the Krajina Serbs was ordered by Mr. Milosevic before the operation began."

  Maybe while Kuhner is accusing the Canadians of being liars he would also like to tell the Canadian soldiers of the Princess Patricia's Light Infantry that the Croats who attacked them at Medak Pocket and slaughtered the Serb civilians there were "the forces of civilized decency."

  That firefight at Medak Pocket was Canada's biggest combat operation since the Korean war.

  I am amazed that Kuhner admits that "...the Clinton administration gave Zagreb the green light to launch a sweeping military offensive..." and that he says "The United States played a pivotal role in the operation [Storm], supplying Croatian forces with military and intelligence assistance such as the use of unmanned drones to pinpoint Serbian positions on the ground."

  So while Kuhner is accusing the Canadians of lying about what they saw, he is also conceding that the United States was in violation of UN Security Council resolution 713, a resolution that the United States voted in favor of.

  So according to Kuhner the Canadians are lairs, the Serbs are animals, the Croats are innocent angels, and the Americans are hypocrites who violate their own resolutions, but that's o.k. since they used their hypocrisy to help the sacred Croats.

  If anybody needs to "face reality" it's Kuhner.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 10:46 am
  Interesting. If Milosevic ordered the mass expulsion of the Krajina Serbs, how did he think this furthered the objective of creating a Greater Serbia? The best defence witnesses may come from Croatia. The US may have used the Bosnia genocide to divert the attention from its covert operations in Croatia, so Milosevic may be lucky that the prosecution decided to extend the indictments to include Croatia as well. The indictment relating to Croatia does not cover the Operation Storm, but the point is that "the mass expulsion of the Krajina Serbs was ordered by Mr. Milosevic before the operation began," according to Kuhner.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 11:24 am
  As for Kuhner using the testimony of Babic to prove this "greater-Serbia" bullshit....

  I seem to remember a certain Milan Babic, back in 1991 making a declaration that Krajina would join Serbia.

  I also seem to remember a certain Slobodan Milosevic rejecting Babic's declaration.

  This same Slobodan Milosevic in 1992 endorsed the Vance Plan and what did Milan Babic do? He initally rejected the plan and accused Milosevic of being a sellout.

  If Slobodan Milosevic was trying to create "greater Serbia" he was certainly going about it in the wrong way.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 11:34 am
  Andy Wilcoxson. Would you please enlighten us? I suspect you are maintaining a diplomatic silence but could you at least tell us your own position vis a vis ICDSM and whether it is safe to send donations to the address relayed by Godfred. I dont know if this Victor guy is trustworthy or not after the publication of your letters. If you have a disagreement but can assure us that money sent will be used for the defence of Milosevic then that at least would be something. Otherwise I hope you might want to think about making a statement of unity and put your differences aside for the moment.
  
  Alf Bentley
  UK

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 11:37 am
  Let me echo my own disbelief after reading that Kuhner piece. I think even the most ardent anti Milosevic or pro Western person would have trouble swallowing this rubbish.
  
  Alf Bentley
  UK

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 12:12 pm
  I second Alf Bentley (August 06, 2003 at 11:34 am), - with refence also to a series of postings above incl. from Sergi Lazarov (August 04, 2003 at 10:22 pm).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 12:28 pm
  
  God’s gift to New Labour fantasises again:

  John Laughland examines the credibility of ‘sexy’ Blair:

  In the Kosovo war of 1999, Human Rights Watch stated categorically that the number of people killed unlawfully by the Serbs was "certainly" more than 4,300. This was the number of bodies which had by then been exhumed. Moreover, Human Rights Watch claimed to have itself documented 3,453 killings, based on interviews. But the legal indictment against Slobodan Milosevic, the former president of Yugoslavia, refers to 564 killed, not thousands.

  And there is nothing certain as to how they were killed or who exactly killed these 564: consider for example those listed at Racak engaged in a battle provoked by the KLA. We now know from identifications and the testimony of Kosovars such as Bujar Bukoshi that the KLA and Nato killed most of these some 4,500 victims. Laughland goes on to highlight the unreliability of eyewitness accounts:

  "They blindfolded us … and then they put us in Landcruisers with shaded windows." But how could he know the make of the car, or the colour of the windows, if he was blindfolded? The same man claims to have escaped alive from a mass grave, a story I have heard too many times in Kosovo to find easy to believe.

  
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 12:37 pm
  Alf Bentley,

  I honestly have no idea who Peter Bescher is. If you don't feel safe giving money to Sloboda then don't. Use your own judgment.

  There are other ways to donate to Slobodan Milosevic's defense. On July 18th President Milosevic met with Nico Varkevisser and it was decided that a new Milosevic defense center would be established in the Netherlands.

  This defense center will have Slobodan Milosevic as its president. Slobodan Milosevic will have direct and total control over this defense center.

  If you want to donate to the defense center goto the following URL and follow the instructions:

  http://www.icdsm.com/more/defensecenter.htm

  If you have any further questions you can contact Nico Varkevisser directly at: redactie@targets.org
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 12:39 pm
  CONCERNING MILOMIR STAKIC...

  We certainly are expected to "swallow a lot of rubbish" - served in little dozes. The below may be all that has emerged in the Danish press though concerning Milomir Stakic's rather ominous "case" - which I would suggest one is ill advised in ignoring!

  1) Assumed Bosnian war criminal on his way to The Hague (Ritzau, 23 March 2001 at 19:20)

  A Bosnian Serb wanted for war crimes was arrested on Friday in Belgrade. According to the UN war crimes tribunal the Serb Milomir Stakic was already on his way to The Hague.

  Stakic alledgedly was involved in planning, organizing and directing the establishment of the Bosnian "camps" including infamous Omarska and Keraterm.

  Yugoslavia has been under tough pressure to cooperate with the war crimes tribunal and to extradite wanted war criminals.

  Here we see a concrete example of cooperation with the authorities in Belgrade and hopefully the start of a process leading to suspected war criminals being extradited to the war crimes tribunal, said the ICTY spokesman, Jim Lansdale.

  http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=153348

  2) Kostunica against extradiction of war crimes suspect (Vibeke Sperling, 26 March, 2001 at 22:31)

  (This is a more meaty article, that I may translate if required).

  http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=153728

  3) Serbian mayor sentenced to life imprisonment (Jens Holsoe, 31 July 2003 at 16:31, 19:27).

  Milomir Stakic, Serbian doctor and mayor in Prijedor, was given the hardest sentence of the tribunal at The Hague for ethnic cleansing, murder, establishment of three concentration camps, torture and mass rape against muslims in Bosnia.

  This is the very first time that a Bosnian war criminal has been sentenced to life imprisonment. On Thursday the 41-year old doctor and former mayor in the Bosnian-Serb town of Prijedor, Milomir Stakic, got the hard sentence by the ICTY for war crimes and ethnic cleansing during the war in Bosnia.

  He was deemed co-responsible for the establishment of the infamous prison camps Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje in 1992, where thousands of Bosnian Moslims were held captive under inhumane conditions, and where hundreds were murdered, tortured and raped.

  http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.sasp?PageID=279422

  Food for thought?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 3:33 pm
  .....They blindfolded us.... ¡Kemo Sabey , says Tonto , quiet¡I can HEAR a WHITE horse coming ?! . This is the philosophy behind Bliar , Blush ,Flinton , Assnar etc, etc,etc , endorsed by Del Ponte , May and the list goes on and on and on .
  
  Milan Prika
  Rep. of Panama

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 4:43 pm
  OPEN LETTER

  Dear mr. Varkevisser,

  At the suggestion of Andy Wilcoxson I send you this request for clarification:

  1) A JURIST posting from Dan B. on Friday August 01, 2003 at 12:09 am was summarizing the main "ICDSM Hague meeting conclusions", stressing i.a. the "leading and coordinating role of SLOBODA in all activities"; and heralding the setting up of new "national committees" in France, USA, The Netherlands, Canada...

  Accepting that there may be a strenuous defence task ahead, rather limited financial means only and numerous other limitations, it seems very reasonable to suggest that one works in accordance with these "conclusions".

  (In fact Dan B. in his posting was suggesting that "actions contravening these conclusions can not be made on behalf or in the function of ICDSM").

  2) Now Andy Wilcoxson in a JURIST posting to Alf Bentley (on Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 12:37 pm) refers JURIST discussion participants to an (undated) article by Jared Israel written under the name of ICDSM (1) and informing us that "President Milosevic in a meeting on the 18th of July, 2003 was asking Nico Varkevisser to urgently organize a "Defense Center" in the Netherlands and fund raising for the maintenance of his defense.

  This Defence Center, we are briefly told, will handle "media work, research and other aspects of support for President Milosevic's struggle". Mr. Milosevic has asked Mr. Nico Varkevisser to also set up a Foundation to support the Defense Center. This Foundation will be chaired by the President.

  3) Assuming that this "Defense Center" in the Netherlands as outlined is in compliance with the "ICDSM Hague meeting conclusions" referred to above, I would like clarification on the functional relationship between this and the already existing, Belgrade-based SLOBODA organisation, - which has had and was is supposed to maintain the "leading and coordinating role in all activities".

  I also would like clarification of the organizational relation between the Defence Centre, the SLOBODA and the ICDSM.

  I trust, that you will take this request for clarification as a genuine effort to assist mr. Milosevic. Can you help us ordinary JURIST "trial discussion" participants to understand the position, mr. Varkevisser?

  Godfred Louis-Jensen

  PS: It is clear, that the up-coming defense phase of the "trial", in which mr. Milosevic would have the initiative, has particular requirements. Now I wonder, if all expectation for a "one year break" in the proceedings has been abandoned altogether?

  What indeed is the urgency of building "a strong Defence Center in the Netherlands" if the case is simply dismissed by the Judges at the end of the "Prosecutions case" later this year - which in my humble opinion it certainly ought to be?

  (1) http://www.icdsm.com/more/defensecenter.htm
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 4:49 pm
  Alf Bentley,

  Who would "this Victor guy" be, to whom you are referring in your posting to Andy Wilcoxson (August 06, 2003 at 11:34 am)?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday August 06, 2003 at 10:56 pm
  What is the connection which Del Ponte says she knows is there? Here is how it goes.

  1) The Serbs wanted to create a Greater Serbia.

  2) Greater Serbia is genocidal.

  3) A genocidal war is illegitimate in itself.

  4)All those who were connected with any of those who were involved in creating a Greater Serbia are implicated in the genocide.

  Del Ponte says that the difficulty is to bring the evidence in court. That is not her only problem. The equation doesn't work even on paper. She has tried. The prosecution has called this line of argument by the name "joint criminal enterprise".

  The first difficulty with the joint criminal enterprise is that the Statute doesn't speak of such a joint criminal enterprise. The Statute allows sentencing superiors who hadn't punished subordinates who had committed war crimes. That is the Statute at its most liberal (from the prosecution's viewpoint). However, if the accused was allegedly involved in a "joint criminal enterprise," even punishing the subordinates isn't enough. The prosecution oversteps its competence.

  The second problem is that the evidence produced in support of such a "joint criminal enterprise" can be interpreted in innumerable other ways. Since the defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt, the prosecution can make its case stick only if Del Ponte can persuade the judges to take her word for it. That is simply investing too much credence in the prosecution's integrity. The most extreme examples of purported evidence in support of such a joint criminal enterprise have included Milosevic's contacts with Karadzic and Mladic, when he was in fact discussing peace initiatives with them.

  Finally, one can tear the reasoning apart step by step. The Serbs did not want to create a Greater Serbia, at least, not all of them. Milosevic may have had contacts with people who did, but the "Greater Serbia" isn't the kind of contagious disease that is transmitted simply through the air. There may have been other reasons he was in contact with them. After all, he had a job. Second, even Greater Serbia wasn't necessarily genocidal. Third, genocidal war is a misnomer in this case, because any genocide that might have contemplated by Yugoslavia would have been ill-served by starting a war in the first place. There are more subtle ways to carry out a genocide, and if the Serbs were surreptitious enough to dispose of thousands of bodies to get rid of the evidence of the genocide, they wouldn't have resorted to war at all. Fourth, a country can hardly start a war if it already has sovereignty over the territory in question. If the country has ceded the territory to another state, it doesn't have to wage war any more. In any case, this is not something for the ICTY to decide.

  The case is a non-issue, but even a non-issue can become an issue itself, if you keep repeating it long and loud enough and with all the due ceremony. This is what the prosecution does best.
  
  J W
  Canada