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

• Saturday August 17, 2002 at 2:37 pm
  Hello to all members in this debate

  Any views on Milosevics recent support of the ultra-nationalist Vojislav Seselj for Serbian president? What will it do for his case, the claims that he was a moderate and non-racist? How do you think those who had doubts about Milosevic's support for nationalis policies will react? Should he have kept quiet in this instance?
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Saturday August 17, 2002 at 4:39 pm
  The choice is between Serbia and Nato. There are all kinds of nationalisms.

  Of course in the Nato land the word has been like many others discredited. Is Vojislav Seselj a racist if he stands for Serbia and wants to kick out the pro-western quislings out of power?

  One thing is certain, Nato and Wall Street, or shall I say the City, do not like these kind of natioanlists. They spoil the game.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday August 17, 2002 at 7:05 pm
  

  Srebrenica Massacre Monument

  The Dutch Volkskrant put an ANP bulletin on its website today in which a representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs announces that "The Netherlands has donated EUR one million towards financing the cemetery for the victims of Srebrenica in Potocari.

  "Until recently a substantial number of the survivors wished to turn the former Dutchbat base, a factory near the Bosnian village of Potocari, into a museum and conference center and place a memorial there. Because the factory site is very polluted, this would take a long time and delay the burial there of those identified victims of the genocide by the Bosnian Serb army whose bodies are now kept in the mortuary in Tuzla.

  At the center for the identification of missing persons in former Yugoslavia in Tuzla several hundred bodies have now been identified. There are still some 4000 more unrecognized bodies there. The remains of the identified persons are in the center's refrigerated cells waiting for the survivors to agree about a proper final resting place.

  An estimate of the cost of building a cemetery in the locality of the factory site is 5 to 6 million euro. As well as the Dutch donation, the United States has also pledged to donate just over one million euros. Slovenia and Czechia have said they are also prepared to contribute.

  Dutch2English translation courtesy Kate Kruize

  Frank Tiggelaar
  Domovina Net

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Saturday August 17, 2002 at 7:57 pm
  

  As for the the Srebrenica massacre which Mr Trkla denies happened, I would suggest you read the 'Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35 - The fall of Srebrenica' of November 15, 1999

  Please note that this document is a * General Assembly * report, not a Security Council matter.

  The report is difficult to find on the UN webpages - there is a non-searchable .pdf somewhere, so you may find it easier to read the HTML-edition on Domovina Net which was grabbed in 1999. Special attention with regards to the genocidal massacre which took place in Srebrenica in 1995 should go to chapter VIII C - G

  UN Srebrenica report on Domovina Net

  Dutch parliament will start hearings into 'Srebrenica' -during which any Dutch national, including servicemen and ministers can be heard under oath- this Autumn. The hearings will also investigate the theft of Dutch army equipment by the (Bosnian) Serbs, most notably of armoured personnel carriers which were later deployed by the JNA in Kosova. The latter point will in all probability also come up during the Milosevic trial re Bosnia as it proves JNA-involvement in the war in Bosnia.

  Frank Tiggelaar
  Domovina Net

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Saturday August 17, 2002 at 10:09 pm
  The Dutch report said no evidence was found Mr. Milosevic knew or was involved in the alleged massacre of Srebrenica.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday August 17, 2002 at 11:18 pm
  

  According to Carl Bildt and other sources Milosevic *did* know about what was going in Srebrenica. Bildt states that the massacre of civilians came up in his secret meeting with Milosevic of July 15th, 1995.

  Message to Akashi about the meeting with Milosevic

  A day earlier, July 14th, 1995, Studio B in Belgrade had broadcast a Srebrenica situation report by Zoran Petrovic showing massacred people on the former Dutchbat compound and refugees being shelled in the mountains. Immediately after the airing the tape disappeared; a tape with 'black holes' in it surfaced. After a six-year search, Dutch TV obtained a copy of the original Studio B broadcast from a Serb who had since moved to the USA. The pictures which had gone missing for six years are available on Internet at:

  Petrovic tape - missing parts

  So not only Milosevic knew, all who watched Studio B that night knew. Most of the audio in the 28 mins clip is in English, narration is in Dutch. In the clip: filmer Zoran Petrovic, ICTY Srebrenica investigator and former Marseille police commissioner Jean-Rene Ruez, ICTY prosecutor Mark Harmon, The Independent journallist Robert Block, Dragan and Nikola Cicic

  NIOD does not state that Milosevic knew nothing about the events in Srebrenica, it merely says it had not found evidence. Which tells us a lot about the quality of the NIOD (report) and the need for a parliamentary inquiry - which will be webcast live by Domovina Net, incidentally.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Sunday August 18, 2002 at 7:13 am
  

  "No evidence had been found that suggests the involvement of the Serbian authorities in Belgrade," the report says.

  Is the report already amended?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Sunday August 18, 2002 at 8:00 am
  It takes at least two to tango

  The Western media banged on and still bangs on about massacres and ethic cleansing committed by the Serbs.

  No matter how long the West and its compliant media drip feeds these libels of the “Nazi, evil, murderous, rapacious and lying Serbs” the inescapable facts are that some one million Serbs have been and continue to be ethnically cleansed from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. And some tens of thousands have been massacred or injured by Croats, Islamic fighters and principally Nato bombs. No other ethnic group has suffered so severely in the Balkans.

  The fact is a series of civil wars was promoted by Western powers. If the blame is not pinned on the Serbs for all of these recent appalling events in the Balkans then the finger will begin to point at Nato: Blair, Clinton, Albright, Robertson …

  The powers that be cannot afford for, and will not allow, this to happen. But there is no need for any of the rest of us to promote their cause.

  Appalling an event as it was, the truth of which has yet to be established: Having had Srebrenica, Srebenica, Srebrenica … drummed into our ears and piercing our eyes ad nauseam can we now have, for the sake of balance, an explanation for the million ethnically cleansed Serbs and what is to be done about them. And an explanation for the tens of thousands of dead and injured Serbs and who is responsible for that?

  The excuse that it is all the fault of Milosevic does not explain such matters, for example, as the presence of Mujahedeen and al-Qaeda nor the atrocities committed by them?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Sunday August 18, 2002 at 12:03 pm
  In Germany, after WWI, the prewar ruling classes remained in power. As a result German militarism remained and remerged in the form of Nazism some twenty years later. Tito, after WWII, sealed the karst pits (jame) throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina where thousands of innocent Serbs perished at the hands of the Handjar and Ustase. Tito built monuments to those who supported him but ignored the innocent from the other three communities. The “out of sight out of mind policy” almost worked.

  NATO now is doing the same thing. They jail those who wanted unity (Fikret Abdic) and build monuments to supposed atrocities from one side and ignore supposed atrocities from the other side. As long as NATO targets leaders from one ethnic group for their atrocities while leaders from the other ethnic groups remain free (Izetbegovic, Boban, their generals) and their atrocities are ignore, the grievances will remain.

  All atrocities, regardless who committed them, should be condemned equally if in fact they did take place. Building monuments to the dead from one side and ignoring the dead from the other side perpetuates division. Most monuments glorify one side while demonizing the other side and serve as a reminder of injustice. I would have no problem building a monument at Srebrenica if it addressed the grievances of every community in Bosnia.

  The film that Mr. Tiggelaar directed us to has been used by the Canadian Media, minus the Dutch commentary two years ago. In Canada CBC used it with a slightly different slant. It was presented as a personal interest story of two Muslim men who reviit Srebrenica. I think it was the CBC “Passionate Eye” program that used much of the footage, without any mention of what took place in and around Srebrenica prior to its fall to Mladic’s forces.

  The Media has produced many manufactured events to justify the NATO occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Are Mr. Tiggelaar’s sources more believable than the ones that I provide? I don’t think so. Look at this address http://www.aeronautics.ru/markale7.htm its well worth it. I. R. Thornton, Interpreter Sergeant, British Army Vitez, Bosnia, gives a different account of Srebrenica in his letter to Time magazine. The British court findings and Thomas Deichmann’s testimony at the Hague on Trnopolje, CBS Mike Wallace report on Srebrenica, the Japanese Media on the Bosko and Admira tragedy, House Republican Task Force on Terrorism report, Alija Izetbegovic’s writings, Charles G. Boyd USAF report, George R. Copley Ed., Defense & Foreign Affairs writings, and Yohanan Ramati, Director of the Jerusalem Institute for Western Defense provide evidence which point a finger elsewhere, WHICH MR. TIGGELAAR IGNORES (excuse me for shouting).
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Sunday August 18, 2002 at 1:29 pm
  It is being reported Hashim Thaci claims UNMIK has no authority to arrest KLA for war crimes. He states that UNMIK is doing a good job but has no mandate for arrest of KLA and by doing so is causing a stressful situation in Kosovo. In otherwords, only the Serbs are to be prosecuted for war crimes according to Thaci.

  This announcement makes the Hague look even more ridiculous. The KLA who were considered terrorists and started a civil war, killed their own people whom they considered “cooperating with the Serbs.” They killed many innocent Serbs and are still doing so. I am reading reports of 10,000 dead in Kosovo. This figure has been disputed many times, but “however many were killed“... they were not all Albanians, many were Serbs. Thaci feels the KLA had the right to commit war crimes but the Serbs did not, even though the Serbs were defending their homeland against terrorists.

  As for the monument to be built in Srebrenica, there has not been one word here in the USA that we will be paying our tax dollars for this. Many have hit on hard times here. If there is such a monument to be paid by the USA, we must demand that every single name be inscribed on the monument with date of birth and date of death. ALL 8,000. We do not want any “Hard Asnails.”

  Question: How long will it take before UNMIK backs down?
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Sunday August 18, 2002 at 2:55 pm
  Simon Joseph is repeating the usual brainwashing definitions used in the propaganda war: Seselj = ultranationalist Kostunica = nationalist Milosevic - Genocidial nazi Djindjic = Democrat Djukanovic - Democrat Izetbegovic = Democrat Tudjman = Democrat Hasim Thaci = Democrat etc... What about the nationalities??: The Serbs : nationalist !!!! Are The Croats nationalists?? noooooooooooooooo Are the Albanians nationalist?? noooooooooooooooo Are the English nationalist?? nooooooooooooooo Are the French nationalist??? nooooooooooooooo Are the Germans nationalist ?? nooooooooooooooo etc etc......
  
  Serjoe B.
  Italy

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 2:50 am
  First, the abbreviation Mr T uses, NIOD, stands for Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, the Dutch Instute for War Documentation. Mr T surprised us with a few things.

  First, the NIOD report says it hasn't found any evidence that Milosevic was guilty. He suggests that this isn't enough. The poor quality of the document is to blame. Well, in normal trials evidence is what counts. I don't know if it counts here, because any document that doesn't point to Milosevic's guilt is dismissed as unreliable. The uncomfortable fact is that the lack of evidence can point to the person's innocence as well as his guilt.

  To put it nicely, the evidence so far is inconclusive. To put it somewhat less nicely, we have heard so many lies about the Serbs already and Milosevic in particular, how much longer will the liars be allowed to go on telling lies with impunity? Are there no libel laws in the West any more, or are they applied selectively when you really need them? And no matter how you look at it, the prosecution's "fishing" strategy is unacceptable.

  Second, why does the NIOD report say that it hasn't found evidence of Milosevic's responsibility, when just watching Studio B was enough to make him responsible? But if watching certain newscasts are enough to make everybody who watched them guilty, why single Milosevic out? Why not those who sponsored these newscasts?

  And in this case, it would be interesting to know who financed the newscasts. It has only been said that B92 isn't presided over by the Dutch any more. Come to think of it, is the resignation of Kok's government as a recognition of collective guilt enough, when Milosevic is already serving his pre-verdict term?

  But Mr T is right about one thing. It doesn't matter if we have evidence about the massacre and Milosevic's possible link to it. The Krstic judgment is poison to Milosevic. In it, the Trial Chamber said that it is "satisfied" that 7,000-8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were killed by the Serbs. It is a complete mystery to me how the Trial Chamber could be so "satisfied" but perhaps the documentation provided by Mr T will continue to shed some light on the matter. First, it would be nice to know how the Trial Chamber could extrapolate 4,000-4,700 body bags into the more "satisfying" 7,000-8,000 bodies. There is a 100% margin of error here. Doesn't that bother anyone? Second, it would also be interesting to know if those hundreds of identified bodies are exclusively "non-Serbs". The impression is certainly given that they are. However, the numbers of identified bodies vary from 70 to 400, so I suspect that the nationality has something to do with the identification process. In any case, all the documentation notwithstanding, the Trial Chamber in the Krstic case is now what George Orwell called the "Ministry of Truth".

  Yes, the Bosniaks held a commemoration service to the 7,000 killed Bosnian Muslims, so that must be the evidence for many. They even claim the death toll could be as high as 9,000+. The presumption is that they know how many of their relatives are missing? But another presumption is that the Serbs don't. The service was given wide publicity in the media. How about the more recent commemoration service of the Krajina Serbs?

  I would like to ask Mr T one thing. What is it about the ICTY that you don't like, as you said? Is it doing a lousy job - in your opinion - in nailing Milosevic down by adhering to the vestiges of a fair trial, like the intermittent impression it gives of giving Milosevic a chance to defend himself?

  By the way, did Thaci really say that the KLA had the right to commit war crimes? In a normal court of law, you might say something like "I rest my case".
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 4:20 am
  As to Mr T's UN Report, it says in point 361 that there is "strong evidence to suggest that all of those [thousands of] men were executed". But it is speaking of Bratunac.

  The only thing to suggest a massacre in Srebrenica is point 410, which refers to "the combination of the satellite photographs, and the eyewitness testimony of those survivors who had independently described scenes of killings in the area", which "provided compelling physical evidence that atrocities had been committed, and that the victims had been buried in mass graves". Well, there are different stories about the satellite photographs. In any case it is easy to think of even more compelling evidence, if the massacre did take place. You could convict Milosevic just as well with a polygraph test. Nowhere does it mention that there were 7,000-8,000 Bosnian deaths in Srebrenica. So the question remains why the Trial Chamber was "satisfied".

  Besides, the UN comes under dubious light with its version of the Markale marketplace incidents in point 438: "The secrecy surrounding the UNPROFOR investigation into this incident gave rise to speculation, fuelled by the Serbs, that there was doubt as to which side had fired the mortar rounds. A review of United Nations documentation, however, confirms that UNPROFOR considered the evidence clear: all five rounds had been fired by the Bosnian Serbs".

  Remember that one of the trial judges in Krstic was the Egyptian Fouad Riad. In point 407 the UN report discusses the role played by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. If my memory serves me well, this was the same organization that issued the first condemnation of the Racak "massacre".

  I think the Akashi report only confirms the general logic behind the Milosevic indictment. Whenever he "facilitated" anything, he instantly became guilty, because he "knew". I am baffled. How does the report relate to this case?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 5:22 am
  The UN Report puts the number of dead in Srebrenica at 2,500 in point 467: "The mortal remains of close to 2,500 men and boys have been found on the surface, in mass graves and in secondary burial sites." That is a whole lot, but it isn't even close to 7,000-8,000. The report even says "close to 2,500", whatever that means.

  In the Krstic judgement, the Trial Chamber says: "The Trial Chamber is satisfied that, in July 1995, following the take-over of Srebrenica, Bosnian Serb forces executed several thousand Bosnian Muslim men. The total number is likely to be within the range of 7,000-8,000 men." Where did it get that? The discrepancy is huge: about 300%, supposing that all the 2,500 dead were non-Serbs.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 7:55 am
  Serjoe B

  How would you describe the policies of The Radical Party and Vojislav Seselj?

  As for the rest of your bull re Nationalism, your assuming a hell of a lot about me, and all of it wrong! Europe is riddled with nationalist parties, for the most part they are minority parties and wield no real power. One really has to ask, how did you become so brainwashed and rabid?

  My questions "Any views on Milosevics recent support of the ultra-nationalist Vojislav Seselj for Serbian president? What will it do for his case, the claims that he was a moderate and non-racist? How do you think those who had doubts about Milosevic's support for nationalist policies will react? Should he have kept quiet in this instance?" have yet to be answered

  I'll put it another way

  An accused paedophile stands up in court and states "I'm no paedophile!" a few weeks later he then subscribes to paedophile monthly magazine!

  Is this likely to colour the judges view of him?
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 9:01 am
  I have heard many times said that Seselj is ultra nationalist, but have not had a chance to read his manifesto nor any of his policies. Simon, do you have a link or any more info on Seselj?
  
  Neka Mira
  London
  UK

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 9:25 am
  Tangentially of relevance to the issue of container trucks.

  http://www.msnbc.com/news/795153.asp
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 11:10 am
  This is a comment I have written 11 days ago, but I was on vacation so I didn't send it, so here it is now... I would like to say to Kurt Thornbladh thank you for wanting to hear my side of the story. However, I must express my... anger, I would say to anyone pulling the parallel between what was done by Germans in 2nd World War and the Nurmberg trial and what happened in ex-Yugoslavia and ICTY. Germans have killed countless millions of civilians (uh, again me and figures... let's see, I remember 6 million Jews, 13 millions of Russians and so on) in a very organized way, with a very definite plan to do so. Think about how many thousands of German soldiers have been involved in this, how many German civilians have been involved providing infrastructure, supplies of poisonous gas, building camps and so on. Just try to count from one to 19.000.000 to get the feeling of how much that is. Divide it by number of days in 4 years to see how much they have killed per day. Now compare it to the number of bodies allegedly found in the freezer truck, and around Srebrenica, two of the biggest issues in the Hague tribunal. Or, let's draw another parallel-when America threw A bombs on Hirosima and Nagasaki. I don't know how many civilians lived in these cities, but I reckon it should be measured in hundreds of thousands. I never heard American express that he's sorry for his country conducting such a vicious crime against humanity. I heard that Americans are excusing this by saying that there would be more victims were there a continuation of war. Let's remember that at that time Japan was alone against the whole world (Germany had already surrendered) and it's army was in shambles. I doubt that Japan would issue any attack on anybody with such a balance of forces. Some might say that they were fanatics, but they were not stupid - any attack would mean waste of forces. It might have taken a couple of more months for Japan to realize it's position and surrender, it might have taken some more fights but in no way it could have produced such many deaths, and that would be deaths of soldiers. So, Americans till this very date find nothing wrong in killing several hundreds thousands of civilians in order to win a war. Or let's take another example for America - Vietnam. Number of people they killed exceeds million. They came to some foreign country that in no way endangered them and bombed, burned by napalm and killed in other ways over a million of people, most of them civilians. It wasn't their human rights that made them stop but a simple fact they have lost 50.000 soldiers. Yet the same America claims that it has absolute moral right to interfere around the world in order to protect civilians? You think it has changed so much in the meantime? Take a look at what is happening to Iraq. Poor people are starving because of the sanctions because America doesn't like their president. Oil was the only resource Iraq used to sell to buy anything else from food to medicines, and they are banned from selling it for 10 years already. It seems that America justifies children dying of hunger and diseases as long as it serves their interests. Now America comes up with some wild stories about Sadam developing a nuclear weapon. Hilarious! They don't have the technology to shoot down one American plane, yet they can build intercontinental nuclear missile that will reach America and hit some city without any help from satellites, and develop it without any rehearsals. And let's for a moment believe in this SF story. What would they do - launch this one missile to hit an American city with a high probability of never getting there? They must now that in the very same hour their missile hits something, Iraq would be wiped off the face of the Earth. What the hell would they gain by doing that? Or another version - the nuclear bomb is to be smuggled into America and activated (scenario old as a Cold War). Again, very low chance of success, with a same outcome for Iraq. No, even if indeed they would manage to develop atomic weapon they wouldn't use it on anybody. It would be much more useful as a negotiating factor, so that America finally leaves them alone (they only attack defenseless nations). But that's just a fiction. For me it's no wonder Iraq doesn't let UN inspectors in, considering what they've done in Racak and Markale. They would say whatever America wants them to say. Once again I apologize for missing the point of this forum. But isn't this all about justice? OK, let's come back to Serbs and Milosevic. The worst crime ICTY is accusing Serbs for is a massacre in Srebrnica. Let's for a purpose of discussion take a figure of 7000 men killed by Serbs as a relevant one (which they cannot prove). We know that in years previous to Serbian seize of Srebrenica Muslems slaughtered around 1500 women, old people and children in villages around Srebrnica (men were mostly in the army). They were using UN forces as a shield from the Serbs in order to do that. People who were in the Serb army around Srebrenica were mostly natives from that region. You can guess how many relatives of the slaughtered Serbs were in the army at the moment. Now put yourself in their position - say, your child was slaughtered by men who will never face the law for it (for West did nothing to stop them or even condemn them or report on what they've done up to this moment, and it was equally clear then that it won't) and these men will continue killing unpunished. Imagine amount of self control needed not to retaliate for such a thing . Was it real to expect such a thing from a homo-sapiens? Then you put much higher standards in front of the Serbs than you have for yourselves. But ask anyone, ANY SERB about Srebrenica, and he will tell you it was a horrible crime and that we are ashamed of it. On the other side, I didn't hear so far a single voice of a Muslim regretting what they did to Serbian civilians around and inside Srebrenica. And remember that Serbs only killed men, possible killers of their dearest and in any case possible fighters, while Muslims slaughtered old people, women and children. Anyway, Srebrnica was a single act of retaliation, not a part of an organized scheme of planned mass executions, so in no way it can be resembling anything Germans did in WW2. If we really were up to mass kilings, don't you think that we could do much better than 7000?
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 11:14 am
  ƒá Serjoe B.¡¦s post expresses how the media uses a double standard when they use words like ¡¥nationalism¡¦ to express a bias. For example, the biased perception that American nationalism is OK when expressed by Paul Harvey or President Bush but it is not OK for Seselj to express Serbian nationalism. The American nationalism is given a positive spin because, in our mind, the other fellow has been painted by the media as a villain. Depending on the image we have ¡§ONE MAN¡¦S TERRORIST IS ANOTHER MAN¡¦S NATIONALIST¡¨.

  Simon, a judge¡¦s view should not be colored by his or her bias. A judge must decide every case on evidence. Simon, the logic in your pedophile example is lost on me. A man who claims in court that he is not a pedophile may subscribe to a pedophile magazine in order to understand this sickness so he can defend himself in court. This magazine could provide evidence for his defense. The simple fact that the accused has ordered the magazine should not color ¡§the judge¡¦s view of him¡¨. In order to determine the value of this evidence in determining weather or not this man is a pedophile the judge must look at the evidence and ask WHY this man ordered the magazine. Simon, the judge that you describe, Mr. May, sits on the bench in the Milosevic trial.

  Is Seselj a nationalist? I think that he is. Is Milosevic a nationalist? Prior to the attack on Yugoslavia he was a Yugoslav nationalist. Now the international community is driving him to become a Serbian nationalist. He is defending the honor of his people and I think that is a good thing. Prior to the NATO breakup of their homeland, most Serbs in the Diaspora called themselves Yugoslav. However, as Yugoslavia was destroyed these Serbs could not, very well, call themselves Martians so they were forced by others back to their roots. Seselj and Milosevich see ¡¥eye to eye¡¦ on the need to rid Belgrade of Djingic. Will this help Milosevicc? I don¡¦t think he cares about himself as long as it helps prove the conspiracy against him and his people.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops
  BC Canada

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 11:30 am
  In my above post, for some reason unknown to me, my quotation marks and apostrophes are not the same as on my original document. Must be the web page problem????
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 12:32 pm
  Simon,as far a s I know Seselj was first a fierce opponent to those who wanted to poke their nose in Yugoslav internal affairs and when Slovenia and Croatia seceeded he always stood in his views to protect his homeland.By the way, I am not his supporter and I am not informed much about his politics but, I rememember his positon when the republic of Slovenia pushed for immediate indipendence. Their moto was:EUROPE NOW !! and SLOVENIA-MY STATE!! The Seselj's position was: "leave the Slovenians go !!They are different from us - more like to Austrians.The percentage of Serbs living there is only 5 p.c. Quite different is the situation in Croatia where the percentage of Serbs living was at least 20 p.c. (now ONLY 4 P.C), and in Bosnia where the Serbs represented the 35 p.c of the whole population. The creation of new boundaries here are not acceptable" If Milosevic proposed him for presidency I think is because he thinks he is a man You cannot buy and manipulate as it is possible to do with other high ranking peoples in his own party - the SPS. We have not to forget the main point, that Milosevic is not at ICTY to "joke" internal politics in Yugoslavia,but is fighting for his own life and , in his view, for the truth and against the new W.O. As regards the Seselj's"ultranationalism:, for some in Serbia he is a "Patriot" and for the same people the Americans and the English are "fascists" bacause they suffered the same pains as suffered in WWII by Nazi's hand. It all depends on point of view. Could be nationalism classified that way: The poors are always nationalists The wealths are patriots and goodoing.
  
  Serjoe B
  Italy

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 2:31 pm
  Bogdan, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs saved an estimated 1 million United Nations troops' lives, another million(?) military and civilian prisoners of the Japanese who were to have been executed the day we landed on the home islands, and (judging from civilian losses on Okinawa) about 27 million Japanese men, women, and children who were being prepared to fight to the death -- the kids were being trained to be tank-killing human bombs.
  The atom bombs were the only specific thing the Emperor referred to in his first-ever address to his people justifying his decision to surrender to them and to the Japanese Bushido military. It has even been reported -- Faubian Bowers was quoted as being the translator/witness -- that he actually thanked Gen. MacArthur (who had nothing to do with the bombs) for using them, to end the war.
  And what the Communist Vietnamese did to the nonCommunist Vietnamese at least equals anything we did militarily to try to defend the latter.
  As you can read above, I have strongly condemned our war crime Kosovo war and demanded that if Milosevic is to be tried and imprisoned, Clinton, Albright, and the rest of the NATO leaders and statesmen perpetrating the war should be punished at least that much as well.
  However, Get it right! historically, as to what was and was not a war crime ... lest you destroy/discredit our effort to see justice done about Kosovo with (your) obviously false historical judgments.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb
  Illinois USA

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 4:04 pm
  I am affraid the legacy of the two only use of nuclear weapons against civilians is about to become reality for the same false reason Lou Coatney states: to save lives.

  It is a rather clear message the one given by the G.W. Bush administration when facing domestic and international oposition to his planned war on Iraq, when it is said: "other alternatives plans are considered"

  Japan had been in contact with the US for more than a year before the bombs in search for terms of surrender other than uncondictional surrender as the US demanded. When the Japanese asked to a garantee for the safety of the Emperor the Americans refused indicating the Emperor was guilty for the war and that no negotiations were possible.

  The bombs had to be dropped to indicate to the World the victory and the power of the United States and not of the USSR

  Mr. Bush will disclose in due time how "Mr. Hussein has his finger on his nuclear trigger" and he will order therefor a preemptive nuclear attack against Iraq. No troops, no battle, no consensus, just "holy" lives saved and afait acompliindicating to the World the determination, boldness and resolve of the only "super power" left in this planet.

  A rather desperate one.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 4:06 pm
  I am affraid the legacy of the two only use of nuclear weapons against civilians is about to become reality for the same false reason Lou Coatney states: to save lives.

  It is a rather clear message the one given by the G.W. Bush administration when facing domestic and international oposition to his planned war on Iraq, when it is said: "other alternatives plans are considered"

  Japan had been in contact with the US for more than a year before the bombs in search for terms of surrender other than uncondictional surrender as the US demanded. When the Japanese asked to a garantee for the safety of the Emperor the Americans refused indicating the Emperor was guilty for the war and that no negotiations were possible.

  The bombs had to be dropped to indicate to the World the victory and the power of the United States and not of the USSR

  Mr. Bush will disclose in due time how "Mr. Hussein has his finger on his nuclear trigger" and he will order therefor a preemptive nuclear attack against Iraq. No troops, no battle, no consensus, just "holy" lives saved and afait acompliindicating to the World the determination, boldness and resolve of the only "super power" left in this planet.

  A rather desperate one.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 5:32 pm
  An observation for Simon Joseph

  In Serbia proper under Milosevic during 1999 there were several hundred thousand ethnic Albanians including approximately 100,000 in the area of Belgrade. In spite of the Nato/KLA attacks this minority was not the subject of massive retaliation nor was it ethnically cleansed.

  In the Serbian Province of Kosovo under Nato/KLA control during 1999 at least 2000 members of the minority populations were murdered. Some 250,000 have been ethnically cleansed and in more than three years unable to return to their centuries old homes in Kosovo: most of which have been sequestered or destroyed. The remaining approximately 100,000 live in constant threat of attack by the Nato promoted KLA and its offspring.

  I imagine Mr Joseph you do not deny the holocaust. Given these facts: If you believe, as your question implies, Milosevic is a racist how would you describe Nato’s ‘moral’ leader in this war, Blair, and the powers he supports in Kosovo?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 5:52 pm
  Lou, this is a concluding paragraph from an essay my daughter submitted for one of her classes re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "What, then, was the real reason for the use of the atomic bombs against Japan? As Lawrence Freeman states in the Journal of Strategic Studies the bombing of Japan “was like administering poison on the death-bed.” By the end of 1945, Japan was looking for a way out of the war and historical evidence indicates that they would have surrendered by December, 1945. Furthermore, evidence exists to show that the main home islands would not need to be invaded since, by mid 1945, the Japanese economic ability to prolong the war was marginal at best. Post war interrogations of Japanese government officials provide evidence that they were looking for a surrender option some six months prior to the bombing of Hiroshima. Therefore, the invasion and the projected loss of American lives would not have been necessary. The same Japanese officials indicate that the declaration of war by the Soviet Union was considered equally in their decision to surrender. This leaves the issue of testing and keeping the Soviet Union from influencing events in Asia as the reason for the use of the bombs. The lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has provided a warning for future relationships between nations, since those in possession of nuclear weapons might use them to further their political aims." America used the A-bomb to further her political aims.

  I am not sure how far back one needs to go in order to find examples of war crimes. In this day and age using the A-bomb just to see what effect it would have on a populated area would be considered a war crime.

  In another essay on the Vietnam war she concluded that "at the end of the Vietnam War most Americans felt that United States involvement in this war was a mistake. American view that ‘the only good commie is a dead commie’ did not allow for dialogue which could have led to mutually beneficial economic and political relations. The war had cost America over 60,000 dead and billions of dollars with nothing to show in return. As the Vietnam War siphoned more and more funds, Johnson’s dream of a ‘Great Society’ did not come to fruition. American aim to prevent communization of all Asia led them into a war that became a ‘war of honor’ “which was fought largely to maintain American credibility and demonstrate the American willingness to safeguard “liberal internationalism”.”

  Lou, read Kovic's book "Born on the Fourth Of July" it might give you a different point of view of justice and injustice of that war.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 7:47 pm
  LET US HOPE AND PRAY THAT IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.

  Hiroshima:

  “In time, it would be estimated that 80,000 people were killed instantly and that another 50,000 to 60,000 died in the next several months. Of the total, perhaps 10,000 were Japanese soldiers.

  “Many thousands more suffered from hideous thermal burns, from shock, and from radioactive poisoning. Later also, there would be eyewitness accounts of people burned to a cinder while standing up, of birds igniting in midair, of women ‘“whose skin hung from them like a kimono’“ plunging shrieking into rivers. “‘I do not know how many times I called begging that they cut off my burned arms and legs,‘” a fifth grade girl would remember.”

  Nagasaki:

  “A second bomb--a plutonium bomb nicknamed ‘Fat Man’ .....estimates were that seventy thousand died, where the damage would have been worse had the bombardier not been off target by two miles.”

  Truman, David McCullough

  .................................... The following is a short article, I thought it would be okay to cut and paste.

  YUGOSLAVIA: UNMIK In Kosovo Has No Mandate Tto Sue Over The War And KLA 2002-08-18 12:11:04

  UNMIK has no mandate to sue over the war period and KLA. The declaration came from PDK leader, Hashim Thaçi, who added that UNO administration in the region cannot take such an act, specially making use of Yugoslav laws. This is reported by BalkanWeb.

  PDK considers the latest arrests of KLA members and their accusation for war crimes, in particular those who are initiators of its organization are illegal and have tensioned the situation in Kosovo. "PDK supports UNMIK and Kosovo institutions in the war against the organized crime but it will never back the idea to criminalize the liberty war and KLA, which is one of the greatest values Kosovo people has ever created during its history", stated the declaration of Hashim Thaçi.
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Monday August 19, 2002 at 10:56 pm
  In a radio address to the public Truman said:

  “Its production and its use were not lightly undertaken by this government. But we knew that our enemies were on the search for it...

  “We won the race of discovery against the Germans.

  “Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American Prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

  “We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan‘s power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us.”

  Truman, David McCullough

  Senator Richard B. Russell, Jr., sent a telegram to President Truman saying there must be no let up on the assault of the Japanese. The telegram read:

  “.......If we do not have available a sufficient number of atomic bombs with which to finish the job immediately, let us carry on with TNT and fire bombs until we can produce them....”

  Truman responds with a “no thanks” and:

  “My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a human feeling for the women and children of Japan.”

  Truman, David McCullough

  “On another day Robert Oppenheimer came to see him (Truman) privately, and in a state of obvious agitation said he had blood on his hands because of his work on the bomb....Truman was agitated with the man but he said, “‘The blood is on my hands.”’ ”‘ Let me worry about that.”’

  Truman, David McCullough

  The “Truman” book is one of the finest ever written. I like Truman, he was a man of the people. I wish that he had not dropped the bomb, but I think many people had decided that for him. Was it an evil right or an evil wrong?

  Whatever conclusion we come to we know that the Serbs did nothing in comparison.

  Judge not less you be judged.
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Tuesday August 20, 2002 at 3:09 am
  So. At least Seselj is not indicted by the ICTY, unlike many of the SPS people. I don't see the paedophile analogy here, but bringing it up shows that Serjoe was right. I am not sure what this trial is about any more. Is it now fueled by some people's fear about the far right in Western Europe? Ah, I see the point now. This is the moment some have been waiting for: Milosevic would reveal his true colours as a racist!

  But the same offer still applies: find a racist remark in any of Milosevic's speeches and strike it rich! How many times do I have to say that? This must be a sign of psychological projection of the West more than anything else. No wonder, if we can defend Hiroshima and Nagasaki and condemn Seselj!

  About Srebrenica. Let's quote the Discussion Archive again:

  "The Bosnian Serb weekly Javnost reported on 23 December 1995, that in the entire Podrinje - the area on Bosnia’s side of the Drina River between Zvornik in the north and Visegrad in the south - 192 villages were burned, 2800 Serbs were killed and six thousand injured. According to Ivanisevic, more than a hundred towns, villages and hamlets in the area of Milici-Srebrenica-Bratunac-Skelani alone were affected. These crimes [against Serbian civilians] are still waiting for independent investigation, although they have been confirmed by returning Dutch-UN military personnel."

  There you have 2,800 Serb bodies in the entire Podrinje region. One Bosnian Muslim source says that the bodies found in Srebrenica amount to 2,000 (which would explain the "close to 2,500 bodies" in the UN report). All these bodies have been gathered to the Podrinje Identification Project in Tuzla. There you have it: 4,800 bodies, most of them patently Serbs. The official figure in circulation, 4,700, is close enough.

  The Bosnian Muslim source I referred to is the "Women of Srebrenica". I can't find the exact report right now, but instead I found something else. Remember that in the Akashi report referred to by Mr T, Carl Bildt was the star? I thought I would make a flippant remark and ask why Bildt isn't indicted, but being a gentleman, I didn't. Only, now I notice that the American maverick professor Francis A. Boyle is doing it. He has told Del Ponte to sue Bildt! Read this at URL http://srebrenica.balkanika.org/indexa.en.php?link=clanci&p=13 . And Akashi is one of those "indictees" as well! So to turn the paedophile argument around, should we trust a report by an (yet unindicted) war criminal? Other names mentioned are Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Kofi Annan, Yasushi Akashi, Bernard Janvier, Rupert Smith, Herve Gobilliard, Joris Voorhoeve, Cees Nicolai, Thomas Karremans, Robert Franken, Thorvald Stoltenberg, Carl Bildt, David Owen, Michael Rose, their subordinates, Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, and Ratko Mladic. (And more strange facts: Francis A. Boyle is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina!) You might call this a slippery slope, Mr T! Who can you trust?

  But if most of the 4,700 are Serbs, why haven't they been identified? The reason has been mentioned in this discussion some time ago, although for a different purpose. Identification is hard, and the DNA identification costs a fortune, so you can be certain it won't be wasted on Serbs!

  --

  I bashed the Krstic case, but it does have its bright sides (very few though). It admits that there were "international groups" active in Srebrenica, but the judgment ignores them (point 2). So there goes the CIA and the mujaheddins.

  Also, "The Trial Chamber heard credible and largely uncontested evidence of a consistent refusal by the Bosnian Muslims to abide by the agreement to demilitarise the 'safe area'...To the Bosnian Serbs it appeared that Bosnian Muslim forces in Srebrenica were using the “safe area” as a convenient base from which to launch offensives against the VRS and that UNPROFOR was failing to take any action to prevent it" (point 24). The Trial Chamber ignores this too, however. But should it? The safe areas were under the UN flag, and their use for any illegitimate purpose would be called "perfidy". The misuse of the UN flag is prohibited expressly in Art. 8(2)(b)(vii) of the ICC Statute: "Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury".

  So the Trial Chamber would have had ample opportunity to give the judgment some "teleological" treatment in favour of the Serbs! The withdrawal of the Bosnian troops from Srebrenica to facilitate the Serb invasion can be called by that trusted term again: entrapment. These kind of niceties are totally lost on the Trial Chamber, as they would weigh decisively in favour of the Serbs.

  By the way, the Krstic case is a "just in case" judgment. The figure of 7,000-8,000 was just hearsay, but the Trial Chamber included it in the judgment "just in case", so that if Krstic was guilty of genocide, he would be accountable. Art. 21(3) of the Statute says that a person is presumed innocent. I was already worrying it wasn't there at all.

  If you have comments or any suggestions to Del Ponte, you can find her address in Mr Boyle's original letter to her at http://srebrenica.balkanika.org/indexa.en.php?link=clanci&p=12 . By the way, the same "Women of Srebrenica" site has a report on the Dutche Srebrenica (NIOD) report at http://srebrenica.balkanika.org/indexa.en.php?link=clanci&p=14 . Now we now where Mr T gets his ideas.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday August 20, 2002 at 3:48 am
  We know about James Rubin and Ms Amanpour. But you don't have to go that far. I read somewhere (Serbianna, I think) that CNN was actually taken over by the government during the Kosovo bombing. But Rubin and Amanpour add a romantic element to the story, so let's not dismiss that. When Rubin said to Thaci that he would take him to Hollywood, he was only joking of course. But in a joke there can be a little truth. No doubt Rubin spotted Thaci's photogenetic promise and made him appear on CNN, where Amanpour would take care of the story. That's how they make presidents in the US.

  Thanks for Thaci's statement. I read a statement by the National Albanian American Council on the recent arrests of the KLA members. Guess what. The point was that UNMIK is being biased. It said that the unrest in Kosovo is caused by the fact that UNMIK is allowing the separation of northern Mitrovica where war criminals walk free. It said that Mitrovica is part of Kosovo on the basis of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), but it forgot to mention that according to that same resolution Kosovo was to remain in Yugoslavia, so the honour of fighters for the Kosovo independence wasn't very convincing. Let me repeat: arresting KLA members is an indication of bias.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday August 20, 2002 at 4:24 am
  Just to make a point of the double standard, the same NAAC (National Albanian American Council) had written a statement called "No More Aid to Serbia without Law Compliance" ( http://www.naac.org/pr/2002/03-28-02.html ).

  Yes, Bush signed the document confirming the continuation of the state of emergency in Serbia after that, but on the other hand, some strange have been happening. First, the UN ombudsman brought out the report slamming the Kosovo human rights record. That may have been part of the US exit strategy. And indeed, now it has been confirmed that the US will withdraw most of its troops from Kosovo by the end of this year. The Kosovo Independence Advocates have noticed the general trend and now complain that the NGOs are getting out of Kosovo and leaving the people there without a job.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday August 20, 2002 at 12:49 pm
  I would like to address Lou with some explanations on why I gave example of war in Vietnam. It doesn't matter WHAT made Americans go there, it's the fact that they were killing civilians out of fear once you've got there. Geneva convention meant little to their soldiers, as dropping of napalm on villages and strategy of 'scorched earth' might suggest. Your defense position is that COMMUNIST Vietnamese killed at least as much of their civilians as you did. So what? Hitler could have said the same for Stalin and his Gulags, is that an excuse for him to have executed 13.000.000 Russian civilians in his concentration camps and to attack Russia in the first place? We all know his real motive so it's easier for us to condemn him. But isn't the point of Geneva convention to teach the world that motive does not justify the means? That you cannot torture, expell, kill innocent people, no matter how righteous you think your cause is, and no matter what your losses are? And ALL civilians ARE considered innocent people no matter if they are communists, Serbs, Japaneze, etc. There are questions yet to be solved before we can say what is a rightful intervention and what isn't. We both agree that America's intervention in Yugoslavia wasn't. But the NATO propaganda have succeded in convincing majority of people otherwise. As you can see on your example, you have also taken for granted what they teached you about Hirosima and Nagasaki, although you have proven to be very capable of independent thinking. You are taking a completely baseless guess about 'what would be if it would be' as a historical fact and are telling me to get straight with history? In the whole WW2 the German losses were 6 million, yet you claim to me that Japanese would be 5 times higher. The only explanation for such figure would be if Allies would have adopted Hitler's method of death camps, and use it extensively for several years just to make sure each robo-child and woman is eliminated so it doesn't explode. As for the million of prisoners Japanese were about to execute the day you've landed on home islands, what stopped them to do it the day when the first bomb fell? It terrifies me to think what immense power America has and how little morality is controling it. Now that America can kill using the joystick, without risking loosing popularity at home because of military losses, it is virtually unstoppable. It can take out one by one countries opposing to have their quinslings, each time producing more and more heartbreaking stories to cover up their bloody deeds. Once they've found the tactics working, they can now support any separatist movement in any country out of 'concern for their human rights', thus destabilizing the country to the point of war and human catastrophy so they can intervene. I hope this is not the truth, though, that people in the West stop believing crap they are serving them, but turn off their TVs and go to the library and read before passing judgment on other nations.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday August 20, 2002 at 3:03 pm
  

  They will do to you what they fear you could do to them

  Seneca
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 12:27 am
  If I were as historically gullible as some of you fellows are proving to be -- concerning the atom bombings and Viet Nam -- I would be believing the Kosovo War was justified and Milosevic was its perpetrator.
  Regarding Hiroshima:
  Japan's surrender had to be unconditional, so that we would be sure its war criminals wouldn't survive (in power or at all) to continue their war as the Germans had after WW1 with WW2. Bushido militarists armed with nuclear weapons would have ended Life on the planet by now.
  Japan had used peace negotiations to deceive us for its attack on Pearl Harbor, and we were not about to fall for that again. All they had to do to stop the war was publicly announce their surrender, but their militarists wouldn't have allowed it. Even after the atom bombs and the Emperor's address, the militarists attempted a coup -- killing the commander of the Emperor's guard -- which only failed because they couldn't find the Emperor to take him into custody!
  We lost four times as many soldiers and sailors in the Battle for Okinawa than we did at Pearl Harbor. Truman had to do everything possible to force the Japanese to surrender. Starvation certainly hadn't forced Japanese island garrisons into surrendering: they preferred organized cannibalism.
  Leftists' claims, parroted here by Bogdan, that we dropped the bombs only to intimidate the Russians completely ignore the horror of the Asian-Pacific War. Everywhere under Japanese occupation was like the Nazi concentration camps. The Filipinos lost a million people, before we were able to liberate them.
  See my posting on H-Asia for 30 Oct 96, to answer your other claims/questions. (It's under Frank Conlon's name. He was the moderator.)

  As to Viet Nam:
  As William Colby -- who died mysteriously during the Clinton regime -- describes in LOST VICTORY, thanks to our "relocation" program, the rural peasants were brought into defendable towns safe from Communist terror and "friendly fire," the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong were deprived of their base of support, and we had the war won -- militarily -- by the time political betrayal over here led us to desert the South Vietnamese and Cambodians (who lost 2 million out of 7 million people to Maoist megacide, after we deserted them).

  Remember, that it was our Leftists -- the same intellectual ilk as the Hiroshima revisionists and our anti-Vietnam traitors -- who were pushing the Kosovo War. We national security types (and a lot of Republican Congressmen and Senators) were the ones opposing it.

  Thus, you prove yourselves doubly gullible parroting this old Leftist propaganda about the atom bomb and Indochina tragedies.
  With such thinking like yours, how can the Clinton/NATO war criminals lose? ?!
  I wouldn't be the first to say that Serbs are their/your own worst enemies.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb
  Illinois USA

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 1:26 am
  Agent Orange, Napalm, depleted uranium, CIA, sponsored wars in Latin America, to this day. How can the US claim the high ground morally?
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 2:13 am
  Lou, I guess politically I am a liberal, a left wing liberal at that. To dismiss historical evidence because it comes from the left and accept evidence from the right without question is, to quote you Lou, “historically gullible”. The rest of this post is for Lou from my 23 year old “leftist” daughter who at times doesn’t know her left hand from her right. She, as far as I know, has not voted yet and has no interest in politics. Like most fathers we tend to judge our children a bit too harshly, but I agree with her analysis on the A-Bomb so you leftists read no further

  By mid 1945, Japan was defeated on land, sea and in the air; therefore, it was unnecessary to use atomic weapons to end the war in the Pacific. Japanese military and political leaders knew early in 1945, that their only option was to surrender under the most favorable conditions possible. To this end, for six months prior to the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese government had sent out through the Soviet diplomats, feelers proposing an end to hostilities in the Pacific. America, however, wanted an unconditional surrender, which the Japanese could not accept for constitutional reasons. To force Japan to accept an unconditional surrender, American military planners expected to lose over a million men, if the main home islands were invaded. In addition, the need to contain Russian influence in the Pacific was a paramount issue on the mind of Truman, the new American president. Truman wanted to show Stalin that America was ready to defend Western values, while at the same time; he wanted to show the American people that he was a strong leader. By ending the war quickly and saving American lives, he would emerge from the leadership shadow of his predecessor.

  The wartime allies, America and the Soviet Union, disagreed on the future political direction of the countries in Central and Western Europe. The Russians refused to allow their allies any input into the political choices they made for the territories under their control. They justified this position by saying that the Western Powers refused to give them any say in the future of Western Europe that was under the influence of America. Truman felt that if the Soviets entered the war against Japan the same lack of co-operation would emerge in the Pacific.

  By ending the war in the Pacific with this powerful new weapon, before the Soviet army entered, Truman would send a strong message to Stalin should he contemplate any military action in Central Europe. At the same time, it would prevent the need for Russia to enter the war against Japan. This concern of the American administration can be seen in the CIA documents and memoirs of Truman and his advisors. They indicate “that from the time the word of a successful test arrived in Potsdam, the internal discussions there focused on how soon it would be possible to use the weapon-including whether it might be ready before the USSR formally entered the war against Japan.”1 According to CIA documents some American diplomats did not “see any gain resulting from Soviet entry as also carrying a social potential cost-the possible emergence of a Far Eastern version of the Soviet hegemony that was beginning to be imposed on Eastern Europe.”2 Other CIA documents show that the bomb was not intended to curtail Soviet expansion in Europe. They portray the Soviets in 1945 as a spent force, large in number with their homeland devastated, their economy in ruins, and their supply lines inadequate. According to intelligence analysis, it would take some fifteen years before they could challenge the West in Europe. American intelligence agencies also estimated that the Russians would not possess nuclear weapons for another five years. They did, however, have sufficient conventional forces to enter the Pacific War, and that would mean a need to share a sphere of influence in Asia that America wanted to avoid by ending the war quickly.

  The USSR had agreed with the Roosevelt administration at Yalta that they would enter the Pacific War as soon as Germany was defeated. True to their word, even though they had a non-aggression packet with Japan, the Soviets declared war on Japan six days later. American military planners knew that an invasion of Japanese home islands would lead to a prolonged war since the “element of fanaticism in the Japanese war effort could only be dampened by a spectacular display of allied strength.”3 The problem for America, as stated before, was to get Japan to surrender as quickly as possible and prevent the Soviet entry into the Pacific War. America feared that USSR would communize Asian territories that came under its control and, at the same time, help the Chinese communists in their effort to expel the American ally Chiang Kai-Shek. Communization of China could mean an end to the historic Open Door Policy that America had supported, since 1922, in relationship to this country. The concern for America, therefore, was the timing of Japan’s surrender and the potential Soviet entry into the Pacific War.

  By the middle of 1945, Japan was a spent force, unable to project her strength beyond her boundaries. “Having lost command of both the sea and the air she was gradually starved of resources through blockade and being subject to regular and unmerciful bombing and battering by B-29 bombers.”4 She was unable to continue resisting and would have eventually surrendered if reasonable terms were offered. Continuing the blockade and conventional bombing as well as the Soviet entry would have led to a eventual unconditional surrender as some Japanese diplomats have stated during their interrogation after the war. Marquis Koichi Kido, one of Japan’s top wartime leaders, stated that the “decision to seek a way out of this war was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not yet entered the war. It was already our decision.”5 Therefore, Truman, by ending the war in Asia, before the Soviets entered, prevented the need for America to share a sphere of influence with Russia. Dropping the atomic bomb was a means to this end.

  The Soviets knew that the Japanese wanted to surrender some six months before the atomic bombs were dropped. Hisatsune Sakomizu, an influential official in the Suzuki cabinet, stated in post war interrogation that diplomatic feelers to end the war with America, some six month prior to Hiroshima, were sent through the Russian embassy in Tokyo and “there was a false hope that the Russians, neutrals in the Pacific War might be able to act as mediators.”6 According to Kido, Americans in due course would have known this “as every effort was being exhausted to terminate the war.” 7 Since the Japanese military position was hopeless, Japan was hoping that America would soften their demands, particularly regarding the role of the Emperor in post-war Japan.

  The role of Emperor Hirohito, in post-war Japan was problematic for the Americans as well as for the Japanese. American propaganda had portrayed him as an oriental Hitler whose armies were committing atrocities across Asia. On top of this, Pearl Harbor was still fresh in the minds of many Americans who wanted revenge. Using any means to end this conflict would have been acceptable to a president looking to be re-elected and who needed to show his people that he was strong and decisive. Most Americans supported revenge while the Japanese leadership who wanted to surrender did not want America to provoke, the fanatical kamikaze elements that would fight to the bitter end, particularly if the position of the Emperor was not respected. American public opinion was on Truman’s side, however, and dropping the bomb on a population that many Americans saw as inferior would provide revenge as well as knowledge about the military value of this new weapon.

  Therefore, keeping the Soviets out of the Pacific region, ending the war quickly, limiting American casualties, Truman’s leadership, and showing the world the military power of America were all considerations in the use of this new weapon. The American military knew that they had a powerful weapon at their disposal; what they did not know was its effects when detonated in an urban area. An argument can be made, therefore, that America, even though it had other options to end the war, wanted to end it with the atomic bomb so that they could test its power. The question, why they used the second bomb forty- eight hours later, needs to be answered.

  Truman and his advisors used two arguments to justify their decision to use nuclear weapons. First, the bombs would end the war quickly and there would be no need to share a sphere of influence with the Soviets in Asia. Second, the bomb will save American lives as there would be no need to invade the four large home islands which they expected to be heavily and fanatically defended. Both of these arguments are valid since Truman knew that the Soviets had a large conventional Army and that they were committed to enter the war against Japan. He did not want the Soviet control in Asia to follow the European example. His fears were proved right as the Soviets helped communize China and North Korea. If the nuclear bombs were not used, the fate of Japan may have been the same as that of Korea.

  The argument concerning American casualties is also valid since American losses increased as their forces moved closer and closer to the home islands. At Layette Gulf in the Philippines, the casualty ratio was one American to five Japanese, while at Iwo Jima it was one to two and on Okinawa it was almost one to one.8 Theodore Taylor, a Pacific war veteran, states in his diary that the Japanese had a “reckless disregard of human life, Okinawa’s defence by the Japanese is unparallel in history.”9 These figures must have concerned American military planners, however, the CIA reports that at Potsdam, when Truman received news of a successful test there were “no explicit references to Japanese defensive buildup as a factor in any of these discussions, and no indication that it affected any of the actions taken.”10 However, at Potsdam, Truman and his advisors discussed the Soviet involvement, and since time was of the essence, keeping the Soviets out was a priority.

  Two other issues need closer examination in order to understand why the weapon was used. Did the Americans use it to test it and was it tested over Japan because Americans viewed the Japanese as an inferior race? The military, as well as the scientists who worked on the bomb, knew that they had a powerful new weapon. They wanted to know, however, what effect it would have if exploded over a populated city. “Such knowledge of the effect of the atomic bomb as could be gained was considered by the military invaluable” since these weapons “would form a key component of the US arsenal in the post-war years.” 11If testing the bomb was the objective, why did the military drop the second one some forty eight hours later? Since the Japanese did not surrender immediately, the American military planners stated that the second bomb was needed in order to “show them that we had more than one.” and with the immediate use of the second bomb “the Japanese would not have time to recover their balance.”12 Therefore, we can conclude that the American objective, at least with the Nagasaki bombing, was to get Japan to surrender. The bombing succeeded in ending the war on American terms as Emperor Hirohito’s broadcast to his people indicates when he said, “What is worse, the enemy, who has recently made use of an inhuman bomb is incessantly subjecting innocent people to grievous wounds and massacre. The devastation is taking on incalculable proportions. To continue the war under these conditions would not only lead to the annihilation of Our Nation, but the destruction of human civilization as well.”13 The use of the bombs showed the Americans as well as the Japanese the power of this new weapon and at the same time it forced an unconditional surrender. The answer to the question was the bomb used against Japan for racial reasons can be found in post-war attitudes of Americans who were directly involved in its use. According to the “1947 Survey report established, with its data, is that Japanese leaders in the summer of 1945, with some foreseen starvation, should have taken the precarious food situation into account and moved unitedly to surrender before December thirty first 1945. The Americans, however, did not take these factors into consideration and dropped the first bomb on August the sixth 1945.”

  If the circumstances had been the same, would Americans use this weapon on a populated European city? Historians suggest that because of racist overtones in America, both before and after the war, a sacrifice of a Japanese city was nothing more than payment for Pearl Harbor. In the minds of some Americans, including the pilot of Enola Gay, Col. Paul Tibbets, who in the fiftieth anniversary interview on CBC when asked the question “ever regret all the people you killed?” He replied “I have never lost a night’s sleep over it, and I never will.”15 During the same anniversary celebrations, American veterans groups opposed questioning the motives of the bombing. In 1995, their lobbying cancelled an exhibition at the Smithsonian Institute which had “depictions of human suffering caused by the weapons and it called into question official estimation of the hundreds of US casualties the bombing prevented by bringing the war to a swift end.”16 Some Americans, even fifty years later, are not interested in finding out the truth about the bombing, and the military refuse to examine the role of race and the targeting of civilians. For the armed forces, it was enough to know the military potential of atomic weapons." Her concluding paragraph I have used in the above post.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 3:30 am
  I think it would be a good idea to keep this discussion within the precincts of sanity. I always thought that humanity was responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was something we all did to ourselves. I thought everyone condemned it.

  So I was surprised a couple of months ago to hear Professor D'Amato defend the Hiroshima and Nagasaki solution. He is probably the only internation lawyer that I think is worth listening to, so don't think for a minute I say this lightly. I thought I had misunderstood him. But I guess I hadn't. There are actually people in America who still want to believe that the atomic bomb was a good thing, or at least a necessary evil. And suddenly, to these people it is America against the rest of the world. Well, if that is the way some Americans see it, I think it is.

  So now criticizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a leftist plot! And suddenly it becomes a question of pure politics whether to use the atomic bomb in Kosovo or Iraq. And I think the latter option is at least hinted when the Bush administration assures Tony Blair that "every conflict in the region can be contained". That would also explain the red herring of weapons of massa destruction Saddam allegedly has.

  So what is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? The Republicans bomb Iraq, the Democrats bomb Yugoslavia. That is the only reason to support the Republicans these days. So even if Kosovo was spared (relatively speaking) this time, the thought pattern is the same. What are the people making such a fuss about? If they disappear in a mushroom cloud, they have deserved it. "Trust me, I know what I am doing." Lou seems to be right about one thing, though. If the Americans hadn't bombed Europe, few people would have really questioned America's policy, including me. Those days are gone. Kosovo was bad, but it did one thing: it opened our eyes.

  What is it about these Americans? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a genocide, if there ever was one. Yet they had the nerve to begin the Tokyo war crimes trials against the Japanese. And as has now been divulged, Yamashita was convicted on false evidence, while the Americans were withholding evidence proving his innocence. As if the atomic bomb wasn't enough, they had to give something to satisfy MacArthur. So, should we trust the Americans' sense of justice?

  The Yamashita records became public just before the Milosevic trial. And now they have the nerve to do it again, with the archives from WW II disclosed! The "Yamashita doctrine" has been even flashed by name. And now that the ICC could create a level playing field for all, the Americans get cold feet. And they still call the US "the land of the bold".

  As we all know, the Americans are the most religious Westerners, which I think is a very good thing in itself. However, some evangelicals interpret the Old Testament as if it applied to the US. Whenever the Americans conclude a treaty with any country, the evangelicals shout: "America is whoring with that country!". This is because in the Old Testament, Israel was admonished not to make treaties with Egypt or Assyria.

  Similarly, other nations are identified with some undesirable Biblical nations. Russia is identified with Gog and Magog, which have a special chapter in the Bible, Ezekiel 38. This interpretation was made popular by Hal Lindsey in his book the Late Great Planet Earth. In this interpretation Ezekiel 38 says that Gog and Magog would attack the US. This is why some evangelicals expected Russia to attack the US during the Kosovo bombing. This attack is also supposed to be linked with the Second Coming, so the evangelicals were seriously expecting Jesus to come back during the Kosovo war.

  Now that Russia didn't attack the US, let's take it closer to the Holy Land, Iraq, or as it was called in antiquity, Babylon and Assyria.

  Because of the American exploits, one has almost be ashamed of being pro-Israel. I am pro-Israel, and I never realized how pro-Israel I am before the second intifada began. A few months ago I wasn't even sure where the Gaza Strip is. Now I am. And the only way to make sense of the proposed Iraqi campaign is to see it from the Israeli perspective: the Iraqis haven't been so nice to Israel. In the Gulf War they bombed Israel with Scud missiles without any apparent reason. Now they are financing the suicide bombings, and Saddam is giving some of the Iraqi money to the families of the suicide bombers (as if the Iraqis didn't need it). So not all of the financial disaster in Iraq is due to the sanctions. But the discrepancy remains. In Saudi Arabia there organized a telethon to collect money for the families of the suicide bombers, but no-one suggested Saudi Arabia should be bombed.

  How does this relate to Kosovo? When the Twin Towers were knocked down, no-one suggested that the Serbs had did it, no matter how the Serbs are now profiled as such terrorists in Hollywood films. This should show that unconsciously people never believed the Serbs were a threat. The US just wanted a war "that could be contained" to avert a larger threat. Well, it failed. First, the war couldn't be contained. It was supposed to be over in a couple of days, but it lasted 78 days. Second, it didn't pacify the Muslims. They just got hungrier. Third, all that happened in Yugoslavia in the 90's and the part that the West played in it is now reviewed in the Milosevic trial. And we now get some stuff from as far back as WW II! Most of it doesn't flatter the US.

  When Milosevic was indicted, it was widely speculated that the Serbs would now fight to the last man. One has to be grateful that the Americans didn't use the atomic bomb even if this "to the last man" scenario was discussed.

  This is something they never taught you at law school.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 6:41 am
  

  At Yalta FDR promised Stalin Germany will pay war reparations to the USSR in excess of 20, 000 million dollars ($b20).

  At Potsdam it was clear none of that money was forthcoming unless the USSR acepted US conditions on the disposition of post war Europe and most importantly on the future of Germany.

  It is Potsdam and its failure which lead to the division of Europe and the creation of NATO, the Warsaw Pact coming to life six years later.

  The architect of the ending of this period, last Soviet President Gorbachev never had and had no reason to expect the agressive expansion of NATO towards his country. The fool was deceived by the unreliable treaty signataries, you know whom.

  Some still think, many in fact think that Mr. Milosevic and Yugoslavia at Rembouillet should have behaved like Benes did in Munich, giving up his country to Hitler's demands for the sake of "peace in our time"

  Further on the bombs: there was no German bomb project and the US knew it. The bomb was an exclusive US weapon until Soviet science prove it not so exclusive. Like doctor Lee and recently another American scientist, the Rosenbergs became the escapegoat for a misplaced imperial pride and humiliation.

  And of course the Washington negotiations prior to Pearl Harbour were concluded in bad faith; the record shows FDR leading the Empire of Japan to a desperate and untenable position when the US convinced the Dutch to cut off the flow of Dutch Indonesian oil to Japan.

  American pride? No really. Just self adulation.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 8:43 am
  On comparing apples with pears

  Milosevic has never invaded another sovereign territory. In Kosovo, a province of Serbia, his security forces were being bombed and shot in the back during 98/99 by the Nato supported insurgent KLA. Kosovars and Kosovo Serb civilians were being abducted tortured and murdered by the KLA including elements of Mujadedeen and al-Qaeda. Ethnic Albanians have a sovereign territory of their own: there was no justification for the movement to Albanianise/Annex part of Serbia by force. Milosevic had not only a right but also a duty to loyal Kosovars and Kosovo Serbs to quell this insurgency. The Serbs in particular had inhabited this region for centuries. Given the local circumstances the operations of his security forces prior to Nato’s aerial attack were no more brutal than those of other nations facing invasion.

  No country attacked Japan in 1941. Following Pearl Harbor the Japanese attacked a number of sovereign states including an ongoing invasion of China. There are no words to describe the inhumanity of the Japanese forces in its treatment of POW’s and civilians in the territories they invaded. The Japanese had no regard for there own lives and even less for the lives of others.

  In a crushed and effectively defeated Germany the Russians lost 100,000 of its forces in taking Berlin. The even more fanatical Japanese of 1945 would have undoubtedly magnified this slaughter for the allies in taking Tokyo alone.

  One point not made: Who knew in 1945 what progress if any the Japanese had made with nuclear weapons? Could the allies afford to delay? Japanese submarines and the Kamikaze tradition would have made an effective delivery system. Ironically a Japanese submarine sank the US vessel delivering the bombs to the operational airfield - on its return journey.

  It is difficult to place ourselves in the circumstances of 1945. The fact that it needed a second bomb before the surrender was secured says all that needs to be said on President Truman’s decision.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 8:56 am
  Mr Trkla

  I know all national press(media) have a national bias, nothing new there it probably started with Gutenburg and Caxton. Even events we witness for ourselves when relayed to others will contain our own bias.

  I'd say there are degrees of nationalism, these include "state" & "ethnic", my readings put Seselj firmly in the "ethnic" camp. I've read none of the beauty of Milosevic (1989) unity(state nationalism) speech in any of this mans, normanlly violent utterings

  You don't understand my paedophile example because your trying to add meat to the bones and complicate what was a simple example.

  I don't subscribe to this conspiracy theory stuff, its usually the last resort of those who wish to hide their complicity in events.

  For the record I believe the ICTY is victors justice and not the place for any trial involving Milosevic, this should have been, if it were needed, a Yugoslav trial under Yugoslav law, but that raises the questions " would it have been a trial at all?" given most of the judiciary were appointed by Milosevic and "what if anything could he have been charged with?" Can't actually put my finger on a single charge Nice & Co have made look convincing.

  I can see that new-comers need to prostrate themselves before all here and swear allegiance to the majority line save they be ravaged by the hyenas, so here goes:

  ICTY=Joke

  This trial=Joke

  Milosevic innocent until some court finds otherwise

  Other points:

  Mr Taylor says I imply Milosevic is a racist, I've seen no evidence in his public life but what do any of us know of his private life, do any of us know what any politician thinks privately? How would I describe Blair....A typical politician who was better able to read the "game" than Milosevic but not as well as Clinton, can Bush read?.Mmm the KLA what can one say about them, a bunch of freedom fighters infiltrated with ethnic nationalist terrorist, maybe, or a bunch of ethnic nationalist terrorists infiltrated with freedom fighters, probably. How would you say they measure up against Arkans Tigers, Frankies Boys or Seseljs little militia and the support they had from Belgrade?

  Mr Nousiainen writes "This is the moment some have been waiting for: Milosevic would reveal his true colours as a racist!" Well has he or is it more likely Seselj is not the racist he has been portrayed as? What's the situation in Serbia with his wife's party JUL? I would have thought Mrs Milosevic in office a major coup and she even less likely to be influenced, bullied or pushed around by the west.

  Anyone remember Seselj's claim that he had evidence of Milosevics involvement in war crimes and that he would supply this to the ICTY? My mind boggles as to why Milosevic would give any kind of support to this man. Mr Nousiainen do you have any URL to speeches to Mr Milosevics other than his poetic 1989 speech?

  Simon exits the debate
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 11:22 am
  Lou, you're right about the Serbs being their worst enemies. It seems we like poking our nose in things much greater than we can handle. You're wrong saying I am parroting the leftists. Up to now, I've had no idea anybody in America even rised question were it right or wrong Hirosima and Nagasaki, or who is criticizing it, republicans or conservatives, and nobody over here in YU was discussing it either. I just happened to stumble couple of years ago upon a book my father bough a long time ago called "The History of WW2", written by Liddel Hart. The writer of the book was British military advisor during WW2, and as far as I know, no communist or anything. His book really seemed to quite objectively show what happened, at least it made much more sense than standard black/white images we get from movies and school history books. One of the things I've picked up from that book are the circumstances surrounding the dropping of atomic bombs on Hirosima and Nagasaki. It was a kind of a shock to me to find out that Japan was already on the verge of surrender when this happened. As for Vietnam, my sources are/were really thin, all I've learned about it was from the movies like 'Born on 4th of July" and "Platoon". However, I think that it is crucial to find out what the standpoint of the West is on what makes a war crime and what is justified killing of civilians. If I follow your logic, if country A kill civilians of country B, country C can kill civilians of country A to stop killing of civilians of country B. That applies even if country A is looking for ways to stop killing civilians of country B or has already stopped, since they can't be trusted not to kill ever again and anyways, they deserve a good lesson. It might look justifiable, but it certainly isn't heroic. You know, following that logic Serbs could have solved their problems century ago. Country A(Turks) was killing, exploiting, raping and humiliating the civilians of country B (Serbia) for centuries. When country B got strong enough to break free from country A it should have killed or expelled all of the Turk civilians that settled in their lands since they can't be trusted not to kill ever again and anyways, they deserve a good lesson. So, we would now have Bosnia as a part of Serbia, and not have a situation that for the second time in 20th century Muslims were slaughtering Serbian civilians. Also, Croatia in 2nd World War has slaughtered large percent of civilian population in Serbia (it was Serbia then), so we had right to retaliate as a winning side in WW2 by doing the same to them? We would secure ourselves from being slaughtered for the 2nd time in 20th century by the Croats in the same lands. Kosovo albanians started killing our police and civilians, so we should have killed their civilians too. Logic says yes. Heart says no. This is something you have to be Ortodox christian to understain why. We have suffered more than you Americans can ever imagine from Croats, Muslims, Albanians, Germans, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Austrians, so don't tell me I can't imagine what Japanese did. You whine on your loss of tens of thousands of soldiers, while we've lost millions and got our country ruined every 50 years by whoever found it interesting to pass through. Yet we've never restorted to intentional killing of civilians. Not even baptizing them by force, to make them on our side as was common practice by both Muslims and Croats. Instead we've tried to live in piece with them, to show on our example how they should behave. It was our, Serbian King that chose not to punish Croatia for their fighting of war on Austrian side against Serbia in WW1, but instead gave them a place in Yugoslavia, where they were equal among equals. You can see Mosques and Sinagogues and Cathedrals all over the Serbia. In WW2 we were hiding Jews from prosecution, and fighting the Germans. At the april of 1945 we've got our capital bombed by Allies (by the way, can any of you explain why?). At the april of 1999 we've got our capital bombed by Allies. Now we are on trial as a most genocidal nation of the world, compared with Germans and Japanese. Thanks god at least we're not compared to Americans who use logic of A,B and C and who are by the way the jury and the judge.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 7:35 pm
  To Simon Joseph of the Amman Valley, UK.

  Your swift exit from the debate has left me to construct your meaning of the “game” given baldly in your reply to my question. To recapitulate: my question was in essence ‘Given the fact of the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, that is the real ethnic cleansing not the fictional version given by the ICTY: If Milosevic is a racist is not Blair a racist of epic proportions?’.

  You claim that Milosevic was worse than Blair at the “game”. By this I take you to mean that Milosevic was not playing games but simply trying to defend his country.

  You state Blair was better able to read the “game”. By this I take you to mean that he took advantage of the situation to promote his image as a world statesman. And ingratiated himself with his Islamic constituency in the UK by lending the RAF to an Islamic terrorist group?

  Clinton was better even than Blair at the “game”: By this I take it you to mean that in attacking Serbia he saw an opportunity to divert attention from his problems at home caused by inappropriate behaviour in the Oval Office and his subsequent terminological inexactitude.

  What was that about Milosevic and paedophiles: Clinton abused the Oval Office with an intern and Blair dropped cluster bombs on children in Serbia?

  Believe me I am not a laughing hyena though the twisted logic of Blair and his chums often has me howling. Who for example are the good Islamic terrorists - the ones to be supported and who are the bad ones - the ones you wage war on? Forget the propaganda just pause to let the facts sink in. Fact: Clinton admitted during his impeachment to misleading the public! Fact: Blair and Clinton supported Islamic terrorism in the Balkans!! Fact: Blair dropped cluster bombs on women and children in Serbia - “Not intentionally”!!!

  Blair is a lawyer and the law assumes the intent of the inevitable consequences of ones actions. To drop dumb cluster bombs from a height of three miles into areas with civilian populations means that hospitals, schools and homes will inevitably be hit - and they were.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 9:47 pm
  

  1945.... well, the fact was Yugoslavia was out of the sphere of influence of Imperial Britain and the newly arrived Yanks. The US succeded in (with some pain) convincing Britain to resort to civil war in Greece and bring the monarchy back at the expense of Greek independence. Luckly in Yugoslavia the English were in no mood to fight any longer, couldn't break Tito's power and the Americans began to fix their sights in post-war Europe's "balance of power". The mistakes of 1918 were almost avoided and instead of monarchs being overthrown the Yanks wanted then preserved or restored. No revolutions, again almost, took place, at least not right away. And the regimes controlled by the former anti-fascist resistance, partisans, etc., were in some instances with the help of organized crime neutralized except in Yugoslavia were they ruled.

  Until 1991, what a memory these board-rooms must have!, the USSR collapses and the US Congress acts waisting no time: Yugoslavia must pay ipso factyo her debt and until then she could not borrow a cent, the avalanche of sanctions against her starts in unison with calls for national independence in Slovenia, Croatia and for Bosniaks, Albanians.

  Western propaganda exclaims, denounces the folly of Versailles, of Tito, artificial peace, artificial unity can't be supressed any longer, lets have a war to make everybody free and happy, humanly, that is free of crimes, no human rights violation will be tolerated in the "heart" of Europe at the eve of the new millenium, etc., an array of cliches and false arguments to make the little men, the petty, feel enpowered and grand.

  It is a pittiful sight, the moral sight of the Western industrial world. Nothing new since the Crusaders, when it comes to the Balkans really.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 12:13 am
  Bogden is probably the only one on this forum who knows about war. I know of Serbs who could talk of nothing when we first met but the Second World War and that was forty years after. No one suffered more than the Serbs. I have read from history books that Serbs suffered more in the First World War then anyone.

  The Serbs were our friends and allies through both Wars, and they and the Greeks were the only two countries in the Balkans that were on our side. The Americans turned on the Serbs and I for one will never understand why.

  If the Mexicans in California, for some reason, decided to separate from the US and become part of Mexico, every method known to man would be used to stop this and God pity any UN or other country who tried to stop the US.

  In the United States during the Balkan civil wars the Serbs were being accused by the media for everything that happened. Some media accused them of the first bombing of the World Trade Center. When Monica Seles (sp) was stabbed in Germany, the media in the US accused the Serbs. A woman reporter in London was shot and killed and the media blamed the Serbs. When the World Trade Center was attacked this time, some of the Arab countries were accusing the Serbs. So you see Jari, the Serbs got accused. I can understand Germany going after the Serbs, as they have never had a love for them. I cannot understand the US, and France. I know the Serbs always loved them. England too, I know Queen Mary (was that her name?) and her family knew what Serbs had gone through and they knew that Serbs were not the villains that Tony Blair and others preached. Yet, not one word from one of them.

  The majority of Serbs, world wide, know that they were persecuted by the media and the West. This will never be forgotten. They truly became the victims.

  Milosevic is again being victimized by the Western media. The coverage of the trial is mind boggling. They only report what they want. Just as they did during the Civil wars.

  The EU has now made a declaration to the Kosovo Government urging them to cooperate with UNMIK and acknowledging support for UNMIK. Still catering to the Albanians. The Albanians pull one of their tricks out of the bag (UNMIK is biased) and the EU and UNMIK fall over their feet to pacify them. Let us wait and see how long it takes for the six Albanian suspected war criminals to be released on the Serbs again.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 12:16 am
  Recently I have just turned 30 years old. My youth had been spent living in Yugoslavia under Tito's influence. While as childeren we raced off to our homes to watch Knight Rider and Disney specials, we still wore our red handkerchiefs and prided ourselves on the notion of Brotherhood and Unity. Now as I live in the west I am quickly realising that unity, respect of ones neighbours is a notion that only exists in fiction books. Brotherhood and Unity is torn within and from outside forces. The only thing that has any real value is money, the more off it you have the more your influence can effect others. On the issue of Yugoslavia and its seperatist states, the dust is yet to settle. We might be in a lull period, but if history has taught me anything, the Serbs have long memories and will rise up to take what is traditionally theirs when the oportunity presents itself. It took them 600 years to shake of Turkish rule, fled to the islands off Greece to re-organise during WW1, ran off into the forests and mountains to form Nationalist and Communist guerilla groups when the Nazis took over, once again from within and outside the borders. Now battered and bruised, yet still left standing, a new groundswell is emerging through the internet, web sites and other related outlets. One big mistake any invading force has made, is that they have left the Serbs standing. Some groups closer to home, such as the Albanians and Croats, appear to have caught on to this notion. They have succesfully terrorised the Serbian population in their respective regions and expelled them with assistance of outside forces. This way they ensure that there are no reprisals as years pass. They are currently ethnically pure which I would argue is a section of their aim. Soon enough the Albanians would push to annex Kosovo and Metohija with Albania proper and eventually regions within Macedonia and Montenegro would folow the path of guerilla warfare, all supposedly in the name of freedom. I will continue to add on more years to my life and through that hopefully attain wisdom that is usually due to an elderly person. My true hope is to see the TRUTH revealed, whatever that may be. No doubt that Serbs had some complicity with regard to attrocities, however reading some other comments here, which nation can claim the moral high ground on this planet of ours. No, the only moral right that exists is that one that is owned by the victors. Those off us that are on the loosing side are relegated to that group of immoral, racist and war mongering community. We provide excellent subjects to Hollywood movie scripts as we are the flavour of the moment. Young Americans watch the movies and as they come to my age, their Rambo influences would continue to instil the perception that the bad guys are inherantly "bad". What is only left is that we fight these untruths in any way, shape or form.
  
  Aleksander Misic
  Sydney
  Australia

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 2:55 am
  Simon Joseph writes that “I can see that new-comers need to prostrate themselves before all here and swear allegiance to the majority line save they be ravaged by the hyenas” so he has decided to leave the discussion. First of all I am called a ‘leftist’ and now I am a hyena. I apologize to both gentlemen if in some way I have offended them. I can assure Lou and Simon that my interest in this forum is strictly educational. My education first and hopefully some others may look at my views and think about them. Much of what has been said here regarding history is not new to me, however, every once in a while Jari, Peter, Ian, Gogol and others open my eyes to new ideas. For that I thank you all.

  Simon, I took your pedophile example literally and in the court of law a judge would disregard such innuendo unless the prosecution can show that the purchaser of such magazines did this to gratify his illness. What am I missing here Simon?

  I am sure that no one on this page wants contributors to face Mecca and “prostrate themselves” and “swear allegiance to the majority line”. What I want is evidence, not name calling, just because what is said does not fit your line of thinking.

  Comments made by Lou concerning the Atomic Weapons are supported by many prisoners of war who served time in Japanese prison camps. Some of them have said that they would not have survived the war if the bombs were not used. Others have written of cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of guards. Of particular interest to me is a guard from Kamloops who was called by the prisoners the “Kamloops Kid”. He and his family were forced out of Canada due to racism and he enlisted in the Japanese army and served as a prison guard in Southern China. His cruel treatment, particularly of English prisoners, resulted in a death sentence at the end of the war.

  I would like to ask Bogdan how the people feel about the elections slated for the near future. Who has the most support? Are you experiencing flooding from the Danube? Bogdan , most Americans are good people but unfortunately many are easily manipulated because history stops at their border. My aunt who is 92 yrs old was born in Butte Montana still claims to be American even though she has lived in Canada since 1941.

  Jari what is your understanding of the relationship between the Wends or Srbi who live south of Berlin and the Serbs in the Balkans? The language seems similar “domowina” for “homeland” in Wendish vs. “domovina” in Serbian. I know that one word does not make a language and since my German is rudimentary I was not able to read German sources on the internet.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 3:33 am
  I think we have come a long way. When this discussion started there were only some individual incoherent voices protesting against the Milosevic trial. Not so long ago, it was understood that it was no use guessing the outcome of this trial: Milosevic should have been grateful that the death penalty was not in use. The tyrants in The Hague seemed invincible.

  Now we hear that we are the hyenas. And this perception even justifies such frustrated protests from those who are not willing to "prostrate to the majority line". This is fascinating. Are we making a difference? I guess we are. We know it, and "they" know it. The differences between us are growing bigger, because we are now confident that there is no majority line that you have to "prostrate" to. There is just the quest for truth.

  No-one can say what the outcome of the trial will be, or if indeed it will have any definite outcome (which is beginning to seem ever more probable). It is at least certain that the outcome will not be what we supposed a few months ago. Even if the slowing down of the process may be meant to wear us down, it can also be seen in a positive light: this process hasn't even begun yet.

  What would happen if Milosevic were found "not guilty"? Of course such an outcome is extremely unlikely, but why? Is it because the Kosovars or the Bosnian Muslims would protest? Well, they might, but would that make any difference?

  If you take a look at Francis A. Boyle's list of would-be indictees, you notice that no Americans or no Bosnian Muslims are on that list. The names are Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Kofi Annan, Yasushi Akashi, Bernard Janvier, Rupert Smith, Herve Gobilliard, Joris Voorhoeve, Cees Nicolai, Thomas Karremans, Robert Franken, Thorvald Stoltenberg, Carl Bildt, David Owen, Michael Rose, their subordinates, Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, and Ratko Mladic. There are no Americans. David Owen and Michael Rose (and their subordinates) are British. Francis A. Boyle himself is a citizen of the US as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  So why is this list growing and growing, but some obvious names are omitted? Well, that is the point exactly. As has been pointed out a few times before, the war crimes trials are meant to divert the attention away from the victors's guilt. So what would happen if even the truncated list of indictees, including Milosevic, is not rubberstamped by the Trial Chamber? The Americans and the Bosnians would instantly be implicated!

  It is difficult for me to follow the logic, but apparently the same type of logic would be used as has been done by Jesse Helms, who suggested that any country that hands Americans to the ICC should face economic sanctions. Maybe that will happen even in the near future, if some country refuses to sign the immunity agreements offered by the US (the Nato countries excepted). But would even that be enough? The EU is against those agreements. Apparently the EU has some say here, as far as the effectiveness of the American sanctions is concerned. In economic terms, the EU can now abort the rules made by the Americans.

  So here we go. If the US is willing to nuke Iraq, why should it stop there? It is unlikely that they ever get so irritated as to bomb the EU, but it might bomb its newly-established backyard. However, even bombing the EU is not excluded. When one follows the evangelical script a little further, the EU is the great whore of Babylon of the Book of Revelation. And for some reason, the nukes make the Americans especially religious. It was Douglas MacArthur himself who said: "If we do not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door." Armageddon is a reference to the Book of Revelation.

  So suppose the US would destroy the world if it doesn't get its way in the ICTY. Is that a good enough reason to pervert justice? Well, it might be if that is the only reason. But as the Romans said: Fiat justitia, pereat mundus. If that sentence can be translated into English at all, it is "Let There Be Justice, Though The World Perishes."

  And this is something the Americans don't seem to get. Their justice system seems to be a form of entertainment. If someone gets justice in the American judicial system, it will be stuff for a Hollywood film.

  I can accept that the Americans relish their power. They don't have to sign treaties they don't like. That is the whole idea of treaties. They can break any rule of jus cogens if they like. No-one is there to stop them. But the minute they give this orgy a judicial garb, it becomes "a whole different ballgame", as the Americans say. Now everyone is equal. And yes you can resort to Biblical imagery, but you have to be blind to miss the Biblical condemnation of false judges. One Biblical quotation has even appeared in this discussion.

  Force can be used, but outside the courtroom. And even then the maxim applies: Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.

  Everyone is aware that the Japanese were no angels in WW II. But it is equally certain the atomic bomb was used just to make a point, not to win the war. Proportionality was violated in a scale never witnessed by man before. No-one knows the exact figures of the dead, but they are in the tens of thousands.

  Now turn to Srebrenica. Krstic is convicted of genocide for allegedly "knowing" (that's right, for simply knowing, according to the celebrated Yamashita doctrine) of the killing of the 7,000-8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys.

  And this genocide was of a particularly benign kind. Those killed happened to be men and boys, quite miraculously. And then most of them were found alive somewhere else, which gives this genocide a particularly happy ending.

  The Americans can praise the didactic value of this kind of trials. But as the saying goes: those who can't, teach. Yes we get some pseudo-humanists here who say they are against the Milosevic trial, against the Kosovo bombing and for the ICC. But they say these things only because they know that Milosevic will be jailed for life. So what? Let him write his memoirs, we will read it, because we know he was right after all. But if you suggest that he could really win this case and get released, they get berserk. And my question is: does it matter? Is there any reason for the defeatism which has paralysed us so long and which now seems to be the only reason Milosevic may get convicted?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 4:22 am
  I will be glad to give you insight on what's happening over here, but I think that determining what's a war crime is of much more importance. I am not after Americans, God knows how I despise judging any nation. I know that some of my reasonings may hurt feelings of Americans but you must understand that mankind now depends solely on your morality and judgement. It doesn't matter who wins the elections in Serbia, we are not capable of making any change in the world today. We are a nation struggling to survive but also to understand what's this world we're living in turned into. Asking us to stand up and fight is like asking 6 years old child to resist parents that are molesting it. A child can't beat it's parents, it cannot stop them from telling the world how bad a child it is. All it can do is cry and hope that somebody hears it. So I am crying for the whole world to hear. Yes, I am justifying surrender, as a child who obeys the parents in hope the beating will stop. You, American citizens are the conciense of the parents. It is you who have no excuse to be ignorant. It is you who have the power and obligation to stop the beating. Only then will I restore my faith in greatness of American nation that I had from the childhood.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 6:49 am
  

  Socialism or barbarism

  Rosa Luxembourg
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 6:55 am
  By the way, Jari, I would like to tell you what I've experienced when I was in Finland a year ago, on a businness trip. I was visiting with my friend one of the islands of Helsinki, can't remember it's name but it had some fortress on it. It happened to be that at the same time there was some delegation from baltic countries visiting the same sight, they were in Helsinki on a conference on influence of narcotics on youth, and the ways of preventing it, and they were out for sightseeing. The guide was speaking Russian because the guests were all from previous Soviet states so it was a common language for all. I know Russian because I studied in Moscow for 7 years, and my friend was learning Russian in school, so we have sneaked into the group to hear about the castle and the island. It happened to be that the leader of the group was some minister of yours for social something, can't remember what and I regret I can't remember his name. I took an opportunity to ask him what is his opinion on our recent democratic changes, are we on the right path, I asked him politely full of hope to get an insight from a politician of a democratic state. You know what his answer to my long question was? "Frankly, Finnish people hate Serbs". When I asked in shock "Why?" he mumbled something like "you were the strongest and you molested all the others". Then he added "I know that you are excusing it with what Croats did to you in WW2.". I said "No, it can't be used as an excuse for molesting somebody, it was 50 years ago. But situation was not that simple...". "Yeah,yeah", he interrupted me "if it conforts you there are some in Finland who think differently.". When I insisted on telling me why entire Finland nation can hate entire Serbian nation when we have had no quarrels whatsoever he simply said "It is because Russians supported you.". When I reminded him that he shouldn't yudge us so harshly,keeping in mind how Finnish people killed Russians civilians on their territory,when they've got independance from Russia, he simply said "Yes, and we're proud of it.". That's where I ended conversation in a complete disguist. Now, Jari, no need to tell me that Finish people are not hating us. I know that, and I also know that they are not thinking on such childish level. In fact all Finish people I've met apart from this guy were very nice to me, although I didn't discuss politics with any of them. But this guy was so full of himself and treated me like a boring fly. How such people seem always to win the reigns of power, beats me. Isn't his position in society such that he simply can't allow himself to state such things? He's supposed to be better than others if he's the one to lead. Probably this guy was exception, I don't assume your other politicians are such moral inferiors. But it did make me wonder if Plato, who invented democracy was right saying that democracy is second worse to tyrany, as it has a high probability of scumbags seizing the power.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 9:54 am
  In the interest of truth and fact I have a problem with the comment ‘In the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki proportionality was violated on a scale not seen before’.

  In July 1943 the RAF bombed Hamburg, Germany. On one night of the raids a firestorm occurred killing an estimated 50,000. In February 1945 the RAF and USAF bombed Dresden, Germany creating another firestorm. The death toll is quoted variously between 35,000 and 135,000: the uncertainty being due to people fleeing the Russian advance gathering in Dresden. In March 1945 the USAF bombed Tokyo. A resulting firestorm killed some 100,000. Subsequent deaths from injury are not known.

  The immediate death toll for Hiroshima was 70,000 and Nagasaki 25,000. Subsequently another 250,000 died from the effects of radiation.

  Clearly the USAF could have produced similar numbers of deaths using conventional weapons. The operationally significant difference in these raids was the efficiency of the killing machine. Instead of hundreds of bombers and thousands of airmen a single bomber was used to launch the atomic bombs.

  Remember too that Japan started the war by launching a surprise bombing attack on a US naval base. In the resulting war the US sustained almost one million casualties including 290,000 dead. In some cases its captured aircrew were subjected such atrocities as ceremonial beheading: some Serb victims of Islamic terrorists suffered a similar fate in Kosovo.

  The war in Europe was started by the Nazi invasion of Poland. German bombers first started bombing the UK in preparation for an invasion. This bombing continued to kill British civilians throughout the war eventually by the use of rocket bombs. Millions of people died in the Nazi death camps. Also, to contradict another previous comment posted here, the Germans did have a nuclear weapons program. The heavy water factory damaged by allied forces in Norway was being used for this purpose. This plant was later rebuilt in Eastern Germany. The allies did not know the fact that Heisenburg, the German atomic bomb project leader, made an error in his calculations causing the project to stall. It really was a critical arms race - after all it was a German scientist, Frisch, sacked under Nazi racial laws who alerted the allies to the possibility. It was this information that led to the atomic bomb project in the USA.

  I agree with the Christian principle “Thou shalt not kill” even if Bomber Carey the Archbishop of Canterbury does not - when he sanctioned the bombing of Serbia. But I part company with the Christians when someone is trying to kill me. If someone strikes me on the cheek I strike him back twice as hard - if I can.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 11:42 am
  What about Hirosima and Nagasaki now, 57 years later? Is the land still radioactive? I've heard that children are still born there with defects. Does anybody have a source of information on this? It's quite interesting to me since you've used depleted uranium on us. Peter, you're wrong. It's a kind of logic that makes terrorists come to America and blow themselves into pieces in some supermarket full of people. America has enough civilian blood on it's hands to make it justified according to your theory. But civilians are INNOCENT. Yes, they are subject to different kinds of propaganda. Sometimes they are stupid, for believing it. But majority of people in each nation are GOOD, law obiding citizens who wouldn't hurt a fly. It is out of fear and ignorance that such people start supporting their mass killers - it's a reasoning it's better that we kill them then that they kill us. It's the same reasoning that makes you torment Iraq for 10 years already, although deep in your hearts you must know that country of size of Serbia couldn't possibly pose a threat to you. People are dying there from hunger and diseases and effects of depleted uranium you threw on them. Do you know that back in 1970s it was the most liberal Arab state, most friendly to America, and Sadam was president? By firebombing the German cities,you've only helped Hitler stay in power, providing German people with evidence that you're not better, and assume the terrible faith that awaits them if they loose the war. Neither did the firebombing help Hitler win the war, it only made Brittish stronger in their resolve to fight Hitler. It was the brave Russian soldiers who mostly won the war and take a notice - they didn't retaliate by killing German civilians, although their losses are monstrous compared to yours. If they did return with twice the same measure as you suggest, there would be no Germans now. Would America stand aside and watch Russians execute 40 million Germans? Or would they call it an act of terrible barbarism and throw an A-bomb on Moscow?
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 12:42 pm
  A Canadian journalist Jacques Bacque in his book "Other Losess" documents the fate of German POWs in the hands of the US Army under the command of General Eisenhower. Not a pretty event and once again, it has, as always, been contested if not justified. To quote a famous comedian:"It is good to be the King!"

  The German nuclear programme was a joke. The Nazi were under Heisenberg advice convinced such a device was not feaseable and they anticipated it would, a usable bomb, weight over 300 tons. The Armed Forces were not interested and the research programme looking into ways of controlling a chain reaction was continued in a truly amateurish fashion. The heavy water plant in Norway which British and Norwegians commandos sabotaged more than once was vital for this research, yet it proved difficult.

  In any case there was never anything close to a nuclear bomb in Nazi Germany. The head of the "Manhattan" project in the US got word, credible information of this fact which he kept secret from the hesitant European scientists he directed since the idea was, to justify the American development of such a terrible weapon that the Nazi would have it and America had to have it first.

  Until recently the use of nuclear weapons was only considered a deterrent since its retaliatory effect would have anulled the effect of the initial first strike. Following the collapse of the USSR(!) President Clinton signed a new directive on the use of nuclear weapons abandoning this doctrine. President Bush has reiterated the "first strike, as preemptive action" doctrine. Madeleine K. Albright when she was Secretary of State said: "what is the use of having all this magnificents weapons if we don't use them?"

  US General Short made it clear to Mr. Milosevic he would without any hesitation "obliterate Belgrade" if necessary. I can only guess why following the visit of the team of "negotiators" including the president of Finland and Chernamierden of Russia, Mr. Milosevic agreed to the withdrawal and evacuation from Kosmet. Maybe he would call them to the witness stand.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 5:45 pm
  It is a paradoxical old Roman proverb: ‘If you want peace prepare for war’. Yes Bogdan in an ideal world my position is morally repugnant but it is less repugnant than that of the bullies who attack others first like Hitler and Blair. It also has the merit of a chance of survival rather than being meekly led off to the gas chamber. Do you suppose Blair would have attacked your nation if he were unsure as to whether or not Russia would reply with a nuclear attack on the UK?

  On the German nuclear bomb project: How long does it take to correct a calculation? Also remember in 1945 the Germans uniquely had a rocket delivery system: the V2.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 6:41 pm
  Strictly speaking the V (1-2) rockets, the "revenge" weapons were important because of the spychological impact they had being of a new and revolutionary nature. The authorities in England reduced this effect by hiding the extent of the damage and under reporting the number of attacks.

  Peter, if you're interested on the subject of the German bomb I would recommend Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb by Thomas Powers, 1993. You will see it was a complex story not just some small adjustment.

  In fact that the Germans did not develop the bomb has in itself little relevance; it is the fact that the "Manhattan Project" was exclusively justified by the belief Germany was going to have it and that makes the US responsibility for the bomb a little shaky when cavalierly the blame is put on the Germans. There was no reason, once it was known there was no German bomb, to continue with "Manhattan" and give humanity a one less horror to worry about it.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 8:19 pm
  I agree with Peter on the history of German nuclear development. The heavy water plant in Norway was the key to that development. The British commandos put that project out of commission. If the heavy water plant had survived the Germans would have had the bomb two years before the Americans. Furthermore, they had the delivery system as well, which included the V1 and V2 rockets, the Buzz bombs and the first prototype of a jet plane.

  Japan wanted economic domination of Asia with their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere with the Japanese “master race” in control. From the invasion of Manchuria in 1931 to the invasion of the rest of China in 1937 and the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 Japan was well on her way in implementing her Asian “Lebensraum” policy. The rape of Nanking is only one example of Japan’s shame. However, if we examine the history of every nation we will find skeletons of shame. I think we are wasting our time digging up the past in order to justify the present.

  Bogdane, I agree with you that WWII was in part won on Russian blood and American Sporc and Spam. On the other hand, how can you minimize the fact that the British Isles continued to provide a base from where German cities were attacked day and night? How can you minimize that the Battle of the Atlantic was won because Great Britain was not conquered in Operation Sealion? Just ask yourself the question, what would have happened to Russia if Britain had fallen in 1940. I suggest to you that Russia would have fallen, if the RAF had not bombed German cities night and day from 1940 to 1945. I would also suggest to you that Russia would have fallen if Britain did not remain as a staging base against the Fascists. Bogdane, the only country in Europe to support the British in the Battle of Britain was Yugoslavia (Serbs). Blair paid them back by bombing them on the anniversary when the Nazis unleashed Operation Punishment against Belgrade. Bogdane, you can’t blame all the British people for the actions of their government. I am offended when you make comments such as “since you've used depleted uranium against us” to criticize the West. My government in Canada subverted the law by not consulting the parliament when they participated in the attack against my former homeland. Many Canadians, and I am sure many Britons, did not support what their governments did and as you can tell from our posts we still don’t.

  Much of the research in developing the A-Bomb, the "Manhattan Project" was done in Washington State just south of British Columbia. My understanding is that this state is so polluted with uranium; the nuclear plants are so dated that it will cost over 50 billion to clean the mess. Any accident in their nuclear plants will affect us here in Kamloops since we live directly upwind.

  I asked Bogdan about the flooding on the Danube in the Belgrade area because the media, once again, ignores that part of the World. The Danube stops at the Hungarian border in the recent news from Europe.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 8:52 pm
  

  Latest:

  Holbrooke given go-ahead to testify at trial
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday August 22, 2002 at 8:54 pm
  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 12:29 am
  Bogdan; Born in Finland and raised in Canada, I know only from my father distrust of Slavs. His storys of the winter war came only in times of melancoly. My brother in law,'Slavic' feared to have a beer with him. The same man tought me that nations should be free to protect land belonging to them and would have been the first to say, Kosavo is Serbia,remembering Karjala fondly.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 3:34 am
  If I were not an exception in this country in seeing the Serbs's point of view, do you think I would be posting here? On the other hand, there are some especially obnoxious people even by the prevailing standards in this country, and that is another reason why I keep posting here. One particular person tried to convince me that there is no truth in law. That may be his personal interpretation of the American law theories that he has imbibed across the bond.

  But have you noticed something? I think the Serbs have first-hand experience of racism, but the racism is always turned around (or inverted as is now the term used by the defendant) by excusing it with the slogan that it is the Serbs that are racists. There is some psychological mechanism here, which may be called projection.

  The Finns have a special aversion to the Slavs, because we are so often taken for Slavs. It is the same everywhere in the Russian sphere of influence. The Lithuanians and the Latvians blow their top if you suggest that their are Slavs. And on and on it goes. Some of the post-communist countries in Eastern Europe are more pro-Nato than most Nato countries, because they want a clear break with the past.

  This is why Bulgaria for instance let the Nato planes fly the Bulgarian air space during the Kosovo war. And now to the apology: What the Western media didn't tell us was that it wasn't quite as simple as that. The Bulgarian Parliament Building was besieged by the former communists when the decisive vote was to take place. In the Western media you could just here a distant rumbling when it was reported that Romania had given her consent but Bulgaria hadn't - yet. This is one way to break up the unity of the Balkan peoples (called Balkanization): you only have to report that Nato swayed its magic wand and all the other Slavic nations were spellbound.

  --

  I think the people are suddenly so interested in the nukes, because everyone understands that the present administration wouldn't hesitate to use them. Why would Bush Jr. have started his presidential career by the Defensive Shield?

  Frankly, I would never have thought I would be discussing the pros and cons of the atomic bomb. There is a rudimentary legal distinction here. There is jus ad bellum, and there is jus in bello. The former says if you have the right to resort to war, and the latter says what you are allowed to do when in war. To make it simple, the basic rule of jus in bello is that you don't target the civilians. What makes this rule increasingly hard to apply is the fact that the combatants like to abuse it (flagrantly) by mingling with the civilians and being liberal with the use of uniforms and other military (and even more worryingly, humanitarian) paraphernalia. But this is not a problem when you think about using the atomic bomb, which you can't use without affecting the civilians population for many generations to come. And inasmuch as the use of nuclear weapons is qualified as genocide, it is always prohibited, and this prohibition can work retroactively (like the "crimes against humanity" worked retroactively against the Germans).

  It is beyond any reasonable doubt that the use of the nuclear bomb was against international law even if there were no explicit rules prohibiting its use at the time. You can say that international law is namby-pamby, and you may be right, but my point is: what right do you have to set up war crimes tribunals after commiting genocide?

  I am not here to hold a brief for the Japanese in WW II. I have read some of the accounts of the atrocities they committed and they have kept awake at nights long enough. But there is something that civilized people (quote from the UN Charter) don't do! This is no question of likes and dislikes, being left or right, conservative or liberal - intentional killing of civilians is simply illegal, and if you choose to do it, don't justify your crimes by convicting the victims.

  I should add that the jus ad bellum is a bit old hat now, because it evokes memories of the just war theory. You can't determine what is a just war, because it is impossible to determine what exactly led to the war. When the Treaty of Versailles was concluded with Germany after WW I, some British government official said that it would lead to another war. And it did. No hindsight there. The grand old man of economics, the British John Maynard Keynes, wrote the book "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" where he absolutely slammed the treaty. And he should know, because he was there in the negotiations.

  And what is Japan's excuse? The "Lebensraum" theory was mentioned. Do you think that the Japanese didn't need it? It was pointed out at the time that the Japanese islands couldn't support the population, because the population density was tens of times higher than in the Western countries. Yes, Japan did acquire land on the mainland. "The swine", was the response from the West, amidst their opulence brought from the colonies. The reason the Japanese can now support themselves on those islands is because of thinking of high-tech solutions to do it.

  So there are two sides to every story. Why was Bulgaria "on the wrong side" in both world wars, whereas Yugoslavia wasn't? Once you get to know Bulgarians, they still remember how the British betrayed them and sold them back to the Turks, and made them give the southern part of the country back to Turkey in the Treaty of Berlin in 1878. And it isn't true that Serbia hasn't attacked any country. When Bulgaria united with Eastern Rumelia, as southern Bulgaria was then called, Serbia attacked it for fear that Bulgaria would grow too big. That was in 1885. Bulgaria repelled the attack. The swine!

  So is it any wonder that Bulgaria chose the "wrong side" in WW I? Yes, it was on the same side as Turkey, but that was a necessary evil, and Turkey was a has-been anyway. Turkey didn't even react when its vassal, Bulgaria, was attacked by Serbia.

  And look how the West has treated Bulgaria in comparison to Serbia. The Arabs had a saying in WW I that it is better be an enemy of the British than a friend of the British, because the British will sell their friends and buy their enemies. I think the comparison between Bulgaria and Serbia is illuminating, no matter that they are both economic basketcases.

  But buying your enemies and selling your friends gains on currency, when you realize that that is exactly what the Americans are doing now. It seems plausible that the Serbs are the Americans' friends and the Arabs their enemies. So being the salesmen that they are, the Americans made the deal of selling their friends (Serbs) and buying their enemies (Arabs). So I don't know how wise it is for the Serbs to keep assuring the Americans are their friends. They know that. That's why they treat you like that.

  Back to the topic: What happens if Milosevic wins? At least he will have proved that the system can be beaten, and because beating the system is what the Americans do, Milosevic will be one of their own. The ICTY an American institution? No no, it was those damned Europeans, the Swiss and the British, who tried to nail him. He's a Slav, so what? No-one can describe the American spirit so accurately as a Slav. Take the Czech Milos Forman and his film "One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest".

  Forget about Seselj and SPS. Milosevic is my great American hero.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 7:19 am
  OK, to satisfy you all people my mails would have to be twice as long as they already are. It's not neccessary for some of you to be so sensitive, for example when I say 'you threw uranium on us', it didn't mean your nations or that all of the NATO allies agreed to do it. Should I instead use each time the construction of the sentence "Governments of some of those NATO countries that in no way represented the will of the people in this particular case, have decided without consulting their parlaments to drop some uranium on us which they have subsequently did, so I wonder if it's dangerous?". My opinions would look like a Disclaimer notes that I presume nobody sane reads. Since I address mostly people from NATO countries on this forum, I simply used the term 'you'. If I was reffering to, let's say America's success in basketball, and said "you're the best in the world", I don't think nobody would find it neccessary to explain that most of American people have nothing to do with the basketball team, and some of them are pretty lousy at playing it. Good things come with the bad when you belong to some nation, and nobody really asks you what's your part in it. Of course I think it's a crime what Germany and Japan did in WW2 and that it should have been punished one way or the other. I haven't studied Nurmberg trials, but I think it was a good idea that they didn't simply shoot the bastards, but let them speak so that experience would maybe be used to advantage of a mankind as to how to recognize such crimes in development. I just somehow felt that the worst punishment for German people is the realisation that they were doing it, that they were part of a worst crime known to mankind, and that they are by default considered morally inferior. They are up to this day not allowed to forget it, and that black mark will always be there on their history and on their nation. Of course, it would not be possible if they won the war, as they would then write a history that would put a black mark on those who resisted them. So, why I dragged into this conversation Hirosima & Nagasaki, Vietnam, and most recent, still ongoing war on Iraq? I am not trying to make connections, to assume motives of NATO governments for doing this or that. I have no clue whatsoever what is the final goal of New World Order. Those things are hard to prove and are unlikely to ever be believed by the wide audience. What I am trying to prove instead is so simple and obvious it screams to heavens. THE GENEVA CONVENTION HAS NOTHING THAT EXCUSES SIDE B FROM NOT FOLLOWING IT IF SIDE A BREAKS IT FIRST. ALSO IT DOESN'T EXCUSE A VICTOR FROM WHATEVER SIDE. So, since it is a law that treats all as equals, either we agree that Geneva convention is a piece of crap, and nobody is following it, and nobody is judged by it, or we make a conclusion that Americans and even British are GUILTY of war crimes of genocide in WW2. We don't need your political motives, they're irrelevant, like judge May would like to say, all we need to do is establish that your presidents were issuing commands of civilian bombings. You justify Brittish bombing of German civilians by the logic that lesser there are Germans alive, lesser our casualties will be if we invade them, since lesser their capability to defend will be, which means we can invade them sooner thus minimise total casualties as the war drags on. That would make for example bakers and medicine workers crucial to destroy, as they are feeding and healing the enemy army. But why stop there? Let's kill their kids so they don't grow up and become soldiers of the enemy. We, Serbs, have all the evidence that Croats and Muslims were treating our POW much the same as Japanese did to Americans. It's even worse, since they were also killing OUR civilians, which Japanese didn't do to Americans. So weren't we right to lead the war the way Americans did so often already? To bomb civilians of Sarajevo and so effectively diminish enemy base for leading war now and in the future? Or is there a difference between American and Serbian life? A relative of mine was held captive by the Muslims. He was beaten each day at the same time, he lost all his teeth, his spine is damaged. Currently, he's in Sweden working on hard construction works that he couldn't afford to do considering his health. He's a programmer by education but can't find a job until he finishes school of Swedish language and he can't finish the school since he's all of the time working for a lousy pay to be able to pay the bills. His apartment back in Bosnia was taken by the Croats, and anyway, the economic situation down there is such that he couldn't find a better job than the one he's currently doing. And all of the time the papers he gets are just valid for several months and then he again has a chance being rejected and thrown out of Sweden. And guess what? He doesn't hate Muslims. He says we were all (Serbs,Muslims,Croats) victims of a stupid war. SO WHAT FUCKING EXCUSE ANY OF YOUR PEOPLE HAVE TO HATE US?! Stop referring to Geneva convention, we've respected it more than ANY of you Westerners ever did. And so did the Russians in WW2 showing manly example that none of your nations would care to follow. They valued principles over the lives of their soldiers. You value lives of your soldiers and even geopolitic interests far more than any human principles, but judge others when they do so. This is no ideal world because people have no ideals. America has at this court corrupted three ideals: of a fair trial, anti-racism and the freedom of the press. Things I've always thought that they fought for, judging by the American way of life (actually, the one from the movies, since I was never there).
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 7:24 am
  And just a short comment on Danube. We have no floods, it seems that army have done a good job building dams back in Tito's time. Thanks for expressing your concern.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 8:17 am
  “You justify Brittish bombing of German civilians by the logic that lesser there are Germans alive, lesser our casualties will be if we invade them, since lesser their capability to defend will be, which means we can invade them sooner thus minimise total casualties as the war drags on. That would make for example bakers and medicine workers crucial to destroy, as they are feeding and healing the enemy army. But why stop there? Let's kill their kids so they don't grow up and become soldiers of the enemy.”

  Wrong. The justification was simply to stop them bombing and killing British civilians. Milosevic’s security forces were bombarding the invading KLA and their supporters for the very same reason: what else should his security forces have done?

  How many time do I have to say it: Blair the ‘moral leader of the Nato attack on Serbia was wrong.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 9:59 am
  Peter, how does the bombing of enemy civilian buildings stop their army from bombing your civilian buildings? I know you were expecting to break their morale as a nation, as they were trying to break yours (that's why they started bombing you in the first place). Frankly, I can't possibly judge British for this "eye for an eye" method, but it is a violation of Geneva convention, and it is not something Serbs have done in this war. Your parallel is wrong, since Milosevic didn't target civilians in order to break Albanian morale. We didn't respond to terrorism with terrorism. We didn't kidnap Albanian civilians and execute them, we didn't throw hand-grenades in their cafes we didn't shoot people from the back. But, sorry, I drew a wrong conclusion following your statement that you've helped Russians with your constant bombing. I was thinking you referred to bombing of civilians (which could have, tragically, helped in a way I described and you quoted). Otherwise, don't think for a minute I am diminishing the great effort and heroism you've put up into fighting Germans in Africa and with bombing of military targets, and fighting of your fleet, and also fighting German aircrafts and many more things. I also presume as you do that Russia wouldn't stand a chance if you were put out of the game. It was just that all of those things are already known established facts that you as a nation have been credited for. And no, Peter, you don't need to assure me on what side you are. But also condemning NATO attack on Serbia and condemning Blair is not enough. It could be understood as saying to black people of America that QQQ was wrong in it's METHODS, not saying that it was hatred of the black people that was wrong. I know that's not what you've ment. Frankly, do you know who I would gladly put up a war crimes trial for? Journalists. It is because of their misuse of their profession that war crimes (and even wars) happen. They are giving a oath, same as doctors, that they will write the truth when they are becoming journalists. What would happen to a doctor who instead of giving medicine, gives poison to his patients? They are even more guilty than the soldiers commiting crimes, because soldiers learn from their news of terrible attrocities commited by other side, that are either pure propaganda or overinflated facts. How could Muslims treat my poor cousin when it is all over western media - Serbs are killing hundreds of thousands, they build concentration and rape camps, torture their prisoners. So the whole world was confirming the lies their media was already serving them. So what do you expect from a Muslim guard having a Serb prisoner around?
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 10:42 am
  I agree Bogdan, that the Journalists beeing corrupted, should answer for having spread lies all around,but who is the corruptor?? Who is more guilty of the two before the law??
  
  Serjoe B
  Italy

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 1:21 pm
  In the light of recent avenue of disscusion taken on this panel, I would like to share some toughts regarding usage of nuclear weapons. Yugoslavia was fifth country in the world to build up their own nuclear reactor and nuclear program (Vinca institute near Belgrade), in the early 60's headed by Dr. Pavle Savic, Madamme Kury assistant. Couple of days ago I red that US had provided financial suport for removal of 50 kilos of "heavy plutonium" from the same institute, a quantity sufficient for building at least two A-bombs. Plutonium was there since early seventies, yet Yugoslavia had never build A-bomb even though it had all the neccesary components. During the last decade tragedy of Balkan people Serbia never tried to use this as ace in a sleeve while negotiating with the West. Seselj (who is in my oppinion shared by most Serbs, at least "mentally unstable" person), at the eve of Nato bombing of Bosnian Serbs mentioned in press that Serbs have Scud 16 rockets and A warheads and that it will consider hostile any country that supports US in this action. This statement coused quite a turmoil in neighbouring Italy. Yugoslav official however immediately dissmissed these alleged treats. Throughout Balkan wars Serbia never even considered production (which it was capable of), using or even saling of its plutonium or technology to US hostile nation. Only to get rewarded with some 30 tons of depleted uranium dumped at our land with cold economic of cheap despence mixed with praisconic Teutonic hatred of slavs. So dont give me no exuses for Western goverment actions,now or in a past. The mere possesion of Nuclear weapons gives Gods like powers into human hands. But that what "Teutonic races" are all about; playing gods over the rest of humanity. USA, GB, France or Israel right to have Nuclear weapons was never in question since they have the right to defend themselfs. Yet in the hand of Russia, India, China or other savages it becomes a weapon of massive destruction. US were the one that pushed world into nuclear race. Just imagine what would McArtur and his hawks do to Russia if it had not developed it own A-bomb. US had the means and were willing to use it (proved so neathly on the case of Japan). Regarding the history lesons given here sometimes they are far away from the truth, or at least in the best manner of Western teutonic historical counterfeiting school. Walter if you want to find out more about Luzicki Srbi (Wends in German) go to www.rastko.org.yu
  
  Miroslav Radulovic
  NYC
  USA

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 2:11 pm
  It was late August in 1940 when the RAF bombed for the first time civilians in Berlin using scattered incendiary bombs. Again on 29 August under Churchill direct orders there was another incendiary attack on Berlin and civilian casualties were reported. The Luftwaffe had not yet and it was in September when it begun its terror bombing of London.

  This escalation of the air war had to do with Nazi feelers seeking peace negotiations offering Great Britain and her Dominions peace conditions.

  Ludwig Weissauer went to Stockholm to meet the British envoy and present him with a peace plan. Churchill aborted the meeting. Hess letter sent to Duke Hamilton was seized by the secret services and more bombing of Berlin was ordered. On September 4 Hitler authorized the unrestricted bombing of central London.

  It is also very true that the NATO alliance waged its war in the name of the 19 countries forming it. In the name of superior values and certainly superior force and that calling the bombing campaign "Operation Punishment" as Hitler did in April 6, 1941 did not go un-noticed in Yugoslavia. I always believed and still do, the NATO alliance was inspired in a Nazi vision of the World and from time to time its true nature emerges.

  I live in what it is considered the richest state in the Union, at least the numbers say so, one of the main components of this wealth come from building weapons, other wise known for the euphemism of "defence contracts" and I don't remember during the 78 days of the bombing any one feeling any guilt for it, in fact the local papers were happy to report how the Pentagon was increasing current orders and negotiating new ones. War is good business.

  America runs trade deficts of historical proportions year after year, there was an exception: in 1991 (Gulf War) after passing the hat to the "international community" the US posted a surplus in the budget. Again, no complaints were heard from the heart of the nation. I doubt there is a genuine national conciousness in the USA.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 3:16 pm
  Could some one comment on Dresden bombing with "fire bombs" (phosphorus) that burned the city and killed numerous civilians. Was that violation of existing Geneva conventions? Interestingly at the time Nazi Germany was rethriting, Dresden did not have military significance at that time, only helpless civilians. Burning of human flesh could be detected miles avay from Dresden. Was that action a civilised action in compliance with than existing laws?
  
  Carla Berg
  Austria

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 6:59 pm
  The air war, the bombing of the German cities had intensify to new highs. Dresden the capital of Saxony was 13 February 1945 overcrowded with refugees from the East, prisoners like the American writer Kurt Vonnegut described the madness of the bombing in his "Slaughterhouse Five", Dresden had no anti-aircraft defenses and practically no air-raid-shelters since the city had never been bombed, this wonderful fact was atributted to the city's beauty, a master piece of Rococco architecture, the allies were civilised people it was believed and respected one of the wonders of the World. Within minutes the city was engulfed in fire when the RAF followed by a later attack by the USAF conducted yet another experimental way of destruction and killing. It had already being tried in Hamburg and Cologne but this time it was under full control, the idea being to saturate the air above the city with high temperature incendiaries and literary ignite the air in a massive fire ball.

  Between 60,000 and 100,000 people died victims of this premeditated murder. Next day Goebbels asked Hitler to trie Goering the head of the Luftwaffe in a Volk Court for negligence, Hitler refused but agreed to the drafting of a plan to begin reprisals against allied pilots and prisoners and to abandon the Geneva Convention since in their view it had little value in protecting Germany.

  The need to expedite the end of the war and perhaps to demonstrate to Stalin the western front was in full participation (here the point of saving lives again) are justifications advanced by many authors. Churchill is quote to have been critical, there is a background, a subtle one; the RAF and USAF were in disagreement in how to conduct the air war against Nazi Germany, the former in favour of precision bombing while the Americans believed in mass bombing.

  The fate of civilians under air attacks was defined by a The Hague Conference in 1925. Cities, hospitals, churches, schools were protected from air attacks. In 1925 it was hard to imagine saturation bombing. Which countries it ratified it I don't know.

  One thing is certain , the fate of prisoners and civilians, in other words the defenceless has been the subject of many conferences and conventions atempting to "humanize" the worst of human rights crimes: war.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 8:11 pm
  Do me a favour: think carefully about what you write ‘After Dresden Hitler agreed to abandon the Geneva Convention’. Tell that to relatives of the 20 million Russian dead, of the London rocket bomb victims, of those who suffered in his Gestapo torture chambers, of the millions who died in his death camps and slave camps …

  War by its very nature implies a suspension of moral values. “Thou shalt not kill” has no relevance when man is faced with the dilemma: Kill or be Killed.

  The burden of responsibility for the horrors of war falls squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate warfare: In Germany the Leaders of the Nazi party, In Kosovo and Serbia the Leaders of the KLA/Nato alliance.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 8:42 pm
  I have no apologies to make about an historical fact which is recorded in many variants including part of the Nüremberg transcripts.

  Unfortunally the war, like any war, was lived minute by minute, day by day, by people, ordinary people, people worried about work, their children education, paying their taxes, and every day brought its tragedies and glories, its despair and hopes.

  Leaders bear the responsability of war not the people. There is not a just weight on this earth to balance one crime with another, London does not justify Dresden, Berlin does not justify London, Commodore Perry does not justify Pearl Harbor and then Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, Argentina, Falklands, Grenada, Panama, Sierra Leone, Congo, Cyprus, Lybia, Palestina, Israel, Suez, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya, Basque Country, and many others like Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, all of them have a reason to kill, to spill blood, rightly, expensively, assisted by creditors, banks, lawyers, treaties, burocrats, politicians, by creed, by right, by hunger, by greed.

  Is there an ideal for peace?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 10:32 pm
  Gogol, you hit them all. They were all covered with spin made posible by the" fog of war". We have a chance to expose one crime outside the spin. Milosevic has a forum, if only the media would cover it. We who read this forum and all anyone we can talk to should email CNN CBC BBC ABC NBC and demand the coverage we were promised. Slobo deserves a world wide audiance.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC. Canada

• Friday August 23, 2002 at 11:27 pm
  Pertti, I absolutely agree with you. Who knows their addresses? Lets all do it at the same time and see if they respond. Thank you Miroslavfor the web page, I am fascinated.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops
  Canada

• Saturday August 24, 2002 at 5:30 am
  Gogol: do I have to spell it out for you? By quoting some meaningless Nazi propaganda as a significant historical fact you fall into the same category as those in the media you so rightly despise. The Nazi’s violated the Geneva Convention throughout the war: not just from February 1945, after the bombing of Dresden.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday August 24, 2002 at 6:49 am
  

  Gogol: do I have to spell it out for you? By quoting some meaningless Nazi propaganda as a significant historical fact you fall into the same category as those in the media you so rightly despise. The Nazi’s violated the Geneva Convention throughout the war: not just from February 1945, after the bombing of Dresden.

  Not so insignificant since it turns out the Convention had not been respected by all and when the moment of reckoning came at Nüremberg every argument weighted heavily. The Allies did not want to be remind it of their crimes, and the Nazi did not want to be punish selectively. Finally it was agreed, the Nazi will be punish for their exclusive Nazi crimes and what the Allies did could not be use for their defense. Only an American admiral was able to save admiral Dönitz life when he established in his testitmony the US Navy practiced what it was blamed on Dönitz. It was exceptional.

  The idea of executing POW as reprisal discussed during the Goebbels Hitler meeting was never implemented and of course many took credit, again at Nüremberg, for its non implementation.

  Demonizing political leaders obscures the possiblity of understanding the truth, someone counted the number of major books written on Hitler, an enormous number, and yet it makes no diference what soever because the ordinary person refuses to admit that Adolf Hitler, like any other mortal could wake up in the morning with an ordinary headache

  And is it not one of the main reason why the trial of Mr. Milosevic is not covered by the Western media, the fact that he is not only telling the truth, but that he is and behaves like a normal human being, including his flu and blood pressure?

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday August 24, 2002 at 11:00 am
  America was a party to this 1929 Geneva Convention agreement on the treatment of prisoners of war. This was violated by US in every war that they participated in since this treaty’s inception. Some examples of this include: pushing prisoners out of helicopters in Vietnam for refusing to talk, the present treatment of the Afghani prisoners at Guantanamo as well as keeping a constant light in Milosevic’s cell.

  1949 Protection of civilian persons in time of war was a new addition which was violated in Korea, Vietnam, Central America as well as in their attack on Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia alone they not only killed civilians, they destroyed their economic infrastructure, polluted their environment for centuries to come and demonized the population.

  In1954 the protection of cultural property was added to the convention. This was violated in all the wars US participated in since 1954 including their attack on Yugoslavia.

  In 1972 the contracting parties added the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxic weapons. United States and Russia posses enough to poison the entire world population and yet they want to take the moral high ground on the production and use of these weapons. Remember Agent Orange when we were told that this was nothing more than bee excrements.

  In 1980 they added prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects on people and property. This includes: non-detectable fragments (I would think this means cluster bombs and depleted uranium); prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mines, booby traps and other devices (America refused to sign); prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (did you see the fires at Pancevo and in Belgrade).

  In1993 they added the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. I don’t need to tell you that US experimented with chemical mind altering agents (LSD on unsuspecting Canadian citizens in the 1950’s to nerve gasses today). This is an ongoing process.

  In 1995 the Protocol relating to blinding laser weapons was added. This weapon was used by the Soviets prior to 1990 on two Canadian pilots on coastguard duty off Vancouver Island (West Coast BC).

  The Geneva Convention has been violated in varying degrees by most nations who are its signatories. The Canadians shot German POW (mostly SS) in retaliation for German killing, in cold blood, the 50 recaptured Canadians and British prisoners from Stalag Luft III during the Great Escape. As I have said many times before, those who subscribe to the rule of law should not violate the law when it suits them. The fact that some nations violate the law more than others, the degree of violation should not excuse them from prosecution. Furthermore, if you subscribe to the principles of the Geneva Convention this should not be a selective process. America can’t have its cake and eat it at the same time.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Saturday August 24, 2002 at 12:12 pm
  

  Little known story, click here
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday August 24, 2002 at 9:31 pm
  “When the British Air Force drops two or three or four thousand kilograms of bombs, then we will in one night drop 150-, 230-, 300- or 400,000 kilograms. When they declare that they will increase their attacks on our cities, then we will raze their cities to the ground. We will stop the handiwork of those night air pirates, so help us God!" Adolf Hitler, 4 September 1940. I do not know whether or not he had a “headache” at the time.

  What does a nation do when faced with such a threat from a powerful madman like this, frustrated by his failure to launch Operation Sea Lion - the invasion of England? It is surely kill or be killed.

  Hitler was incensed by a token raid on Berlin ordered by Churchill on 25 August 1940 in retaliation for bombs dropped on Central London on 24 August. The actual bombing of SE England began in June 1940. These raids had been preceded by Luftwaffe raids on Warsaw and Rotterdam causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths. In the ‘Blitz’ that followed Hitler’s threat 40,000 were killed including 16,000 women and 5,000 children (many had been evacuated). Nearly 2 million people were made homeless. Do not believe the revisionist history on these matters posted here above. The events are well documented. Britain did not start the indiscriminate bombing of European cities.

  Whether or not the RAF should have followed Hitler’s wicked ways is not an easy question. Certainly Dresden was a ‘mistake’ that Churchill was not prepared to stomach even though he sanctioned the raid. Suffice it to say that ‘morale’ bombing began by being the only means of taking the war to the Nazi’s in Europe: the precision of British bombers was measured in miles at the beginning of the war. The alternative was to do nothing effective: precision was not good enough to attack successfully military targets: even 50 years on Nato had a similar problem - not in precision but in finding military targets in Kosovo.

  It is easy for armchair pundits to pontificate at a safe distance in time on the errors of the allied campaigns to defeat the twin tyrannies of Hitler and Hirohito. Speed was of the essence with atom bombs being developed. There was no agreed convention governing air war at that time. Without Britain’s Air force many in Europe might well now be slave labourers in Hitler’s Thousand Year Reich. Blair’s criminal misuse of the RAF in Kosovo and Serbia is an unwelcome blot on this record.

  Of course ALL those responsible for war crimes should be brought to account - in a properly constituted court - and that is my reason for posting on this board.

  The only sure way of stopping war crimes is to stop wars before they start. The principal responsibility for the horrors of war falls upon those who initiate warfare. Be they the leaders in Nazi Germany or the leaders of the KLA/Nato alliance in Kosovo/Serbia.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Sunday August 25, 2002 at 2:56 am
  Peter you are absolutely right on all the points that you have made in your Saturday post, except one. That point is Dresden. Dresden was a retaliation against Coventry and Churchill was all for it. The war was over and there was no need for Dresden. It was simply payback by the Brits and the Yanks when they used magnesium bombs to incinerate over 100,000 thousand refugees fleeing the Soviet advance. The firestorm that followed was so intense that one could read a newspaper one hundred miles away.

  This is a point for my Serbian / Yugoslav friends whether they liked Tito or not. They have heaped criticism on the Brits but they seem to forget that Fitzroy McLean and Churchill son Randolph assisted the Partisans for the large part of the war.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops
  BC Canada

• Sunday August 25, 2002 at 6:27 am
  Mr Coatney had a nightmare.He was third grade again and the teacher was telling children:"on August 6,1945, USA commited one of the worst crim.." He woke up ,jumped on his computer to explain what he knew all his life."That was final stroke,that was right."

  How could Milosevic be right if there wasn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki episode?How could "leftists" Clinton and Blair lose?Soon,Mr Hitler could appear seeking for justice.

  Mr Taylor makes it more clear with moral imperative "two eyes for an eye". Who can't understand this?Who can disagree?

  Yet,Mr Coatney is American that we need.Proud of heroic history ,speaking in favor of enforcing the law.We don't expect more.

  Mr Charlemagne thank you for Mrs Albrigt's pearl:"what is the use of having all this magnificents weapons if we don't use them?"
  
  Oto von Brecht
  Dresden
  Germany

• Sunday August 25, 2002 at 2:31 pm
  The problem appears to be not in "leftists" or the "rightists" on the contrary from my perspective problem is that both adhere to the reslist radigm. An example is Dr. Albright's statement:"what is the use of having all this magnificient weapons if we don't use them?" In reality, struggle for departure from realism to more peasefull relation among the states was proposed by Grotius and others. For example E.Kant's in his Philosophical Sketch "Perpetual Pease" calls for an end of hostilities and equality of states. We have not acheived equality of states to this day. Therefore "might is right" continues under "lefists" as well as those on the right" of the political spectrum. Reason is obvious one, realist paradigm calls for it.
  
  Carla Berg
  Austria

• Sunday August 25, 2002 at 3:21 pm
  You got it right Carla, it is the state of "Perpetual War" contrary to Kant's Perpetual Peace which is universally acepted without much complaining as long as the sacrifices are born by the weak and poor.

  Meanwhile the laws, principles, morals etc., are just tools to achieve these goals. Let Argentina rot without having to fire a shot. Or Africa sink into famine while Wall Street counts its pennies.

  No wonder everytime an universal concept of law is suggested it ends in failure: the nascent ICC means protection for the weak from the excesses of the strong, therefor the strong despises it. And if the strong rejects protecting the weak, the strong one becomes evil and that is what concentrated power does promote best.

  One further comment about the human nature of the origines of demons, here a recent article some might find inetresting: evil is denied its childhood.

  Click!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Sunday August 25, 2002 at 4:13 pm
  It is not human nature, it is the greed for power that creates problems not only among the states but internaly as well. That is realism. It requires political will as well as commitment of people and political elite to change the road that we travell on.
  
  Carla Berg
  Austria

• Sunday August 25, 2002 at 6:51 pm
  

  Because of a defective modem/faulty DSL, a number of Domovina Net's live feeds from the ICTY in the Hague will start later than usual on Monday August 26th.

  All three Milosevic trial archive servers depend on these live feeds, so files there will appear later than usual - we'll need to re-encode from tape overnight and then FTP them over.

  We are sorry for the inconvenience

  Frank Tiggelaar Domovina Net
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Sunday August 25, 2002 at 8:05 pm
  How interesting. I just cliked on the "The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic" on the ICTY main page and there is an audio interview self promoting the ICTY. Even Madeleine Albright is talking about the "Nürember echo in this chamber".

  It seems to be working better than ever before.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Sunday August 25, 2002 at 9:55 pm
  Having a will to change something I beleive is inherant within all of us, however the problem is that only a select few have the power and the power base to effect such change. The U.S. and Britain could be praised for the forward thinking and egalitarian view in the 21st century if they had the back bone to undertake such action. It is sad and frustrating to witness an alternative to the will of the people being effected. We can speculate for an eternity regarding the influences that affect such action in the world. However there is no denying that following the Gulf war, the media has made a huge u-turn towards providing information that is biased and filled with national pride rather than simply pointing out the facts and providing a truthfull account which would allow the lay person to make a logical conclusion. These days if you were to rely on the media to be your only source of truth in the world, then I would argue that you are doomed to live in an alternate reality.
  
  Aleksander Misic
  Sydeny
  Australia

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 2:37 am
  Before I forget, I just thought of something about this trial and the way it is going. I think this is significant.

  The geographical jurisdiction of the ICTY is "former Yugoslavia". This is very interesting. It doesn't say "former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". It says "former Yugoslavia". And the way this has been taken to mean is the territory of the former SFRY that has quit the Federal Republic.

  So what was the territory of the "former Yugoslavia" at the time the Statute was adopted (25 May 1993)? Only two states: Croatia and Slovenia. And my contention is that these two states are the only was that can be legitimately qualified as "former Yugoslavia" for the purposes of the Statute. Yes, we know that it has been applied to Bosnia and Croatia, but erroniously, I think. Suppose the following. If the "former Yugoslavia" referred to territory that is "former" Yugoslavia at the time the actual crimes were committed, there would be no former Yugoslavia at all. Nothing illustrates this better than the temporal jurisdiction, from 1991 onwards. At that point of time, there was no former Yugoslavia, because Slovenia and Croatia were still part of Yugoslavia (notwithstanding a possible declaration of independence and an ensuing premature recognition, which is another matter). So, the territory of the former Yugoslavia has to be that territory that had quit the Republic at the time the Statute was adopted!

  So we have a problem. How about the indictments after the Bosnian war? That is where Milosevic comes in. It has been said that he recognized the ICTY when he signed the Dayton Accord. Why is that such a big deal? It is a big deal, because the tribunal needs a bogey man on whom it can pin the overstepping of the geographical jurisdiction. So it was Milosevic's fault! How fascinating!

  However, if you want to follow this avenue, a number of (insurmountable) obstacles appear. First, it was obvious that Milosevic wasn't the right person to sign the Accord for the Bosnian Serbs. Because it was obvious, the Accord is invalid on the basis of the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law. Sure, the Accord may not be an international treaty and thus not fall under the Convention, but my point is: if Milosevic signed it, it was an international treaty.

  Another point, and particularly interesting. How do we know that Milosevic recognized the tribunal? Answer: by simply signing it, being incompetent to do it. You know, Karadzic had already been indicted, so he was not in the position to sign anything, and since someone had to sign the Accord, Milosevic did it. In the process, he of course recognized the jurisdiction of the ICTY over the Bosnian Serbs, including Karadzic.

  Problem: if Milosevic did abandon Karadzic in this way and extended the jurisdiction of the tribunal, how is Milosevic supposed to be connected to the crimes that Karadzic and Mladic allegedly committed? If he was their "superior", it was enough for him to "punish" these two men, which he did by handing them over to the ICTY!

  Some more damning stuff for the prosecution. Even if Milosevic could be charged for something this way, why single him out? Why not Carl Bildt and Co., as has been kindly pointed out by Francis A. Boyle, without whom the case for Milosevic might be a little gloomier. Del Ponte can say she has no evidence against others. Oh yeah? I think if the Akashi letter is any indication, Milosevic will be charged on evidence that is even more damning to the Bildt and Co. So please, do not give us the "not enough evidence" rubbish. If Del Ponte wants to have any degree of success, she will have to show why the evidence justifies singling out Milosevic and ignoring the others whose names appear on the evidence or who may even appear as witnesses. Remember, it is only necessary that these people "knew".

  And then my suggestion to the witnesses list (of the defendant). How about the guy who said in the Boston Globe article that Milosevic was brilliantly trapped? (I can't remember his name right now, Lettuck or something.) Trapping is the same as entrapment. And according to may pocket-size Law Dictionary, entrapment is an affirmative defense, which means that the defendant has to make a point about it in his defense, and if he can show entrapment, the charges fail.

  So not only do you have overstepping of the tribunal's jurisdiction, but the "wiseguys" have provided the defendant with an argument that will allow him to win. The troubling thing is that if jurisdiction is overstepped, why didn't the judges declare the cases inadmissible. Some more additions to the witness list: people who know the law better that this tribunal (as an expert witness). Sure, it is supposed that jura novit curia (the court knows the laws), but what if it doesn't. Making legal experts appear as witnesses to show the tribunal's mistakes may be somewhat unorthodox, but has this trial or even this tribunal been orthodox at any time?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 5:27 am
  Phew, what an interesting turn this discussion is taking. It seems that we are being listened to after all. It was a nice surprise to me to have people from Germany and Austria participate as well. It seems that much more people are just reading the discussion than posting opinions. Good, so we're not writing just for ourselves as I was afraid. Now that we've touched something that they feel strongly for to write too, they've decided to post as well. I would also very much like to hear the voices of Croats, Muslims, Albanians and Slovenians here, although I could hear unpleasant things from them, things I don't want to hear about my nation and don't want to be spoken about. There is only one condition I would put in front of all of the participants: forget your vanity. This is not a contest on who is smarter or more persuasive, calling people names, looking for traitors etc. This forum is about finding out the truth, as a contrary to the ICTY the way I see it. But in order to find out the truth we need to face our opposition, to hear what other side has to say. Yes it will be a battle of arguments, and you might win or loose. But isn't it better to come out as a fool then to be an ignorant,but full of himself asshole, and thus be subject to manipulation by those telling you only what you want to hear?
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 5:55 am
  ”Gogol, you hit them all. They were all covered with spin made posible by the" fog of war". We have a chance to expose one crime outside the spin. Milosevic has a forum, if only the media would cover it. We who read this forum and all anyone we can talk to should email CNN CBC BBC ABC NBC and demand the coverage we were promised. Slobo deserves a world wide audiance.” Pertti Lindroos Quesnel BC. Canada

  The media is well aware of forums like these and ones that have a similar vein on the trial such as FreeRepublic.com. (which has been sued significantly by Newsweek and the LA Times). Journalists are paid to spout and if their work doesn’t come out as expected, probably end up delivering newspapers rather than writing them.

  And you may wonder how they can be so when the facts are so blindingingly against them. The answer is that the conventional media since it’s beginnings has gone by ’Parretos Law’ That is it is only interested in convincing the 80% who are not interested in the subject and not the 20% who are! Kosovo was the perfect example. It is the Internet which is eroding this age old paridigm.
  
  Julian Rochell
  Norway

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 7:41 am
  

  CLICKMilosevic lawyer predicts Kosovo acquittal
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 7:57 am
  To Walter Trkla: yes, British assisted partizans with weapons and supplies, after they betrayed chetniks who also fought the Germans. English figured that Tito is giving better results in fighting. Just to make it clear - both chetniks and partizans were Serbs. The difference was that chetniks supported monarchy while partizans supported communism. At the beginning of war, it didn't matter - people were choosing randomly which movement to join. They didn't know the difference between them, as discussing politics is a last thing to do when your country is under occupation. For example, my grandfather was partizan, not because he cared about communism (he knew nothing of it) but he liked the brigadeer that was recruiting people for partizans in his village more than the one who was recruiting people for chetniks. I wouldn't like to tire anybody with reasons why those two fractions started fighting each other as well, but it's a fact that they did. And Americans and British, who firstly supported chetniks at some point abandoned them and started supporting partizans. What can I conclude from this is that English didn't help us out of love and compassion. They needed some resistance for Hitler in Balkans, so they were happy to find fools happy to die for their cause. The way that they chose to support communists because they were more efficient, shows perfectly well how mutual our alliances with English were. Just to add a perfect finishing, English and Americans bombed Belgrade in 1945. Now, I can understand (but not approve) Dresden, Berlin etc. But why, for Christ sake, Belgrade?! What did our people ever do to deserve such a bombing? It was aimed exactly at downtown of Belgrade, so at most dense civilian area, destroying aside from living quarters a city birth house and a city library. In fact, the bombing was so terrible, that the eyewitnesses reported German soldiers helping civilians out of ruins! I've asked repeatedly on this site, what is the official explanation for this bombing? Did they have 'old maps' maybe? They thought it was Berlin down there? No, Walter, I don't have a sympathy for English for their behaviour towards us in WW2. It's obvious that we've been used and then dumped by them, they weren't what I would call allies to us.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 9:51 am
  RE:British support for Tito. A must read: The Rape of Serbia. The British Role in Tito's Grab for Power, 1943-1944, by Michael Lees, Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, 1990, 384 pp. ISBN 0-15-195910-2. An account of a SOE veteran detailing the manipulation of Churchill by Stalin's agents within SOE into dropping Britain's support for Draza Mihajlovic and embracing Tito. As the last leg of the Kosovo proceedings kicked out in The Hague, Marlise Simons bestowed a yet another jesuitry upon us in today's NYT, rehashing the freezer truck story. She beats even Mirko Klarin by taking a full month to produce a twisted account of the Bosko Radojkovic story. Coming forth with it today, of all days, only proves that the anti-Milosevic PR machine is running on empty.
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 11:00 am
  To Otto von Brecht on Dresden

  Please do not misrepresent my case. Show me where I wrote “two eyes for an eye”. The point I did make was that in certain circumstances, usually war, man is left with no alternative but to choose between two nasty alternatives: meet force with superior counter force or “ be led off meekly to the gas chamber” according to the Christian teaching of “turn the other cheek”.

  To Gogol, the apologist for Hitler’s headaches, and his fellow contributors making misrepresentations on these pages let me say this. Every major Nazi town and city had a concentration camp. In Hitler’s Reich of a Thousand Years, if he were not a blue-eyed blond haired Aryan boy then as a knackered slave labourer he would be considered raw material for Nazi soap factories or their jewellery trade - if he were unlucky enough to have gold fillings. Unless he were a handicapped person, unable to work as a slave labourer, in which case he would have been a candidate for medical experimentation of the most horrific kind - if not immediately despatched.

  The Nazi’s kept no agreement they made beyond its immediate use to them including the Geneva Convention. Fortunately for all of us Churchill was wise to this and prevailed over the apologists and appeasers in England. The destruction in Warsaw and Rotterdam demonstrated the intent on London after the bombing of SE England began in June 1940.

  Britain developed “pattern bombing” as the only effective use of its heavy bombers due to their poor precision. In contrast to German bombers they had to fly up to ten times the distance and for most of the war without fighter escort. It was the only effective means of attack against Nazi forces in continental Europe. Its military objective was to disrupt Hitler’s military operations in Europe principally against the Russians. It was also thought by some but not all that it would lead to the collapse of German morale. The alternative was to sit back and do nothing effective - saving men and materiel including the lives of 50,000 British airmen. Thus allowing Nazi forces free reign in their campaign against Russia.

  The bombing of Dresden was requested by the Russians in order to disrupt retreating German forces and prevent them from regrouping. Don’t tell me that after Dresden Hitler agreed to abandon the Geneva Convention when his forces had shot Russian prisoners out of hand and the Nazi’s murdered them in their concentration camps and gas chambers by the million throughout the war. Many British and continental cities suffered a similar fate to Dresden without moral comment: What justified the destruction of Stalingrad by far the worst example in the war? The Luftwaffe also used phosphorous bombs with the same intent. Strictly according to law there was no war crime committed, as there was no agreed convention governing air war.

  Nothing is certain in war. Don’t tell me that the war was over when victory in the battle of the Bulge was achieved just 19 days before the attack on Dresden. When rocket bombs were still falling on London: The V1 and V2 were pure vengeance weapons never used for a military purpose and continued to bomb London until 27 March 1945. There was some military purpose to the bombing of Dresden and at least the citizens got an air raid warning. The rocket bombs launched on London were weapons of pure vengeance. No warning was given to the victims of V2 attacks: totalling, with the V1 victims, some 40,000 killed and injured in the final months of the war.

  Gogol first tells us the Germans did not have a nuclear weapons research program. Then he gives us a reference to that program. Then we are told that errors and calculations in physics cannot be corrected overnight although that is exactly what Otto Frisch did. Frisch’s corrected plans for the bomb were given to the British. For reasons of safety and resources this project was continued in the USA. Then some obscure scientist in the USA we are told knew that the German project was stalled but this information was not given to the British. That will do for me.

  Churchill regretted his decision to bomb Dresden. With hindsight we all see that it was an unnecessary and terrible event except for the perhaps small help it gave to the Russian advance. Churchill was not blessed with Gogol’s intelligence or understanding. The circumstances in which Churchill made his decision to support the Russian request were with V2 bombs falling on London, any one of which could have blown him to bits by chance. He could not be certain that one of these rockets would not vaporise London with a nuclear warhead or if the trapped but not yet beaten Hitler might order a chemical or biological warhead to be fitted. I am sure that retribution also figured in the calculation - but I doubt by Churchill.

  Those who print misrepresentations on these pages destroy the search for truth about the KLA/Nato war against Serbia. They fall into the same category as those in the media - most of them - who spread Blair’s Nazi like lies about the Serbs. Although hundreds of thousands of Brits protested against Blair’s bombing of Serbia including many senior MP’s, and with mass marches in London, these facts were never properly covered and the majority of Brits still do not know the truth. When for example will the BBC expose the fraudulent claims made for Nato’ ethnically cleansed Kosovo and the thousands of murders committed there on the minority populations?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 1:05 pm
  

  I certainly did touch a never with Peter Taylor.

  To Gogol, the apologist for Hitler’s headaches, and his fellow contributors making misrepresentations on these pages let me say this. Every major Nazi town and city had a concentration camp.

  And then:

  Gogol first tells us the Germans did not have a nuclear weapons research program. Then he gives us a reference to that program

  And again:

  Churchill was not blessed with Gogol’s intelligence or understanding.

  And a broad assumption:

  Those who print misrepresentations on these pages destroy the search for truth about the KLA/Nato war against Serbia. They fall into the same category as those in the media - most of them - who spread Blair’s Nazi like lies about the Serbs.

  I can't help it Peter, you draw your own conclusions and you don't surprise me when you prove beyond any expectation the point I and others are to trying to convey to you. The record of the issues with my comments to your's and others postings is here for anyone who cares to read it.

  You seem to be closer to become an intolerant conformist that I thought and perhaps you're of the opinion that the "truth", your "truth" should be put in a cage under the protection of armed guards shall anybody come to question it. Here in this neck of the World we have not come to this yet, like in Germany or France where the existence of God can freely be questioned, but in no way, no matter how minuscule shall Germany's War time behavior be contested from the "universally official" version of history.

  Without Hitler this tribunal, this ICTY would not have come to life, at least in this shape and form. All the innuendoes to Nüremberg, or "it shall never happen again" etc., are direct links to the deeds of the Nazi during the war in Europe and this is not the whole story, like Blair and Clinton and her Monica are not the whole story to the bombing of Yugoslavia, and that is why the true story can be hidden behind from the public in England as in many other Nato countries.

  As to the German bomb, Dresden, Hiroshima and Churchill the facts are now well known to the historian; there is only the ideological and emotional hang over which still obscures the mind of many. 1945 is still indeed to early to be settled.

  For the pilots of the Battle of Britain I have respect and consideration, a very brave youth that was. For the architects of "Operation Thunderclap" I say may the gods dam them.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 1:31 pm
  

  Gogol Charlemagne:

  quote

  How interesting. I just cliked on the "The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic" on the ICTY main page and there is an audio interview self promoting the ICTY. Even Madeleine Albright is talking about the "Nürember echo in this chamber".

  [..]

  end quote

  'This chamber' is the Security Council in 1993. Speaking before Albright are the Brazilian and Russian representatives, saying:

  Braz: "The serious violations of international humanitarian law which have been taking place in the territory of the former Yugoslavia have outraged the conscience of humanity. It is with deep sorrow and concern that the Brazilian government and the Brazilian society at large have received the repeated news of unspeakable atrocities committed within the context of this senseless conflict on European soil which must be brought to and end."

  Russ: "Persuing an unwavering course of halting war crimes, Russia cannot remain indifferent to the flagrant and mass violations of humanitarian law on the territory of former Yugoslavia. Murders, rapes, ethnic cleansing must all be immediately halted. And those guilty, whatever camp they may belong to, must be duly punished."

  And to be complete, here's what Albright said:

  "There is an echo in this chamber today. The Nuremberg principles have been reaffirmed. We have preserved the long-neglected contract made by the community of civilized nations 48 years ago in San Fransisco to create the United Nations and enforce the Nuremburg principles. The lesson that we are all accountable to international law may have finally taken hold in our collective memory. This will be no victors' tribunal. The only victor that will prevail in this endeavour is the truth."

  RealVideo editions of the documentary are available on Internet on Domovina Net

  MC: Ten years on, the Russians are committing crimes against humanity in Chechnya while the US threaten to use force against a friendly nation hosting the permanent international criminal tribunal set up by the UN.

  Quod licet jovi, non licet bovi...

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 1:56 pm
  

  Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi, what Jupiter may do is not allowed to the bulls
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 2:08 pm
  Look at the postings on the NYT posted on this site on the milosevic trial dated August 26 th. The first article about the freezer truck detective published by the NYT gives the impression that this man was giving this evidence today when it is in fact from July. It is rectified in true Orwellian fashion on the later editions. Ask yourselves -why did they do this--and don't believe their excuse!
  
  julian Rochell
  Norway

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 2:09 pm
  Look at the postings on the NYT posted on this site on the milosevic trial dated August 26 th. The first article about the freezer truck detective published by the NYT gives the impression that this man was giving this evidence today when it is in fact from July. It is rectified in true Orwellian fashion on the later editions. Ask yourselves -why did they do this--and don't believe their excuse!
  
  julian Rochell
  Norway

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 4:19 pm
  Let us see what the truth is on concentration camps in Nazi Germany. The reference below lists over one hundred camps and sub-camps on German soil. Is that enough ‘German towns and cities’. Of course the camps were located on the outskirts of the towns and cities themselves. In total 15,000 concentration camps in the occupied territories are referred to. What is it with you Gogol do you deny the holocaust - and I don't mean just of the Jews? There are other references.

  While we are on the subject how does this picture of Hitler’s Germany compare with Blair’ condemnation of Milosevic as the new Hitler?

  Click here
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 5:29 pm
  

  The drop of the other shoe:

  What is it with you Gogol do you deny the holocaust - and I don't mean just of the Jews?

  Now you're beginning to sound like the Grand Inquisitor, don't you, armed with the "holocaust" as a weapon there you charge and you're the one who is critical of falling into easy traps?

  If you're going make such a sugestion do at least quote my denials, or is it just another character assasination? Have I questioned the existence of the Nazi camps? Do I have to discuss the subject, why not talk about the alleged "raping" camps in Yugoslavia mirror images of the Nazi camps. It is the Western media that brings the subject up all the time and it is called: "the usages of the holocaust" and if you want to know I find this sugarcoating of it rather disgusting and insulting.

  Let the memory of the Nazi's victims where it is and look at the present victims and deeds of the new Nazis the perpetrators of today's crimes.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday August 26, 2002 at 5:36 pm
  YAHOO! has a discussion list for the articles about the resumption of the trial. You folks might want to post something there.
  As to the atom bombings, I again urge you to read my 30Oct96 H-Asia refutation of the revisionists. Just one of the false arguments is the claim that the bombs were used because our military/industrial complex wanted to see if they'd work. Harry "The buck stops here!" Truman was making the decison, not the military, and weapon-testing was not his priority. Ending the war was. Indeed, Sec. of War Stimson removed Kyoto from the military-authored target list twice ... fortunately.

  Anyway, here is what I posted on the YAHOO! discussion forum:
  The Kosovo War -- for which Milosevic was supposed to be tried -- was forced on the Serbs by us/NATO with Appendix B of the Rambouillet Treaty ... which demanded NATO occupation of all Yugoslavia, including Serbia. This was something even the many Serbs who hated Milosevic could not accept as we well knew. If Milosevic is guilty of war crimes, he can hang for all I care, but Clinton, Albright, and the other NATO leaders and statespersons who knew about App. B should be tried and hanged right alongside him. 200,000 mostly innocent Serbs have been ethnically cleansed from Kosovo and the Mafia is pipelining not only opium/heroin to us but Slavic girls broken into prostitution as well (24Apr00 WASH POST) We have created a Balkan Palestine. This is the West's version of "justice??" It is showing the East that they cannot trust us with strategic/military domination of the planet. This trial is another path to a third world war.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb
  IL USA

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 1:22 am
  Frank wrote: "Ten years on, the Russians are committing crimes against humanity in Chechnya" Please do not go there, Frank. I won't take any crocodile tears on the account of the Chechens. You may have no idea what kind of people the Chechens are - I wouldn't wish the experience to my worst enemy. Their cooperation with the invading German army during WW2, merciless and exceptionally violent criminal gangs in the post-Soviet era, active cooperation with Al Qaeda, exporting mercenaries to Bosnia and Kosovo, kidnapping Russian civilians for enslavement, torture of children, beheading their victims with chainsaws, VIDEOTAPING OF THE ABOVE, and mailing the tapes to Russian TV networks (you don't want to see the footage, Frank)and to the relatives of the very victims - would make a short resume of those whose "human rights" are ostensibly violated. Also: "while the US threaten to use force against a friendly nation hosting the permanent international criminal tribunal set up by the UN" Well, as the saying goes: those who appease the beast will be eaten last, or something to that effect. The super-liberal Dutch who now fancy themselves in the role of the ICC and ITCY hosts, have their share of skeletons in their closet: Netherlands had the highest rate of Nazi collaboration anywhere in proportion to its population during WW2: while well under 100 died resisting the German troops (once we are discussing WW2 subjects) while tens of thousands had to be prosecuted after the war for active collaboration, including the members of the Dutch Waffen SS Division. A propos: not a big deal, but Anne Frank was arrested NOT by Gestapo (as alleged in a stupid NYT article last year). The Geheime Staatspolizei was not in the business of dealing with the Jews - the SS was, and its auxiliary forces in the occupied territories. AF was seized by the Dutch police, after being reported by a Dutch neighbor. Just to be historically accurate. Gogol and Peter, hope you're not into a fight over WW2 issues, now that the Milosevic trial has resumed. The dicussion appears to have veered of a bit toward related historical subjects during the 4-week recess, which was very welcome and enlightening. After a break of sorts myself I'm glad to be back. Peace to all.
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 3:33 am
  Did you expect this trial to deal with the truth? Let me paraphrase once again the well-known university professor: law is style, not truth. Let me share with you my three theorems based on this platitude.

  1) If you have style but no truth, you may be a winner in the short run but you are a whore in the long run.

  2) If you have truth but no style, you may be a loser in the short run but a prophet in the long run.

  3) If you have truth and style, you are a winner in the short run and a hero in the long run.

  And it is this last theorem I would like to apply to the defense. Someone has to convince the defendant that this case can and should be won. All the previous judgments by the ICTY could then be reassessed.

  And by style I mean that "red" is out of style. You don't have to go to extremes, like taking Milosevic's famous red-white-blue necktie and play the Star-Spangled Banner to show that the American and the Yugoslav flags have the same colours (which would probably be what the National Albanian American Council would do). But you do have to make some concessions. This is a socialist affair any more.

  There is too much of that Kosovo legend here: choose death in this battle and you will be rewarded in eternity. Does Milosevic really believe that? Someone has to tell him that winning is the best part of the game.

  Another addition to the defendant's witness list: Lord Owen. It may be my personal curiosity, but there is something his TV interview with the BBC (after Milosevic was taken to The Hague) left unanswered. The biggest fault he could find with Milosevic was that he was always "a little too late". Now that we are constructing the witness list, I just came to think of it: A little too late for what? To keep him from getting indicted? The only way he could have avoided the indictment would have been to turn into a servile Nato lackey, which is something no-one should have expected.

  Owen would be quite a sympathetic choice for a defense witness, judging by this assessment: "His constant exhortations to the Bosnians to accept whatever terms the Serbs deign to offer seem more designed to prove his various 'peace plans' successful than to serve justice or humanity". No wonder he is on Francis A. Boyle's list of indictees!

  Question: Is it just an innocent oversight that the prosecution doesn't prosecute the persons on Boyle's list (and others)? What is the general principle that could be applied here to show that the prosecution has done something wrong? Answer: It is the general principle that the prosecution has to prosecute when there is enough suspicion of a crime. The choice not to prosecute has to be explained, which is certainly not the case here (the "not enough evidence" crap excluded, when the evidence is right under the prosecution's nose). And now the rhetorical question: do the persons conspicuosly not indicted share some characteristics? A stupid question. Of course they do. They are "Western" officials or politicians or officials of international organizations. Even if this exception hasn't been spelled out, is the prosecution right in not prosecuting them? Certainly not. Art. 7(2) of the Statute says that the government position doesn't eliminate personal responsibility. This is a concession to the prosecution, but the trick is, taken together with the general principle of the prosecution's duty to prosecute, it is also an obligation to prosecute.

  Another addition to the list of defense witnesses: Carla Del Ponte. Can she explain why the persons on Boyle's list were not prosecuted? Has she received some illegal "insider information"? Making the chief prosecutor appear as witness is another orthodox choice, but what did you expect? Besides, she is not exactly part of the prosecution team, so calling her as a witness wouldn't be playing some games.

  And while Del Ponte is on the witness stand, let's take another look at the Swiss terrorist accounts. Did Carla knew the money was going to the KLA? Sure, Switzerland wasn't a member of the UN, but as Art. 7(6) of the UN Charter says, even non-members shouldn't frustrate the principles of the UN.

  What else do we know of the persons not prosecuted (and I am not talking of Boyle's list any more). Well, many of the governments they represent are defendants in the Legality of Use of Force trial at the ICJ. You remember? That is the case where Yugoslavia took the Nato countries to the International Court of Justice because of the bombing campaign.

  Isn't this overlap with the defendants in the ICJ case and the omission of their representatives in the ICTY prosecution striking? There is a procedural rule called lis pendens, which means that if a case is pending in some court it can't be taken to another court. But you may say that the two cases are not the same, so lis pendens doesn't apply. Do I have news for you! The lis pendens rule is already applied. The Legality of the Use of Force trial has been suspended due to political reasons. Well, we know what the political reasons are. They refer to the Milosevic trial. And when you look back, the Milosevic trial was partly motivated by the need to avoid the trial at the ICJ. So certainly there is lis pendens effect, even if it working the wrong way.

  Then to the question whether FRY comprising Serbia and Montenegro is "former Yugoslavia". A short answer: they are not. Sure, you get arguments to the effect that Yugoslavia wasn't recognized as the successor state of the SFRY until Milosevic was taken to The Hague. In fact, it had even lost its membership in the UN! Well, that may be some governments' pseudo-argument, but the ICJ did't accept it when it dealt with the Legality of the Use of Force. On the contrary, the decision in this case shows that Serbia and Montenegro have been the legal successor state of Yugoslavia all along. (The same conclusion is pointed to in the Genocide case that Croatia has begun against Yugoslavia.)

  And finally, do the big news networks have an obligation to broadcast the trial as they said? I think they do. I don't know how it is in America, but the freedom of expression enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights is extended even to the liberty to get information. But, you may say, don't we get that information through Internet, so that the networks won't have to be bothered? They have to be bothered. We have the right to get that information. It is their duty, because they made such a big deal of the "trial of the century". The impression is now given that the trial is going as planned. No, it isn't. If you give that impression, you are guilty of libel.

  If Milosevic is singled out of all the culprits, because he is a Serb, I think the Serbs as a nation have the right to ask for reparation. They don't accept class-action law suits in Europe, as far as I know, but in America they do. How about 8 million Serbs seeking reparation for defamation from the big American networks?

  Then to the paedophile problem. It is surprising that this slur appears here, so I take it to mean that the paedophile problem is somehow analogous to Milosevic's case. Well, it is. Slinging such slurs around is an indication of bias, which would absolutely disqualify you as a juror. If courting Seself has anything to do with this trial, it can only add to the general impression that the verdict will be biased.

  So I would contend that being a paedophile is a lesser evil than being a false judge. It is not condemned in any of the holy books, as far as I know. In fact, the prophet Muhammed married Aisha, his third wife, when she was six years old (and since the globalists can't say anything against the Muslims, I guess this should shut up a few globalist faces). In contrast, false judges and false witnesses must be condemned in any holy book.

  The present paedophile hystery is mainly designed to obliterate the last vestiges of the so-called male-dominated society, notably the Catholic Church. This motivation was also behind the relish with the Milosevic trial was begun. Now you could get an ancient patriarch prosecuted by a woman! And boy, is the feminist legal theory a hot topic at the law schools, talking about eggheads. So this is how far it has come: the Milosevic trial.

  Indeed, bringing up the paedophile argument in the Milosevic trial discussion was motivated by some deep-seated psychological mechanism. However, I think that is dealt with enough mental aberrations for one day.

  By the way, being the paleo-conservative that I am, my choice for the Serbian head of state would be Crown Prince Alexander Karageorgevich. He would certainly do a better job by doing nothing than Kostunica and Djindjic put together. So there is my contribution to the political spectrum. My interest in the Milosevic trial isn't motivated by party-politics.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 4:11 am
  So, the Slavs are the excuse for everything wrong that westerners did to civilians in WW2. It was out of fear of Communist expansion that Americans threw the A-bombs on Japan instead of asking Russians just to declare war, thus winning their precious unconditional surrender without a bullet shot. It was because Russians request that Dresden got bombed. And in the same time according to others it was a signal to Russians that West is willing to fight them if they continue westwards?! It was because of Germans killing Slav prisoners that British abandoned Geneva convention. I agree with Peter that Brits shouldn't have been sitting doing nothing. What about opening a second front in Europe? That was also something Russians asked you to do, yet you refused. Of course, that would mean millions of dead for England. But Russians did it. They've chased Germans all over Europe, thus FREEING all of the Eastern Europe countries from fachists, paying with their lives the liberty of others, and they've had no better equipment than you did. You could refer to British analysists saying it would be a suicide for Britain were it to do so. Well, it was a suicide for us Serbs to fight Germans yet we did it. So, who was a moral victor in WW2? Yet, not so long ago there was an Albanian girl here on this site claiming Russians and Serbs are the worst nations in the world that have caused both World Wars. Is that why they needed their 'parallel schools' in Kosovo, is that the kind of knowledge that was restricted from them in our school education, thus hurting their civil rights? Yes, we're all mad, Ortodox Slavs. It's nothing to us to loose millions in fierce fights with much better equipped enemy. We don't have feelings for our children that died in a process so we didn't have an urge for revenge, God forbid somebody should think we were following Geneva convention. We're a bunch of barbarians, good for nothing but making a good soap for Germans or dying for causes of British and Americans. Once the war with Germans was over, we again are considered a threat to mankind, exposed to hatred and lies and propaganda. Even when Russia is obviously on it's knees and not a communist country any more, George W. Bush in his reference to new mini-nukes listed Russia among the possible countries that they will be used against. That was a direct threat after Russians refused to import American chicken legs, reporting them biologically incorrect, but probably annoyed by America's ban of steel import. Miracullously, Russia immediately after that threat found nothing wrong with the chicken legs and continued to import them. The same scenario of propaganda was applied to Russians as it was on us for Kosovo. Although Chechnyans were commiting terrible attrocities against Russian civilian population and kidnapped soldiers (there you go, ceremonial beheading again), it was a main worry of western press and politicians to see if Russians will use over-extensive force or not. It was also proposed UN 'arbitraries', only Russia was strong (and clever) enough to refuse it. We all know the coverage the terrible terrorist act of 11th of September got from world media. How, in comparison was the Chechen terrorism in Moscow covered, the fact that they were blowing up 16-story buildings full of civillians? Now the Chechen terrorists have their bases in neghbouring ex-Soviet muslim republics. They use Tajikistan as their base and continue infiltrating Chechnya from there killing Russian soldiers in their terror attacks. Yet when Russians go after them, America immediatelly finds it's duty to protect the sovereignity of Tajikistan, not condemning it in any way for having provided shelter to terrorists. As I mentioned before, I was studying in Moscow, in a period from 1990 to 1997. During my studies I have encountered some Chechnyans and they were always involved in some criminal activities. I am not claiming that all of the Checnyans were criminals in Moscow, but judging by the way their mafia was feared and the fact that they were deep into racketeering bussiness, certainly made me and everybody I know stay away from them. They were the ones driving fancy cars, carrying guns. They had this blood revenge system, so even if you kill a Chechen in a self-defense, one of his numerous brothers will come to take revenge. Once a Checnyan 'Bussinessman' was explaining to me their views on Russians. He called them sheeps while boasting of Chechnyans as wolves. He called them pigs that have no honor, that don't keep their word, and therefore they are just ment to be used by the wolves, and the Russian women as a whores. All of that he was speaking in front of a neighboor of mine that was Russian, sometimes directing especially offensive words directly at him, who was stupidly smiling and nodding. Probably the guy was scared to guts. I never saw the Chechen 'businessman' again but I've heard he tricked his accomplices and ran away with their money. So much for keeping the word! Here I am, again putting my nose into something bigger than I can handle. No matter how I hate upseting who has my deep appreciation for fighting for justice for my people. I am sure no world nation apart from Serbs and Russians have a moral ground to criticize you for what you did in WW2, considering how little they did to stop the evil. I am also not criticising, I am just showing in comparison what Ortodox Slavs did, in order to break that God damned teutonic hatred and fear of Slavs people have, should they allow in their petty souls at least an itsy-bitsy dose of gratitude for our sacrifice. You might say like Lou, that I am making a case look worse for us, pulling in the Nagasaki, Hirosima, Vietnam, Iraq and now Chechnya into this discussion. Also, Peter, it is due to my free (mis)interpretation of your words that you've got comments from Otto like the one that you said "two eyes for an eye". I might offend those Americans and British who wanted to help, to make things right. The most stupid ones could say 'what the hell, those damned Serbs are siding with our enemies, they defend Nazi's and judge us, let them all go to hell, why we're wasting our time and energy on such morons'. Please don't. I'm a single individual. In no way judge Serbs by what I am saying. I am not a common case. I was born in Bosnia, taken to Iraq when I was 6 months old and lived there for 4.5 years (I was a baby, I only know about Iraq what my parents told me), then for 1 year in Bosnia, 8 years in Serbia, 8 years in Moscow and returned back to Serbia in 1997 (against a better judgement of other people who were leaving the country at that time, I was the one believing it's all over with wars and it's time for our educated people to return and do their best to help rebuild the country). Well, it worked for me, I am happy to be back. I've found a good job and enjoy much fuller life among my people than being a foreignor anywhere else. I might with my diploma (Master of Science in Computers) find a better paid job in the West or in Russia, yet I don't want to leave. Not everything you can buy for money. Even the fact that I faced the bombing, living near the biggest military airfield of Serbia, Batajnica. It was better for me to be there with my relatives than somewhere safe constantly worrying about them and not knowing what it's like for them. Yet, I travel a lot around Europe on business trips. I've met people from all races from all parts of the world from Pakistans to Americans, from Cubans to Japanese. I know I am immune to nationalist hatred, or to any prejudices regarding any nation. At some point in my youth I even supported NATO spreading, thinking how good it would be for a world to be united under one force to stop the wars once and for all. Now I definately lost that vision, as America prooved to have double standards, protecting only their citizens and violating the rights of others, there is an empty space in my heart. What hope we have to ever create more human society? Russian experiment with communism completely and shamefully failed, they've wasted 70 years of their history for nothing, dragging the Eastern Europe into the same pit. It is obvious that mankind is not prepared for such utopia. Not even Eastern Germany could make a success out of that rotten ideology. But what is a way out of this mess? How do we prevent the ecological catastrophy that is comming so close, if we're so divided and afraid of each other? West has teached us a wonderful lesson - unite to your own peril. What bitter conclusion all of the Serbs have made from the recent history is that Yugoslavia was a mistake. That there is no common interest of the nations, just the individual interests of each of them, always at the expense of the other one. I don't know, I still look with hopes at EU. I think that maybe if those countries had brain and heart enough to forget their centuries old hatreds and unite, maybe there's still some hope for mankind. That perception is somehow spoiled for me by the fact that Germany was the first to recognize Croatia and Bosnia, thus igniting unneccessary and dreadful civil wars. Let's hope they didn't know what they were doing.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 5:24 am
  I just read that now that the Saudis have thrown out the American class-action law suit of the families of the 9-11 victims, Saudi students are suing the American media and what not for "psychological damage" caused by biased reporting.

  Does that sound familiar? And where is the difference between the Saudis and the Serbs? 1) The Saudis don't need the money, whereas the Serbs do. 2) The Serbs "didn't do it", whereas the Saudis did. One has to get rid of that Western "slave morality" of ours and start thinking big (and quick).

  Even if the Saudi law suit will similarly get thrown out, it is not the outcome that counts. Compare the law suits that Francis A. Boyle is boasting to the law suits he has actually started! It is just propaganda to write open letters to Del Ponte. I hope the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic would do something similar (and diminish the amount of red colours on their website).
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 10:28 am
  Thesis + anti thesis = Synthesis. Peter and Gogol, on some of your points I am sure you will not agree, so I suggest that you gentlemen and others on this page “let sleeping dogs lie” and agree to disagree. There are many views on Dresden as there are on D-Day and I am sure that I will not convince Bogdan that The British attempted a landing on “Fortress Europa” in 1942 at Dieppe. It was a disaster. A lesson well learned and later applied in Normandy.

  Yes Andre, the Dutch were well known for their chopping legs and arms of slaves in colonial Africa and Asia, for their WWII collaboration with the Nazis, and I don’t need to mention the legacy of the Dutch Reform Church in South Africa. Mr. Tiggelaar mentions Russia and the Chechens, but again some people see a sliver in their neighbor’s eye much more readily than they see a log in their own.

  I think Owen’s statement that “Milosevic was always late” means that JNA was always late. The Slovenian army officers in the JNA wanted to crush the insurrection in Slovenia with a massive invasion but this was vetoed. Same scenario was true for Croatia and Bosnia. JNA did not want a messy civil war; however, the International Community wanted one. Remember, NATO and its bureaucracy needing a reason to exist. The bureaucracy of the Hague Tribunal will milk this cow until it dies a slow death.

  Bogdane one became a ‘partizan’ or a ‘cetnik’ as you state, no so much because of politics but because some respected person in the village took the village into one camp or into the other. Many villages paid a horrendous price for their choice. In my experience our village had six families. At the end of he war nine men were dead and we had no idea where they were buried or if they were buried at all. Four widows with up to four children each, houses burned, lice and hunger was an everyday experience. UNRA and an uncle in Canada helped. One uncle who was a driver for the Yugoslav ambassador to Russia and he was captured in Belgrade in the first days of the invasion and spent the rest of the war in a German labor camp. Another uncle was the secretary of the Serbian Peasant Party who perished in the war. The uncle who adopted me in Canada emigrated in 1927, worked on farms, washed dishes, worked in mines and the forest, organized unions and owned hotels. His politics were always for Yugoslav unity. This was mostly true of that generation that came in the prewar period (Serb, Croat, Muslim, Slovene, Macedonian and Montenegrin). I remember our family friends came from every ethnic group. My uncle’s business partners were Muslims and Croats. However that generation died off just as their homeland disintegrated. The nationalism that was used to break up the country came from Argentina, America, Australia and Canada.

  Point of interest. Japanese courts have thrown out a Chinese legal claim for compensation for the Japanese experimentation with germ and chemical agents. The court claimed that foreigners had no right to sue in Japanese courts. The Japanese soldiers and officers who participated in the unit that carried out these experiments received an amnesty from the American government. Amnesty was granted after the Japanese promised to share their findings with the Americans.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 11:53 am
  

  I solemnly promise not to use the Second World War as possible reference for the issues here in discussion.

  I am oposed to the existence of NATO, an organization which I consider illegal and criminal, and which for over 50 years as contributed against the interests of World peace, something which I consider essential for the survival of mankind.

  The west continues to seek and desire the wealth of Russia and to see her as an enemy, this is the main reason for all these agitations in the Balkans, Caucuses and Caspian region

  Leon Tolstoy had a taste in his youth about the customs of some of the peoples in the Caucuses and he describes it masterfully in one of his books. Literature, national literature opens the eyes and the mind to understanding, and perhaps the western mind could be better served by reading Yugoslavian and Russian authors from all times.

  I sincerelly hope the world will make it possible for Yugo-Slavia to flourish in peace once again and I don't think it was ever, in any of her incarnations a mistake.

  The Eurpean Union is nascent and many hiden enemies are working to make her fail; had the EC and EU offered membership to the whole of Yugoslavia back in 1989 peace would have prevailed and her citizens would have been proud of it. I am affraid the weakeness of the EU and American oposition to the plan is responsible for the present impasse

  Back to the trial:

  In today's session the case of Mr. Milosevic in blaming NATO for Kosovo has been made by and stupid, arrogant and incompetent prosecution.

  My best wishes are for him, for his defence of the truth, his country and his pride.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 1:32 pm
  Mrs Berg you are absolutely right.I had something else on my mind with the "leftists".My questions followed Mr Coatney's observation.It came out that Milosevic couldn't be defended without Truman's A-bomb(or some other "justifiable" violence).It is always early for the equality of states.International law would be quite enough for the beginning.

  To Mr Taylor."Two eyes for an eye" == "If someone strikes me on the cheek I strike him back twice as hard".Ask any priest.If three words of criticism and someone with such name as "Gogol Charlemagne" is , can destroy the search for living thruth in millions of Brits ,then let it be destroyed.Nothing is too obvious for Gogol.He is against "the worst of human rights crimes: war" and every violence.It's absurd that two peaceful men defend acts of violence over ordinary people.We have the same allergy of pacifists ,egoistic then and now supporters of lies, sanctions and wars.

  The Gospels are not international conventions, yet.They are for personal use.The "other" side accuses Milosevic for breaking the Gospels while it is far from any law.Leave it to them.I didn't want to offend a good man.

  Chomsky mentioned something about poison,Arabs and Churchill.
  
  Oto von Brecht
  Dresden
  Germany

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 4:12 pm
  Ann Coulter, best selling author in the States, in her latest article mentions Milosevic. Comments
  
  joe P
  USa

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 5:33 pm
  

  Though I have nothing against discussing WWII, the role of the Dutch in the slave trade or the influence of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, I feel this forum is hardly the place for such subjects. After all the topic is Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?

  So please let's stick to the topic of this list on this page. If you suggest a more appropriate forum for the other subjects that came up. I'll give you my two pennies there - but not here.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 6:03 pm
  

  Ann Coulter, best selling author in the States, in her latest article mentions Milosevic. Comments

  joe P

  USa

  Where, ou, dove, donde, wo, gde, ghdie ?

  Brecht would have written a good "Furcht un Elende des NATO"; are you related to Bertolt, Oto?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 6:05 pm
  I am afraid there is no way Milosevic will be found not guilty because if he isn't guilty then Nato's leaders are all guilty of a war crime (& probably genocide). I suspect our leaders wish they could have managed to have him shot "resisting arrest" as they have so many others. I think he should put more emphasis on the Racak massacre. This is the 1st item on his indictment & the only one which had actually happened when he was indicted. It is also one which is particularly limited in time & place, & also for which there are a serious number of witnesses. Consequently if it is proven obvious nonsense then the whole trial is equally. I think anyone looking into it will see that Racak was obviously staged by the KLA under CIA instructions & "investigated" by America's top human rights expert & CIA black ops expert Wm Walker. Staging this massacre is very reminiscent of the massacre Hitler arranged to justify the invasion of Poland - Clinton is clearly taking lessons. I agree with Frank about sticking to the subject (& staying short) so I won't start on Dresden.
  
  Neil Craig
  UK

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 6:07 pm
  I agree Mr. Tiggelaar, but when you respond with Russia's record on Human Rights in Chechnia don't forget your own nation's record. Of course I am not blaming you for the sins of the fathers I just dont agree with your antee Serbian bias. I am a product of what you are defending while the karst pits are crying for justice. When Domovina Net, and you in particular, start championing media fairness I will never mention the Dutch Reformed Church. The first thing that you can do to show me that you are not bias is to put this forum on Domovina Net.
  
  Waltert Trkla
  Kamloops
  Canada

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 6:18 pm
  

  Well, I will not break my declaration by refering to the period between the two wars, when the British unable to keep Iraq pacified enough and being short of troops had to resort to use gas, yes gas! from the RAF planes against a popular peasants revolt against their pressence in Iraq.

  Churchill had a hard day in the Commons explaining or denying the 'incident'. That is what Noam Chomsky was talking about.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday August 27, 2002 at 11:19 pm
  Gogol, Don't you know who Ann Coulter is? I couldn't decipher you garbled post concerning Ann's column. She has a mega following on the internet esp freerepublic.com.
  
  Joe P
  USA

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 12:50 am
  Glad we got Dresden out of the way. Whew.. Frank is absolutely right, but then it was not me who brought the Chechens and WW2 into the equation. On a more cheerful note, news organizations are backing an attempt to stop a war crimes court from "forcing" journalists to give testimony. The Washington Post, supported by media organizations such as CNN, the BBC, The Associated Press and the New York Times, are challenging plans by the International War Crimes Tribunal to subpoena retired journalist Jonathan Randal. Randal, who worked for the Washington Post, has been ordered to testify in the trial of Radoslav Brdjanin, a Bosnian Serb charged with genocide in Bosnia. He would be the first journalist to refuse to give evidence to the United Nations court and the first time that news organizations have intervened in hearings. Randal's former employer has submitted a brief to the court in The Hague on behalf of 34 international organizations to protect journalists who report from war zones from subpoenas. They argue the journalists have limited privilege and should be allowed to protect their sources. The media groups urged the tribunal "to recognize a qualified privilege for journalists not to be compelled to testify about their news gathering before this court unless certain conditions are met -- namely that the information is absolutely essential to the case and that it cannot be obtained by any other means," etc. etc. With the media establishment is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, the cat is crearly out of bag: of course it is not "protecting the sources" or "endangering journalists" they are worried about. God knows these folks are cynical enough not to give a damn about those things when doing so serves a given purpose. What concernes them is their Achilles' heel: the JOURNALISTIC ACCOUNTABILITY. Today it's Randall, tomorrow it may be Roy Gutman, and a day after, who knows, maybe even Ms. Amanpour herself. I expect the media to fight tooth and nails not to allow a precedent that would open the foodgates and risk the whole structure of lies, carefully designed and built over the past decade being washed away.
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 1:15 am
  Jamie Shay: Why have we not seen his face? The man who launched a thousand planes with stories of thousands of dead in mineshafts and acid vats. His comments feuled the fires much like Gobbles or currently Conny Rice. One day of bombing and the people will rise to put down Slobo. {78 days and 70 million US to buy an election} Iraq seems the same. Cuba was the same. I submit that the CIA do not have a clue.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 2:30 am
  I have to agree that we should focus on Milosevic and the trial. Will he get a fair trial? As days pass it appears that spanners are constantly thrown into the works to make life difficult for Slobo. However his tenacity has impressed me and his experience in the legal field has helped him along. My personal opinion is that he should seek more assistance to help him, even though I feel that he is scoring some major points, however these might be simply going in one ear and exiting the other with the trial judges. The evidence regarding a fair trial I would be looking for is when the defence gets to put up its case. Will Milosevic be able to call to witness all those individuals that have been undoubtedly involved during the conflict from its beginings? Or will the judges deny this fundamental right? Wait and see. I agree with some comments here that Milosevic would undoubtedly be judged guilty, however as furture generations undertake study and review of this "trial of the century" they would have at disposal a large volume of information and without the bias that currently exists in the West, they may revise this whole sorry saga. The truth is out there, its just that those that are complicit and aware off it have no back bone to face it. Even Clinton couldnt face the truth when that skirt was rubbed into his face, so how hopefull can we be that he would admit to "knowing" about military missions that have killed innocent civilians under his presidential mandate?
  
  Aleksander Misic
  Sydney
  Australia

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 3:13 am
  It may be that Nato interests dictate that Milosevic has to be found guilty. However, Nato is a has-been already, witness the war on terror and the endless enlargement process, so does its interests weigh enough? Second, if Milosevic has to be found guilty, how is it to be done? Third, one factor in the equation is forgotten. I think the ICTY will do its best to portray the trial as fair, because that would alleviate some of the American fears about the ICC. Remember, the US hasn't entered the ICC, citing lack of fair trial as a reason, and you can bet that the ICC-ICTY axis will do everything it can to win the American confidence, even if it means being easy on Milosevic.

  And if my understanding is correct, Milosevic will have his say on Racak massacre when the time of the defense witnesses comes. And now that journalists are fair game, I think Milosevic will have no trouble in extracting the Racak fabrication from those who are responsible for it.

  Then back to the defense witnesses. Del Ponte may be hard to get on the witness stand for obvious reasons. It is not customary to allow "parties" to appear as witnesses. However, there must be enough people in her entourage with the knowledge the defense needs. How about Florence Hartman, the spokeswoman for the Office of the Prosecutor? She is responsible for media relations, so if the journalists can now be subpoenaed, why not she?

  Another suggestion: Francis A. Boyle. He is, beside many other things, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, so he fits the profile of a legal expert witness as well. However, the main reason he needs to appear is to point out the lack of even-handedness in the prosecution. He is no supporter of Milosevic, that's for sure, but on the other hand, he has to say something for the other proposed indictees on his list.

  I don't know how delighted Judge May would be of these witnesses. I gather that he is very susceptible of the interests of the prosecution. When one of the witnesses changed his testimony during the break and Milosevic asked him if he had talked to anyone, Judge May advised the witness: "You don't have to answer that." And now I get Ian's point about May not advising Markovic not to talk to anyone during the break. May treats these things as irrelevant, as if he didn't wonder about the one-sidedness of the list of the defendants!

  And then more lis pendens stuff. At the ICJ, one of the cases on the docket is called Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Yugoslavia). I am not familiar with the details, but I trust the name says it all. And my contention is that this case precludes the Croatia indictment against Milosevic. Sure, the Croatia indictment doesn't charge Milosevic with genocide. The charges have to do with "crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and violations of the laws or customs of war". Why doesn't the prosecution charge him with genocide? Remember, the prosecution has to prosecute whenever there is a serious suspicion of a crime. And I think there is a serious suspicion of a genocide (in technical terms), if Croatia charges Yugoslavia with genocide at the ICJ! The answer: she can't, because the two genocide cases would then overlap, which would be against the lis pendens rule. But can the prosecution do that? Isn't this obvious omission rather a clear indication that the two cases deal with the same matter, even if the individual charges avoid mentioning genocide? And the counterargument that one of the parties in the case at the ICJ is Yugoslavia and the defendant in the ICTY case is Milosevic (individually) doesn't seem to hold water, because in the Croatia indictment Milosevic's individual responsibility is induced from the responsibility of Yugoslavia as a state (as I think Walter pointed out).

  The Croatia indictment is a bit of enigma, but it has been compressed into two words: "ethnic cleansing". And if you put it succinctly like that, you can immediately see that it is absurd. You can't defend it even with the usual activist ideology of "victim's justice", because the Serbs were the victims of ethnic cleansing in Croatia. How can the prosecution expect the public to ignore that? Here, it is crucial to show the partiality of the prosecution to make the defense stick.

  Where should the defense look further? I think we have been and will be deluged with descriptions of atrocities. That's OK. The prosecution has failed to show which one of those atrocities were not prosecuted as war crimes by the Yugoslav authorities, and since the defendant is presumed innocent, he doesn't even have to single out the incidents and point out that for this of that particular incident Mr A was prosecuted and convicted by this or that court. But I think this would be a good strategy, and in principle it wouldn't hurt even if can't be done with 100% accuracy.

  And then healthy amount of male chauvinist observations! When Milosevic was indicted, we were told that it is actually his wife who wears the pants. The impression was given that Milosevic won't stand a chance at the trial. Well, that impression was wrong. Now the prosecution even complains of "emasculation", which would certainly be an odd choice of words in a male-dominated society. I think that this choice tells us something of the working atmosphere at the Office of the Prosecutor. Did Geoffrey Nice say that? I rest my case. Did some female official say that? Then there would be two possibilities. 1) The judges are men, and the term "emasculation" is meant to point out that they use their position to uphold their macho bias. Or 2) the emasculation strategy designed by the prosecution to get Milosevic convicted is turning against it.

  Anyway, you would have to be a psychiatrist to keep up with the prosecution's so-called strategy. I think Del Ponte is tough, but it is more like a hyena toughness, to use the word that was intended to embarrass us. I thought she looked vaguely familiar, but now that you mention it, doesn't she look a little like a hyena? Has anyone heard her laugh? (Gentle hyena laughter in the background.)

  The female perception of this trial is extremely important, because the stories of the rapes and rape camps (what are those exactly?) play on the natural female fears. It is easy to turn the opinion against the Serbs by manipulating these fears. But nowadays, it is even easier to use these fears against the Muslims. Consider this recent article from the Jewish World Review for starters: http://jewishworldreview.com/0802/steyn.html .

  Just a question I have wanted to now for a long time. What is the difference between JNA and VJ? I thought VJ is the successor of the JNA, but somewhere in the indictments they are used side by side.

  I am a big fan of Ann Coulter's. I haven't come across her latest article yet.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 4:25 am
  Everybody agrees that if Sloba is not guilty, NATO automatically is. Why? NATO's excuse to attack Serbia is that Serbs were committing crimes against humanity on Kosovo. Nobody even questions the fact that KLA started the war. Nobody questions the fact that they were the ones commiting attrocities first. Nobody questions the fact that their goal was not only separation of Kosovo, but ethnical cleansing of it. So here you have it: clearly pointed out one side who started the war and started commiting attrocities. KLA. Why we are discussing Serbian guilt? It would be like if Nurmberg trial was held against English, so if it was proven that they killed civilians, Churchil gets a life sentence, and Germans are prooved victims, and released from guilt for their crimes?! Obviously, Churchil used every means he had to protect his country, and that included killing of civilians. From all of our discussion on WW2 it seems a logical conclusion that the only one who pays for war crimes is the one who started the war, since they are responsible for causing the other side's response and their own civilian casualties? I mean, that's how it was in Nurmberg, right? In WW2 the side who started the war and attrocities was Germany. On Kosovo it was KLA. End of story. How does that sound to you, Otto?
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 5:52 am
  Mr Charlemagne,Mr Taylor and me are grateful on your explanation.Yes,it was gas.Bertold Brecht had a similar name but they were all normal in my family.
  
  Oto von Brecht
  Dresden
  Germany

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 5:59 am
  Whoever started the war is irrelevant in the sense that "aggression" was calculatedly left out of the Statute. However, as has been pointed out, Yugoslavia did take the Nato countries to the International Court of Justice for illegal use of force (i.e. aggression), and the case known as Legality of Use of Force has now been suspended by the Yugoslav government, which cites political reasons, i.e. the Milosevic trial.

  The KLA activities wouldn't count as "aggression", because it was operating inside the country. As far as it was operating from Albania, it couldn't be sued for aggression at the ICJ, because it wasn't a state. Albania might be taken to court because of illegal use of force, but then again, the case would probably meet with the same fate as the "Legality of Use of Force" case against the Nato countries. But then again, it might not...But primarily, the KLA would have to be nailed by the UNMIK and the UN courts in Kosovo for war crimes, which the UNMIK has now undertaken.

  I didn't know that May and Nice are socialists. Read this article by John Laughland at http://www.antiwar.com/rep/laughland14.html .
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 7:57 am
  Jari, this is crazy. KLA was operating inside the country, so were the Serbs. Why Serbs must be tried at ICTY and Albanians in Kosovo (OK, I know why, but I mean what is a law distinction)? How can it be irrelevant who started the war? So if a national minority in one country gets frenzy and starts killing members of a majority people, ethnically cleansing the territory they want to separate, it's a same or even worse crime to fight them back? Exactly what message are Western countries sending to their national minorities? Don't worry guys, go ahead, kill our civilians, terrorize our population, use weapons of mass destruction if you want, we are civilized and when we strike back, it will be with infantry, who will before shooting anybody have to be sure that you're holding a gun and pointing it at soldiers, and that you're properly dressed in uniform for the occasion, that you're a man over 18. I think on these terms even Americans could be beaten by the handfull of, let's say Mexican rebels supported by their population. And what good would it do to Americans if Mexicans would afterwards setup the trial in their separated ethnically cleansed territory for their war crimes? Even if you did win a war on those terms, what would be the price that you would pay, how many civilians and soldiers would you loose? And if not, what would stop your other national minorities from doing the same, thus diminishing your country to those areas where you have absolute majority of population and have a huge number of refugees to take care of?
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 8:09 am
  By the way, can anybody help me how to download archive of this forum? Whenever I try to access it, I only get a part of the posts and an error message that total execution time of 30 seconds was reached.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 8:41 am
  just to let the participants know , that many people like me , come here to learn more and more , the media is constantly lying , that we all know , so please keep on. I would like to participate more , due to the fact that I spend many years travelling in Yugoslavia , from 1988 until 2001 , (I am a Latin American ) but all I can say you all have said it , one way or another , Yugoslavia was raped.
  
  Henrique Serna
  Venezuela

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 8:55 am
  Henrique, I agree with You,Yugoslavia was raped and now they are trying to finish the"job" by cancelling its identity and name. Has this any clue with the trial at ICTY ???
  
  Serjoe B
  Italy

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 9:55 am
  Bogdan if you remember Naumann’s testimony and Ashdown’s testimony they steered clear of the right of the state to intervene in terrorist acts. The point they repeated constantly was PROPORTIONALITY. The claim is that Serbs in Kosovo used a rifle against a pistol, a tank against a rocket grenade and civilians were killed. The point that they are pushing is that “a policeman (In this case JNA {Jgoslovenska Narodna Armija- Yugoslav National Army} also called JV [Jugoslovenska Vojska - Yugoslav Army]) should not break the law that he represents in order to enforce the law”

  This principle is selectively applied by NATO nations. For example when British and American antiterrorist forces kill civilians in their actions against the IRA and the Islamists (tanks and personal carriers are out there while America even threatens that they reserve the right to use small nukes). When civilians are killed it is called collateral damage. The old saying in the Balkans is how this works. “Kadijs te tuzi Kadija ti sudi”-the imam charges you and at the same time judges you. Welcome Bogdane to the Blair-Clinton-Bush legacy for the English Legal System. Might is right.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 10:29 am
  

  The BBC journalist Jackie Rowland testified today and not under court order. She served Mr. Milosevic very well and the judges asked her questions, pertinent questions about the objectivity of BBC which at one time she described as been called the "Belgrade Broadcasting Corporation" by members of the British government.

  Mr. Milosevic read one of her reports in which she challenged Nato allegations of Serbs deportations of Albanians.

  She also told the court she could not recollect seeing tanks or other military equipment around the Dubrava prison bombed without any explanation during three days by Nato resulting in the death of about 100 inmates and personnel.

  Jacky Rowland suggested in her report from the prison some of the death were not explainned, fueling the charge the Yugoslav prison guards were repsonsible. Her explanations in today's testimony were unconvincing and in any case added no weight to the charge.

  The tribunal has subpoena retired journalist Jonathan Randal because the prosecution in that case introduced one of is articles as evidence and it seems perfectly proper to the defence as well as the chamber to put the author on the witness stand. If the journalist does not stand behind his story you can draw your own conlusions. This current hysteria about "protecting" the rights of journalists to be able to write what they please (or what they are told) and have no acountability is a little dubious to put midly, and to use the article to convict some one as if the story was an unquestianable fact is preposterous.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 11:33 am
  Yes, I do remember Ashdown's testimony. How do Tomahawks and depleted uranium missiles and Stealth bombers and cluster bombs and 17 technologically superior countries illegally attacking one with technology of 70's fit into his picture of PROPORTIONALITY? How can a proportionality be measured by a kind of weapons someone uses? How much enemy civilians are you allowed to kill as collateral damage per one of yours killed INTENTIONALLY in order to be PROPORTIONAL, what's the EXCHANGE RATE!? Tank is not a genocide weapon by itself while depleted uranium missiles and cluster bombs could be classified as such. Isn't it importaint WHO are you using it against? And even comparison with IRA is not good enough. At least IRA is fighting for something called Northern Ireland, part of a country that existed before and was occupied by English, while Kosovo was always part of Serbia and never an independent country or part of Albania (which only appeared as a country in 20th century, if I remember correctly). Albanian people that represent majority now on Kosovo came there mainly after 1945. with a blessing of Tito, and due to their immense birth rate have easily outnumbered Serbs. And as for an argument that policeman shouldn't break the law it represents, NATO broke the law it represents, since in it's stature it is specifically stated it is only a defense alliance of the membering countries, and we have attacked none of them. It would be the same as if our policeman went to America and started arresting criminals. Arresting criminals is his job, but not in America. NATO's job is to defend the population, but only of it's membering countries. And one last argument that is painfully obvious: There would be no KLA, Croatia and Slovenia wouldn't dare to try to break Yugoslavia, so there would not be any crimes to judge for, wether they didn't feel they had a strong back, wether they didn't have NATO to count on, just as they counted on Hitler when they were killing Serbs in WW2. It is always a influence of some great power on Balkans that disrupts the delicate balance and starts the wars, but it doesn't excuse in my heart our ex-brothers from doing this to us. For me, name Yugoslavia is dear, yet this what is left of it really deserves no such name. This is no longer a country of brotherhood and unity of southern Slavs.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 1:19 pm
  The Rowland testimony was really exceptional. It is till not clear what weight she added to the prosecutions case. The only thing she could say was that in her opinion the 25 bodies inside a building looked like they weren't killed by bombs. "If you were hit by a bomb -- heaven forbid -- I think I'd be able to tell by looking at your body whether that was the manner of death," she told Milosevic. While people can die tens of meters from the direct impact point from ruptured lungs and other blast damage. It is deplorable that journalist have to testify as forensic experts.

  She however showed nice footage of 'normal' live in Pristina in may 1999 and of herself fleeing NATO bombs while visiting the prison.

  Even if some people were killed by guards, would it be a war crime, and what has Milosevics to do with it? What about bombing a prison with 1000 inmates for 4 days? This surely created chaos in the prison. Was there an uprising? I even dig Milosevics assertion that the prison was bombed to let captured KLA figures escape.
  Here two of Rowlands reports:

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/352131.stm

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/347304.stm

  For completenes the HRW report on ISTOK and a piece by John Pilger:

  http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword-07.htm

  http://emperors-clothes.com/news/sp-news.htm
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 1:26 pm
  PS The bodies on which Rowland testified bore no external injuries, so they were surely not killed by bazooka and machine gun fire.
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 1:41 pm
  And it's Jared ISraels article not John Pilgers, sorry!
  
  P V
  Belgium

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 2:31 pm
  just to let the participants know , that many people like me , come here to learn more and more , the media is constantly lying , that we all know , so please keep on. I would like to participate more , due to the fact that I spend many years travelling in Yugoslavia , from 1988 until 2001 , (I am a Latin American ) but all I can say you all have said it , one way or another , Yugoslavia was raped.
  
  Henrique Serna
  Venezuela

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 2:47 pm
  Can any influencial voice get the ICTY transcripts up to date? July 22 is a little stale.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 3:27 pm
  It was very interesting listening to Jacky Rowlands testimony. Most of all it was interesting hearing that there were discrepancies in her statement to prosecution and actual testimony as noted by judge O Gon Kwon. Is she remembering details better 2 years after than actually after the event? I think that journalists should be called testify about the events they witnessed. It is finally the time that they put the foot where their mouth is. To many times their "sources" of questionable credibility gave them the information that is false. It is time to stop with that practice because that way world will at least in small portion get rid of parallel trial by media. It is a job of journalist to report facts and to question irregularities. It is NOT their job to pass judgements especially because their industry is corrupted by interest groups. So who has more money, he is right.
  
  Anna Turcotte
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 6:36 pm
  As far as the British are concerned the media’s dishonest campaign to demonise the Serbs in general and Milosevic in particular facilitated the criminal bombing of Serbia. Its silence on the crimes in Kosovo since Nato’s invasion continues this injustice.

  Many here have rightly criticised the media war of half-truths, outright lies and abject silence.

  Yes Oto we are indeed grateful for Mr Charlmagne’s explanation. Reference your message 5.15 am today.

  Mr Charlmagne writes above: “Demonizing political leaders obscures the possiblity of understanding the truth …” If that is not a tautology in the case in question. Later he writes: “… gas, yes gas! from the RAF planes against a popular peasants revolt against their pressence in Iraq …Churchill had a hard day in the Commons explaining or denying the 'incident'.”

  Do you have any evidence for your statement above? My information is that the RAF never made gas attacks in Iraq while Churchill was Secretary of State. I do have a reference to the fact that the RAF used gas in 1924 while Labour was in power but Churchill never served as a minister in a Labour government. What a ghastly lot these socialists are with their criminal use of the RAF: Gassing tribesmen in Iraq and more lately cluster bombing civilians in Serbia.

  Until you provide evidence for your claim I shall take this as yet another example of the misrepresentations which damage the cause of truth. What value does criticism of media misrepresentation of Milosevic have when misrepresentations here are used to demonise others.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 7:05 pm
  You can take it any way you want in your keeping with your criteria about "guarding" the truth. Now it turns out Churchill will never have used gas, according to you but only socialists would. Blair may be a socialist in Wonderland but not in this earth.

  When Secretary of State at the War Office in 1919, Churchill was approached by the RAF Middle East command for permission to use chemical weapons "against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment." Churchill authorized the experiment, dismissing objections by the India office as "unreasonable": "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes... It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses; gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 7:16 pm
  

  In 1920, the British Air Force used gas bombs with "excellent moral affect." Regular bombs were used when villagers did not pay their taxes, while Churchill urged that mustard bombs be used.

  Any comments about Mr. Milosevic: he is a socialist!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 7:23 pm
  Hello Peter: Go to this web page for evidence. I am not sure if it is misrepresentation. I found it at www.Google.com

  http://www.arena.org.au/archives/Mag_Archive/
  issue_59/against_the_current_59.htm
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 7:26 pm
  Peter it is www.Google.ca
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 7:35 pm
  Peter Gogol's evidence found at: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c06-s02.html
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 8:28 pm
  Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial? Of course not! That isn't the purpose of the whole charrade, after all. Would a trial paid for and orchestrated by the Warsaw Pact been a convincing venue for the leaders of Checkoslovakia and Hungary after they were occupied? Of course not. We had better start considering the possibility of whether NATO has become the Evil Empire it was created to counter.
  
  Adrian Justin
  Seattle
  WA/King County

• Wednesday August 28, 2002 at 8:52 pm
  Regarding reporters acting as witnesses, I think Robert Fisks article worth reading: http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=327018
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario Canada

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 1:01 am
  A curious update on Jonathan Randal, who rejected the subpoena by the ICTY on the grounds well publicized by now. Las January a Turkish publisher of Kurdish extraction, Abdullah Keskin published a book: a Turkish translation of "After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness? My Encounters with Krdistan" (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1997), by... no else but Jonathan C. Randal, formerly of The Washington Post. Within days of its publication, Randal's book was banned in Turkey and Keskin was charged with spreading separatist propaganda by the State Security Court in Istanbul. The accusation refers specifically to pages in Randal's book where the words "Turkish Kurdistan" appear. The case against Keskin has drawn particular attention abroad because it involves a book of an American author. Well, as opposed to the ITCY case, Randal demonstrated uncharacteristic mobility and eagerness, and in April traveled to Istanbul and VOLUNTEERED to testify on Mr. Keskin's behalf. On the note, bordering comical - in the context of his refusal to appear in The Hague - the offer by Randal was turned down by the Turkish court. However, the court did agree to accept as evidence a friend of a court brief (ah, those amici curiae)prepared by the London office of the American law firm Covington & Burling, which also acted as an adviser to Randal and The Washington Post in the case before ICTY. The brief was signed by the World Press Freedom Committee, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Independent Journalism Foundation and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The brief says that "the Turkish government's prosecution of Abdullah Keskin plainly violates Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and is illegal. It said the book was "journalistic coverage of a newsworthy political topic, written by a career reporter, and published solely for commercial and educational purposes." My question is: how in the world can Randal refuse to testify in the trial of Radoslav Brdjanin, a Bosnian Serb charged with genocide in Bosnia, subscribing to The Washington Post's brief on behalf of 34 international organizations to protect journalists who report from war zones from subpoenas, while volunteering his testimony in Istanbul on the Keskin matter? Is it possible that Randal, who chose seclusion in the Brdjanin matter claiming, effectively, that such subpoenas would "endager journalists in war zones", is mortally afraid of some kind of Serb revenge (even though the Bosnian war ended 7 years ago), but has no concerns with regard to volunteering a testimony on famously peaceful and amicable Turkish-Kurdish affairs, free of hostilities and any possible danger to him as a journalist? Besides, why would the above listed numerous committees claiming, quite rightly, that Randal's book is a "journalistic coverage of a newsworthy political topic, written by a career reporter, and published solely for commercial and educational purposes," would not extend the same description to his reporting on Bosnia?
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 3:24 am
  Bogdan, you are absolutely right. The odds are stacked heavily against Milosevic by the severely contorted Statute, which gives a carte blanche to the prosecution, which can only blame itself for missing an opportunity, but the miracle is that Milosevic still can make a case. The case is not the straightforward guilty-not guilty case you would expect, but it has to do with the jurisdiction of the court and the like technical points.

  The case goes like this. The Croatia indictment is the only the indictment where the tribunal has strictly speaking territorial jurisdiction. However, this indictment is precluded by the lis pendens rule, because basically the same case is pending at the ICJ. For the Bosnia indictment, the tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction, because it was not "former Yugoslavia" at the time of the adoption of the Statute. Or at least it wasn't certain whether what we now know as Republika Srpska, where the most atrocities took place, would be "former Yugoslavia" or just "Yugoslavia". The fact that Milosevic recognized the jurisdiction of the tribunal by abandoning the Bosnian Serb leader to the mercy of the tribunal only exonerates him on the basis of Art. 7(3) of the Statute. For the Kosovo indictment the tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction, because Kosovo still isn't "former Yugoslavia". Also, the Legality of Use of Force case at the ICJ would seem to preclude the Kosovo indictment according to the lis pendens rule, which has already been falsely applied in this case anyway. Then we have the Western entrapment plan on record from Dayton Accord onwards. And Art. 7(3) would exonerate Milosevic from individual criminal responsibility.

  How receptive would the presiding judge be to these points? We have evidence that not very. When the presiding judge reviewed the Bosnia indictment, he didn't even touch on these formal matters. His decision can be viewed at http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/decision-e/11122RIE16898.htm . And as many people know, the question of admissibility is a big deal in many courts, so May's laconic decision, acting as a sole judge, is an absolute disgrace! Did the defense have any opportunity to protest the admissibility of the indictment? OK, so May made the decision alone, but here I have to say without any uncalled-for sarcasm that the Midlands Circuit court is not the best preparation for handling extremely complex cases like this. To put it as bluntly as possible: the presiding judge is incompetent for the job! No wonder: "circuit" is a cognate of "circus" (to use those limping punchlines Jamie Shae seems to favour).

  I can't help thinking back at the Naletilic ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. It was decided that the Statute of the ICTY guarantees a fair trial, so any case question it at the ECHR is inadmissible. Do you see the discrepancy? The ECHR at least considers the admissibility of the case, whereas the tribunal doesn't. Wouldn't that be enough to question the fairness of the trials at the ICTY? And as you may know, Milosevic's plea for release was thrown out of the Dutch distict court (kantongerecht te 's-Gravenhage) as well as the ECHR on the basis of the Naletilicruling!

  I am convinced that some of the witnesses will have to be legal experts. Maybe the admissibility can be contested belatedly, depending on how embarrassing a situation the judges are driven into (which may be a reason the judges won't let them testify). And who do I have in mind? My suggestion would be Anthony D'Amato, Professor of International Law at Northwestern University of Chicago (and a good friend of JURIST). He isn't only one of the most renowned international legal authors around but unique in having acted as a defense attorney in one case at the ICTY (I can't remember the name - Andre gave the URL of his article but it is now in the abyss of the discussion archives). He was also the first American attorney at the European Court of Human Rights. There is no question that he knows the difficulties of the defense at the ICTY, the breaches of the admissibility rules and the effect of the ICJ case law like the back of his hand.

  And how about conducting the cross-examination? Milosevic is doing a supreme job (even D'Amato "would give him an A"). There are some unavoidable problems however. Why does the prosecution use unidentified rape victims as witnesses? From the legal point of view, if Milosevic's guilt consists of the fact that he did not punish the perpetrators, how can he show that he did punish the perpetrators, if he even doesn't know what incident we are talking about? Besides, he wouldn't even have to show he did punish the perpetrators, because the burden of proof means that the prosecution has to show he didn't punish them!

  So you see that the rape victims' testimony is just to create a special psychological effect on the public. With Milosevic overpowering the witness you sort of re-enact the rape situation. This is bad enough for the defense, but imagine the prosecution putting the witnesses in a rape-like situation like that! I really think the prosecutors would need to see a shrink.

  One solution would be to let a woman cross-examine the rape victims to eliminate the psychological effect these testimonies are meant to have. It would also be embarrassing for the judge to close the microphone while another woman is speaking! Also, using a woman as a cross-examiner part of the time would give the TV something to feast on. The greatest worry is how to make a woman wear the ICTY uniform without looking like a public executioner. Another worry is that there isn't too much time for the defense to prepare its case (if there ever was), and where to find an attorney like that (I can only think of Ally McBeal).

  So there are a lot of problems the prosecution has to answer for. But does this bias of the prosecution affect the outcome of the trial, if the judges are only acting on what the prosecution is feeding them with? In other words, does the prosecution's bias have to imply the judges' bias? Not necessarily. However, it is exactly this kind of situations that the consideration of admissibility is intended to avoid.

  Also, the judges make no bones about their own bias! In the Krstic judgement they said that they said that many other people were to blame, including national and international groups, but what the hell, let's nail this guy (point 2 of the judgment). And to paraphrase: yes, we know that the judgment is biased, but let the historians and the social psychologists sort it out, because it is too gruesome for any court to deal with more cases like this! This is a clear miscarriage of justice, and the judgment can't possibly stand review.

  I think Judge Fouad Riad should be punished for it. And why Fouad Riad? I mean, it wasn't only his fault. But well, you know, life is a bitch, and besides, the present war on terror means that he must be punished. Anyway, that should teach him, and to use the popular logic, you have to start somewhere. (Thanks for the proverb, which confirmed what everybody should already know.)

  So this is the state of international criminal law today. The EU hasn't even taken any baby steps towards creating a European criminal law, because they regard criminal law as the sole domain of the state. However, now we have the ICTY. No-one knows what rules it applies, or even what legal "tradition" is adhered to (common law or civil law), whether it is victim's justice or victor's justice or just the plain old lack of fair trial.

  If the defendant suffers, well, think of Yemen. (Yes, it is a gang rape, but for a good purpose.) I guess the pundits expect this kind of shock therapy to work better than the shock therapy that was to cure the ills of the socialist economy when the US imposed the sanctions on Yugoslavia in 1990 and which started the whole debacle.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 4:22 am
  As I have said, I have no opportunity to see the trial live, so I am reliant on the reports. I may seem a little naive, but if the BBC enjoys such a reputation for being objective, why doesn't BBC World broadcase the trials, as it promised, and when it did for a couple of days in the beginning of the trial, why did the broadcase encounter some mysterious technical disturbances when Milosevic proceeded to presenting some graphic material of the bombing victims (the omission of which CNN at least excused by saying squarely that it is too graphic)? These distubances got increasingly frequent, until the trial was taken off the air altogether. And why did BBC close down the Milosevic trial discussion forum on the Internet, as we have been told? Just to remind you of the obvious...
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 4:30 am
  P.S. Ann Coulter's recent article, which deals with the Milosevic trial at a great length, can be viewed at http://www.townhall.com/
  columnists/anncoulter/ac20020822.shtml . You must read this.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 5:29 am
  One observation. In the first part of her testimony, Jacky Rowland used the diminutive "Geoff" when replying to the prosecutor Geoffrey Nice. This is yet another first for the ICTY.
  
  Gerard Killoran
  London
  UK

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 5:48 am
  Read Rowlands piece on her testimony: Grilled by the Butcher at http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,782179,00.html
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 5:52 am
  OK, I for one have the feeling of guilt towards Peter and will lay down my weapons. Peter, sorry for my walking all over English on the subject most unapropriate to do so, their behavior in WW2. They've fought the best they could, there is no question of bravery, I am ashamed I pulled that argument about opening the second front in Europe. I of course still demand an explanation for Allied bombing of Belgrade in 1945, but it seems nobody knows nothing about it on this site. Believe it or not, but my only initial idea in pulling into equasion the WW2 was to really find out what the war crime is. Where is a difference between what's morally acceptable in war and what isn't. Who is the one side that can judge others. Why now (at least declaratively) we're judging all sides (except NATO) while in Nurmberg there was only one side on trial. What is the weight of the fact WHO started the war. How it is possible that attacking side is considered victim. Are you, if you're really out of other options and being the attacked side, entitled to actions that you surely know will bring lot of civilian victims. What is a legal distinction in treating agression of one country on other and treating a civil war, in which one national minority is trying to separate a territory by force. What is a rightfull intervention in civil war. Those were all questions for which I needed answers, in order to understand what would be the ideal ICTY, in order to see how much the real one has gone bad. Now, Juri, be careful with the claim that the biggest attrocities took place on territory of Republic of Srpska. I think it's not true, it's just that those alledged attrocities got the best media coverage. Let's wait and see what will happen when Bosnian case is on the trial, although it's obvious that defendant won't be allowed to speak much of attrocities commited by the other side. Let me tell you the story my friend, a Serbian refugee girl from Sarajevo told me. She was having very good friends among Muslims and Croats there. One night, before the outbreak of civil war in Bosnia, they've come to warn her. They said they've seen the lists of Serbs from Sarajevo to get executed when the war starts, and that she and whole of her family was on it, that she should run, get lost. Although she made fun of it, they claimed they are deadly serious. I don't know what was the qualification for that list, is it that her father was working for the JNA - as a barber. Was there really such a list or was it a technique of frightening to get Serbs out of Sarajevo, I don't know. But one thing is for sure - Muslims knew there will be a war. Unlike Serbs, they were preparing for it, I can even say they WANTED it. They are not expressing any regrets for Serb civilians they've killed up to this moment, they have no will to find out the truth. There are lot of proofs I can give you from what I've witnessed myself, but let's wait for the Bosnian part of the trial, let's not open subject of Bosnia and Croatia for now.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 6:18 am
  “Any comments about Mr Milosevic: he is a socialist!”

  Yes Gogol. If you read my text carefully you will see that I wrote: “What a ghastly lot these socialists are with their criminal use of the RAF: Gassing tribesmen in Iraq and more lately cluster bombing civilians in Serbia.” “these socialists” clearly meaning the Labour governments in 1924 and 1999.

  Hansard records all debates in parliament. I asked you to give evidence of your claim that Churchill had a hard day in the commons explaining the event: the event being your claim of the use of gas by the RAF in Iraq under his orders. You have not done so. Is this a mistake or did you intend to ‘Demonize Churhill’?

  Is what you mean when you state above “Demonizing political leaders obscures the possibility of understanding the truth” that this applies only to your choice of political leader?

  “Now it turns out Churchill will never have used gas, according to you” Now where did I make that claim? More half-truths and outright lies?

  It is mistake to try to combat the media’s use of half-truths, outright lies and abject silence on Milosevic and Serbia by resorting to the same tactics.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 7:26 am
  

  That is what Peter Taylor wrote:

  Mr Charlmagne writes above: “Demonizing political leaders obscures the possiblity of understanding the truth …” If that is not a tautology in the case in question. Later he writes: “… gas, yes gas! from the RAF planes against a popular peasants revolt against their pressence in Iraq …Churchill had a hard day in the Commons explaining or denying the 'incident'.”

  Do you have any evidence for your statement above? My information is that the RAF never made gas attacks in Iraq while Churchill was Secretary of State. I do have a reference to the fact that the RAF used gas in 1924 while Labour was in power but Churchill never served as a minister in a Labour government. What a ghastly lot these socialists are with their criminal use of the RAF: Gassing tribesmen in Iraq and more lately cluster bombing civilians in Serbia.

  And I posted this:

  When Secretary of State at the War Office in 1919, Churchill was approached by the RAF Middle East command for permission to use chemical weapons "against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment." Churchill authorized the experiment, dismissing objections by the India office as "unreasonable": "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes... It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses; gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

  Peter, I am not in a court of Justice here and you're not my judge. I can make broad statements, accurate statements and mistakes, big ones and little ones. It is beyond any doubts to me at least, that you're going to be breathing over my neck about anything I write. I would like to stop this, so please let me know what is it that bothers you about me and let my try to satisfy your concerns.

  To make it perfectly clear I don't like Wiston Churchill as a politician nor his historical record. Is that such a big deal?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 9:03 am
  Gogal

  Your situation in this here board brings to mind GW Bush's words "If you not with us your against us" The prosicution/persicution of those who refuse to toe "the party line" here continues, I worry about those who wish to create a New NWO (NNWO), will detractors be forced to wear a "D" on their forehead?
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 10:22 am
  My only concern is that Milosevic should receive a fair trial and that Blair and his clique should be held to account for their massive lies and criminal attacks upon the Serbs. Hopefully if successful this will lead to some proper reparation.

  Churchill did advocate the use of gas but not for the mass slaughter of civilians. His purpose was to control violently unruly mobs and he specifically requested that it should not be used to kill people. Most riot police forces throughout the world now employ gas for just this reason.

  The literature is littered with half-truths, innuendoes and outright lies upon this point. Initially because the appeasers for advocating rearmament to meet or prevent the impending disaster he warned of disliked him. The reasons of Chomsky and others today are not obvious to me. Like all great men he was in many ways a bad man. But he was right about the most important thing in all our lives.

  Yes Gogol let us stop this and concentrate on the ICTY and its peripheral issues: mainly more media lies, now even in the court itself with Jacky Rowlands.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 10:23 am
  In order to understand Yugoslavian - serbian disaster one need to understand what is a socialistic solidarity, since it was a main principle in building internal and international relationship during socialist time in Yugoslavia. Any one here wants to share his/her opinion?
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 10:52 am
  Frank Tiggelaar Surprised us with: "Uhhh? NATO was nowhere near the Balkans when Vukovar was razed to the ground, NATO was not involved in any way when Dubrovnik was shelled" Vukovar was as well the city where Serbs has majority and had as well one of the strongest JNA garrisons - It was like everywhere else in Croatian - Serbian war: The war was only in the cities where Serbs were majority or where there was a great number of them (That shows who attacked whom and who was the aggressor). In these cities Serbs’ belongings and their factories were destroyed. (Sibenik, Zadar, Islam Grcki, Medak, Gospic, Otocac, Licki Osik, Ogulin, Karlovac, Topusko, Glina, Sisak, Novska, Okucani, Nova Gradiska, Pakrac, Daruvar, Podravska Slatina, Virovitica, Grubisino Polje, Vocin, Vukovar, Osijek) Then in 1995 Croats with the help of US destroyed the rest predominantly Serbian populated area - Neum, Krka, Drnis, Benkovac, Knin, Srb, Gracac, Donji Lapac, Korenica, Plitvicka Jezera, Vrhovine, Udbina, Plaski, Trzic, Slunj, Vojnic, Slavsko Polje, Vrginmost, Petrinja, Glina, Dragotina, Kostajnica, and the cities that were in Bosnia - Kupres, Glamoc, Drvar, (Three Abdic cities - Cazin, Bihac and Velika Kladusa) Sana, Sanski Most, Bosanski Brod, Kljuc i Jajce. Frank don’t forget common property - only serbs from Croatia lost it all. (Factories, Hospitals, schools etc) So there was no war at all in predominantly Croatian cities. (Except on the beginning when Croats attacked JNA garrisons until JNA withdrew) Vis, Korcula, Hvar, Makarska, Split, Kasteli, Trogir, Rab, Pag, Krk, Losinj, Cres, Senj, Karlobag, Crikvenica, Opatija, Pazin, Buje, Buzet, Rabac, Rovinj, Pula, Lokve, Delnice, Duga Resa, Jastrebarsko, Zagreb, Zapresic, Zabok, Varazdin, Stubica, Stubicke Toplice, Bjelovar, Koprivnica, Cakovec, Slavonski Brod, Vinkovci. The only city that was not destroyed and yet inhabited by Serbs was Beli Manastir - Not that Croats did not want to destroy it, it was just because it was beyond their reach. If Serbs and Yugoslav army was so aggressive and genocidal like they were portrayed by Slovenians, Croats and Western Media, they would with available 2,500 tanks and over 3,000 combat vehicles, and over 250 rocket launchers, and over 5,000 artillery pieces, and over 450 combat planes, and over 500,000 men under arms; completely destroy all Croatian and Slovenian cities and what else they were capable of doing I would leave for Military analysts to answer. Obviously JNA was nothing else then what was written in SFRJ laws - It was common army of all Yugoslavian nationalities (not only Serbs) and it was the professional army, which was preparing to fight an external enemy on SFRJ soil not any other. In its nature that army was Yugoslavian army - and whoever was against Yugoslavia was against that army. So Slovenians were against Yugoslavia. - They did not want to live with anybody who was South of line Rupa - Zidani Most. Croatian identified Yugoslavia with Serbs, they had “gut feeling” for centuries that they cannot have an independent state while Serbs live in Croatia. They built hatred against Serbs what was often based on racism. (Any time where it was obvious that number of Serbs was present in public, and it was obvious on sports manifestations, they would chant “Cigani, cigani!” - Refereeing to Gypsies - Roma people, and their coloured skin). Dubrovnik’s inland was as well inhabited by Serbs, but Dubrovnik suffered as well a “great distortion by” PIR companies “Rudder and Fin” Shelling of Dubrovnik was a part of Bobetko’s strategy (Croatian forces general - read his book.) Frank: Was NATO included in the shipment when the plane full of guns arrived to Croatia from TORONTO with Mr. KIKAS? Did Canadian Government knowingly let the shipment go? Is it possible to move a plane full of guns without government permission? Why SFRJ consul Bijedic was arrested in Toronto in 1990? There are staged events in Croatia that NATO had approved or helped Croats. (Don’t forget too that Tudjman was cured in US - and that US bombed Udbine - in Krajina when Croats attacked it) Events: In June 1990, 200 hundred registered terrorists from the West came on Zagreb's airport Pleso with all Nazi symbols - and at the same time Croatian Parliament "Sabor" unilaterally thrown out Serbs from Croatian Constitution Law, even though Serbs were present in Sabor for centuries, and in The Constitution since they formed first COMMON state "Drzava Slovenaca Hrvata i Srba" and that state joined "Serbian Kingdom". Then Branimir Glavas with a number of previously mentioned terrorist and other militants mainly from Germany, has shown where the new fighting line is going to be in eastern Slavonia. Then Swedish government let Miro Barisic(sentenced over the killing of Yugoslavian Ambassador Vladimir Rolovic) to go even though he didn't serve his sentence to the end. He came to Croatia to fight Serbs before war started. Then Dragutin Mercep and his group of terrorist from West distributed guns in Slavonia only to HDZ members (that meant - just to one nationality) Then in November/December 1990 the videotaped shipment of guns came from Hungary to Croatia. - Mesic as president said "Of course we will not bring pencils to fight Serbs" He also said that he hopes to destroy Yugoslavia and when he did he said, "I did" - but west blamed Serbs. (Could you imagine somebody bringing tons and tons of armor to sovereign state like US and somebody saying “of course we are bringing guns how can we fight Americans with pencils” Then in June 1990 Croatian parliament made an explicit decision to secede from Yugoslavia and everybody understand that way: “Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia and proclaimed independent state”. Every Croatian farmer was interested in independent state and they want to have (“Nezavisna Drzava”) that was their “Thousands year old dream”- They could not care less in what form Yugoslavia will survive, if at all. - Only Western countries (read NATO) said it was not secession - “Yugoslavia fell apart” - At the end Yugoslavia fell apart however that started by secessionism of Slovenia and Croatia what West supported. Then in the summer of 1990 in Split the mob of Croatian citizens took out from a tank a JNA soldier)(a Macedonian) and in the front of cameras they started to strangle him. (If the army was so aggressive like West showed it would these people by bare hands be able to overcome soldiers in tanks? - and now they are suing Milosevic for genocide) By the beginning of 1991 there were "Kalasnjikov" in every HDZ home. They used these guns to go around and shoot at Serbs houses and people - to scare them and provoke incidents. Then Croatian MUP recruited 150 000 policemen with the promise that they would have 2000 German Marks salary - Boljkovac - then Minister of Internal affairs said - this is our army" (saying Croatian army) All of them knew that they are preparing to fight Serbs. They are formed purposely to fight specifically Serbs and Yugoslavian forces. (as oppose to JNA which was formed to protect all nationalities against any enemy) Then Croats were spreading news that money is just pouring in “Zagrebacka Banka” from Germany - NATO is supporting us. Then in Croatian newspapers there were articles how NATO is going to attack JNA and Serbia. Then Croatian radio and television started to broadcast songs like: “Past ce bomba na Beograd” “The bomb will fall on Belgrad” “Ima jedna rijeka I zove se Drina” “There is river named Drina” (River on the Bosnian-Serbian border (During WW II it was the border of Ustasha NDH state - and reminded Serbs on Croatian proverb “Bjez’te psine preko Drine, bjez’te vlasi Pavelic dolazi” “Stand off dogs over Drina, stand off “Vlasi” Pavelic is coming” - “Vlasi” was injurious term for Serbs) Then song “Bojna Cavoglave” - see http://www.CrnaLegija.com All radio and TV stations in Croatia were reorganized to monolithic centralized TV and Radio Station - under Croatian name - meaning that they do not belong to Croatian citizens but exclusively to Croats. All regional newspapers were centralized under HINA. Serbs asked for that name change that would have a meaning like: "TV or Radio or Informative News Agency of Croatia" - but NO - they wanted to emphasized it that it belongs to Croats and its citizens what might be Italians or Serbs. Mesic send a message over TV -"Srbi nisu donesli njihovu zemlju na opancima" - "Serbs did not bring their soil on their buts" "Turci su davno otisli - mozete ici" "Turks have gone long time ago - you can go" Sime Dzodan - "Serbs will have to flee as far as Canada is" "Srbi se nece zaustaviti odavde do Kanade" Then they show on TV consequences of Blieburg - the ending of WWII - trying to revert history showing that "Ustashe" are heros, and Tito's partizans occupied Croatia.-That's why they wanted to destroy any name that has any sign of “Yugo” meaning "South" synonym for Jugoslavija - every "J" on the beginning of any name was changed. Yet West media accused Serbian radio and TV as not free, saying no words against Croats politics Then - In Spring 1991 US State Secretary James Baker came to Belgrade to support unconstitutional decision made by Ante Markovic (Croat) to take over SFRJ border in Slovenia. Western (NATO) journalists waited in Ljubljana (Capital of Slovenia) with cameras to witness JNA taking over a state border. Slovenian TO (army) killed 36 JNA soldiers who even did not have munitions. They shot Red Cross helicopter and a guy who carried bread to one of the JNA garrisons in Ilirska Bistrica - but nothing of it West media reported, however they portrayed JNA as occupying force (Even though JNA Constitutionally had to protect SFRJ’s integrity and JNA was in Slovenia lawfully). Serbs did not have any intention to keep or fight with Slovenians - it was just opposite. They killed 36 soldiers knowingly that the JNA would NOT RESPOND. When Slovenians showed that they want to secede from Yugoslavia; JNA as People’s army at that time withdrew from Slovenia and withdrawal agreement was reached in 10 days. If they had not killed these 36 soldiers who stayed there astonishingly and waited their death, the withdrawal would happened anyway. Slovenians did not prevail JNA as Western and Slovenian media reported - JNA was lawfully in Slovenia and JNA had no intention to fight against Slovenian people - that’s why they withdrew peacefully and after cowardly attack suffered from Slovenians. JNA did not respond to death of theirs 36 soldiers what would do any army in the world.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 12:12 pm
  Pero,

  A former general in the JNA (who was on the general staff during the Vukovar debacle) told me that the General Staff was paralyzed. They had no idea how to deal with the Croatian paramilitaries. Not only that, they were haemmoraging men from JNA units and pilots were 'defecting'.

  Let us not forget the British role in 'helping' Yugoslavia, as ever stabbing everyone in the back...

  British deal fuelled Balkan war

  And what was going on in Vukovar...

  Involuntary blood taking from Vukovar Serbs

  More info

  R E P O R T SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION OF EXPERTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 780 (1992).
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Belgium

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 1:12 pm
  

  Peter, thank you and I hope we can further the cause of peace, justice and international relations by our critical questioning of events.

  To Pero Peric I like to say that in the West most peole don't have the foggiest idea about what Socialist Solidarity is or was all about it. So, perhaps you like to give us its highlights and explain what role it played in the Yugoslavian tragedy.

  During the trial session today another prisoner from Dubrave jail gave testimony, it was a bad show with the witness arguing and going around the questions and judge May(NATO) intervening in his peculiar way, half angered, half reconciliatory but emotional in any case.

  It was the amice curiae Mr. Kay (NATO) who brought up in few questions the fact the witness together with other inmates had deployed on the top of the jail building the words "HELP" and "S.O.S" with the helps of the prison hospital's white sheets.

  Mr. Kay (NATO) asked:". . .and wasn't the pourpose of this message to ask Nato to stop the air attacks to the prison?"

  Answer: "Yes"
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 2:53 pm
  It looks like the 'exonorate NATO' part of the trial has finally started. After being accused of the ISTOK deads, serb forces are now charged with not timely helping Albanians caught in a NATO airraid on their convoy. Again the question: what has Milosevic to do with it; did they expect him to hop in an ambulance and help these people? Whats next: the RTS or Chinese embassy bombing? And Milosevics has another point: we already had 4 KLA members witnessing this week. Why dont they just present the spanish forensics report?

  Here is the article:

  AFP: Milosevic blasts court for putting "terrorists" on the stand

  http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020829/1/324lu.html
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 3:15 pm
  The full transcript of Jared Israels BBC interview:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/69164
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 4:22 pm
  Part II. Milosevic or other Serbs did not have any of the major influences on that war in Slovenia, but West media kept him responsible - Why? (at that time he was a president of Serbia and did not have any influence on the SFRJ military force: Ante Markovic (Prime Minister - and Croat) with support of James Baker ordered movement of Yugoslavian army, even though that decision was under SFRJ Parliament jurisdiction or in case that Federal Assembly cannot meet only Presidency of Yugoslavia can make such a decision and that decision have to be ratified by Federal parliament. President of SFRJ presidency was Stipe Mesic (Croat) Defence Minister was Veljko Kadijevic (Half Serb-half Croat - educated in West like President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf) Minister of Etxernal Affairs - Budimir Loncar - (Half Serb - half Croat) First man in the army was Anton Tus (Croat - later came to Tudjman’s tabor) Commandant of Air Forces - Zvonko Jurjevic (Croat) There were two armies that they were ordered to take over SFRJ border in Slovenia - Commander of one from Zagreb was Konard Kolsek (Slovenian) Commander of one from Rijeka was Marijan Cad (Slovenian) Chief of Staff for Intelligence Services or like West says “Secret Police Chief” was Zdravko Mustac (Croat) And JNA was all the time on the borders - they did not need that decision. - It was only signal to Slovenian TO when they are going to attack and to Western journalist in Ljubljana to start demonized Serbs. Austrian state television offered its equipment and stuff to Slovenians that they are going to broadcast if Slovenians got any problem in broadcasting their “news”. West portrayed JNA as Serbian army, saying that Serbs are majority in that army. Of course they were majority in that army since they were majority in Yugoslavia. - I would say that no man on this earth would question if Canadians are majority in their army - of course French cannot be. Why West wanted Serbs to be minority in Yugoslavian army? Then under these circumstances as tensions in Croatia arouse, the Presidency of SFRJ with Stipe Mesic as President made agreement that they would put JNA between Serbs villages and Croatian forces in Croatia to avoid fighting. Then HDZ moved ahead. Then Serbian MP Zelenbaba was beaten in Croatian Parliament" Then there was a census in Croatia in 1991 - you could be a Croatian citizen if you are a Croat from Bosnia - In order to prove that it was enough to have a letter from Catholic priest, but you could not be "Yugoslavian". (That is how 9 hundred thousand Yugoslavians disappeared) Then loyalty letter was invented to prove that you belong at that time to a self-declared state and that you will obey its laws. (Even if that included fighting against own nationality) Then "Domovnica" was invented to prove that you really obey new state laws. (On that letter there was a big crest that remained Serbs of WW II where over 1, 5 milion Serbs were killed or displaced under “NDH” rule). Then for non-Croats to obtain "Domovinca" it was suggested that you go to fight Serbs as volunteer. Then there was organized trip of Croatian policemen to Plitvicka Jezera on the 1991 orthodox Easter. Then - They killed family Zec in Zagreb. Then they killed an unarmed man in Vukovar who was buying newspaper written in Cyrillic (Alphabet that Serbs used). Then in Pakrac Croatian Politicians spread news that there is a need to protect Serbian orthodox library from “Serb hordes” and justified police action to attack Serbian villages there. Then Croatian forces killed 13 unarmed people in Karlovac who were army reservists and went home over the weekend to harvest potatoes. Then Croatian president Tudjman awarded a perpetrator (Mihajlo Hrastov) of these killings Then they want build monument to Mile Budak - Designer of the theory that serbs will be eliminated from Croatia in WWII - one third converted to Catholicism, one third killed, one third exported over Drina. Then they arrested 12 people on their jobs in Ogulin and Josipdol then brought them to police station in Ogulin and killed eleven of them injuring the 12th. Then Mile Brdar was killed by his colleagues as Croatian policemen in Topusko from his back. He was brought for funeral to "Srpske Moravice" the most western Serbian settlement - and his coffin was covered by Croatian Flag. His father stripped off in the front of many Serbian people. Then name “Srpske” was stripped off from the town’s name. Then Zeljko Oreskovic from Australia came to Gospic. Then so many Serbs were killed there. Karlobag too. Then there was Rizvanusa near Gospic and Mercep forces. (“Even handed” Hag tribunal still does not mention these.) Then many Albanians who usually had small businesses on Adriatic cost, and they had small shops in other Croatian cities; suddenly they could not sent their kids in schools because they didn’t have “Domovnica” - so they went to fight Serbs in order to become Croatian citizens otherwise they would lose their property since only Croatian citizens could own immovable estate. Then Serbs who did not obtain “domovnica” did not have right to own immovable estate. Then Serbs lost any faith in Tudjman’s government and ex Western allies and started to Flee from Croatia to West countries and the rest of Yugoslavia to save bare life. (Census in Croatia in 1981 shows that there was 600 000 Serbs and 900 000 Yugoslavs - whole Croatia was 4,500 000 including Serbs and all other nationalities - Italians Hungarians, Slovaks, Checks, Romas, etc) Then from the 1981 census 300 000 Serbs and 900 000 Yugoslavs disappeared from Croatia. The rest of around 200 000 Serbs had to leave Croatia in 1995. Why Western media mentions just these 200 000 Serbs and not the Serbs and Yugoslavians who fled Croatia from 1990 to 1995? (And by the way why they do not mentioned Serbs that they were killed or expelled from 1914 to today - this is a long lasting process Milosevic just stoped it for a while) Then in December under the German pressure West recognized Croatia as an Independent state (What they admitted later was mistake - Even they admitted it was a mistake - and they still did not realize what consequences it brought to Serbian people - and do they care?) Then Bosnia and Croatia in Spring 1992 were recognized by US as independent states what has given pure message to Croats that whatever they’ve done was right. (That as well justified all above mention crimes - At that moment all Croatian ordinary people started to think What Tudjman is doing must be right since even US support it - better I support it too, and Serbs were stunned) Then where was there Milosevic’s responsibility? He just tried to protect Serbs in Croatia - in a clumsy way but he postponed Croatian intention to eliminate all Serbs until 1995 nothing else. If Serbians did not get help on the beginning from JNA until Croatian recognition as state and if Serbians did not get help from Yugoslavia later in UN the ethnical cleansing of 1995 would happened 1990. Croats did not expelled Serbs earlier because they could not, they did not have enough power. As soon as they had enough support from West they did it. It was not based on any justice it was just brutal force. First, Yugoslavian influence was first forced out from Slovenia, then Croatia - all Serbs who supported Yugoslavia were forced to leave, then Krajina then Bosnia, then Kosovo - then Montenegro then Serbia - As Yugoslavian influence and force moved out - NATO with influence and with forces moved in SINCE SLOVENIA. (the line was going only one way altogether with violence) Then Croatian parliament passed a low, which regulates how Serbain property could be used. Frank so much about Vukovar and Dubrovnik and “NATO not even close to Balkans at these times”. And Frank I challenge you to tell the audience what is not a bare truth in these two posts.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday August 29, 2002 at 7:43 pm
  

  Jari

  If you have access to the internet you can watch the trial either 30 minutes delayed from real time or deferred at Bard Collge.

  The reports have terrible distortions, etc.,

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 12:14 am
  Jared's brilliant follow-up on the Markovic testimony: http://www.icdsm.org/more/bbc-rade.htm
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 12:23 am
  On August 29 Chicago Tribune came up with the following: "There is a climate of fear and intimidation. That was very clear in the case of one witness, the truck driver, who begged to be released, to not have to testify because of his fear of what would happen to him if he did," Dicker said. The witness, whose identity was not disclosed at the trial, was the driver of a refrigerator truck later found submerged in the Danube outside Belgrade, filled with the bodies of Albanian civilians from Kosovo." Apart from the spin put by Dicker on the driver's reluctance to testify, there is a question: Did I miss something? Was the fished-out truck the very one K12 drove? Or did Chicago Tribune just lump everything together because it sounded more impressive?
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 12:42 am
  With the Srebrenica matter coming up in a big way, David Rohde will undoubtedly be called to testify. His role merits serious attention, especially in the context of the “source protection” a/k/a journalistic accountability controversy a’la Randal. It’s worth noting that by mid-90s the U.S. policy in the Balkans was shaped by several interactive factors that mutually complemented each other, and set in motion a mechanism of their ever increasing coordination and control on the part of foreign policy shapers. The news media, along with the CIA, became a factor of utmost importance in the U.S. Balkan policy throughout the 90s, leading to a curious dynamic of a mutually reinforcing trinity of factors. It consisted of gathering information via intelligence channels; feeding it to the media, and, on the basis of the public opinion, generated by the same media, allowing it to play a key role in political decision making, often carrying out the policy decisions with the help of the intelligence networks. David Rohde was expelled from Republika Srpska in late 1995, after he, as a Christian Science Monitor correspondent from Boston, had been using CIA's data in order to reach the spot where Muslims had allegedly been killed in Srebrenica. Rohde came to Republika Srpska from Zagreb, with forged documents and without proper accreditation. His predecessor, correspondent Jonathan Lunday, was expelled from Pale after he was caught sending his information to the CIA. In Srebrenica, David Rohde found "blood on walls and scattered papers of the missing people", but not mass gravesites he had been searching for by DIA officers' order. After being presented as a Serbian victim in the U.S., which undoubtedly helped to sell his book on Srebrenica, David Rohde received the Pulitzer Price in 1995, for his stories about unfound yet existing gravesites in Srebrenica. Rohde’s book offers a wealth of details on Srebrenica’s fall. However, despite his best intentions to make a compelling case for over 8,000 Muslims murdered by the Serbs, his book ends on a low-key note, stating that as of June 1998, 7,300 were still missing. As a Pulitzer-winning journalist who owns his fame to “discovering” the Srebrenica mass graves at the politically convenient time, he curiously still refers to them in his book as “suspected” (in Nova Kasaba in August 1995, and “what looked like two freshly dug mass graves” - the “freshly dug” “suspected” grave was “discovered” by Rohde on October 29, 1995, while the alleged killing took place in mid-July.) During his first trip to Nova Kasaba, he acted on a CIA tip-off, equipped with a faxed copy of a satellite photo he received from an unidentified U.S. intelligence source. The circumstances leading to CIA’s decision to single him out from among dozens of American reporters and dispatching him with a clear mission to publicize the story remains unclear. Also murky is his (or someone else’s) decision to re-enter the Bosnian Serb territory without proper accreditation in his quest for discovering further mass grave sites, when it must have been clear that such attempts, if intercepted, would lead to hostile reaction from Serbs in the aftermath of NATO’s bombing. He claims to again have been “tipped off” on the location of the “suspected” mass graves by a “Washington-based U.S. intelligence official” in October 1995. Apparently, everything went according to the plan aiming at maximally highlighting the controversy, as he was duly detained, and his release was negotiated during the Dayton talks. It achieved a double goal: his detention produced more publicity regarding Srebrenica, and simultaneously has put more pressure on the Serb side during the Dayton talks. His arrest provided the most important link in the public relations dynamics of the story: after alleging that he “found” the sites, the “massacre” theory became fully legitimate and he instantly turned into the undisputed authority on the matter who, from there on, could be used as source reference no one would dare to challenge.
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 1:47 am
  I have just read a report from The Times which described the recent incident where Albanians attacked NATO-led peacekeepers in a two hour firefight as they tried to kill several Serbian farmers. The end paragraph is something that really grates me, especially when I constantly see it in many western media reports. It states - "Serbs have been targeted by ethnic Albanian extremists seeking revenge for the crackdown under Milosevic that left thousands dead, and dozens of Serbs have been killed over the past three years. Tens of thousands have fled." First of all Albanians did not start attacking and killing Serbs and other minorities in their region after the "Milosevic crackdown". The conflict had been going since WWII and Im sure well before that, however the media always loves to simplify things and thereby bend the truth by adding such paragraphs that distort reality. Really frustrating. Im sure that I will get RSI from all the e-mails I send to these agencies condeming them for their inacurate reporting. No wonder the regular nine to five civilian of the west has such views of the region and its ingabitants.
  
  Aleksander Misic
  Sydney
  Australia

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 4:16 am
  And to come back to the question of admissibility of cases, which is a standard procedure in any court, I have to conclude that all that the Statute of ICTY says about this is Art. 19(1): "The judge of the Trial Chamber to whom the indictment has been transmitted shall review it. If satisfied that a prima facie case has been established by the Prosecutor, he shall confirm the indictment..." In other words, Judge May acted in accordance with the Statute in reviewing the Bosnia indictment to see if there was a prima facie case. That is not even close to the review of admissibility, and if the Statute or the Rules of Procedure say something on the admissibility, I must have lost it. This omission is a catastrophe. It means 1) that the judge will accept in principle any indictment from the prosecution, 2) that the case has already been prejudged once it has been positively reviewed by the judge, and 3) the lack of prima facie case can be used as an excuse to throw out politically undesirable cases (and for not preparing them).

  But I am not sure whether it means that all the conventional procedureal rules like lis pendens can be sidestepped. I would think not. The tribunal can proceed according to its Statute, but its decisions are not worth the paper that they are written on (which is not to say they are totally worthless, judging by the amount of paper the tribunal produces). But this is something you have to ask a legal expert, who should appear as an expert witness.

  On a more positive note, neither do the Statute or the Rules of Procedure say anything on who can appear as a witness. It goes to great lengths to elaborate the protection of witnesses. But here something very interesting is happening. As we know, the prosecution has a carte blanche. But if it goes too far, it may start shooting itself in the foot. Consider the journalists. If the prosecution can do it, the defense can do it.

  But the appearance of Lilic as a witness really opens the floodgates. As has been pointed out, Art. 7(2) makes it possible (and obligatory) to prosecute any official or politician regardless of his position. It says nothing of the witnesses, but now that Lilic, the former head of state, is kidnapped and transferred to The Hague as a witness, what is there to stop the defense from calling the most unexpected witnesses?

  Take Del Ponte. What protection does she have? If Art. 7(2) is extended to witnesses, her official position isn't there to stop her from appearing as a witness (either). Yes, she can have some privileged information, but so does Lilic (state secrets). However, that doesn't mean that the person cannot appear as a witness.

  There is a curious rule 70(B) in the Rules of Procedure which says that the Prosecutor can keep his information confidential. However, this pertains only to information meant to generate new evidence. On the other hand, it wouldn't seem to apply to information that the Prosecutor already has and which is presented as evidence as such. And according to that rule, the accused must be given access to any such evidence in advance, so why not during the trial as well?

  As a reminder, another tacky thing is the question if the Legality of Use of Force at ICJ precludes the Kosovo indictment against Milosevic. But what better person to answer that than the defense attorney for Yugoslavia in the Legality of Use of Force, Ian Brownlie from Oxford University, the author of many well-known international legal textbooks? That is another addition to the witness list. There is a legion of pro-Serb/pro-Yugoslav witnesses if you start looking for them.

  And more legal monstrosities: What to do if the prosecution accuses the defendant for not protecting the victims during the Nato bombing? This is so preposterous that one is lost for words. I guess the answer is that it is one thing to say that aggression is not punishable under the Statute, but quite another thing to say that the aggression excuses the crimes the aggressor commits.

  Here one has to remember the perverted logic that Tony Blair used during the bombing. As we know, the just war theory is defunct. The problem was that the theory held that self-defense is OK. (And in fact, that is what the UN Charter says too, but never mind.) The problem is that it is difficult to define self-defence (or maybe the difficulty is just a mock difficulty as the bombing campaign shows). But let's presume the just war theory is dead. Suddenly, self-defense isn't a valid reason to use force any more. But on the other hand, some pundits would contend that use of force cannot be wrong just because it is aggression (that's how we got "humanitarian intervention")! From this, it is only a small step to saying that aggression can be more legitimate than self-defense. And to crown it all, this is what Tony Blair said to the crowds in Kosovo during the bombing: "This is a just war!"

  But is aggression a more legitimate reason to use force than self-defense? Of course not! And with all the more reason, it doesn't excuse the damage the use of force does. And with all the more reason, it doesn't implicate the victim (or his government, which is basically the same thing), when the damage is done. This was supposed to be victim's justice but I guess victor's justice supersedes even victim's justice.

  By using this strategy the prosecution only ruins its case. This isn't even comparable to the (false) argument some have made that by accusing Nato Milosevic is only hurrying his own conviction. If the judges go along with the prosecution, the miscarriage of justice is evident.

  And more about the ABC of law, which the tribunal keeps forgetting: Bosnia. I guess the idea of the prosecution is that Milosevic had two henchmen in Bosnia: Karadzic and Mladic. The obvious problem is that, justice being blind, we don't know yet if these two men were guilty of anything themselves, because they haven't even appeared at the tribunal, let alone convicted. So it is preposterous to suppose Milosevic's guilt based on their unconfirmed guilt. And I think the Dayton Accord is in itself enough to exonerate Milosevic from anything that happened in Bosnia (even if the distorted logic of some draws just the opposite conclusion).

  Anyway, as long as Mladic and Karadzic are on the run, there is enough reason to keep Milosevic behind bars, because there is reason to believe that he would run away too. Never mind that the fact that K&M still manage to hide somewhere only shows that Milosevic didn't have anything to do with their running away from... (I was about to write: justice.)

  And Bogdan, I could keep saying the whole time: "allegedly" committed, but I think it should be evident that I am just trying to elicit a reduction ad absurdum from the prosecution's own point of view. So if the Bosnian Serbs committed all the alleged atrocities, and no-one else did, the prosecution's position becomes untenable on its own terms. That's what I want to show, not enter the "material" side of things.

  And now that I mentioned that the BBC got some mysterious technical disturbances while it was trying to broadcast the trial, I can't help noticing that the tribunal doctors have begun to issue "health warnings" in a somewhat similar fashion. And this reminds me of what the king of inversion, Mirko Klarin, said: whenever Milosevic has had a bad day at cross-examination, he mysteriously falls ill.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 9:03 am
  Jari, you and I are fighting for the same cause but on different fronts. While your reasoning is of the judical type, mine is more the one of moral and ethics. You fight using different legal approaches, and I for one don't have the neccessary law knowledge always to follow you. I know this site is called Jurist, so maybe I am in a wrong place. But I know this - this trial is not about proportionality, it's not about preaching the rules of engagement. It is desperately trying to prove that Serbs have CAUSED all of the wars in ex-Yu. They know that without convincing people of that, they can never justify NATO intervention and dirty media war and racism towards Serbs. How shall I put it... if you have two kids fighting, you will not criticize the one who has less injuries, but the one who started the fight. That's the reasoning of the common people. They see these horrible crimes, committed by both sides, and their head explodes from all those foreign names of the places, dates, and actors, and suddenly they are not acceptable for the facts any more. They run away from all that aftermath filth, they don't like to see all those bodies, to hear all those testimonies, they want to know one, just one - WHO IS TO BLAME FOR ALL OF THIS? And they are not satisfied with long, twisting accounts telling them that each side is to be blamed for something which again might have been caused by something other side did, because they want to apply their anger at something specific. They want to see one side singled out, they want that one most guilty side to be punished. The names such as 'Butcher of the Balkans', 'Second Hitler' are ment to hint to the people not so much of Slobo's methods but of his guilt of starting the process of butchery, so willingly starting the war. That's why only Slobo out of all heads of the states is the one on trial. To show PRINCIPAL guilt of the Serbs for all this mess. If I might use an example I don't have much knowledge on: people are willing to forgive burning of thousands of people in Vietnam alive with napalm, when America successfully prooves that the other side is guilty of starting the war AND willingly committing attrocities AND Americans were there to stop them. But if you cut out the moment of who started the war and what was being done before American intervention, immediately Americans are the ones that are inhuman monsters, who came to a foreign country and started burning people alive because they don't like commies, performing genocide over millions. Also, important fact Americans use to show that they were right - what happened AFTER they've retreated. We can see that attrocities that were commited by the other side are speaking of the nature of the other side. (Look, this might not be how it happened, I am just following Lou's argumentation, since I don't know much on Vietnam) Now, Serbs have strong arguments in WHO started the war and attrocities and WHAT happened after their retreat, showing exactly the defensive character of our fight, and the motives of our enemies. We can see that Croatians and Albanians and Muslims have ethnically cleansed Serbs once the JNA retreated (and they've been cleansed immediately from all places where our army wasn't in the first place), so there you have the same argument of at least the same weight as the one Americans use to show the true nature of Vietnam Communists and their right to fight them (again, we had more right since OUR civilians were being killed). I have to warn the American audience following the trial that so far they've been only witnessing stories of attrocities alledgedly commited by Serbs, that if not completely false in any case have the element of hiding the facts about KLA activities in that period, or the effect of NATO bombing. You haven't heard the tragic stories of Serbian refugees from Kosovo that we heard, that made our blood boil. So don't let those individual tragedies fog your perception on who's the one who should pay for all this mess. Court is using them in a last attempt to do a character assasination, in order to make you believe that this man is a genocidal maniac, and that therefore you shouldn't doubt the punishment of him and his country. By believing that he should be declared guilty, you are effectively demonizing the only nation who didn't want the Yugoslavia to fall apart and war to start on it's people.
  
  Bogdan Oparnica
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 12:13 pm
  Besides socialist solidarity there were other crucial categories that were cause, which was leading to distortion of Yugoslavia and Serbian people tragedy.

  Common property Internationalism Globalization Socialist solidarity West-East - Yugoslavia relationship Western perception of Russian - Serbian alignment Yugoslavia as founder of Non-alliance Yugoslavian (Socialist) terminology of Nation Emphasized role of national minorities

  The nationalism and religion was just tool used to disintegrate Yugoslavia and uproot all economical and ideological achieving of Yugoslavia

  (I need help from Serbian-English language experts to translate the meaning of socialist solidarity in English. In Serbian is: “Socijalisticka solidarnost” = “pomoc slabijima”)

  In Yugoslavia common property was established to suit socialist needs as well as an argument in international relationship among Yugoslavia, East and West.

  Late 1980 as a result of the outcome of cold war it was widely accepted among Yugoslavian people that Yugoslavia will turn its economy towards free market and that there is only one way - The way to become a part of United Europe.

  There was a huge support from almost all citizens, there was no single authority and there was no any national group that would not support it at that time.

  If West really had not wanted war in Yugoslavia; Europe and US would have used this common Yugoslavian will and help Yugoslavia to bring its laws to their (western free market standards) and avoid war.

  In fact there was no conflict in Yugoslavia at all at that time, which would bring opposite parties (different nationalities) to war. That situation was created couple years later. (Since it became obvious that Russia and East fell on its knees peacefully - and need for compromise and competition disappeared).

  So If Yugoslavian citizens wanted to unite with Europe if Yugoslavia wanted to join free market countries and laws, and a common property legally was a shareholder property; why West did not use it (common property) to harmonize standards of Yugoslavian people with the rest of Europe? The West does not want to know for the type of ex Yugoslavia’s common property, and new governments in ex Yugoslavia do not want to know about that either since they, in fact looted everything.

  They did not want to know about differences between state and a common property, common property and private property either, but the common property was a compromise not only theoretically between planned and market economy but as well compromise in the international relationship between West and East where Yugoslavia existed as a compromise.

  Market and ownership are in the core of the conflict between capitalism and communism. Yugoslavia was geographically and politically between West and East - The conclusion is that Yugoslavia was between capitalism and communism too.

  Capital used nationalism as a tool to establish modern states and a free market as its goal. Free market is assuming nation as its crib, so it is still bordered inside laws of the specific states. Today such market cannot keep capital powers inside its borders - There is a need for “Globalization” that means destroying nations, and local states too - stripping down local governments’ rights to make laws or these laws will be dictated by the greatest power.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 12:19 pm
  

  Internationalism means as well taking away all national borders in order to make one state in the whole world. Internationalism assumes use of a nation and its labor force to establish cooperation among nations in order to achieve The World without borders.

  So both Globalization and Internationalism as two opposite ideologies imply a nation disappearance. Both theories imply existence of only one authority on the whole world.

  I dare to say that Yugoslavia was a compromise between west and Russia’s block since England (Churchill) had chosen to support Tito in 1943 and abandoned Serbian King. That compromise was formalized in Yalta 1944. (Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill)

  Yugoslavia existed while World order needed it. When Warsaw pact fell apart there was no competition and no need for special “channels” through Yugoslavia to exist any more, then distortion of Yugoslavia was used as excuse for NATO existence, and nationalistic tabors in Yugoslavia were used from West as its lever to destroy any sign of compromising models, including common property.

  In the reality and after WWII and during cold war Yugoslavia had to dance between superpowers in order to survive. That’s why there were so many changes and reforms.

  These reforms were finalized in a new constitution 1974, which established foundation to bring Collective Labor Law in power 1976, and further empower the role of socialist solidarity, and further weaken Serbian influence in Yugoslavia.

  Some of the politicians from Tito’s time where not so stupid as many would think.

  Common property was not simply invention from Kidric and Kardelj - it was well-copied model of “Corporate America” based on the shareholders rights. Yugoslavian factories, real estate and so on belonged to shareholders who were employees of the certain company. - That was stated in Yugoslavian constitution and sanctioned through all relevant laws.

  There was no issuing of the confirmation of how many shares are owned by each individual who were in fact the legal owners (workers) - like you got a confirmation when you buy a share in a public US company. Since we decided in nineties that we would abandon common property; we could, since it lawfully belonged to them, give each employee number of shares that belonged to him based on his contribution to that company - That was not hard to calculate - Then if somebody wanted to sell it the supply and demand will determine the price. - That’s all.

  Obviously that was not attainable, since that would show other things too the west public. (Good education system, health system, decent standard, five million houses on the adriatic sea - http://www.makarska-riviera.com/privatni/private-tucepi.htm (I had to use one of the links what shows private accommodation trust me there were like these houses (yet we called them cottages) from Koper to Ulcinj. with no mortgages and as many cottages inland, and yet so many shares)

  Citizens of Yugoslavia were entitled to govern and they were the legal owners of the common property. New governments simply took away these entitlements and ownership from citizens, with the help of the West. I am not trying to protect common property I am trying to say that NOBODY had right to usurp it.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 12:29 pm
  

  Why not to call a spade a spade?

  Does anyone believes America, the United States of America truly fights wars, begins wars (claiming democracies are never the agressors)for moral, human rights issues? The heirs of the British, French and Japanese Empires, believes itself to be a harmeless "global" trader wishing to have a small grocery shop in the "global village", just for the sake of the World's well being and because America's holly mission is to save mankind of its herrors and sins?

  The way America behaves in the "global village" is like an imperial power always behaved; granted this time it is slightly different because the power in question is very powerful (perhaps an over statement) and the empire she runs very big, but we're also in the 21 st century and the Industrial Revolution is already an old affair incapable to feed, protect against illnesses still millions of of humans beings, the "surplus" of humanity.

  So, what is Yugoslavia, the Balkans, the ex-Soviet Union strugle to fit in this American dominated planet?

  Was Mr. Milosevic (there is still Lukashenko, albeit under the shadow of Russia and Mugabe standing on his own) really guilty of confronting Goliath because he did not have a chance to win, or is it because the real human rights, freedom, democracy, right to self determination struggle is his and not the corrupt and corrupting West's?

  The media, the press, TV, newspapers are for the most part controlled by a few corporations at the service of the plutocracy, oligarchs and in unison they spew their propaganda dressed as the holly truth, with the help of corrupt and venal intellectuals to an increasingly less educated audience fixiated in material well being or in just financial accumulation.

  Yes, they want to cut short and punish the "guilty" whether a retarded individual getting his "justice" by lethal injection or a "mass murderer" sent to life for whatever reason. What they don't want is to have to understand, participate in a dialectical social process which could distract them from the narcicist emptiness of their life.

  That could bring the end of the empire.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 12:33 pm
  Part III Yugoslavian common property had it roots from “Common Labor Governance” of Sisak steel works, in 1950. Tito’s symbolic handing over of Sisak steel works was very loud message to West that Yugoslavia really does not want to follow Russia’s communist model, which helped Yugoslavia to overcome pressure from both West and East including embargo on goods from both sides too.

  The success of overcoming isolation from West and East and the common governance model contributed to some kind of social consensus between government goals and labor force which busted citizens’ enthusiasm and resulted in the biggest growth of gross domestic product in 1950-s what was ever recorded in any country in the World.

  Yugoslavian politicians very fast concluded that at late fifties the growth of GDP is slowing down and they were considering possibilities for Yugoslavia to change their economy from planned to a market oriented, that message came from Summit in Rome in 1961 and was conveyed by Vladimir Bakaric. Since market oriented economy was treated, as straight capitalists category I am assuming that “World order” at that time did not show enough enthusiasm for Yugoslavia to proceed, since West compromised that with East.

  Then in coming years Yugoslavia was undergone two economic reforms small one 1961 and “real one” 1964 then it was concluded that forces around Rankovic “put brakes on” these reforms. Rankovic’s downfall opened a door for hunt on everything what was considered serbian. (Even to mention a word Serbian would be considered a crime, and Tito had to intervene to stop the” hunt on witches” . In these circumstances Yugoslavia proceeded with these reforms and they were done together with reforms around National interests further dissolving Serbian role.

  Common property was completely defined with above mention two laws - model that brought confusion to both West and East but bought Yugoslavia time to exist longer since real democratic competition started, between West and East. (Remember: Cosmos competition, end of Vietnam war, “Votergate” which showed to all freedom loving people that in US existed real democracy since even president can be held accountable for his steps. (Move which US exploited in its foreign policy for decades). East and West competed to show to public which models and governments were better. The simple people in The West hemisphere and democracy all around the world gained the most from that competition.

  East and West needed Yugoslavia as common property too.

  Since East fall apart with help from West there was no need for competition any more. West powers do not have need to show public that they are more competent then the East, they do not need to spend money on health, and public education since these are socialist categories, and they do not need to have a freedom of speech. Yugoslavia was destroyed since there is no need for compromise between East and West since Yugoslavia was a compromise between them. They lost it. Time will show that they lost more than ex Yugoslavia citizens. Losing need for compromise means tyranny. They will have it. We are already use to it since all “governments” of ex Yugoslavia are dictated their decision.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 12:58 pm
  

  (I need help from Serbian-English language experts to translate the meaning of socialist solidarity in English. In Serbian is: “Socijalisticka solidarnost” = “pomoc slabijima”)

  Socialist solidarity; there is no other better translation than that. "pomoc slabijima" translates "help to the poor", "help the poor" but I don't see the relationship, at least the direct relationship with "Socialist Solidarity" which I understand to be of an international nature.

  Thanks for the short exposé on Yugoslavia.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 1:10 pm
  

  From another forum CLICK

  Gee, am I the only one on this Forum old enough to have experienced the American bombing of Belgrade and the Russian liberation of it? Here is my “eyewitness” story. I was 14 at that time: Recall that the front in Italy has stopped somewhere north of Bari. Bari became the very large allied air base for bombing Ploesti oil fields in Rumania. There were almost daily flights with about 200 to 400 B-24 bombers. It is said somewhere that Tito himself requested the bombing. The Belgrade rail center was an important knot for Germans. For instance the troops stationed in Greece had only link with Germany through Belgrade. Be it as it may, Americans bombed Belgrade on Easter 1944, and two more time. Estimated causalities about 18,000 civilians. One bomb hit the house where my wife to be was in the basement. They were buried for a couple of days. There were three more bombings within next two months. By September Russian Red Army was in Budapest and half way through Bulgaria. Germans defended Belgrade in house to house fighting. Although Partisans took part, the main brunt was taken by Russian soldiers. One Russian lieutenant installed a Maxim-heavy machine gun on our balcony and shot at Germans in the neighboring yard. He got wounded in the arm. My mother bandaged him, while he swore badly, jumped up took his machine gun and over the roofs ran to the Germans in the next yard. After some fierce gunfire he returned, smiling: “Nyet Nemcov!” he said. My first act when I visited Moscow for the first time is to lay flowers on the grave of the Unknown Soldiers by the Kremlin wall in Aleksandriski Sad.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 3:15 pm
  Yes Gogol, Socialist Solidarity is of international nature. That is connected to the theories of Nations, and implemented in The Yugoslavian Constitution 1974.

  In order to make all national minorities equal to a nation “Narodnost” (Another part hard to translate) term was brought as invention just to use this term since minorities meant “minor = not equal”. Only in Serbia (in ex Yugoslavia) all national minorities rights were legally sanctioned and “Narodnost” in fact tried to promote national minority into nation. (Since only Serbia had two provinces that were created because of national minority existence).

  Of course it was absurd but there were three things what made it happened in reality: 1. Internationalism , since socialists thought who cares at the end there will be society without borders on the whole earth; and together with developing society without borders the role of the state and state itself will die off, so there is no need to have strong state institutions.

  2. Socialist solidarity, principal what lead to creation of special state budged. The provinces were taxed and money was collected in that budged to support weaker ones. There were declared undeveloped provinces: Kosovo and Metohija

  Montengro

  Macedonia

  Bosnia

  Kosovo exploited that budget at most. Population growth in Kosovo was extremely high, because of high birth rate and as well Albanians who came from Albania to Kosovo. Child benefits were paid from state budget too.

  Serbia had to finance: Its Serbian Province administration Kosovo administraton Contribute to Yugoslavia’s administration Contribute to the budged of undeveloped regions.

  That included very expensive school and health systems (You do not pay for medical exams or medication at all, including surgeries and rehabilitation, as well as dentist services) . (In Kosovo there was in 1970-ties 16 University students per 1000 inhabitants - e.g. In France was at high in Europe 9 per thousand inhabitants.) That created illusion in Kosovo among Albanians that they had right to have state to finance university in their own language. (They did not realize and they still do not realize that high school education is not free anywhere in the world, never mind minority language.)

  The position of Kosovo government in seventies was as such they could use given many without any control, yet they had much grater influence in Serbian parliament. That money in part was used to finance to buy Serbian property in a favor of Albanian immigrants. Based on the same theory of socialist solidarity Tito has forbidden return of Serbs expelled from Kosovo during WWII, and Tito has brought law to expropriate Orthodox Church - that land was given to Albanians.

  Emphasized role of national minorities Kardelj’s theory of nations suggested that it is treasury for the society (state) to have more nations inside its borders since it will enrich our relations and speed up creation of the society without borders. (But Slovenia and Croatia acted differently in practice - the result is obvious today - these two states and Kosovo and Bosnia are ethnically clean - and Serbia is really reach today with nations - however ICTY indicted Milosevic as one who sparkled ethnical cleansing in Yugoslavia and Serbs as nation who perpetrated it)

  Question: What would be the corpus delict of genocide?

  Internationalism and social solidarity created easy-giving perception in Milosevic too, and other Serbian people that’s why we easily gave up Serbian national minorities in Slovenia and Croatia and Provinces: Krajina and Bosnia, and October’s coup even though it was obvious that it was financed and governed outside from Yugoslavia.

  At the end, according to Constitution from 1974 national minorities and their provinces had more power over Serbia than Serbian Parliament even though they were constitutionally the part of Serbia and consequently under Serbian parliament jurisdiction.

  Kosovo parliament had power to bring any low without Serbian parliament debate, or approval.(They could not bring a low what was in the federation jurisdiction) Whenever Serbian House of Common had any debate they could not have meeting without deputies from Kosovo and Vojvodina even though decision was related only to internal part of Serbia outside its provinces. - Milosevic tried to stop it.

  I appologize for taking so much space. .
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 3:42 pm
  

  A well used space Pero.

  Many consider the 1974 constitution the seed of self destruction and I don't know when it was changed: I don't know what the main changes were neither. It was said the power went from the republics to the Federal government.

  Treating minorities as nationalities has certainly many advantages and I wonder how Northern Ireland or the Basque Country would have fared under such a system. The Spanish government just declared one of the Basque national parties illlegal. It sounds awefuly familiar.

  Vovojdina according to some news reports is also agitated for independence or integration with Hungary and one thing I know Budapest treats her foreign Hungarian (Romanian and Serbian) as if they were citizens of Hungary.

  I wonder what the coming elections in Serbia will bring.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 8:07 pm
  The Theatre of the Absurd Kosovo Scene 2, Act N. Where N is a very large number.

  Am I wrong in believing it is a serious war crime to bomb a Prison - on a par almost with bombing a Hospital where the patients are almost equally, but for different reasons, confined?

  Yet Nato’s court has the gall to charge Milosevic with the consequences of their own illegal act. Is it not absurd to believe that Milosevic was responsible for the killings at the Dubrava prison especially that of the prison’s Deputy Governor and several of his wardens? This is ‘blame the victim’ with a vengeance. This is so blindingly obvious that it shrieks ‘Show Trial’ and what an audacious show. Milosevic clearly did not know and could not foresee that Nato would commit the criminal act of bombing a prison. This is a repeat performance of the farce where the Director of the Belgrade TV station, also criminally bombed by Nato, has been saddled with the responsibility for more of Nato’s bomb victims.

  As the court squabbles to apportion the killings between Nato’s bombers and the prison guards during a subsequent riot, reported by at least one Albanian prisoner, I ask is it credible evidence that the warders shot indiscriminately knowing some of the prisoners were Serbs?

  What is a BBC reporter doing volunteering evidence for the prosecution at the ICTY? "I am very happy to say the BBC enjoys probably the best international reputation of any international broadcaster for being objective.” Says Jackie Rowland former Belgrade correspondent. What a phantasy world we live in. What credibility does the BBC have left after that tour de farce performed by the BBC’s Mark Laity during the Nato bombing campaign?

  Laity remained silent while Nato blamed the Serbs for its slaughter of a refugee convoy then from the scene, with Nato marked bomb parts, fed the lie that Nato had attacked a military convoy. He failed to challenge Shea about the use of depleted uranium shells; the civilians killed at Surdulica hospital and the eyewitness reports that the Nato pilot who rocketed the train at Gurdulice returned for a second attack. Nor did he question Nato's critical demand to the Serbs to occupy all of Yugoslavia. No one asked what protection Nato intended to give the minority populations in Kosovo, post-war. In the event, most were "cleansed" and many murdered by the Albanians while Nato stood by.

  In contrast Jonathan Dimbleby's superb LWT dispatch in January 2000 - Inside Kosovo - shows TV reporting at its best. His coverage of the Serb evictions, the KLA intimidation of their own people, and the inability of Nato to impose order was a revelation.

  It is reported that Jackie Rowland, who claims to have the amazing gift of being able to tell causes of death simply by looking at victims, has assured the court that Nato’s bombs did not kill them although she was not present when the bombings took place. Presumably Nato has revealed to her what munitions they used but did they tell her the truth - after so many lies: This is valid evidence?

  Later questioned on her experience in the court Jacky Rowland replied that she had “enjoyed herself”: as if were a night out at the theatre: the Theatre of the Absurd.

  PS Oto, I wouldn’t vote for any of them. I cancelled my subscription to the Labour Party after Blair dropped his cluster bombs on Serbia.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday August 30, 2002 at 11:47 pm
  Hello moderator.You are hard-working like Serbs and Albanians are together. Mr Oparnica.Clear case.They trained and armed KLA.They promissed them independence and told them to kill policemen.They got "concerned" and involved like unbiased mediators.Then they took over "responsibility",spent bombs and uranium,cashed it from the budget and filled pockets in national interest. Now they produce more arms to kill more Iraqis.For that time reporters, journalists and all sorts of NGOs do not see this but reveal schocking thruth:war crimes in war (not in campaign).On Kosovo that was: American "security" policy of destabilizing Europe and making precendents, irresponsible,ignorant,corrupted,lying European politicians.End of indictment. KLA is bad luck for Albanians.Bob Dole has been taking money from drug dealing for years.

  Churchill didn't protect his country.He protected the Empire in Iraq.In Britain they beat schoolchildren who ask:"what we were doing there ,after all"

  Mr Taylor.Demonization or canonization.Really,the most irritant about that ghastly lot is callling themselves socialists.WC would die laughing if he knew that Conservatives would pray to St Winston.Would you vote for WC if he was socialist?I would.
  
  Oto von Brecht
  Dresden
  Germany

• Saturday August 31, 2002 at 5:20 am
  Beware. As you can see above I have the "amazing gift" to anticipate questions before they arrive.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday August 31, 2002 at 5:52 am
  Do as I say not as I do.

  One of the main justifications for Nato’s bombing of the Serbs in support of the KLA was the lack of the Serbs’ ‘proportionality of response’ to the terror attacks mounted by the KLA. Especially in deploying tanks. See for example the testimonies of Ashdown and Naumann.

  The URL below demonstrates the hollowness of that excuse. What was the true reason: Deals with Albania, oil, dislike of Slavs … Will we ever find out?

  A UNMIK patrol guarding a group of Serbs was ambushed. After calling up various support KFOR brought up a tank and helicopter gunship. Well, well, well … when the boot is on the other foot how quickly our ‘morals’ change.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/69169

  Click here
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday August 31, 2002 at 1:01 pm
  We lost Trojan horse but we got Agamemnon.Mr Taylor you are extraordinary in many ways.You are the only man on this planet who continuously speak about present situation on Kosovo,sufferings and lies.

  Mr Peric.Numbers are important in international relations.Small incomplette contribution:

  January 13 -Ortodox NewYear.1992. Vatican and German recognition of Croatia .April 6 -1941. bombardment of Belgrade.1992. recognition of Bosnia. 28 jun-1389.Kosovo battle.2001.symbolic capitulation. Serbs know this signature very well.

  One Blair less,one Churchill more.
  
  Oto von Brecht
  Germany

• Saturday August 31, 2002 at 1:57 pm
  Oto not true.

  I am glad that Peter Taylor does bring up the suffering of the Serbs in Kosovo. You are mistaken to say he is the only one on the planet. All Serbs know what is going on in Kosovo. To think this is being forgotten is a big mistake.

  We all know that Serbs are living in enclaves with guards who every once in awhile slip up and allow the Albanians to murder a few in “retaliation for what Milosevic did to them.” Never mentioning what the Albanians did to the Serbs from the 80s onward. The only place where the Serbs have any safety is in Mitrovica and propaganda machines such as “Institute for War and Peace” claim the Serbs are keeping Kosovo from having a multiple ethnic society by not allowing the Albanians to come in and murder them.

  The problem for the Serbs is that they do not have access to the media. That is what happened in the Civil wars in Yugoslavia. Serbs were denied access to the media in the USA.

  At this time we are reminded by the pundits in our media that the United States saved the Muslims against the Christians in Bosnia and Kosovo. This reminder is for the benefit of the Muslims world wide.Does this strike anyone as a little strange?

  Once again the media is shoveling out unbalanced reports of the Milosevic trial, just as they did during the Civil wars. There is an article on “Anti War” by Robert Fiske which is quite interesting. This article questions the New York Times that was once a reputable newspaper.The article is about a denied massacre of the Armenians by a New York Times writer.

  Milosevic had faults. He has an IQ over 160. This could not be tolerated by his enemies.He should never have capitulated in Kosovo. He left the Serbs defenseless and to the mercy of Nato and Unmik who turned their backs and allowed the Serbs to be slaughtered. This was some peace agreement. The Serbs in Kosovo have not seen a day of peace since.

  Hopefully during the Bosnian phase of the trial Milosevic will call the evil Amanpour. He should also call the Retired Army Col. Christopher Boyd. Boyd has written previously that Amanpour reported only for the Muslims. She never reported on the atrocities committed against the Serbian population.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday August 31, 2002 at 4:08 pm
  Saturday August 31, 2002 at 5:20 am Beware. As you can see above I have the "amazing gift" to anticipate questions before they arrive. Peter Taylor Herts/UK So, what do you think the answer is then? ;-)
  
  Dennis Revell
  USA

• Saturday August 31, 2002 at 4:39 pm
  

  Because there is one trial for Kosovo, B/H and Croatia, the latter two brought much later, Mr. Milosevic will have to continue with the trial while thinking about his defence in the three cases.

  We can see now why the prosecution appealed and won the court's ruling on having three separates trials.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday August 31, 2002 at 5:33 pm
  Video archives, Friday's Sequence 3, approx 8:50 into 16.11. Watch it. It's hillarious. Milosevic notices that an 'interpreter' now working for the 'tribunal', is actually witness #8. The 'prosecutor' has to 'check it out' and admits that it's true. Later, after more checking he stresses the fact that he did not work for the 'tribunal' when he was a witness. Now does this sound like quid pro quo or what?
  
  Joe P
  USA

• Saturday August 31, 2002 at 7:47 pm
  Thank you guys for convincing me that there are still few grains of salt in a sea of insipid broth that is today's public opinion. Let me tell you who I am: a woman from Belgrade who was lucky enough not to get killed by the "Merciful Angel" and who stayed mentally sane through those 78 days of US bombing by sheer anger. I hated them in their safely high-flying planes, at their impersonal video-game triggers, with their secretary-of-state-interest-group-jamieshea little personal agendas... And who was, despite education, age, well-travelled wordliness, immensely content that Sep. 11th. I'm an economist, not a lawyer, but I stumbled upon your forum seraching for an article that even our present puppet-government press informed us about: a Mail on Sunday 25 Aug. piece on a catastrophic state the prosecution's "case" against Milosevic is in. (couldn't find it, though; maybe you can help me?) Instead, I found you and through you also the site of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic. Good, so I'm not crazy after all, there are lawyers who also think "judge" May is biased, this "court" a mockery of justice, Nice&Co. of the prosecution throwing away their profession and going through the motions of this circus even not as skillfully as that. As for all of you, it's like a breath of fresh air: somebody is actually bothering to think. This is what I was always trying to explain to my Western friends: doubt a little, don't believe just everything you're served with. And get information. What is ironic, everything has been already published somewhere, you only have to learn how to find it. I think I have answered the Q (Is S.M. getting a fair trial?). He's not getting any trial at all. He's getting trampled and humiliated; the law with him as well. The reason being, of course, a post-festum justification of NATO (read:US) attack on Yugoslavia. Wish you all the best. Keep thinking.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Saturday August 31, 2002 at 10:27 pm
  Vera,

  You can also get "stimulating" discussion at the Guardian Talk forum. Not, on the whole, as cerebral as this one (that's why I go there ;-), but it's OK.

  The most relevant thread there is called "KosovO and the Balkans", in the International folder.

  There's less consensus there than here (as I said, less cerebral), so you need to wear you good temper hat!

  You need to register with an E-Mail address, but you should be able to make up a "trash" Hotmail account or similar, and then pick your handle.
  
  D. R.
  US