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

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 6:56 am
  Would AP V (NY - NY) be a discussion participant - or a lecturer?

  A "neutralist" moderator sending "notes to all" (the rest of the world)?

  Or a troll: "You could "eventually" include Clinton...
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 8:07 am
  Godfred-Do you perhaps have any evidence for such an accusation or are your panties still in a bunch from his sublte advice of a few days ago.

  This is exactly the petty crap of which he was reffering. Please humble thyself and refrain from posting every thought which comes to mind.
  
  joel aksamit
  USA

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 10:03 am
  This article is simply right on the mark :

  THE Guardian, August 14 2003

  A pattern of aggression

  Iraq was not the first illegal US-led attack on a sovereign state in recent times. The precedent was set in 1999 in Yugoslavia writes Kate Hudson

  As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq: illegal aggression justified by spin and fabrication enables might to prevail and deals a terrible blow to the framework of international law. As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq, people's wellbeing comes a poor second-best to the interests of the world's self-appointed moral and economic arbiters.

  ·Kate Hudson is principal lecturer in Russian and East European politics at South Bank University, London and author of Breaking the South Slav Dream: the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia

  For the full text, please visit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1018258,00.html
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 11:05 am
  

  In absence of the proceedings, perhaps this may occupy:

  Genocide in the former Yugoslavia: A critique of left revisionism

  Dr Marko Attila Hoare, Research Fellow, Cambridge University, History Department

  http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0308&L=justwatch-l&D=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=49287
  
  Mira A.
  UK

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 1:11 pm
  
  Blair will not escape the true judgement of history

  “As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq: illegal aggression justified by spin and fabrication enables might to prevail and deals a terrible blow to the framework of international law. As in Yugoslavia, so in Iraq, people's wellbeing comes a poor second-best to the interests of the world's self-appointed moral and economic arbiters.” Kate Hudson, Principal Lecturer, South Bank University, London

  As demonstrated above the true history is beginning to be written now and published even in the very media which broadcast the original s(p)in.

  A less academic approach to the truth was available today in the Mail where Mary Riddell attributes the following remarks about Blair to Glenda Jackson - one time Oscar winning actress and now New Labour MP:

  The leader she (Glenda Jackson) paints is a power-crazed figure, prepared to squander innocent lives. ‘He talked about having to pay the blood price.’ she says ‘possibly, in my view, because he knew the blood in question would not be his own.’

  ‘I thought a Labour Government was in the business of protecting widows and orphans, not creating them.’

  She thinks that Blair is gripped by delusions of grandeur. ‘He suffers’, she says, from ‘the insolence of office’, a phrase taken from Hamlet.

  Yes of course the ultimate decision in both these illegal wars rested with a US President. But Blair was the gung-ho conman denominator. I believe that without Blair’s arm-twisting of reluctant European leaders Clinton would have found it impossible to proceed against Serbia. In the case of Iraq if Blair had sided with his European partners (and international law) Bush may have found it very difficult if not impossible to act alone. That way a civilised solution to the problems in Iraq may have been found.

  Clinton was a weak man impeached for being economical with the truth. He even showed reluctance to act over Serbia: he knew it to be wrong. At one stage he even demanded of Blair that he cool his warmongering rhetoric but was persuaded - as weak men always are - in the end:

  Blair's role becomes to buck up Clinton, not only personally in terms of taking the necessary steps, but to buck him up against his advisers. They're constantly telling him, "Mr. President, we can't really do this. This is too much. The Congress won't do it," and Blair says, "Mr. President, this is the right thing to do."

  Can we expect the ICTY Judges to take account of such statements: at least those due to authentic academic studies?

  Post Scriptum: I scoured the British media today for reports of the recent atrocities against Serbs in Kosovo: I found instead Kylie’s bottom in The Telegraph, George Best’s marriage on the rocks in The Mail, the usual boobs in Murdoch’s Sun and the BBC reports a British soldier killed in Basra while Blair swans around his Caribbean paradise island well away from the possibility of paying the blood price he has set for others. As usual I found no reports of the continuing ethnically motivated murder of Kosovo Serbs.

  Godfred: are you slacking on your letter writing duties?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 1:13 pm
  
  
  HTML Correction
  Hopefully

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 3:02 pm
  

  JW writes: "Ramsey Clark was appointed Milosevic's defence attorney by the tribunal, but obviously such an appointment isn't good enough for the ICDSM. On the contrary, Clark was criticized by the ICDSM for calling himself Milosevic's defence attorney. How dare he! The tribunal is an illegal organ, so obviously anyone appointed by the tribunal to be someone's defence attorney is illegal too. Still, the ICDSM has its candidate for defence attorney, too. Or does it?"

  Here's how Milosevic responded to the Tribunal's *attempted* appointment of Ramsey Clark as his legal advisor:

  [Exchange between Milosevic and "Judge" May starts here] Slobodan Milosevic: I have been informed in the meantime that without our request, you have assigned certain advice that I did not ask for, interpreting my agreement to receive visits by certain individuals as a request for legal advice. our response to that has been addressed to the [Hague Tribunal] Registry that I do not consider that whoever visits me and has a law degree should be appointed as our legal counsel, and I don't think it would be permissible for visits to continue to be restricted, visits by persons who wish to visit me in accordance with the Rules that you have established and on a nondiscriminatory basis, since other people in that prison are allowed such visits.

  Judge May: Mr. Milosevic, if you don't want advice from Mr. Clark and Mr. Livingston, which we understood you did, who do you want it from?

  bodan Milosevic: No, I'm not asking for any advice from anybody. I have said that I would like to be granted the possibility to be visited by people who wish to visit me. That's all.

  TRANSCRIPT: MOTION HEARING - 11 DECEMBER 2001 - PG. 149, LINE 11:

  [Exchange between Milosevic and "Judge" May ends here]

  A couple of attorneys, Ramsey Clark being one of them, have claimed that Milosevic was frustrated in his effort to obtain (their) legal advice or counsel. That is entirely contrary to what *Milosevic* says.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 3:25 pm
  

  Oops. Due to a silly error, the word "my" got changed to the "our" in the text of President Milosevic's statement, which I posted above. So just to have an accurate text for the record, here it is again, minus the royal "our". (Sorry!)

  TRANSCRIPT: MOTION HEARING - 11 DECEMBER 2001 - PG. 149, LINE 11:

  SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: I have been informed in the meantime that without my request, you have assigned certain advice that I did not ask for, interpreting my agreement to receive visits by certain individuals as a request for legal advice. My response to that has been addressed to the Registry that I do not consider that whoever visits me and has a law degree should be appointed as my legal counsel, and I don't think it would be permissible for visits to continue to be restricted, visits by persons who wish to visit me in accordance with the Rules that you have established and on a nondiscriminatory basis, since other people in that prison are allowed such visits.

  JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, if you don't want advice from Mr. Clark and Mr. Livingston, which we understood you did, who do you want it from?

  SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: No, I'm not asking for any advice from anybody. I have said that I would like to be granted the possibility to be visited by people who wish to visit me. That's all.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  US

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 3:33 pm
  Mr. Israel, So please explain, was Clark removed by Milosevic and if so, do you know why he is back on as chairman?
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 4:45 pm
  Milosevic said he had agreed to receive visits by certain individuals, and if I am not mistaken, by "certain individuals," he meant Clark. Milosevic also says he would like to be granted the possibility to be visited by people who wish to visit him.

  However, that is not so simple. The visits have been made virtually impossible not only by the tribunal. The ICDSM itself is trying to discourage some people from visiting Milosevic. As one member of the ICDSM put it in his open letter: "I am especially concerned with the direct personal involvement of Mr. Ramsey Clark with President Milosevic."

  The trial is not fair, but one shouldn't try to make it too hard by exercising control outside the tribunal as to who is allowed access to Milosevic. Besides, this policy can turn against itself. Milosevic said explicitly that he didn't ask for any advice from anybody. What is the ICDSM trying to achieve then? If its role is not legal, then what is it? Doesn't the ICDSM have a legal "wing" as well?

  The ICDSM are now acting as thought police, guarding the access to Milosevic, as if the tribunal were not doing a pretty decent job already. It is becoming increasingly hard to compare the tribunal to the Inquisition, when the ICDSM suppresses visits as well.

  There are not enough people who support Milosevic, and what the ICDSM is doing is to discourage people from supporting his cause if their political agenda doesn't please the ICDSM. The ICDSM thrived on exposing the spin doctors in the West, but judging by the current smear campaign it is conducting, the members become master of spin themselves.

  Now that people are starting to question Blair's sanity, there are more potential supporters for the cause of Milosevic than ever before. Yet, they will never be enough, and no one who wants to see justice done can afford to turn anyone away. The ICDSM is becoming quite an exclusive club.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 5:54 pm
  

  The above comments sound slightly insane, which is a handicap. To the extent that they are coherent they seem like an atttempt to stir up troubled waters, but who knows. Let me clarify a few things before signing off. (1) Mr. Milosevic decides whom he sees and does not see. (2) Mr. Milosevic has not been interested in legal advice *from anyone*, as he made clear in public on December 11, 2001. (3) Neither of these are decisions by the ICDSM or anyone in it. (4) The ICDSM does have a lawyer who has done serious work around this case - Nico Steijnem, an unsung hero who brought cases before Dutch and European courts and has been harshly attacked (they are trying to disbar him.) Other than that, I do not know of any legal work the ICDSM has done except for a motion that we presented to the court in early December 2002.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  US

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 7:26 pm
  
  Mira A

  Hoare writes about Milosevic's Genocide in Kosovo but the ICTY has not indicted Milosevic for the crime of Genocide in Kosovo. What level of academic competence does that demonstrate?

  Hoare claims the Albanians in Kosovo are victims. How does this square with the minimum of two thousand and possible maximum of four thousand murders since Milosevic's forces left Kosovo?

  Would you describe the current situation in Kosovo Genocide by the Albanian population? Bearing in mind the some quarter of a million exiled minority populations and the fact that the remainder have to live in enclaves from which they dare not move without KFOR/UNMIK protection.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 8:36 pm
  The ICDSM has a legal committee. It strikes one as a rather slender consolation that it hasn´t done any legal work.

  But wait a minute. How about this one? "Slobodan Milosevic has asked Quebec Attorney Tiphaine Dickson and Emperor's Clothes editors Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser to meet with him to discuss strategy at Scheveningen Prison at The Hague."

  The above comments may sound insane and incoherent, depending on the listener, but what can one expect, considering the argument that was addressed. Criticism could be dismissed as insanity, if one hadn't witnessed the same kind of spin in the smear campaign against Verges and Clark.

  But the bottomline is: Milosevic decides who he sees and doesn't see.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Thursday August 14, 2003 at 10:50 pm
  

  President Milosevic did indeed want to discuss "strategy" with Nico Varkevisser, Tiphaine Dickson and me in December 2002: strategy for countering the lies about the Serbian people and strategy for publicizing his "courtroom" work. *Not* legal strategy - publicity strategy. None of us would be arrogant enough to advise him about legal strategy or even about how to conduct his brilliant cross-examinations.

  Regarding Mr. Verges, I have read translations of parts of the transcript of the Klaus Barbie trial, in which Verges was the main Defence attorney. His conduct was despicable. Afterwards, he wrote about the case and in that book he said that the Jewish victims of the Nazis were "in solidaire" with the State of Israel (not yet formed) which he said was criminal and therefore that those Jewish concentration camp victims were criminals, just like the Nazis. I can furnish the exact translation. Indeed, it is high time I published this horrific material. I collected it last October but was ill for awhile and never got back to publishing it. I am grateful for the reminder.

  Verges has done *no* legal work for this case. He has on the other hand given interviews in which he claims to be Milosevic's lawyer - a lie. He told that lie when interviewed by Deutsche Welle, in a broadcast that went all around the world. In the same brodcast he said that Milosevic could not be held responsible for Srebrenica because he called off the (supposed) massacre in the middle! Imagine the effect on people who have heard terrible things about Milsoevic and then they see this famous lawyer saying he represents Milosevic and Milosevic was in control at Srebrenica! Verges also said that France was guilty of worse crimes than Nazi Germany. His words. I have the transcript of the Deutsche Welle broadcast and also a streaming video of the broadcast itself with translation. And this was on German International Television! I could go on. Like Mr. Clark, Verges' presence has the purpose of discrediting Milosevic among one segment of the population while encouraging those who already sympathise with Milosevic to embrace Muslim extremism, anti-Semitism and terrorism, with which Mr. Verges is associated. It is not surprising that such "friends" would appear given the stakes involved in the Milosevic case. Verges has given over 170 newspaper interviews. All begin: "Attorney Verges, former lawyer for Carlos the Jackel and Klaus Barbie." The rest of what is written hardly matters, for the harm is done in those few words. These are facts we raised this Spring with President Milosevic and he agrees. He said to us: how can you fight new fascism if you ally with old fascism? He said we must purify the support work. He also says he agrees 100% with our Ramsey Clark articles. Of that I am of course very proud.

  The attempt to have these pro-Islamists, like Clark and Verges, be the public face of Milosevic is part of a bigger effort. For example, in Bosnia Paddy Ashdown, now the High Representative, is pushing through the unification of AID, Izetbegovic's pro-terrorist intelligence service, with the intelligence service of the Republika Srpska, which fought the terrorists, and also unifying the military commands, and so on. AID has been very close to Gama'a al Islamyya. That's the same Egyptian terrorist outfit that Clark has championed in the US and Egypt. A dirty, dirty game.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  US

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 12:30 am
  Understand Mr. Israel, So in your opinion, Milosevic did not ask for Clark to be put back, but rather Krsljanin did so without him knowing?
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 12:35 am
  Well, Tiphaine Dickson must have been part of the publicity strategy, which she supposedly discussed with Milosevic. This exaggerated concern about Milosevic's public image might be OK if Milosevic were running for president, but now his public image hardly matters. Maybe in some people's mind he is indeed running for president, but some might think this is all the more reason to keep him behind bars. It seems this trial is political on all sides.

  It's a dirty game, but luckily, attack is the best defence. Few people would have "known" about Verges's pro-Islamic agenda, if the TENC had not done its best to make it public. And Clark is discredited by association. One would have thought that the only thing they had in common was that they were Milosevic supporters, but now the impression is given that the Milosevic supporters are not really Milosevic supporters at all but pro-Islamists. Ever thought about that?

  "Like Mr. Clark, Verges' presence has the purpose of discrediting Milosevic among one segment of the population while encouraging those who already sympathise with Milosevic to embrace Muslim extremism, anti-Semitism and terrorism, with which Mr. Verges is associated."

  Now who sounds insane? Imagine the effect on people who have heard terrible things about Milosevic and then they are treated to this kind of witchhunt.

  Oh, Clark and Verges are discrediting Milosevic among one segment of the population. Which segment is that? The Milosevic trial is seen as the biggest war crimes prosecution since Nuremberg, no matter what Clark or Verges or somebody says or does.

  Are Clark and Verges really encouraging Muslim extremism, anti-Semitism and terrorism? Maybe they are, if they want to see more of these people in the dock, which has been the nature of their "association" with these elements.

  "We must purify the support work". Well, that is certainly being done, and one certainly appreciates such candor. This is strange talk from someone who is so apprehensive of alienating people who sympathize with Milosevic. At least now we don't have to wait until we are being purged. For those who are concerned about Milosevic's public image, this is beginning to smack of cleansing.

  Mr Krsljanin must have made the biggest blunder of all by calling the cause of Milosevic a great one. Yep, one is beginning to see that he was wrong.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 7:49 am
  Im not sure I understand either - the role of ICDSM is not to give any legal advice but to conduct PR for Milosevic? I thought the appeal for funds was in order to defend Milosevic at the Hague not to do PR work.

  I for one have had enough spin from Tony Blair and dont believe that any more is neccessary. And to be perfectly honest how in heavens name can the ICDSM be expected to do PR work for Milosevic when they are falling out amongst themselves? Maybe ICDSM should work on their own image by coming clean and making all the facts available about whether Clark is in or out and why.

  What on earth is this association with Islam and the trial? What has Milosevic to do with that? He has never been pro or anti islam. I dont know that he's ever made a statement about Islam in general. Its understandable that some in North Amercian territories have a bee in their bonet after Sept 11th but it has little to do with the trial.

  It appears that some people are confusing the issue and trying to bask in the glory of publicity whilst an innocent man is behind bars. Lets please stop using Milosevic to further other agendas.
  
  Alf Bentley
  UK

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 8:10 am
  One is beginning to see that no explaination will suffice as far as Clark's role is seen. The wishes of Milosevic be damn. Who is he to stand in the way of Clark, Verges and their supporters.

  JW-How dare you compare Milosevic's direct wish to not be associated with these clowns, and you too for that matter if you wish to demonize his true support network, with a political purge of some evil nature.

  If you consider it a bad decision on his part just say so. In short, goes kiss Clark's benevolent ass as far as I'm concerned just don't expect everyone else to join in.
  
  joel aksamit
  USA

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 9:02 am
  

  A few more corrections of false statements by this JW, who perhaps has something to be ashamed of, hence the hidden identity.

  By "publicity" I obviously did not mean an attempt to manipulate Milosevic's "image" as one might in a US presidential election, as JW suggests. I meant, and this is what I wrote, countering the lies about the Serbs and making known the content of what Pres. Milosevic does before the Tribunal since the news media suppresses and lies about his (in my opinion) brilliant work.

  2) Contrary to this JW, I have not published material about Attorney Verges, on TENC or elsewhere. I did have a few private discussions about Verges, and a few private email exchanges, but that's it. However, I *should have* published this material and I will. Here is a little clip from the Deutsche Welle broadcast.

  Deutsche Welle: Milosevic himself claims the Srebrenica massacre was planned with the help of the French secret service and was carried out by Muslim soldiers.

  Verges: I refer to the evidence given by general Moriean [phonetic spelling] concerning the Srebrenica massacre - he was there to represent France and the international security forces - he told a parliamentary investigatory committee in Paris that he asked Milosevic to do something to stop the attack on Srebrenica. Milosevic met this request so he's clear of any wrong-doing here.

  [End Deutsche Welle clip]

  Note that this clearly conveys the impression that a) there *was* a massacre carried out by Serbian forces over whom b) Milosevic was in a command or at least in a powerful advisory position - precisely the *lies* that the Tribunal would like to prove. Charmingly, Verges maintains his pose as friend of Milosevic by saying that this attack clears him of wrongdoing. Which makes the effect of his remarks all the worse since the tens of millions of people who viewed this in one of 31 (!) languages would think, "Well he's Milosevic's lawyer; he's trying to defend him -but oh god! What a monster!"

  As for JW's idiot request to know what segment of the population Verges might offend, I would hope he would offend *most* people once they learned who Verges is: an apologist for Nazism. (How else would you describe a man who claims on German TV that France did far worse things in Algeria than Nazi Germany did in World War II?) Here's another exchange from the Deutsche Welle broadcast about Verges, "Attorney for Milosevic" (a lie!)

  Deutsche Welle: Verges also defended this man - Klaus Barbie - the former head of the Gestapo in Lyon. He was tried in 1987 on charges of murdering Jews and members of the resistance in the Second World War. Verges was dubbed "attorney of evil".

  Verges: I would prefer to be the attorney of the devil than the attorney of the government. I didn't defend Barbie's ideology [a lie by the way - J.I.]- I just said that everything Barbie did - the French also *did to a far greater extent* during the war in Algeria. I know this because I represented people in the Algerian freedom movement.[My emphasis-J.I.]

  [End of exchange]

  So: No Holocaust, No 25 million plus Russians murdered, No Jasenovac, No destruction of the Roma, no slaughter of a million? or more communists, no empowerment of the worst racists worldwide, because none of that happened in Algeria and according to Verges Algeria was worse than World War II. And remember, while apologizing for the Nazis in this way , on German Television, Verges presented himself - and Deutsche Welle presented him - as the fearless attorney for and strong supporter of Milosevic. Deutsche Welle even made the false claim that he was barred from Tribunal proceedings because he was Milosevic's attorney.

  It is crucial that this Verges is attacked *by the supporters of Milosevic* so that it is clear that Milosevic has nothing but disgust for his apologies for Nazism. (And this is indeed President Milosevic's position. I know that for a fact.)

  "JW" says it is a witchhunt to condemn the monstrous behavior of Verges. How easily words are tossed around! For myself I am involved with the Serbian issue to repay a debt. During World War II, the Serbs stood up to the Nazis. It is very possible that Hitler gave approval to the extremity of slaughter of Serbs (Jasenovac and the Muslim SS division in Bosnia) because the Serbs tried to protect Jews. I am Jewish and my entire European family was wiped out by Mr. Hitler. I will not spit on their memories by associating with apologists for Nazism, such as this filth, Verges. At the start of the "trial" in February 2001 I was put in position of being the spokesperson for the ICDSM at a press conference at which this Verges also appeared.

  Never again.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  US

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 9:44 am
  

  Correction - the press conference at the beginning of the trial was of course February 2002.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  US

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 1:06 pm
  

  I agree with Jared. President Milosevic does not need any hired guns from NATO countries, lead by US, France, England or Holland (Clark, Verges, Kay, Wladimirrof).

  His support from Belgrade has done fantastic job so far.

  If U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA), the most senior Republican in the Pennsylvania Delegation, and a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, could had said, on the floor of the U.S. Congress, on July 16, 2003:

  “... I would remind my colleagues, the justification that President Clinton used to take this country into war in Yugoslavia was basically a bunch of false information. …”,

  then why did Ramsey Clark miss a perfect opportunity to repeat the same thing during conference at Press Club? He acted in a very strange way; in my eyes he got himself discredited.
  
  D(usom) S(arajlija)
  USA

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 1:37 pm
  

  Let me clarify something, please. I mocked "JW" for hiding behind some initials. Why? Because he appears on this list making statements full of innuendo, hinting, telling what he knows are lies, deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what people have written, stirring up troubled waters. Now, if he were honest - that is, if he had something distasteful to do, but from honest motives - he would give his name, his real name, so we could judge: are his motives sound. (He might even do this if he were *dis*honest, but wished to be credible!) But my judgment is he is ill-motivated, either personally motivated, perhaps with a grudge against President Milosevic, or on assignment (doing a job...) or both, and he does not want us to know who he was.

  BUT on the other hand, the issue of Milosevic is very 'hot'. People might be concerned for their jobs or other reasons. Valid reasons. After all, the Serbs have been demonized. Some people might not be citizens where they live, or whatever. For this reason, we almost always withhold people's last names when we post their letters on www.tenc.net - we just posted a bunch of letters on the main page, witholding ALL last names, on our own decision.

  So please, my great apology if I unintentionally shamed honest people by my comment - it is only the honest who can be shamed, alas - it was directed at this "JW" creature, who makes accusations and hides so we cannot judge his motives.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 2:40 pm
  Test Milosevic on Muslim extremist terror
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 3:15 pm
  

  Alf Bentley wrote:

  "What on earth is this association with Islam and the trial? What has Milosevic to do with that? He has never been pro or anti islam. I dont know that he's ever made a statement about Islam in general. Its understandable that some in North Amercian territories have a bee in their bonet after Sept 11th but it has little to do with the trial."

  [End of comment by Alf Bentley]

  I (that's Jared) believe there must be many moderate Muslims who do not sympathize with the program of Islamists like Alijah Izetbegovicin Bosnia or the Welfare Party in Turkey. Certainly there were in Bosnia. These Muslims fought on the side of the Serbs. We are talking about IslamISM, which is generally speaking Islam as the code for political life. What is an Islamist?/Islamists believeIslam must rule.

  Depending on tactical circumstances, IslamISM leads to a program of violence and Milosevic has certainly commented on that in the trial, taking a firm stand against mujahideen, i.e., people who use violence to bring Islam to power. Clark, on the other hands, has written that "revolutionary Islam" is the great hope of the poor. What is revolutionary Islam in today's world, if not the mujahideen? Hence Clark's link to gama'a al-Islamyya, which did indeed fight as terrorists against the Bosnian Serbs. You can read my introduction to one example of Milosevic's comments at Milosevic on Muslim Extremist Terror Here is the transcript of what he said. For footnotes see the article, link above.

  CROSS EXAMINATION OF SABIT KADRIU, ASSOCIATE OF THE TERROIST THINKER, ADEM DEMACI

  Pres. Milosevic: You said you heard about the KLA in 1991.

  Sabit Kadriu: I read in newspapers that something happened connected with that.

  Pres. Milosevic: You were involved in public activities as you say since the beginning of the 1990s. Do you know about the activity of the organization of Osama bin laden in Kosovo & Metohija?

  Sabit Kadriu: I heard about bin Laden this year but never before. Only when the crime was committed against American people.

  Richard May: Enough about that. Mr. Milosevic.

  Pres. Milosevic: Do you know about the Mujahideen and their atrocities in Kosovo & Metohija?

  Sabit Kadriu: That is not true that there were Mujahideen in Kosovo. You have invented that. That is the fruit of your imagination.

  Pres. Milosevic: Well, just say 'it's not correct' or 'I don't know.' You are spending time. I will read you a passage and you will tell me if that is correct or not. Al Qaeda (Reads) "functions through some of the terrorist organizations that operate under its umbrella or with its support, including..." I'm going to skip over this next bit, "Albania," etc. Do you consider that to be correct? (1)

  Sabit Kadriu: That is not right, and that is the fruit of your imagination.

  Pres. Milosevic: [Holds the document in the air. It includes an FBI insignia.] Well, this is the congressional statement of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1)

  Richard May: What is the date of it?

  Pres. Milosevic: December 18, last year. After September 11th.

  Richard May: Very well. You can put that into evidence in due course. Meanwhile the witness says he knows nothing of it.

  Pres. Milosevic: I am asking the witness, is the paragraph I read correct and he said it was not correct and it was a lie and the fruit of my imagination. And now I am going to ask you [the witness] is the following correct? [Reads] "All Qaeda supports Islamic fighters in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Chechnya and in Kosovo". Is that correct. (2)

  Sabit Kadriu: I know nothing about that. I'm not here to talk about Bosnia or Afghanistan. I'm here to talk about Kosovo. There are no Mujahideen in Kosovo and that is the truth.

  Pres. Milosevic: But I have asked you what do you know about their activities, not whether they are there since that is indisputable. So you want to say that you know nothing about their activity.

  Richard May: No, he says there are no Mujahideen in Kosovo. That's what he says.

  Pres. Milosevic: All right but he doesn't need so much assistance. Obviously Al Qaeda fighters have been identified in Kosovo, Bosnia and Albania and is that correct or not according to your knowledge?

  Sabit Kadriu: I've already said I know nothing about other countries and when you speak about Kosovo I can say that there are no Mujahideen there.

  Pres. Milosevic: That last passage I have quoted is from MSNBC and it says, "Sources: Congressional Research Center, Frontline." [Editor's note: Frontline is a US Television program on current issues.]

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 4:02 pm
  Fair enough but I dont see what that has to do with Milosevic. Although I have to say that your view of what muslums could do in Bosnia is a little sketchy. Just because some might not have supported Izetbegovic that does not automatically mean they would line up to fight with the Serbs! Not everything is black and white Jared - when you get to my age you learn that. Some escaped, some supported Abdic, some joined UN orgnaisations. To say nothing of pacifists - although I cant think of a worse place to be a pacifist.

  Milosevic is talking about mujahadeen / KLA / Al Khaida. You have your own definition of Islam and Islamism thats also fair enough but thats your own opinion / agenda and nothing to do with the trial or Milosevic.

  The trial is about demonisation of a people, media manipulation, but above all justice for Milosevic and by implication for everyone. It should be about putting a positive step forward. I dont see that trying to demonise Islamism (or Islam) either helps Milosevic or society. In actual fact it makes you look inconsistant Jared. Many people might also share your distaste for Islam(ism) or whatever it is but Im willing to bet most of it is not based on evidence that you have compliled but is more based on their prejudice and fear. Those people that never met a muslum in their lives who get afraid of the wailing and of bearded, dark skinned men. Of course now after 9/11 they have the ultimate excuse to hate muslums. You must know that whether your evidence is factual or not. It should make you uncomfortable with that kind of support (it makes me uncomfortable anyway). Bush would be happy though.

  The headline you have about Milosevic on muslum extremist terror. Why? Why not Albanian terror? Is there a message behind that?
  
  Alf Bentley
  UK

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 4:15 pm
  One last question. Have you done an article on Christian fundamentalists in the United States connected with Oklahoma bombers?
  
  Alf Bentley
  US

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 5:42 pm
  As the support for Milosevic is purified, what we get is a package deal. If you support Milosevic, you must also support this and that. I doubt how much of this purported package deal Milosevic himself would accept. For instance, the SPS might have some trouble warming to the cause of the State of Israel, which is now on the TENC agenda. Go along that line, and sooner or later Milosevic will have been purified himself. Maybe Milosevic will OK that too, if his spokesmen are to be believed.

  As to the segment of the population Verges might offend, Mr Israel says that he means most people. But that isn't a segment. Segment means a minority of the people. But the fact is that most people just don't care what Clark or Verges (or Israel for that matter) says, in so far as they know them in the first place. They have a hard time remembering who Milosevic was.

  There is a famous saying that goes like this: "I do not believe a word that you are saying, but I would die for your right to say it." That is not what is happening now as the Milosevic support is being purified. You don't have to agree with Verges to let him speak. At least Verges understands this when he says that he would prefer to be the attorney of the devil than an attorney of the government. It should be pretty obvious that Devil's advocate is what he meant.

  Even a thug is entitled to a fair trial. But are we really interested in a fair trial? It seems some Milosevic supporters would deny Milosevic a fair trial, if Verges were his attorney, just because he defended Barbie, who was given a fair trial (compared to this one).

  During the 1990's, the US propaganda machine worked overtime to compare the alleged ethnic cleansing by the Serbs to the Holocaust. Most people (or segment) can't be expected to know all the ins and outs of this ongoing ICDSM purge. The impression that the ICDSM is giving is that Milosevic was compared to Hitler by the US, and now someone with an axe to grind is calling his supporters anti-Semites and terrorists too. And they might think: Doesn't that prove that Milosevic is really bad?

  And yes, how easily words are tossed around. Yesterday we heard that "Verges also said that France was guilty of worse crimes than Nazi Germany". Now we get the actual quote: "I just said that everything Barbie did - the French also *did to a far greater extent* during the war in Algeria."

  Yesterday, Nazi Germany, today Barbie. What is the difference? But why is it so hard to believe that France might have outdone Barbie in Algeria, now that we got the quote right? This is misleading, to say the least! I guess spin is the word I am looking for.

  This same caution should be exercised when we are told that Verges called himself Milosevic's lawyer. The Guardian knew better, this once. It said explicitly that Verges didn't say he would be Milosevic's trial lawyer. Why would he? Everybody can see that Milosevic is defending himself. But is that really the problem? If it is bad enough for Verges to call himself Milosevic's lawyer, why all this additional character assassination?

  As Jared Israel said so aptly: "It is not surprising that such 'friends' would appear given the stakes involved in the Milosevic case." What stakes he is referring to, I don't know. Milosevic is a goner, and the ICSDM hassle is not going to help. But the mention of stakes gives a valuable insight to some people's motives, while they are questioning others'.

  On the other hand, it hasn't escaped anyone that Mr Israel feels he has a debt to repay. Even if his motives may be pure, his methods are distasteful. It is this single-minded equation of the Serb cause with Milosevic that caused him to call Clark anti-Serb (and in his mind, anti-Semite) because of something Clark said of Milosevic. That is how the witchhunt began.

  But it seems the Jurist discussion segment of the population is happy with the way things are going, and it would be cruel to make fun of this contented camaraderie. On the other hand, it seems difficult to stay in this discussion if one is not willing to let them do one of those thought police tricks on those who disagree. This ain't my bag. Farewell.
  
  J W
  Canada

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 6:04 pm
  No, I was just kidding. It is not difficult at all. I guess boring was the word I was looking for. And time-consuming. And for what? For this? To give these smartasses another channel for their propaganda, as they are running out of ammo on TENC and ICDSM and all the other acronyms?
  
  J W
  Canada

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 8:16 pm
  
  ‘And all the other acronyms’: JW, CIA, MI6, KLA … ?

  There are a number of important facts which become clear because of the immediate exchange above.

  Jared Israel reports the cross examination of KLA associate Sabit Kadriu in which Milosevic asks about Mujahedin activities in Kosovo and Kadriu replies:

  That is not true that there were Mujahideen in Kosovo. You have invented that. That is the fruit of your imagination.

  These statements may be verified in the trial archives.

  On 5 January this year the BBC broadcast the first of a three-part programme on ‘The Fall of Milosevic’. There are two film clips shown in this broadcast of Mujahedin marching in traditional mufti in Kosovo. The first clip shows them, very briefly, marching at the end of a long column of regular uniformed KLA. The second clip, also very brief, shows Mujahedin in traditional dress training with KLA regular forces.

  The first fact this BBC programme demonstrates is that there were only two truthful answers that Kadriu could give. Either he could confirm the presence of Mujahedin or he could state that he did not know. Instead he attempted to tar Milosevic as a liar and a fool - with not a little help from Judge May.

  The second fact demonstrated is the incompetence of May who twice intervened to help a witness who was perjuring himself. A competent Judge May ought to have been aware of the true situation in Kosovo and thus ought to have had Kadriu arrested for perjury.

  Incidentally this programme ‘The Fall of Milosevic’ was broadcast by the BBC to mark Holocaust Memorial Day and is described by them as the story of Milosevoc’s genocidal behaviour against the people of Kosovo.

  The BBC’s association of Holocaust, Milosevic and Genocide - for which Milosevic has not been indicted in Kosovo - ought to alert every one to somethings remarkably dangerous about the BBC!
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 9:38 pm
  Alf Bentley said "One last question. Have you done an article on Christian fundamentalists in the United States connected with Oklahoma bombers?" Perhaps you should enlighten us as to these connections. I realize the Clinton administration strived for political reasons to spin it that way, but I would have thought that any intelligent person would have laughed at the entire investigation.

  Fertilizer bomb my ass. As with TWA flight 800, Clinton did everything he could to conceal Muslim terrorist activity during his pathetic presidency and even deflected the anger in the direction of his political rivals.

  By the way Alf, which is it, the US or the UK. The S and K aren't easily confused on my keyboard buddy.
  
  Joel Aksamit
  USA and proud of it

• Friday August 15, 2003 at 9:56 pm
  ‘And all the other acronyms’: JW, CIA, MI6, KLA … ? LMAO Peter-JW is bored with us. Gonna take his ball home and play with himself. But alas he will be back. In fact, he may very well be yet another member. How sad. I might also add to my previous post that I'm not particuraly proud of Bush's policies either or the actions of my country for that matter. However I'm not ashamed to post my true name and origin.
  
  Joel Aksamit
  USA

• Saturday August 16, 2003 at 2:35 am
  

  JW writes, "As Jared Israel said so aptly: 'It is not surprising that such 'friends' would appear given the stakes involved in the Milosevic case.' What stakes he is referring to, I don't know. Milosevic is a goner, and the ICSDM hassle is not going to help. But the mention of stakes gives a valuable insight to some people's motives, while they are questioning others'."

  [End of JW comment]

  Let me say that however this trial ends Slobodan Milsoevic is not a "goner" - he has already defeated NATO. Why? Because first of all they wanted a show trial to prove their actions were just. That's why they had it sceduled for all major TV and they had to cut that off on day two or three of his opening statement in Feb. 2002 because he was exposing them. Second, because he has exposed their witnesses as liars and the "Court" as equal to the prosecution. So the transcript - the record about which they can do nothing because we've already got it copied and will be publishing it - that transcriot constitutes an historical record that the NATO position is one big lie.

  These alone are giant stakes. Add to that that he has virtually undone the years-long effort to win a *segment* of Serbian society to hate him - an effort which had some success before. Another giant victory. Add to that that despite the news blackout, the whole world knows *he did not crawl* - and that is another giant and very annoying victory (annoying for them). Add to that that even with the blackout, we have gotten truthful information to millions of people. And all this during the PROSECUTION part of the trial.

  Now we are moving into the defense part. President Milosevic has asked Nico Varkvesser to form a new organization in Netherlands to coordinate research and media work for the "defense" part of the trial. I can see that there are people on this list who have splendid skills to help with this work. There are others around the world. (That is not something we had two years ago!)And yes, the stakes in this work are immense: getting the truth out AND showing the world that principled political struggle is possible (as opposed to terrorism which always helps the worst forces).

  
  
  Jared Israel
  US

• Saturday August 16, 2003 at 7:17 am
  Rather than spend time and energy on the KLA-Osama connection, I'd reccommend focusing people's attention on the KLA murders of their fellow Albanians.

  The KLA-Osama connection is significant and, of course, should be mentioned; but not highlighted. People get very, very uncomfortable with suggestions that 'our government' is evil.

  The goal after all is to convince people that they were wrong about Clinton's Kosovo War.

  Emphasis on the equation US Government=KLA=Osma is not going to start people on the path towards entlightenment.

  Rather, I suggestion we may have better success in getting people opening their views towards change if we highlight a couple of simple contradictions in the War Party's stance.

  1) That the Albanian civilian murder rate skyrocketed once the 'serbs' were kicked out and Washington/NATO/Kfor took control.

  2) Even before Clinton's bombing, the KLA's orimary activity was the murder of loyalist and neutralist Albanians. Even Washington/NATO/Kfor agrees as evidenced by the conviction of KLA MajorGeneral Rustem Mustafa and his entire staff for war crimes against Albanian civilians before Clinton's bombing.

  Once people start questioning the War Party line, yes, then hit them with the really tough ones to deal with. But before we can convince anyone, we need to get them to opne their minds.

  
  
  Max Sinclair
  NY
  NY

• Saturday August 16, 2003 at 11:08 am
  Max Sinclair,

  Can you point us to documentation re

  1)That the Albanian civilian murder rate skyrocketed once the 'serbs' were kicked out and Washington/NATO/KFOR took control.
  
  M Donne
  Canada

• Saturday August 16, 2003 at 2:36 pm
  Joel Aksamit - what is it you are actually crying about? The fact that you have home grown (WASP)terrorists as well as dark skinned muslum ones? Its a fact so live with it.

  Unlike you I am certainly not proud of the UK or the US for that matter. What are you proud of exactly? The fact that you militarily or culturally contaminate every place where your US influence reaches? Could it be the way your government has backed illegal militia throughout history - the contras or (and I know you will like this) -mudjehadeen in Afganistan perhaps? Might it be the intelligence of your President? The environmental policies of the US? Could it be your countries competancy at keeping a power grid running? Might it be the Hollywood style propoganda that surrounded the story of that female soldier of yours? Could it be the artificially plastic 'Have a nice day' greeting you get when you go into Wall Mart? Or the low wages that those workers receive? Maybe its the capitlistic system that you are proud of - being able to afford the latest Nike shoes that some poor child has toiled away to make for 16 hours without a break? Maybe its race relations or rights for American Indians? Or the tax cuts desgined to make the rich richer and poor poorer. I could go on.

  So pal if you want to show me some good reasons whey your are so proud go ahead. Otherwise maybe you should wave the flag in the privacy of your own bedroom.

  And before you start blaming muslums or non Americans for the problems in the world take a cold hard look in the mirror. I have and Im not proud of my country. Only a dunce who cant see reality would be.
  
  Alf Bentley
  UK

• Saturday August 16, 2003 at 3:50 pm
  
  M Donne

  I don’t know about “skyrocketed” but if you substitute the word “increased” there is certainly evidence to support such a claim. Source of text immediately below:

  On average, there have been about 30 murders a week in Kosovo since NATO arrived here about six weeks ago.

  Here is some more documentation to support the fact.

  "Everyone in Kosovo knows but none dares to speak about it," says the former prime minister of the exiled Kosovars and current chairman of the New Party for Kosovo, Bujar Bukoshi. "After the war the cruellest cleansings took place among the Albanians. Under the pretext that they were 'Serbian collaborators', the leaders of the KLA liquidated their political opponents ; old blood feuds were settled, and Albanian civilians were executed by the Albanians themselves." The number of the victims is estimated to be more than a thousand. The perpetrators or instigators were usually former senior KLA leaders ; after the war they were integrated nearly without exception into the KLA successor organization, the civilian Kosovo Protection Corps.

  And yet more on the KLA by Bujar Bukoshi and others

  There is also evidence in the trial transcripts. See for example the testimony of Protected Witness for the prosecution K6.

  According to the ICTY indictment Milosevic’s security forces are accused of committing some 550 murders - including the air war period. If we average this number over a two-year campaign - May 79 to May 99 - this averages to less than 6 murders each week.

  Other statistics claim there were some 3,000 victims of the KLA terror campaign, before the air war, some 2,000 of whom were ethnic Albanian. Even if we assume that these 2,000 were all killed by Serbian security forces this still provides an average of less than 20 victims a day. In fact most of these victims were KLA fighters and their supporters and many were killed by or because of KLA actions.

  May I ask you what other evidence exists for the ICTY prosecution, Nato and the KLA to maintain the figure of 10,356 victims presented in ‘evidence’ by so-called mathematician Patrick Ball’s statistics: A work commissioned for the purpose?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday August 16, 2003 at 4:32 pm
  Two types of headlines:

  New Violence Feared in Kosovo After Death of 2 Serbian Youths

  By THE NEW YORK TIMES

  Atrocity at Bistrica beach

  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

  Note the New York Times headline above. “Death of 2 Serbian youth” Can one be more perverse and hypocritical?
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Saturday August 16, 2003 at 5:26 pm
  New Violence Feared in Kosovo After Death of 2 Serbian Youths By THE NEW YORK TIMES ELGRADE, Serbia, Aug. 14 - United Nations officials in Kosovo carried out house-to-house searches today, looking for at least one gunman in connection with the slaying of two young Serbs in an incident that threatened to spark further violence in the province. Kosovo Serbs staged peaceful protests throughout the province today, although a grenade was thrown at the house of an ethnic Albanian in an apparent act of retaliation. Advertisement The two victims, who were 12 and 20, were killed on Wednesday when an unknown gunman opened fire on a group of teenagers swimming in the Bistrica River, near the Serbian enclave of Gorazdevac, about 50 miles south of Pristina, Kosovo's capital. Four other youngsters were wounded in the shooting. Following the incident, some 300 United Nations police officers sealed off the area and began a house-to-house search, Derek Chappell, a United Nations spokesman in Pristina, said. Mr. Chappell said the investigators had established that there was at least one gunman armed with a semiautomatic rifle. Relations between Serbs and ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, a province of Serbia and Montenegro, have been strained by events surrounding the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. Albanians make up about 90 percent of Kosovo's population, but under the rule of the former Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, they were widely discriminated against. After a NATO military intervention to halt a Serbian campaign against the Albanian population in 1999, and the fall of Mr. Milosevic, the fortunes of the two communities were reversed, and the Serbian minority became more vulnerable. The newly appointed United Nations administrator in the province, Harri Hokeleri, a former prime minister of Finland, said a special international prosecutor would head a team investigating the killings, Belgrade news media reported. The shooting on Wednesday came hours after a group of Serbs reportedly had thrown stones at an Albanian girl passing through their territory. She was not seriously injured, Mr. Chappell said. Kosovo has been under international supervision since the end of the NATO military campaign, with about 4,500 international police officers, 21,000 peacekeepers and 5,000 local police providing security in the province. The Serbian foreign minister, Goran Svilanovic, said that Wednesday's killings provided a "tragic confirmation that the U.N. and NATO have failed" in Kosovo. Leaders of the Serbian community fear that the incident may damage efforts to return some of the 200,000 Serbs who left Kosovo during and after the NATO bombing campaign. "I'm afraid that many Serbs will not be thinking about returning to their houses for a long time," Oliver Ivanovic, a Serb in Kosovo's parliament, said. The killings were condemned by the leading Albanian party and by the government.
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Saturday August 16, 2003 at 7:26 pm
  Thanks Peter for answering Donne's question....I'd argue "skyrocket" is a fair appraisal of the civilian murder rate.

  According to UNMIK's own stats there were 246 murders in Jan-Dec 2000. According to Indepedent sources (Yugoslav, NGO's, and even Adem Demaci) more than 1,000 murders took place in the first 18 months of military occupation. Some have suggested that as many as 2,000 civilians were murdered after Kfor took responsibility for the safety and security of the people of Kosovo and Metohija.

  According to Independent sources, in the 12 months before Clinton's bombing began less than 200 civilians died.

  Please note that the War Party distorts the numbers by lumping together pre-bombing combatants & civilians and then comparing them with deaths post-occupation.

  Review of KLA KIA (according to KLA's own numbers issued by Commander Remi's Press Office) Pre-Bombing most of the deaths were combatants. Post occupation there were no combatants by Kfor's defintion, therefore any deaths are non-combatant.

  To be continued

  
  
  Max Sinclair
  NY
  NY

• Saturday August 16, 2003 at 8:49 pm
  

  To Max Sinclair

  These figures are striking. But to be usable, we need them to be documented with sources that a person can check, to see that we're not just making them up. Otherwise why should anyone believe them?

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA