 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.
Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————
- discussion archive
- Saturday August 23, 2003 at 7:38 am
As I recall reading in the transcripts..... the ICTY group of May, Kwon, and that third fellow had a hearing fairly early on in which they determined that President Milosevic was able to fund his own defense ( evidently because of the zillions he has stashed away in those oh, so secret bank accounts ) and therefore the ICTY would not provide Milosevic funds.
It did not appear that President Milosevic requested any ICTY funds. It appeared only that this was a standard preliminary proceedure of the ICTY.
Please note that I divided the funding issue into 2 parts. The first was funding for expert witnesses. The second was funding for advisors.
Having the ICTY pay a travel and a per diem for expert testimony does not necessairly constitute recognition that the ICTY is a legitimate instrument. For example, if President Milosevic were to ask the ICTY to call KLA MajorGeneral Rustem Mustafa (aka Remi) as a expert, why not have the MajorGeneral paid for his time and trouble ? And if President Milosevic decieded to then call in the Kfor/UNMIK prosecutor who convicted MajorGeneral Rustem Mustafa for numerous murders of Albanian loyalists...........why shouldn't the prosecutor get paid for his time and travel ?
After all, simply having experts come in a provide testimony is merely further clarfying the actual events. Refusing ICTY funds to pay 3rd party experts to come and offer clarification isn't recognition of the ICTY's legitimatcy.
President Milosevic has already accepted that experts are necessary to explain the truth.
Now as for the second point, that of having the ICTY fund President Milosevic's advisors.....Indeed I agree that is perhaps granting the ICTY too much recognition if it would be full blown ICTY funding of defense counsel. But some how there may be a way in which to use ICTY funds without getting bogged down in the question of recognition.
For example, couldn't President Milosevic use ICTY funds to pay for translations of documents ?
Couldn't President Milosevic use ICTY funds to pay for 3rd parties (selected by him) interviews of experts ?
Couldn't President Milosevic use ICTY funds for making xerox copies, photgraphs, charts, etc ?
Surely there are ways of using the vast financial resources in specific ways which would benefit the presentation of President Milosevic's position.
President Milosevic has already recognized the ICTY to some degree by speaking at the ICTY hearings
AP V
NY
NY - Saturday August 23, 2003 at 7:59 am
Which documentation - other than the ICTY Trial Transcripts and similar material available to anyone - would allow mr. Jared Israel to work in the "understanding" that President Milosevic "has refused to accept money from the Tribunal"?It is well known, widely understood and has to be respected of course that mr. Milosevic does not employ "councel" (of whatever name or designation) in this "false tribunal" at The Hague. But as stated by mr. Israel (August 22, 2003 at 10:16 pm) that doesn't mean that the President wants no help; neither can it be denied, that a series of problems such as i.a. the mounting threat of complete isolation from his closest associates are of a scope and nature, which over and above public reaction would require the assistance of trained lawyers.
Such services must be provided by way of a consistent network, which does not in any way constitute recognition that the President "is in a *legal* body."
Isn't both the SLOBODA/Freedom Association and the ICDSM exactly to be seen as component parts of such a network?
Aren't the multitude of people, who are - and hopefully will be continuing to do their best in supporting mr. Milosevic's struggle to bring out the truth about, say, the NATO agression against the FRY, - entitled to feel that by way of this network they are somehow "in contact with" mr. Milosevic?
If so: What does Jared Israel exactly mean by suggesting that "he is not in contact with President Milosevic", - when alledgedly Mr. Christopher Black visited the President in the prison at The Hague less than a year ago?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Saturday August 23, 2003 at 8:23 am
Bloody BlairThe “blood price” that Blair declared he was prepared to pay continues to be paid but not of course by Blair. The myth provided by the BBC that US troops are paying a larger blood price in Iraq is not entirely true. At least ten in ten thousand of Britain’s occupying troops have been killed in the past three months since the declared end of the war but less than 5 in every ten thousand US troops.
We have here the same pattern of blood and lies as in Kosovo: where Blair and the BBC supported a KLA invasion that still terrorises that region. In Kosovo it is not Blair or even British troops that pay Blair’s “blood price” but Serb civilians especially women and children.
Just how many dead and mangled people is Chief Toady Blair and NEW LABOUR responsible for in Serbia and Iraq and to what purpose: apart that is from the millions of barrels of Basra light crude being shipped out of Iraq every week by Anglo/US oil companies at hugely discounted prices?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Saturday August 23, 2003 at 12:11 pm
EFFICIENT METHODS FOR INTERNATIONAL DONATIONS TO THE DEFENSEThe importance of providing info facilitating donations to Sloboda cannot be overstated. Godfred, in particular, has done a great job by repeatedly relaying this info. Here is a link to the message from Sloboda providing up to date instructions for efficient donations, which was reprinted by Godfred. See also the important links therein.
Pythagoras C
Greece - Saturday August 23, 2003 at 2:05 pm
Jared Israel,The claim that no moral criticism or personal attack had been launched by you and your consorts on Clark and Vergès prior to your last bile-letting is just another laughable addition to the parade of lies. The Emperor of E-C would be the first to cry foul and claim an attack upon his moral character if he was branded an agent of the U.S. government and the ICTY (without proof), a nazi apologist, etc.
Let’s just review your concrete claims and my concrete counter-claims, just so we’re all on the same page. You and your consorts claim:
1. that in his talk at the National Press Club, Ramsey Clark falsely “posed” as Milosevic’s lawyer
2. that Clark’s an agent of the U.S. gov’t and ICTY
3. that Vergès falsely “posed” as Milosevic’s counsel before the ICTY in the Deutsche Welle interview excerpt that your website presents us with, and that furthermore this segment proves he claimed to have been excluded from the courtroom because he was Milosevic’s counsel before the ICTY.
4. that, and to quote you verbatim:
Apart from his Yugoslav attorneys, the only lawyer who has done legal work for Slobodan Milosevic is Nico Steijnen. He has brought cases before the Dutch and European courts.
Nico Varkevisser & Jared Israel, 8/17/03, http://emperors-clothes.com/verges/notlawyer.htm#december
My concrete counter-claims were and are:
1. that (A) is a pure lie, and that this lie is conclusively established to be a lie upon viewing the Clark presentation at the NPC, the entirety of which is available in .ram clip at the C-Span website. In fact, even the transcribed excerpt which you use as your “smoking gun” proves that you’re lying.
2. that B is a charge which you and your witless handmaiden Wilcoxson offer up without a scintilla of proof, and, as a letter I linked folks to pointed out, uses the idiotic formulation that since Clark once worked in a high instance of the U.S. gov’t, he must still be an agent for it, a “reasoning” which would lead to the same conclusions about William Blum, Philip Agee, Daniel Ellsberg, and John Stockwell, among others. And since you affect such indignation at us beating up on poor Andy, who’s never “personally attacked” anyone and just toils all the livelong day for the cause of the Truth and the Serbs, it’s perhaps worth quoting him on the matter, addressing Vlada:
You want an organization that spies on the U.S. Government's political opposition to control the ICDSM.
The U.S. Government bombed your country and killed your people, and now you're trying to hand Milosevic's defense committee over to them.… < p> I do not believe that Ramsey Clark can be trusted. I think that Ramsey Clark is still an American agent.
If Ramsey Clark did indeed have a change of heart, the U.S. Government would have had him killed long ago.
first “Open Letter,” put out by AW on the internet, in order that it might go forth and multiply, and without any proof furnished of the underlined charges, though note Andy’s curious idea of the “smoking gun” at the end - Clark hasn’t been killed yet.
When your tireless fighter for the Truth made the sleazy insinuation that the press release of Varkevisser’s which I posted was a forgery, you knew that was wrong, and that the reproduced document was entirely genuine, but you let his phony insinuation pass in silence, hoping it wouldn’t be challenged, b/c it doesn’t buttress your claim that no lawyers have ever done anything on Milosevic’s behalf except the ones you like. And then he claimed to have “proven” that I was Chris Black, which just goes to show that if you think you’ve found a latter-day Clarence Darrow for a sidekick, you’re woefully mistaken.
3. that ( C ) is a lie and again, as with (A), the transcribed segment you serve up as the “smoking gun” proves you’re lying.
4. That (D) is contradicted by numerous statements made by you and/or Varkevisser, and/or which have appeared or still appear at your own websites (both E-C and the ICDSM one you’ve hijacked), in which latter case you’ve been a little remiss in your airbrushing, and here are some examples:
At President Milosevic's request, in mid-December the ICDSM sent a delegation to The Hague. However, the meeting was denied by the Tribunal after we were told it would be accepted. Two reasons were given.
The first reason, claimed the Tribunal, was that Ramsey Clark had visited President Milosevic the day before, and in the opinion of Tribunal officials, this sufficed. ICDSM Attorney Tiphaine Dickson spent a week at The Hague trying to reverse this ruling; President Milosevic protested as well; but all to no avail.
Nico Varkevisser, 4/3/03, http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/press4-3.htm, http://www.icdsm.com/more/press4-3.htm
By order of President Slobodan Milosevic, on December 20, 2001, a 140-page provisional application was filed at the European Court of Human Rights by a team of lawyers: Mr. N.M.P. Steijnen, the Netherlands, Mr. Chr. Black, Canada, Prof. Mr. A. Bernardini, Italy, Mr. Z. Tomanovic, Yugoslavia, Prof. Mr. M.N. Kouzenetzov, Russia, Mr. Jaq. Verges, France, Mr. D.M. Ognjanovic, Yugoslavia. ...
In this delicate phase of the European Court procedure the puppet-tribunal has further intensified its interference. It has banned Mr. Christopher Black from any communication with President Slobodan Milosevic and has, without explanation, refused Mr. N. Steijnen further access to President Milosevic. Other members of President Milosevic's team of legal advisers are limited to very rare contacts ...
President Milosevic's team of lawyers has officially informed the European Court that since our work has been blocked by the puppet tribunal's interference...
Nico Varkevisser's email of 2/7/02 press release of ICDSM, forwarded widely onto the internet, in order that it might go forth and multiply, etc. eg: http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg86903.html
On August 22, Milosevic's Chief Attorney, Chris Black, was told by a Hague Tribunal (sic!) official, whom we will protect with anonymity, that on his birthday President Milosevic received a stack of letters and telegrams two thirds of a meter (two feet) high.
letter exhorting people to send letters of support to Pres. Milosevic, signed by the following: Nico Varkevisser, Jared Israel, Klaus Hartmann, Ian Johnson, Nestor Gorojovsky, Mikhail Kuznecov, Aldo Bernardini, http://www.icdsm.com/more/20th.htm
Christopher Black: Chris Black is a political lawyer. He defends those who have been unjustly attacked as part of the geopolitical machinations of Great Powers. Chris lives in Toronto, Canada, but he spends much of his time away from home. He was part of the group of lawyers who, in the fall of 1999, brought War Crimes charges against leaders of the NATO countries for the murderous terror bombing of Yugoslavia, from the end of March until June, 1999. These charges were brought before the ICTY - the 'The Hague Tribunal' - which demonstrated its servile relationship to NATO by refusing to hold a trial. Chris is the Chairman of the Legal Committee of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic. He has done much work since President Milosevic was kidnapped and taken to The Hague, meeting with Milosevic and his support committee, the ICDSM, and speaking to the press.
bio entry for Chris Black formerly posted at Emperor's-Clothes, http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg81073.html
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has asked Quebec Attorney Tiphaine Dickson, Nico Varkevisser and me (Jared Israel) to meet with him to discuss strategy at Scheveningen Prison at The Hague. (Nico Varkevisser and I are going in our capacity as Vice-Chairpersons of the Int'l Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, or ICDSM, which has retained Attorney Dickson.) Jared Israel, 12/12/02, http://www.tenc.net/milo/dijkman1.htm
Below is a photo image of the fax sent by The Hague Tribunal, denying the visit by a delegation from the International Committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic, as requested by President Milosevic. The delegation was to have included the ICDSM's Attorney, Tiphaine Dickson. Attorney Dickson spent a week at The Hague trying to reverse this ruling, but despite President Milosevic's protest, the Tribunal refused to grant this basic right.
Jared Israel, 4/9/03, http://www.tenc.net/milo/fax.htm
The following report is from Attorney Tiphaine Dickson, retained by the Int'l Committee to Defend Slobodan Milsoevic, and writing from The Hague. A full report on the ICDSM delegation will be forthcoming.
Jared Israel, 12/18/02, introductory comments to "Preliminary Legal Remarks Of ICDSM Attorney Ms. Tiphaine Dickson, Present Today At The Hague," http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/report1218.htm
The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) Working Committee has considered and accepted the preliminary report presented by Christopher Black, after his week long mission in Belgrade. ...
During the week of June 11, Attorney Black was in Belgrade on behalf of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Miloshevich. His goal: to determine the facts concerning the arrest and detention of Mr. Miloshevich and to report his conclusions to the ICDSM and to the public.
Report adopted unanimously by ICDSM working committee, 6/17/01, as posted on Jared Israel's Emperor's-Clothes website, 6/22/01, http://emperors-clothes.com/petition/black.htm
I note the disparagement you reserve for lawyers (and others) who “only” manifest “political” support for Milosevic by your (floating) definition, but your own support for him, such as it is (even when it’s being diminished by co-habiting a website where you defend Sharon and Irgun), falls entirely into this category, and you seem to esteem it much more highly, and expect the costs incurred to be reimbursed, while others should be doing everything gratis. I have little doubt that numerous people have done lots of things gratis and swallowed lots of costs, incl Chris Black and Vlada, but I’ll bet a dollar to a dinar that that doesn’t apply to you, and hopefully the books will be opened soon for a full investigation of the matter. When lawyers like Black and Jacobs field questions and speak eloquently about the nature of the ICTY and the Milosevic case on major media outlets (as I’ve heard them do in Canada, as I’ve watched them and read them, etc) this is declared nothing by you, just “preening for the cameras,” but when you run your gob before the microphones (as I’ve heard you do, incl on a radio program where you made an embarrassing spectacle of yourself, and pulled the .ram link to it from your website shortly thereafter), it’s vital education for the masses, and of the highest calibre, and not to be missed, etc.
You like to slag IAC but you were happy to accept their hospitality and be a presenter at their Nato War Crimes tribunal. Your presentation was a minor but competent one among many others, which didn’t stop you from bringing your own camera crew there and turning out a video about it which casts you as the central figure of the whole thing, which is roughly as accurate as claiming that Polly the Parrot was the main star of the Jack Benny Program. But this little monument to your grotesque messianic complex just renders all the more plausible to yours truly Chris Black’s account of your conduct at that press conference. The IAC was a very, very lonely presence on the North American left denouncing and exposing Western and U.S. intervention in Yugoslavia, and in Bosnia in particular in the early ‘90’s, long before there even was an Emperor’s-Clothes and Jared Israel was amusing himself with who knows what - maybe smoking his old SDS placards or something - and they worked with and participated and helped organize events with scholars like Barry Lituchy and the late Sean Gervasi, and Buchenwald survivor John Ranz of the Serbian-Jewish Friendship Association. This is all a matter of record.
And let me say why I believe every word of Chris Black’s account of how you fraudulently double-debited his credit card w/out his authorization. In early 2001 two English-language petitions began circulating on the internet, one before the house arrest of Milosevic in Dedinje and another after, I believe, on your website. You signed both of them, but only posted the later one (originated by you and/or your “editors” at your website). You didn’t post the other, but made a “conditional offer” to post it if you were given carte blanche to re-write it, after it had already garnered 100’s of signatures. Re-writing a petition which 100’s of people have already signed has all the ethicality of changing the amount on a cheque after somebody else has signed it, without asking them first. It’s fraud, Mr. Israel, and something else which is fraudulent was your rewriting of articles submitted to you and the posting of them under the authors’ names at E-C without their approval, and despite their protests, which you’ve done repeatedly. You have the idea that this is an act of “editorial prerogative,” perversely likening yourself to the managing editor at a newspaper who edits the copy of his paid stringers, but it’s just tampering with the intellectual property of others, and again, it’s fraud. And so, I find that a person showing such a clear proclivity for fraud would do what Chris Black said you did. (and I couldn’t figure out from your welter of bile btw whether you were confirming or denying having committed this specific act).
P WP
Bas Canada - Saturday August 23, 2003 at 2:23 pm
Dear AP V et alThere are two problems with the ICTY and funding of the defense for Milosevic. The first, of course,is that since he does not have lawyers apointed by the Tribunal he is not, under their legal aid scheme regulations, entitled to any such funds.
Secondly, none of the political prisoners at either the Hague Tribunal or the Rwanda Tribunal who are represented by counsel, are provided with more than a token amount for investigators, travel, experts and the like.
It is the general view of all defense counsel before both tribunals that defense counsel are appointed for one puropse only; to legitimize these illegal tribunals. The US which in reality controls everything at both tribunals, is not the least bit interested in assisting the defense counsel in preparing full asnwer and defense. In fact they have engaged in a series of manoeuvres over the years, which have only gotten worse the last six months, to obstruct the work of defense counsel, even to the extent of trying to defame defense counsel as a group by charging them with corruption and, in the case of the Rwanda Tribunal, of accusing them of being linked "genocidaires".
At the Rwanda tribunal there has been on-again, off-again, talk of a strike by defense counsel to get the world to pay attention.
This results in an ethical dilemma. Should we remain and help legitimize these illegal, fascist, tribunals or should we leave? This has been discussed at length. The view of the prisoners and most counsel at this point is that we must stay as we are the only means they have of getting the true history of events on record and of speaking for them publicly.
But in no sense of the word are these trials fair. Funding is inadequate and often paid many months after it was needed. Every investigation project by a defense team has to be "approved" by the Registrar so that the tribunal in fact controls what we can and cannot do. Lawyers and investigators have gone unpaid for up to 12 months at a time.
Funding for experts is so little that it is difficult to even find an expert willing to take these cases. In fact, ADAD, the defense lawyers association for the Rwanda Tribunal met with the UN Security Council 5th committee (the committee in charge of administration and financing for the tribunals) in February and a report written by myself was ent to them afterwards in which it was stated that the defenses were a sham, that we were being deliberately obstructed, and that in view of the totally political nature of the charges, the Tribunals should be closed down immediately.
In the case of President Milosevic, there are no public funds avaialble to him or to the two Yugoslav lawyers who are dedicated to assisting him on a daily basis. The legal committee, consisting of Prof. Mikhail Kuznetzov in Moscow, Prof. Hans Paech in Berlin, Prof. Bim Singh in New Delhi, Prof. Aldo Bernadini in Rome, Prof. Andre Tremblay in Montreal, lawyers Ramsey Clark, David Jacobs, Tiphained Dickson, Nico Stejnen, Jacques Verges, and myself was set up in order to provide what advice we could and to alert the world to the truth about the legality of the proceedings at the Tribunal. It is necessarily a loose group, composed of definite and strong personalities, as is usual among lawyers, and it suffers form all the strenghts and faults of such committees. Certain members have been more active from time to time than others, and there have been differences of opinion in the normal course. Further, since all of us have heavy commitments with other cases in order to try to make a living (all our endeavours for President Milosevic are pro bono) our availability and capacity to assist varies from month to month. We welcome any and all assistance from lawyers and jurists in providing whatever assistance they can and, of course funds to help fiance the work of the dedicated counsel sloggin it out with President Milosevic in The Hague on a daily basis, Misha and Zdenko.
President Milosevic is a politcal hostage. All the prisoners at the Hague tribunal are political hostages. The prisoners of the Rwanda Tribunal are politicla hostages held by the US as an example of what will happen to Africans fi they resist. Talk of having fair trials in these circumstances is fruitless. These are show trials. Our stuggle is to tell the world that these prisoners are held hostage as an example to the world of the power of the new world order and like all fascist instituions they ust be resisted.
Christopher Black Legal Committee ICDSM
Christopher Black
Toronto
Canada - Saturday August 23, 2003 at 2:57 pm
Saying that Ramsey Clark should not be co-chairman of the ICDSM because three years ago I watched him beat his dog would be a personal attack: ad hominem. I would be trying to *discredit the person* in an area unrelated to the issue at hand, which in this case is our charge that Ramsey Clark works for the U.S. government to put a pro-Islamist agenda in control of opposition to US policy and that he and his forces are a Trojan horse who have betrayed Milosevic. That has nothing to do with his treatment of dogs, or whether he is rude or shoplifts.
Attacking Ramsey Clark's actions e.g., at The Hague Tribunal - to show that he functions as a traitor - is not ad hominem because it is evidence of the central issue.
It is because Chris Black and his anonymous supporters cannot answer our charges about Ramsey Clark and Jacques Verges that they turn to personal smears against me. As the joke goes, "We have no case, abuse the witness!"
Now, since I have been accused of repulsive personal flaws I have a perfect right, morally and logically, to question the *motives* of the smearer. Chris Black has made himself a *witness* against my person whose claims are supported only by his credibility and that of his allies. So it is not a personal attack to ask: is Christopher Black an honest person? Or does he play both sides of the issue (as I have shown earlier regarding his first email, agreeing with our criticisms of Clark and accusing Clark of unprofessional conduct in the Rwanda Tribunal - and his second email, threatening to sue Andy Wilcoxson for criticizing Ramsey Clark and Vladimir Krsljanin.)
There is overwhelming evidence that Christopher Black lied when he claimed that he and others helped Nico Steijnen prepare the Milosevic case before the European court. Nico Steijnen sent a public email commenting on the first published proposal by the clique led by Vladimir Krsljanin and including, it now seems, Christopher Black, to take over the ICDSM. Despite Christopher Black's claim that he and Verges and Ramsey Clark gave Steijnen so much help, Steijnen accuses them of a) doing nothing b) refusing even to answer his messages and c) publicly claiming credit for the case.
COMMENTS BY NICO STEIJNEN
I only will comment on the question of legal defense, since all the other questions are irrelevant to me.
1. I am waiting now already a couple of years for some ICDSM-support for my legal work on behalf of President Milosevic. What may I expect from the ICDSM in the next future on this issue ?
2. Mind you that there is a big difference between legal action against the human rights violations of Mr. Milosevic and participation on the organisation of his defense case before the tribunal.
So what should be our priority now ? We cannot do all, overstretch ourselves only in solemn declarations and perform nothing at all. We should set priorities.
3. For all legal work a good communication with Mr. Tomanovic and Ognjanovic is needed. This communication doesn''t work at all, till now.
4. There is, with regard to cooperation in the field of legal action, no communication with Ramsey Clarke and Verges. They only make statements, but do not react on appeals for co-operation.
5. They claim both, periodically, in public statements to do legal work for Mr. Milosevic, but in fact they do nothing at all, else than, occasionally, usurp the work that I have done on his behalf, before the European Court of Human Rights.
6. We don''t need new national branches, doubtless politically tied up to some agendas. The only thing we need now is a tough legal working group of skilled people, acting politically independent, dedidated to the legal defense of mr. Milosevic.
(And, besides since it is not my field, a profesionally operating fund raising organisation, that is able to sell Mr. Milosevic' struggle, all over the world, as a project, worth to support financially.)
I am sure that this is all completely in line with the expectations of Mr. Milosevic himself.
best regards,
Nico Steijnen
Jared Israel
USA- Saturday August 23, 2003 at 3:30 pm
HTML Correction
Hopefully- Saturday August 23, 2003 at 4:20 pm
To all participant of this discussion: I think that we should return to issues regarding trial, primarily to what evidence there is to sustain accusations, which can also effect future BiH lawsuit against SCG. I am sure that Milosevic is smart enough to play this "game" to the end including deciding on the help he needs. To Jared and Blake: Both of you have done a wonderful job on discrediting ICTY. Do not allow that stories, insinuations and quarrel destroy your goal which in essence I think is the same: bring out the truth about ICTY and war in Yugoslavia.
Dakic Ana
Serbia- Saturday August 23, 2003 at 5:34 pm
Global genocideIt's called The Service-Members Protection Act.
It is the official response to the threatening creation of the International Criminal Court.
The law prevents the arrest, trial, or imprisonment of American military and allied personnel, "especially when they are stationed or deployed around the world to protect the vital national interests of the United States."
It authorizes the President "to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the[ir] release."
It sets no limit on the use of these means.
Given the experience of history and present reality, this would allow for the invasion of Holland. If the judges of the International Criminal Court behave badly, it would be legally possible for the United States to send troops to The Hague to liberate other soldiers who had fallen into their hands. By Eduardo Galeano
This reminds me of the infamous Nuremberg Laws and regulations including such gems as:
Law for the protection of German Blood and Honor
The purpose of these laws was to establish a legal framework to justify the German State’s murder of Jews.
Do you see the same principle at work ‘Law for the protection of US Blood and Honor’ which enables the US and its allies to slaughter Serbs, Iraqis and whoever else they might choose with impunity.
In contrast the Belgrade authorities, under duress from the US Administration and to save further embarrassment from kidnappings, pass laws to justify shipping their own citizens off to The Hague! Could anything be more preposterous?
We live in extremely dangerous times. Then there was a Churchill in Britain to oppose the creators of these viscous laws of prejudice. Today we have only a Blair and New Labour to appease them.
We should not confuse law with justice: justice requires truth and impartiality: likewise just laws. The US will not allow the trial of its servicemen for the murder of thousands of civilians in Iraq let alone its President: So much then for the fairness of the ICTY Trial of Milosevic.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Saturday August 23, 2003 at 5:35 pm
Chris Blackwould it be possible write up your comments on the funding issue in a form suitable for posting on the web ? This topic could generate a fair amount of interest.
Ii it my understanding that experts called by the OTP ( ie Prof. Budding and the Librarian Riedelmeyer) have recieved "normal and customary" per diems, yet experts called on befhalf of those imprisoned do not ?
Do you have any insight exactly what the OTP considers 'normal and customary' for the likes of Budding & Riedelmeyer ?
Thanks
AP V
soon to be at JFK
NY- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 1:06 am
Dakic Ana, on your posting August 23, 2003 at 4:20 pm:There may be no reason why this forum should not continually discuss also "what evidence there is to sustain accusations" etc., - while at the same time resolving questions concerning the organisation and funding of legal assistance to mr. Milosevic.
The latter aspects could hardly be said to have been given too much consideration over time? While it will certainly not be possible to raise funds needed for "the defence" unless an organisational framework for a joint effort in the interest of justice and freedom is in fact both operational and convincingly presented as such, much headway has been only very recently made, I believe.
The picture is still incomplete. No doubt the "trial discussion" may well - but should not be allowed to - go on "for ever". Maybe you could attempt to review what is (in your opinion) still "missing" with respect to "BiH"?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 10:44 am
Peter Taylor,Thks for the horrific information re: The Service-Members Protection Act . The comparision with Law for the protection of German Blood and Honor is apt.
AP V
NY
NY- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 11:15 am
Milosevic Denies Links to Murder of His Rival
Sun Aug 24, 8:03 AM ET
BELGRADE (Reuters) - In an open letter to a newspaper Sunday ex-Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic denied links to the murder of his ally-turned-foe in 2000 and the attempted assassination of a political opponent in 1999.
From behind bars at the U.N. war crimes detention unit in The Hague, Milosevic said Belgrade authorities accused him of domestic crimes to make his defense against genocide and war crimes charges before the tribunal more difficult.
Earlier this month, he refused to talk to two Serb investigators who traveled to The Hague to question him about the murder of former Serbian President Ivan Stambolic and the attempted murder of then main opposition leader Vuk Draskovic.
Milosevic said he would only give a statement on camera or if it was made public after the investigation was completed. Both requests were turned down and he refused to talk.
"In March 2001, they falsely accused me, only to have me arrested and extradited to The Hague. Now, in 2003, they are doing the same thing," Milosevic said in the letter carried by the Sunday edition of Vecernje Novosti Daily.
"This time the reason is to try to save this false court from an obvious debacle. Now they are terrorizing my wife and son, only because of my struggle here in the tribunal," Milosevic wrote.
The daily did not say how it got the letter. A Belgrade lawyer close to the case said Milosevic had two legal ways of sending it -- by mail or telephone. "But bear in mind that all his communications are monitored by the court," he told Reuters.
Stambolic, once close to Milosevic, broke with him in 1987 and withdrew from politics. He disappeared in August 2000 and his body was found buried near Belgrade in a police dragnet following the murder of Serb reformist Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic on March 12.
Draskovic was the target of a staged car crash in October 1999 that killed four of his associates. He suffered minor injuries. Another attempt on his life was made in Budva, a Montenegrin sea resort he went to after the first one.
Police also want to talk to Milosevic's wife Mirjana Markovic and their son Marko. Both have left the country and arrest warrants have been issued for them. They are believed to be hiding in an ex-Soviet republic.
Milosevic is standing trial for genocide and war crimes his forces are accused of committing in the 1990s wars in the Balkans. His trial, which began in February 2002, is to resume Monday after its summer recess.
END of Article
The letter is in Serbian and it was sent out by Mr. Krsljanin minutes ago.
Dan B
Canada- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 1:55 pm
Dear AP VI think it would be more worthwhile to publish my original draft of the submissions to the UN 5th committee on the general problems with these tribunals though that submission focuses on the Rwanda tribunal. Each tribunal does have some difference in policy and regulations. Getting into a particular imbalance in power is interesting but does not present the big picture. If you are interested I could send you a copy.
Christopher Black
Toronto
Canada- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 4:44 pm
Mr. Black....plse post a link to your submissions
ap v
ny
ny- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 6:27 pm
The Security Council of the United Nations has no legal right to create or mandate the creation of an international court, much less to legislate law.
That there is no higher legal body to overrule the Security Council is a colossal failure in the present international legal order.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 8:20 pm
I have nothing but respect for Christopher Black. I have up to now had nothing but respect for Jared Israel. Gogol can you make sense out of this pissing match between these two men. Gogol many of us on this forum are confused about the in-fighting. Can you shed some light on this mess?
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 8:46 pm
Walter,
I can only give you my very personal opinion but I can only do so privately since, I am sure you will understand we should try to keep this feud out of the discussion, not that I don't think the subject is relevant because all these defense committees are part, integral part of the whole drama, but never the less I rather keep it out of the main discussion.
My email addresse:
gogolc@hotmail.com
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 9:21 pm
24 August 2003 Mr. Vladimir Krsljanin: Two days ago we wrote you a personal email with questions regarding the following statement, which you issued publicly last week, under the title, "Joint Statement of the Board fo the ICDSM": "The Board of ICDSM informs that Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser are not members of ICDSM. They left the Committee, its goals and commitments in May-June 2003 by launching a series of reckless actions against it and its leading members, even misusing the name of President Milosevic. Their unauthorized misuse of the title, website and financial account of ICDSM to promote their fabricated allegations and distorted facts has to stop immediately, otherwise they should face moral and legal consequences." The statement, as quoted above, is slightly incomprehensible, but it appears you are saying the Board of the ICDSM has expelled us due to unstated actions in May and June. You, Mr. Krsljanin, are perfectly aware of the wishes of President Milosevic concerning the ICDSM. Apart from the fact that in general the President informed us and you that he wants cooperation, your statement, quoted above, is in obvious violation of his specific wishes regarding the leadership of the ICDSM. Since you have taken this action, in defiance of him, and based on the supposed decision of some "Board of the ICDSM," could you please answer publicly the questions you failed to answer privately. [Email sent to Krsljanin Friday 8-22 starts here] We received your email message stating that we have been expelled from the ICDSM by decision of the "Board". We ask you to answer the followings questions, which at this time we are raising with you by private email: 1) Who is in the this "Board"? 2) By whom were they elected? And when? 3) Was their alleged decision unanimous and if not, what was the vote? Who voted for it, against it and who abstained? Please respond within 48 hours so we can make this information available to President Milosevic. He, and of course all of us who feel linked to his struggle, need clear answers to these questions. Jared Israel Nico Varkevisser [Email sent to Krsljanin Friday 8-22 ends here] Mr. Krsljanin, if we are to take seriously your oft-repeated claim that you wish to defend President Milosevic, and since moreover you now also claim to lead the ICDSM, it is imperative that you at least act seriously. We await answers to the above questions. Jared Israel, Vice-Chairman, ICDSM, Webmaster ICDSM Website Nico Varkevisser, VIce Chairman and Spokesperson, ICDSM
Jared Israel
USA- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 9:25 pm
Mr. Vladimir Krsljanin:
Two days ago we wrote you a personal email with questions regarding the following statement, which you issued publicly last week, under the title, "Joint Statement of the Board fo the ICDSM":
"The Board of ICDSM informs that Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser are not members of ICDSM. They left the Committee, its goals and commitments in May-June 2003 by launching a series of reckless actions against it and its leading members, even misusing the name of President Milosevic. Their unauthorized misuse of the title, website and financial account of ICDSM to promote their fabricated allegations and distorted facts has to stop immediately, otherwise they should face moral and legal consequences."
The statement, as quoted above, is slightly incomprehensible, but it appears you are saying the Board of the ICDSM has expelled us due to unstated actions in May and June.
You, Mr. Krsljanin, are perfectly aware of the wishes of President Milosevic concerning the ICDSM. Apart from the fact that in general the President informed us and you that he wants cooperation, your statement, quoted above, is in obvious violation of his specific wishes regarding the leadership of the ICDSM. Since you have taken this action, in defiance of him, and based on the supposed decision of some "Board of the ICDSM," could you please answer publicly the questions you failed to answer privately.
[Email sent to Krsljanin Friday 8-22 starts here]
We received your email message stating that we have been expelled from the ICDSM by decision of the "Board". We ask you to answer the followings questions, which at this time we are raising with you by private email:
1) Who is in the this "Board"?
2) By whom were they elected? And when?
3) Was their alleged decision unanimous and if not, what was the vote? Who voted for it, against it and who abstained?
Please respond within 48 hours so we can make this information available to President Milosevic. He, and of course all of us who feel linked to his struggle, need clear answers to these questions.
Jared Israel Nico Varkevisser
[Email sent to Krsljanin Friday 8-22 ends here]
Mr. Krsljanin, if we are to take seriously your oft-repeated claim that you wish to defend President Milosevic, and since moreover you now also claim to lead the ICDSM, it is imperative that you at least act seriously. We await answers to the above questions.
Jared Israel, Vice-Chairman, ICDSM, Webmaster ICDSM Website Nico Varkevisser, Vice Chairman and Spokesperson, ICDSM
Jared Israel
USA- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 9:58 pm
Emperor's Clothes is pleased to announce a new section, Daily News on Yugoslavia , edited by the latest addition to our editorial board, Andy Wilcoxson.
This section, which is already up and running, will include: news reports, comments on news articles, editorials from various perspectives and links to articles already posted on Emperor's Clothes and elsewhere, and of course frequent reports on Slobodan Milosevic's struggle at The Hague.
Please write Andy at a_wilcoxson@ho9tmail.com if you have questions, suggestions for improvement, or material you think should be posted.
Jared Israel
USA- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 10:02 pm
Oops! I tried to set up Andy's email address as a hyperlink, but it didn't work. So, if you wish to send questions, suggestions for improvement, or material for posting on the new section of Emperor's Clothes, Daily News on Yugoslavia , please write Andy at a_wilcoxson@ho9tmail.com
Jared Israel
USA- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 10:04 pm
a_wilcoxson@hotmail.com
I had a "9" in the "hotmail.com". I need sleep.
Jared Israel
USA- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 10:38 pm
May I beg the members to avoid causing the "freeze out".With Fatal error on one can not read past it let alone post.
please avoid doing it.
D. Jovanovic
USA- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 11:00 pm
JI: if you're saying thata) double-debiting someone's credit card for a large amt of $ without their consent,
b) falsely portraying oneself in a vanity video as the centrepiece of a war crimes tribunal which one didn't organize and in which one had a bit part,
c) abusing the good faith of talented writers, journalists, and the like, who submit material to one expecting no $ in return, asking only that the integrality of what they wrote be posted under their name, by then re-writing their material and posting it without their consent and
d) proposing to fraudulently change the wording of a public and signed petition,
reflects repulsive personal flaws, then that's one thing we agree about.
As to the matter of credibility, there've been innumerable cases on this board and elsewhere on the 'net where we've had to decide which Jared and which Nico to believe. Do we believe the Jared who tells us one day that apart from his Yugoslav attorneys and Steijnen, no other lawyer ever wanted to do or did anything for Milosevic, that they callously shut the door, or needed "coddling", "pleading" to do even the smallest most meaningless thing, etc, or the Jared who tells onanother day that these unwanted interlopers are trying to force their legal attentions on an unwilling Milosevic? Which Jared to believe?
We run into this problem over and over again. Are we to believe the Jared who tells us that Chris Black was putting “pressure” on Milosevic to accept “counsel”, and publicly condemning Milosevic’s decision not to dignify the court by appointing counsel, in JI’s recent posts at Jurist this week and last? Eg:
“Hence the the pressure from the start with so many people visiting him, such as Mr. Black, pressing him to change his tune and, in some form, accept counsel. Or adivsers. Or counselors. Or lawyers. Or attorneys. Or *something* that would constitute hidden reccognition of the Tribunal.” - Jared Israel, Aug. 23, 2003
But then another Jared Israel wrote the following article about Chris Black’s summer 2001 visit to Milosevic, and this other Jaredsaid:
The trip [of Chris Black to visit Milosevic in the Hague]has received much coverage, some accurate, some not. Mr. Black said the 'Toronto Star' had entirely misquoted him, misrepresenting the reason for his trip to The Hague, making it sound as if he wanted to pressure President Milosevic. Said ChrisBlack:
"The Committee to Defend Milosevic and its lawyers have nothing but admiration for what Mr. Milsoevic did during his confrontation with the Tribunal and we are going to the Hague to help him any way he sees fit."
Jared Israel, 7/7/2001, posted at E-C and emailed out by Nico Varkevisser, in order that it might go forth and multiply, eg. http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.panix.com/msg23476.html
And this other Jared got pretty hoppin’ mad when the Toronto Star tried to “lie” about his friend Chris Black “pressuring” Milosevic to accept counsel, and wrote this righteously smokin’ reply to the posting of the Star article on Mile Antic’s e-list. Let’s hear this other Jared hold forth (warning: for mature viewers):
This is a f-ing lie - big surprise. Black did NOT say any of that to them. They make him like some ambulance chaser on a grand scale and contemptuous of Milosevic. He is furious about this article and I think he should sue the bastards.
What he said was: "President Milosevic has requested to see me to discuss legal matters. I fully support his legal strategy and I think he did a magnificent job at the Hague circus."
Jared Israel
Vice Chairman ICDSM, http://www.mail-archive.com/news@antic.org/msg00048.html
So which Jared are we to believe? Because the Jared just last quoted is claiming that what the other Jared wrote on Aug 23, 2003 is a “f-ing lie.” And I guess the other question this raises, Jared, is who should he be suing now?
We have the same problem about which Nico to believe. Should it be the Nico who wrote on Aug. 17, 2003 that: Apart from his Yugoslav attorneys, the only lawyer who has done legal work for Slobodan Milosevic is Nico Steijnen. He has brought cases before the Dutch and European courts. , http://emperors-clothes.com/verges/notlawyer.htm#december
Or should it be the other Nico who wrote, on April 3, 2003: At President Milosevic's request, in mid-December the ICDSM sent a delegation to The Hague. However, the meeting was denied by the Tribunal after we were told it would be accepted. Two reasons were given.
The first reason, claimed the Tribunal, was that Ramsey Clark had visited President Milosevic the day before, and in the opinion of Tribunal officials, this sufficed. ICDSM Attorney Tiphaine Dickson spent a week at The Hague trying to reverse this ruling; President Milosevic protested as well; but all to no avail.
Because one of those Nico’s is lying. …Or for that matter should we believe the Jared who reported: Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has asked Quebec Attorney Tiphaine Dickson, Nico Varkevisser and me (Jared Israel) to meet with him to discuss strategy at Scheveningen Prison at The Hague. (Nico Varkevisser and I are going in our capacity as Vice-Chairpersons of the Int'l Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, or ICDSM, which has retained Attorney Dickson.)
I don’t get the bit about ad hominem attacks. If you claim Clark’s an agent of the U.S. gov’t who’s spying on the peace movement and “posing” as Milosevic’s trial lawyer, without coming within a country mile of proving it - which is exactly the case here - then you’re defaming his character and you’d be saying the same were someone to do that to you. This was the point. If, rather than being called a defamer, you’re more comfortable just being called an incompetent hack journalist, then that’s ok with me, cuz you’re both really. Now, pointing out that even though you like slagging IAC, you also liked stuffing your gob with their food when they hosted you in Manhattan - now that might be ad hominem, for example, and it would of course also be true.
I’m only now starting to realize how hard it is to thread the needle as one of the lawyers on the committee, what with this drill sergeant and back seat lawyer Jared to answer to. Milosevic doesn’t want - never wanted - legal advice, but hey by the way, where’s all that legal advice we’ve been cooling our heels waiting for? Oh, and now what do you think you’re doing? Don’t “preen before the cameras” you guys, that’s muscling in on Jared’s racket! Can’t you see that?
Btw, it’s interesting to see that the “agents” and “spies” for the U.S. gov’t and the ICTY over at IAC are posting all the speeches at the Vidovdan demo in support of Milosevic, incl the ones Vlada’s been sending out by email and such, and incl the speeches of its founder and co-chairman Valkanov, vice-chairman Hartmann, etc. http://www.iacenter.org/hague_speeches.htm . None of this is at the icdsm.com website under Jaredian occupation, for some unexplained reason. Shortly before before the Vidovdan demo, Mr. Israel posted a letter of his at the icdsm site slagging the Vidovdan demo organizers, claiming they were acting irresponsibly and hadn’t secured a permit, hadn’t taken adequate account for safety, etc. Nice to see the whole thing proceeded with no cracked heads. That Jared letter, btw, just like the May 17th smear on Clark by Jared/Nico/Andy, disappeared from the icdsm site shortly after it was posted.
And I’m still awaiting an answer to my question about who authorized the attack on the ICDSM’s co-chairman on the ICSDM website on May 17th. Have I followed the wrong procedure here? Is there a form I need to fill out, or what (sir)?
P WP
Bas Canada- Sunday August 24, 2003 at 11:25 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with the ideas that Phytagoras laid out re the preferable media strategy of the ICDSM and the necessity of the mainstream media exposure. Of course, there’s the problem of funding, as Chris Black pointed out. Some participants have mentioned my name (thanks for the kind words, guys). From my part, I cannot do much more than I’m already doing, due to my own work, unfortunately. I can follow the “trial” and report about the testimonies given, but on quite an irregular basis, i.e. rarely day after day and more often only once a week or even fewer and far between. My reports, once posted here, are in the public domain and anybody is free to use them at will (edit, repost, translate…). Personally, I have no contacts within the Fourth Estate, but those who have could well try and use them.Mainstream media have the recurrent pattern of behaviour in following any given topic, particularly the strategic political events: first they are eager to follow their preordained instructions of preparing the field for what will happen, then they make sure that what’s happening is hammered into the heads of the general public the way it is supposed to be, then they gloat a bit that the events turned out as planned, and finally they grow weary and abandon the matter altogether, salivating already at something else. It leaves only those pitiful hacks of the NGOs such as CIJ and IWPR, directly paid their pittance to keep the flame smouldering and stinking. Meanwhile in the mainstream, the once fiercely defended “truths” are being abandoned and the constant trickle of totally opposite reports appears, but only in tiny drips and only after a considerable amount of time.
In this particular issue of the destruction of Yugoslavia (and its ultimate closing symbol, the Milosevic “trial”) the turn of the tide may look hopeless now, but it’s only the matter of time. Here’s a recent example of the drip-drip-drip pattern: the Financial Times article ‘EUROPE: Djindjic’s Assassins Had Inside Help‘ (search for it at www.ft.com). What amazed me there was not the disparaging tone used to describe our current rulers, but the way the article refers to Milosevic as ‘the former Yugoslav president ousted in a coup three years ago’. Now, you all remember how adamantly the western media used to claim that Kostunica won the elections and the vile Milosevic refused to acknowledge that, thus provoking the 5 October 2000, a peaceful revolution, a spontaneous uprising of the people. Look at the offhand reference of the FT to all that as ‘a coup’ (which indeed it was, and organized from abroad to boot). It took them 4 years to admit that, but they did it. And of course, they didn’t trumpet the fact, they just slipped it in casually as it was their view all along. Good old mainstream media, they do come around in the end, one has to be patient with them.
During this summer recess I was trying to read the transcripts of those testimonies that I missed seeing on TV (there are dozens of them, mostly the witnesses from the Kosovo stage). As I said before, my intention was to try to find the reliable, truthful testimonies, those most damning for the Accused. I failed miserably in finding any: each one was seriously flawed to some extent, either by the lack of the basic logic, or by clashing with another witness describing the same event, therefore amounting to perjury. It would be worthwhile to write a comparative analysis of some testimonies covering the same “crime sites” and compare them with the Indictment - I hope I’ll find the time to do that.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia- Monday August 25, 2003 at 7:39 am
Re.: The ICTY ban on SPS and SLOBODA/Freedom Association visits to mr. Milosevic:1) According to Rule 63(A) of the ICTY "Rules of detention" the detainees "shall be entitled to receive visits from family, friends and others, subject only to the provisions of Rule 66 and to such restrictions and supervision as the Commanding Officer, in consultation with the Registrar, may impose." Accordingly the Registrar in this respect acts as a consultant, - and not the decisionmaker!
- Is in fact then the ICTY Registrar at all entitled to decide "that it would be in the interests of good administration of the Detention Unit to deny until further notice any requests...for visits with mr. Milosevic at the Detention Unit" - as has mr. Holthuis apparently done? (Letter dated 12 August, 2003 to mr. Milosevic refers).
2) "Restrictions and supervision must be (deemed) necessary in the interests of either "the administration of justice" or "the security and good order of...the detention unit."
- However the less meaningful concept of "interests of good administration of the Detention Unit" as referred to by mr. Holthuis seems to be a very odd mixture (of these), probably made up just for the occasion...
3) According to Rule 63(B) of the ICTY "Rules of detention" and the similar Regulation 33(B) of the ICTY "Regulations to govern the supervision of visits to and communications with detainees" a permission for a (particular) visit may be denied "if the Registrar has reason to believe that the purpose of the visit is to obtain information which may be subsequently reported in the media."
- But there is no way such a rule can be construed "to deny until further notice any requests" for visits with mr. Milosevic!
4) What remains then is Rule 66 of the ICTY "Rules of detention" according to which the Registrar or, in cases of emergency, the Commanding Officer, may be requested "to prohibit, regulate or set conditions for contact between a detainee and any other person."
- Such a request however is to be made by the Prosecutor and on reasonable grounds, - none of which provisions are met in this particular case.
I would agree, that the ICTY rules do not prohibit that any information about the visit can be disclosed to the media! While permission may be denied if the Registrar has reason to believe that the purpose of the visit is to obtain information which may be subsequently reported in the media, it does not follow from a visitors reporting to the media that this was the purpose of the visit, - or the purpose of subsequent visits.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Monday August 25, 2003 at 10:22 am
More ‘Ugly Rumours’Two more child victims of Blair’s “humanitarian” intervention in Kosovo to add to the mounting thousands of civilian victims of KLA/Nato terror.
Announcing his intention to bomb Serbia Blair said “Its simply the right thing to do … Barbarity cannot be allowed to defeat justice … We must act for the sake of humanity and the future safety of our region and the world”
That was then now evidence from the Hutton enquiry reveals how Blairspeak is generated by Campbell, his Communications Director, to mask the frauds over Iraq: clearly this applies equally to Kosovo. The key phrase to be cemented in the public mind is “The right thing to do”
So now we have it“The right thing to do” is:
To support Islamic terrorism in Kosovo?
To tell massive lies of murder and rape against the Serbs?
To drop cluster bombs from three miles above civilian populations?
To fly bombs into public buildings: example cruise missile attacks on the RTS?
To form a Kosovo police service the KPC from a terror group the KLA?
To ignore the more than 6,000 thousand post-conflict attacks including up to three thousand murders, thousands more injuries, more than 100 damaged and destroyed religious sites, hundreds of thousands of sequestered properties … ?
To ignore the ethnic cleansing of a quarter of a million of Kosovo’s minority populations?
To indict President Milosevic for defending his country against a terror.
To attack Islamic terrorism in Iraq - er - have we got this right?But what more can one expect from a onetime wannabe pop idol and his onetime pornographer chief aide whose claims to power rely not upon principle and integrity in statesmanship but upon claptrap and presentation designed in part to dampen pants into thoughtless hysterical acquiescence and in part to stiffen the blind obedience of the other half of the halfwits who still support New Labour. Media hacks have the gall to laud this as democracy.
When will del Ponte do the “right thing” and put a stop to the source of this continuing violence by indicting the leaders of the KLA? History is watching and waiting to expose Blair’s “humanitarian” crimes against humanity.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Monday August 25, 2003 at 10:27 am
The pornographer
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Monday August 25, 2003 at 10:43 am
Bliar is nothing but a "snakes enchanter" now that he is up to his ears in his own horse manure lets wait and see if he is able to "charm" the British politicians and people one more time .
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama- Monday August 25, 2003 at 11:59 am
Dear A VPI do not have that 5th committee report posted anywhere. But I can send you a copy if you email me. My address is bar@idirect.com
Christopher Black
Toronto
Canada- Monday August 25, 2003 at 12:31 pm
The first Srebrenica witness testified against Milosevic today.For a synopsis of the day's proceedings goto:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg082503.htm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Monday August 25, 2003 at 1:51 pm
Does anyone here think that Milosevic's claim
that the massacre in Srebrenica was organized by French
secret service
seems a little acrobatic attempt?
Pokojni Toza
Republika Srpska- Monday August 25, 2003 at 3:21 pm
My dear "corpse" due that you are "pokojni" in politics there aren't surprises only "surprised" .
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama- Monday August 25, 2003 at 5:07 pm
One versiom and the
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Monday August 25, 2003 at 5:08 pm
One versiom and the
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Monday August 25, 2003 at 5:09 pm
. . . the other
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Monday August 25, 2003 at 5:40 pm
To: Andy WilcoxsonI am very sorry but I have sent your report to Associated Press(they have contact us email). If you don't want me to do it in the future let me know, but your report was to good to be missed. I think we should send reports every day.
Dakic Ana
Serbic- Monday August 25, 2003 at 8:47 pm
Dakic Ana,Don't be sorry, I want people to know the truth about what is happening at that fiasco in the Hague that's why I write those reports. Please, by all means, distribute them as much as you can. You absolutely have my blessings to do so. If you would like to you can include my e-mail address (webmaster@slobodan-milosevic.org) along with any of my reports that you send to the media so that they can contact me if they have questions.
Especially now when we are dealing with Srebrenica it is vital that people know the truth about what happened there.
Srebrenica is the key event that is used to demonize the Serbian people. The Muslim B-H authorities have used Srebrenica as a pretext to file a law suit against Yugoslavia for no less than genocide.
If we can finally get to the bottom of the Srebrenica tragedy we will have done not only the Serbian people a tremendous service, but also the Muslim victims of that heinous crime.
It is more than obvious that neither Preident Milosevic nor anybody else in Belgrade had anything to do with Srebrenica. It is also pretty clear that nobody in Pale, or the general staff of the VRS had anything to do with it either.
What we need to establish is who was responsible for the planning and execution of this horrible crime and what posessed the people responsible to do it. The lies surrounding this horrible event will not be allowed to stand unopposed.
Our lot in life is to prevent history from successfully recording a lie. We can't fail. We can't allow a single Serbian child to grow-up believing that the government his parents elected was responsible for the cold-blooded massacre of innocents at Srebrenica.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Monday August 25, 2003 at 11:52 pm
Mr Wilcoxson speaks of the "Muslim victims" at Srebrenica. Do you have no concern for the Serb victims? In addition It has always been the position of many people including Jared Israel, that there was no massacre at Srebrenica and that most of the Moslem men escaped to fight another day. That Moslems were killed in that place but many because of fighting between rival factions in the Moslem forces and some in fighting with Serbs. This is consistent with the failure of Nato to come up with the more than a couple of thousand bodies from all sides. So there is no little physical evidence of the alleged massacre. It is also consistent with the accounts given by Dutch marines who were there and said there was no massacre by the committed Serbs or at least they never saw any evidence of it.Do you hold the position that there was a massacre and that the Serbs did it? If so, on what evidence?
Christopher Black
Toronto
Canada - Saturday August 23, 2003 at 3:30 pm