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

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 12:01 am
  Kathryn, re Plavsic's implicating Milosevic, I've noticed a strange discrepancy between her verbal statement, given by her at the end of her hearing yesterday, and her alleged written statement (I've never managed to find that one published), which the media claim she had submitted together with her guilty plea and from which I've read only few lines quoted in the press, implicating by name Milosevic, Karadzic, Krajisnik, Karadzic and Mladic. Now, what she actually said in her verbal statement at the hearing, and which could be construed to have anything to do with these people (she never mentioned any names, but only used the phrase 'our leaders/leadership', and there were only 4 such references) was the following: 'our leadership of which I was the necessary part, led an effort which victimized countless innocent people'; 'how could our leaders and those who followed commit such acts? The answer is fear and the obsession that the Serbs would never again allow themselves to become victims. In this we in the leadership violated the basic duty of every human being - the duty to restrain oneself'. And now comes the quotation about her responsibility which is 'mine and mine alone' and the 'right of other leaders to defend themselves', which I quoted in my previous post. And then, after a long passage dedicated to St. Sava Temple, Bishop Artemije and the Christian virtue of self-restraint, she said that 'our leaders, including myself, abandoned this path' [of St. Sava]. And that's all she ever said about 'our leaders'. So, two things are clear: a) such a speech could not possibly have satisfied Carla, because nobody has been implicated in anything but a civil war 'which victimized countless innocent people', and b) Plavsic, who has always been quite religious, suffered a transformation into an overly-pious believer (you've seen the size of the cross around her neck?). Regarding that other phantom written statement, the mainstream media claim/quote the implication of all those names given above. I have one question: Why wasn't that other statement read by Plavsic?

  As for your question of why did she enter a guilty plea, I think it's a combination of factors, one of them certainly her resignation in front of the lynching mob; the others are her strong dislike of Milosevic and her overly religious state of mind. All that was combined with the Prosecution's relentless persuasion into testifying against others, from day one. This is something Carla openly admits, always adding that Plavsic proved to be exceptionally resilient in that matter ('she never co-operated, she's not co-operating'). Perhaps Plavsic decided to plead guilty in hope these demands would stop and she would be able to save at least some personal dignity. That's why this 'invisible' damning written statement was not read by her. But contrary to her expectations, Carla also said she's still hoping 'she will co-operate'. Carla wants complete humiliation, all-out personal testimony from Plavsic on every other big trial. Carla wants a case against Milosevic (which is currently non-existent). Blackmailing continues. But, for the common people in her country, Plavsic is already considered a traitor. A bit of a conversation I overheard yesterday in an open market: "And what is she still hoping for in life, being 72?!" A cruel judgement reserved for the undignified.

  The Prosecution has managed single-handedly to destroy their last witness before the holidays, the former Mayor of Dubrovnik Petar Poljanic. They did that with the help of the statements given to their investigators by their other witnesses, citizens of Dubrovnik. A stack of such written statements was included in that wagonload of paper that accompanies each in vivo witness, presumably to support his testimony; a copy of each is given to the troika and to the accused as well. My, did he make a good use of them!

  Poljanic started his examination-in-chief a week ago, and it was continued yesterday. Nice was not his usual alert self, he was slouching over his desk or heavily leaning on the book-stand (perhaps he was coming down with flu). With dry, uninspired questions he made Poljanic swim through the well-known media event of the unprovoked destruction of Dubrovnik by JNA between September and December 1991. According to Poljanic, Dubrovnik defenders had one small mortar, one anti-aircraft 20 mm cannon on a truck, '59 or 69 soldiers at the beginning, the number was rising later on' (but, Poljanic never actually said to what number did it rise). Furthermore, there were no foreign mercenaries, 'only one Dutchman'. Dubrovnik was showered with more than 15,000 shells, and 1,056 fell on the Old Town alone. There were many civilians killed; a list of dozen names was discussed. The delegation of the town met with the JNA officers on couple of occasions to negotiate and there were 'ultimatums' issued, which could not have been accepted, because 'we could not surrender the whole area', 'it would mean handing over these men', 'it would be all over for us'. They were determined to defend themselves; 'we were not in a position to provoke, they were the third or the fourth most powerful army in Europe'. Asked by Nice what was the political position of one of the officers he met, Poljanic answered 'he advocated the project of the Greater Serbia'. Poljanic also vaguely alluded that the Army itself killed its own Admiral Djurovic, for being in favour of the withdrawal from Dugrovnik. Nice was so distracted that, when reading from a UNESCO report, the following sentence came out: "The Town Mayor contacted Mr. Poljanic on a daily basis." Poljanic had to correct him by explaining that he himself was the Mayor of the Town of Dubrovnik, and the gentleman who contacted him on a daily basis was one Federico Mayor, the UNESCO representative. Except for one silly exaggeration, when he explained how he wrote a public protest against the shelling, which was sent to all relevant addresses before 6 December, and which was done in the nick of time, because 'on the 6 December such a destruction occurred, that it has been impossible even to write after that' (?!), Poljanic tried to remain within the limits of the well-publicised Dubrovnik story. He gave the impression of an extremely poised, well-educated man, an urbanite, a civilized war-time Mayor of the beautiful historic Pearl of the Adriatic, appalled by the savagery of the 'Serbo-Montenegrin army'. Perhaps only his stubborn avoidance of even mentioning words 'Yugoslavia', 'Yugoslav' or 'JNA' might have arisen suspicions that he could loose control, which was exactly what happened during the cross-examination.

  Then Milosevic had his 2.5 hours. It was interesting to watch how these two elderly gentlemen, even when they disagreed about something, did that in a most civilized, conciliatory way, smiling at each other, finishing each issue with 'but OK, if you say so'. Milosevic tried to establish what Serbia had to do with the movement for the restoration of the Republic of Dubrovnik and did anyone from Serbia participated in it; Poljanic said that nobody actually did, but it could be presumed that… but OK, let's leave it that way. When Milosevic read from the document on the initiative, quoting that the future Republic would co-operate with other bordering republics, he asked Poljanic whether Serbia actually borders Dubrovnik; Poljanic said that indeed Serbia wasn't bordering Dubrovnik then, but who knows maybe it could have…but OK, let's leave it that way. The same benevolent/mildly ironic smiles, even few laughs were abundant when the occasion of Milosevic's visit to Dubrovnik was mentioned: Poljanic tried to insinuate that indeed some people from Serbia came to the area without visiting him, 'including yourself'; Milosevic responded that he did visit Dubrovnik with his family for his summer holidays that year, that he 'loved to spend his summers in Dubrovnik', but he didn't feel it necessary to report to the local municipality authorities. Both men laughed almost friendly. However, benevolent smiles stopped soon, when Milosevic put to Poljanic that the JNA was within its rights to react to hostilities on its own territory in those months between Sept. and Dec 1991. Poljanic answered with a question: "Do you know that CRO declared its independence on 21 June 1991?" Milosevic said: "It is me who is asking questions here." May woke up, surprisingly: "Mr Poljanic, concentrate to answer the question." Milosevic then pointed out that it was an unconstitutional violent secession (as written even by Mr Cassese from ICTY) and that CRO was acknowledged only in mid 1992, reminding Poljanic that he is now in diplomatic service and should know about international relations. To the quotation from the Croatian 'June Charter', claiming the historical rights of CRO to include the territories of Boka Kotorska (Bay of Kotor) and Bosnia & Herzegovina, Poljanic stupidly answered that indeed 'there were some awkward/clumsy acts…' When faced with well-known fact of army barracks being blocked and attacked throughout CRO, he actually said: "This is not true, or rather, it is only partly true. The weapons from the Territorial Defence had been removed, so we had to get weapons somehow…"(?!) To a question why such a powerful army did not take over Dubrovnik, Poljanic said that 'this has remained an unanswered question; perhaps because the Army would lose a lot of its men'. By a handful of defenders?

  Poljanic was clearly loosing his grip, and the main issue was not even mentioned yet. He started to jump into questions before they were finished, driving translators crazy, so May had to intervene: "I know the temptation you have here, since you speak the same language." Milosevic was ironical, saying he believes they officially speak two different languages, Croatian and Serbian, which used to be Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian, later to be christened 'Croatian or Serbian' and now only either Croatian or Serbian; but it's actually the same language. Poor Poljanic, who obviously never mastered that Croatian neo-talk (a terrible, often ridiculous concoction of obsolete, Ustasha-period words and neologisms, which is being developed in CRO in order to remove it as far as possible from the 'Serbian language'), had to mutter that 'we did live together for a long time, that's why we understand each other'. The language matter came up once more, but for a more serious reason: Milosevic asked Poljanic did the town delegation bring an interpreter to their first negotiations with the Army, as could be seen from the list of names. He confirmed, but quipped it wasn't 'because of our two languages, but because of the 'blue boys'. [foreign observers]. Milosevic quite calmly said; "Well, this is exactly what I wanted you to confirm - you had an interpreter. It means the observers didn't appear by chance and saved you. [During his examination-in-chief, Poljanic described these first negotiations with the Army: over a hundred dangerous-looking soldiers kept the town delegation at gunpoint and could have killed them if there were not for the observers, who weren't expected for the meeting but came by chance and saved them.] Poljanic was totally confused, tried to save face somehow by saying 'I'll allow that, but anyway it's good that they did came and save us'; Milosevic was ruthless: "So, you've brought an interpreter by chance and they came by chance?"

  This all was just a warming-up; then the central issues were addressed and written statements were introduced and Nice had to summon his runaway concentration and jump up every five minutes to save what could be saved.

  [to be continued]
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 2:02 am
  Thank you Vera for your response to my question regarding Plavsic. Your opinions and your analysis are respected. I look forward to reading your posts.

  Walter you must not leave the forum, your posts have added so much. Some of my posts have been deleted and I just write it off as a mistake. I think it happens to all of us. Please keep posting.

  Djindjic is now urging the outgoing president to turn himself into the kangaroos.

  There is an article from Zagreb, Croatia regarding new textbooks. The conclusion drawn by Natasha Jovicich, the new director of the museum, at Jasenovac the concentration camp, operated by Croatia’s Ustashe during the Second World War, “they are teaching violence and intolerance.”

  The article is too long to post and so I have copied two excerpts as follows:

  -“ On the same page, there is a photograph of a yellow Star of David, and a caption saying, ’The Jews had to wear a special mark, the Star of David. This is a six-pointed star. It consists of two triangles, which symbolize the sky and the earth.‘ There is no mention of the discrimination suffered by those forced to wear the symbol“.

  The article states that the director feels the textbooks are contributing to the violence manifested by the young such as the following:

  A recent concert in the Croatian coastal town of Split, for example, attracted some 40,000 young people to the soccer stadium. Many of them wore the Ustashe insignia and waved Nazi flags.

  Would you wonder why the Serbs were traumatized by the Croats in the early 90s after what they suffered by them in the early 40s? The reason for posting this information is the testimony of Eli Wiesel in the hearing for the Bosnian Serb, Plavsic. Eli Wiesel was instrumental in excluding Serbs from the opening of the Holocaust Museum in the U.S. Tudjman was invited. What can you say about a man like Wiesel or maybe what I should say is what can you believe about a man like Wiesel? He seems to have concluded that Serbian and Palestinian lives have less value than Jewish lives.

  If you wish to read the article in its entirety you can do so by going to Serbian Unity Congress, News, December 19.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 4:00 am
  Some of my postings in answer to the anonymous person were removed too. They went into the group dynamics of this discussion, which I found a silly topic anyway. But I think I make some good points, so maybe I can recap them here.

  First, there is no practical difference between opposing the tribunal and supporting Milosevic. We all know he is getting convicted. So if the opponents of the tribunal are starting to speak in support of Milosevic, that is the tribunal's problem. Don't let the apparent discrepancy between these two groups fool you. I think most of the people on this planet would oppose the tribunal. The problem is that many people don't know what it is, or at least how it is working, and the official supporters of the tribunal are happy to keep it that way, judging by the way the trial is going.

  However, only a few take the logical step and start speaking out for Milosevic. Yes, I said "logical". The two issues are not separate. Everybody knows that it is the cornerstone of Milosevic's defense that the tribunal is illegal. Sometimes I have the feeling that he really knows what he is doing. With this simple opening he has most of the people behind him - at least in principle. It is a battle between him and the tribunal.

  Plavsic made a statement to the effect that the Serbs were overcompensating their fear of victrimization. Well, isn't that what the whole imbroglio in the Balkans is about? The Clinton administration was overcompensating the fears of victimization felt by some population groups represented in the government. To give this overcompensation a universal appeal, the old enemies joined hands and the Muslim-Jewish companionship was an established fact.

  About the group dynamics, let it be said that the Serbs and the Jews may feel just as threatened. This means that dissent within the group is punished harshly. However, how that dissent manifests itself takes quite opposite forms in the two cases. Dissent is deviation from the expected opinions held by the group as a whole. The difference is that non-Serbs are expected not to speak in favour of the Serbs. That is in line with the "official version" concerning the Serbs. On the other hand, non-Jews are expected not to speak against the Jews. That is now the "official version" concerning the Jews. So, in the Serb case, dissent results in convergence with the "official version", while in the Jewish case, it results in deviation from the "official version".

  And then there is the opposition between the diaspora and the Old Country. The diaspora seems more absolute in its opinions, and dissent is punished more harshly. The people in the Old Country don't have to adhere to a certain point of view or dogma to show themselves members of the group, so dissent is better tolerated among them.

  What complicates the Jewish-Muslim relations is the explotation of the Jewish or Muslim causes to advocate one's own interests. Muslims are supported by those liberals who are in rebellion against the authority above them, even the Muslim ideals are contary to the liberal ones. So this is a dangerous companionship. On the other hand, the Jewish cause is supported by those who want to be seen as the victims. On the whole, the Jewish cause is still better rooted in the West than the Muslim, which gives the alignment with the Jews a shortcut to respectability.

  The tricky part is when the Muslims and the Jews align themselves with each other. What did each party expect to gain from this? The Jews wanted a radical break with the common perception that the Jews set the established norms in the West. The Muslims wanted a part of that halo of victimization and Western respectability.

  So, if Plavsic said that the Serbs overcompensated their fear of victimization, show me some party which didn't. That was the whole drive between the self-inflicted injuries by the Muslims! The US administration wanted to eradicate victimization in toto, and they certainly overcompensated it. We notice another funny thing in the case of the Croats and the Muslims. These two groups have a repressive image in the Balkans. So this image was part of their victimization! In other words, these two groups have been victimized by their own repressive past! And they certainly overcompensated the victimization by becoming just as oppressive all over again.

  In retrospect it is hard to understand what made Bros. Bill and Tony act the way they did towards the Muslims. However, let us not forget the merits that these people do have. The Good Friday agreement has been a success. And paradoxically, that was Blair's biggest mistake. He thought that just because the KLA and the IRA are called "terrorists", they could be appeased with the same recipe: devolution. There is no need to point out the total bankruptcy of this thinking. So in this sense, Blair was certainly a catalyst for what happened in Kosovo. However, that doesn't explain the whole Balkans policy. The Good Friday agreement was concluded in 1998, and the US had been involved in the Balkans a few years before. Maybe the US was reacting to the terrorist threat it had even back then. You know, Osama bin Laden was active in the US years before the knock-down of the WTC. And to save you from another truism, I won't tell you that the terrorist threat should not have been tackled by courting the terrorists in the Balkans.

  Back to the trial. OK, now we know that they have moved from Baranja to Dubrovnik. More specifically, we the topic is the destruction of Dubrovnik from September to December 1991. This is what Annex II of the initial Croatia indictment is about: Civilian shelling deaths in and around Dubrovnik 1 October - 6 December 1991. The list contains 43 names, but in the trial they seem to have discussed some list containing only a dozen names! And anyway, even if it was 43 names, is that it? Maybe they have some truncated list with only a dozen names. Even if Annex II says it lists only civilian deaths, most of the victims were men of fighting age. There had to be defenders too in the cityh, otherwise, why would JNA keep shelling the town?

  And if civilians died, it is not necessarily the fault of the JNA. Even Art. 57(2)(c) of the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions provides: "Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit." If the shelling went on for three months, there surely was advance warning. However, probably the success of this shelling story was what inspired the Muslims to shell themselves in Sarajevo later.

  Let me digress a bit. Here is something to indict Nato. Even if that may prove difficult, I really do think we should put this Dubrovnik shelling in the proper perspective and see it against the "collateral damage" cause by the Nato bombing.

  I couldn't help noticing in the Additional Protocol I that Art. 57(2)(a)(iii) provides: "Refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life..." This could be used to condemn the incidental loss of civilian life caused by the Nato bombing. Of course, Nato knows that and decided to replace "incidental loss" with the neologism "collateral damage", those clever bastards. And the US hasn't ratified this Protocol anyway.

  By the same token, the same Protocol holds the key to the mystery of separating men from women. We saw this done in Srebrenica, where the women were put on the buses. The Protocal has a special chapter on Measures in Favour of Women and Children. Art. 76(1) provides: "Women shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected in particular against rape, forced prostitution and any other form of indecent assault." That would explain putting them on the buses. All you need is a change in your viewpoint.

  So much for the digress. What does the prosecution charge Milosevic with concerning Dubrovnik? The shelling of Dubrovnik is dealt with in the section § 73-76. It says (§ 75) that 43 civilians were killed, but I didn't find so many names in Annex II, although this paragraph says the names are there.

  And what made the shelling of Dubrovnik so bad? § 73 speaks of "execution of a military campaign directed at the city of Dubrovnik and its surroundings in order to achieve the forcible removal of its non-Serb population."

  However, in §69 the indictment makes this admission: "According to the 1991 census, the Croat and other non-Serb population of the Dubrovnik Republic was approximately 82 % Croats (58,836), 11 % others (7,818). The joint criminal enterprise did not achieve its goal of forcibly removing, deporting or killing the entire Croat and non-Serb population of the Dubrovnik Republic."

  So it seems the prosecution are mindreaders. This nebulous plan hardly justifies the twelve different charges in connection with the shelling of Dubrovnik. It seems these were not "attacks on civilians". And the counts 28 to 32, which have to do with "wanton destruction and plunder of private and public property" make sense only if the TV images are to be believed.

  And then there are the lesser crimes. We know that "the unlawful attacks on Dubrovnik" are regarded as persecution in § 36(g).

  The same persecution manifested itself as "the deliberate destruction of homes, other public and private property, cultural institutions, historic monuments and sacred sites of the Croat and other non-Serb population in Dubrovnik and its environs." This is said in § 36(l), as it hadn't already been mentioned in a different place.

  Now, the prosecution's case is the official version, and it will be tested against the official version, which is the prosecution's case. As long as the prosecution is sure to win with this circular reasoning, the indictment also sets the new standards in prosecutorial overkill: 12 charges in connection with an event with which the accused hardly had anything to do, and which didn't achieve its hypothetical objective even by the prosecution's own admission.

  Walter, don't go.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 5:29 am
  Readers of this forum will be interested in this link which exposes the dishonesty of the evidence given by the Mayor of Dubrovnik.

  Christopher Long is a pro-Croatian journalist who went to Dubrovnik in the company of the Serbophobic Ed Vulliamy.

  http://www.christopherlong.co.uk/pri.sladub.html#slavija

  From the London Evening Standard 13-11-1991

  What many journalists did not find in Dubrovnik was the widespread and deliberate destruction of the city as described by Croat propagandists. Certainly there was widespread destruction of houses in the suburbs and some collateral damage within the old city, but it was evident that the JNA had no intention of destroying a World Heritage site, as they easily could have done, when they hoped to acquire the lucrative tourist trap for themselves. However, Croat nationalists, well-schooled during World War ll in the fine art of propaganda, elaborately listed even the smallest damage to a few roof-tiles and played up every opportunity to demonise their enemy by greatly exaggerating the extent of the damage to Dubrovnik. Meanwhile nothing was said of their own wholesale destruction of Muslim historic monuments in Bosnia-Hercegovina!

  I hope Milosevic can use this.

  Merry Christmas to all the posters, keep up the good work.

  Gerard
  
  Gerard Killoran
  London
  UK

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 9:11 am
  Peter

  Maher went to Dubrovnik after the 'siege' was lifted and did a little snooping around. He videoed his trip and discovered very little damage, most of which was to the roof tiles...
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium ;)

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 11:48 am
  Walter

  Please stay, my education is far from over.

  MODERATOR

  WHAT GIVES, Why the need to censor Walter's posts? I may not agree with everything Walter writes, but I defend his right to post his views and my right to read,learn and debate.
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 12:34 pm
  Sometimes I wonder how the prosecution does/would feel if/when it reads the posts here. Do they feel proud that it takes such obsessive individuals as us so much trouble to get to the bottom of the prosecution's case? Do they recognize in us kindred spirits when we do decipher their case?

  I think our reactions to the OTP should influence how they should feel about us. Often when studying the British diplomacy I have that "you clever bastard" type of enjoyment of noticing that they managed to trick me. I guess that is the same kind of pleasure that you get from watching a magician do his tricks. But studying the prosecution's case has never, ever given me that kind of delight. My feelings would be closer to a hangover. This is so bad, this is so bad, this is so bad, from A to Z. So if I were to guess the feelings of the prosecution, I think they should feel ashamed. At the same time I wonder if they have even forgotten how to blush. I think it would take a backbone to blush. If they don't feel ashamed, they should be ashamed even more.

  Imagine me, the black sheep of the legal community, taking a look at that part of the Croatia indictment where it speaks of the Dubrovnik shelling. It doesn't take many minutes to see how to refute almost everything that has been said there. So I wonder how these things got into the indictment in the first place. I should think that the minimum requirement that the prosecution should fulfil is, first, to do some investigation concerning the exorbitant claims made by the parties. To my amazement I rather believe Gerard than the prosecution, when he says that the Croats listed every broken roof tile to add to the impression of wanton destruction. Do you think this is funny? Do you think this is how the prosecution should go about its business? What kind of investigation have they conducted, if any? If they didn't conduct any investigation, what the F have they been doing?

  And then this admission that the "joint criminal enterprise did not achieve its goal". Mamma mia! Well, I have talked about the idiocy of the "joint criminal enterprise". But how does the prosecution know what the goal of that enterprise was? Does it deduct the goal from all the things it didn't achieve? And so what if it didn't achieve its goal, even if there was one? Are you now demanding that the members of this joint criminal enterprise should be punished for an attempt? This is unbelievable! The Statute of the ICTY give a virtual carte blanche to the prosecution. The least we the people would expect from you is that you keep to the minimal requirements that are set in it. BUT NO! First you concoct a joint criminal enterprise, which is blatantly against the letter and spirit of Art. 7(1) of the Statute. Then you accuse it of an "attempt", without having the guts to spell it out of course. Show me where the word "attempt" is mentioned in the Statute! No? I will show you: Art. 4(3)(d): "attempt to commit genocide". Isn't that enough? What gives you the poetic licence to add any other "attempt" to the Statute, which you nincompoops should regard as sancrosanct? You morons. You idiots.

  I thought I was angry before, but this really does it. So I think Milosevic has chosen the right strategy. Yes, he gets convicted. By the morons. The question is how he does it. Yes, he gets convicted, but his case should be impeccable all the same. If he gets convicted with a clear-cut case in favour of him, he will have beaten the tribunal. You see, the tribunal will condemn itself by condemning him. And the more profound is their condemnation of him, the more profound is our, the people's, condemnation of the tribunal. And the real loser? The country, who mothered this crap, this incredible shit, and won't change its course because it is afraid of losing its "credibility". You morons.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 1:37 pm
  JURIST is not intentionally removing Mr. Trkla's posts. Some individual comments may have been removed in the process of cleaning up from anonymous posters and replies to same, but that is all.

  JURIST Moderator

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 1:48 pm
  The censoring of my posts started three weeks ago when someone used my name to bait Jari. I have no problem when the Moderator removed the fraudulent postings and provocateurs. I understand that this can trivialize the debate when we respond to people who post under a false identity. What concerns me is that four of my other posts were removed. Ian I felt that this was deliberate and out of my control so I felt as they say in the Balkans that I was “threshing empty straw”. In one of the posts I had criticized individuals who post under a pseudonym because this is fraud. We have been attempting to expose the fraud in this trial and yet some of us including myself have responded to fraudulent postings. I will not do that again.

  The posts that were censored dealt with American weapons of mass destruction in relationship to Iraq. The post dealing with ties to the KLA and Albania net by a pseudonym poster was deleted. My comments about Dubrovnik and Dr, Trifkovic and Mrs. Jatras were also deleted. Also comments on American weapons industries were deleted. Comments about American media and propaganda were deleted. Why is my question to the Moderator? I think I deserve an answer. You have my e-mail. Thank you.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 1:52 pm
  Moderator thank you for your answer.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 2:17 pm
  I'm sorry to hear about Mr Trkla was impersonated. Obviously some of my posts and their responses have been deleted and I thank Jari for going over that ground again... The reason I am posting here again is that I cant seem to get a response from the moderator. I have sent an email asking to be directed to the rules saying that one must give their 'real' name. So three requests. One to the moderator to respond to my mail. Secondly to the moderator insomuch as he/she doesnt respond not to remove this post until somebody here explains where the rules of the forum are located since I have struggled to find them. Thirdly of course to the users of the forum to direct me to the rules. This isnt the right place to debate such rules of course but making somebody give a name doesnt stop impersonations as Mr Tkla has shown. I myself dont have anything to hide but I simply wanted to defend the rights of those who prefered to be judged for their opinion rather than their background (assuming they tell the truth). Thanks to all. In any case I hope to be joining you soon.
  
  Another Anon
  Planet Earth

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 3:17 pm
  

  Jari,

  I think you are getting there. This might help:

  Charter of the International Military Tribunal

  Albright said it, "I wanted the spirit of Nüremberg to prevail . . ."
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 3:26 pm
  

  III. Statement of the Offense

  All the defendants, with divers other persons, during a period of years preceding 8 May 1945, participated as leaders, organizers, instigators, or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit, or which involved the commission of, Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, ....

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 4:23 pm
  

  A number of new interesting articles on the following page.

  http://www.icdsm.org/

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa, Canaa

• Friday December 20, 2002 at 10:43 pm
  I forgot to add to that list of probable reasons why Plavsic pleaded guilty also the following: she has been out of the public favour ever since 1997, when she opposed Karadzic and started to consort with Albright; later on she lost the elections and gradually was nearly forgotten and/or generally despised, while Karadzic is still very much beloved figure. So, her embitterment and overall sense of failure must have contributed to her wish for this last significant performance of a devout old lady. Still, she wanted to do that without complete humiliation and betrayal, that's why she only pleaded guilty of 'persecution', i.e. removal of non-Serb population and that's all she ever refers to in her in-court statement talking about 'an effort which victimised countless innocent people'. According to AFP report as reported by POLITIKA, the same applies to her famous written statement, submitted with her guilty plea on 2 Oct. 2002, which was kept secret, but now made public (as AFP claims, although I still can't find where; these are only few short sentences of second-hand reporting): [quote AFP] "Certain members of the Bosnian Serb leadership collaborated closely with Slobodan Milosevic in the conception and execution of the objective of ethnic separation by force," Plavsic says in her admission of guilt. "The two principal leaders of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic and Momcilo Krajisnik frequently went to Belgrade to consult with, take guidance from or arrange support from Milosevic in achieving this end." She also says that the army of the self-proclaimed Bosnian Serb republic during the 1992-95 Bosnian war was "financed and logistically supported" by Belgrade. [unquote AFP].

  In her short statement to our press before she embarked the plane for The Hague few days ago, she said that she didn't cut any deals with the Prosecution to testify against Milosevic or anybody else, because she 'wouldn't have anything to testify about' (?!). And speaking to the POLITIKA reporter on the very plane, she insisted to clarify the issue of her notorious statement: "If as much as six million Serbs were to get killed, there would be still six million left who will have their own State." This statement was at the root of her 'strong dislike of Milosevic', because it caused one of his rare public statements that he gave to the press as a reaction to something: few days after Plavsic held that infamous radio talk-show, he published a short statement in which he said, without mentioning names, that those who believe six million Serbs should die belong in the 'mental hospital'. After that, Plavsic wouldn't shake hands with him at the next official meeting. Now, on the plane taking her to The Hague, she claimed that she spoke about these 'six million' only in the way of quoting a young crippled Serbian soldier whom she visited at the hospital before that radio show. The reporter added that Plavsic did shake hands with Milosevic when she met him at Scheveningen. Well, I'm prone to agree with Albright here: indeed 'a very conflicted individual'. But the only way she will be remembered will not be her Christian invocation of repentance and turning the other cheek but her refusal to be blackmailed or her yielding to it. There is a beautiful line of poetry by Njegos: "U dobru je lako dobar biti / Na muci se poznaju junaci." The closest Anglo-Saxon equivalent would be: When the going gets tough, the tough get going. And my clumsy, un-poetical rendition would be: When all's well, it's easy to be good / In hardships the brave are recognized.

  Let's go back to Dubrovnik cross-examination report (I'm afraid the following will make Jari even more angry with our poor, fumbling Prosecution). Milosevic asked Poljanic whether he's aware that two Dubrovnik judges had investigated several dozens of cases of the Serb houses being demolished by explosive since the summer of 1991. Poljanic answered he was not aware of that. Milosevic claimed that more than 50 houses were demolished in the area of Cavtat alone. Poljanic hurried with 'it's not true' answer, but then he noticed Milosevic singled out one particular paper from the pile on his desk, so he quickly added: "I'm not aware of that." Milosevic said: "Very well. Here I have a statement from the Dubrovnik District Court judge Dragan Gajic, given to this here institution in November 2000." And he started to quote incidents of mining, hand-grenades, mostly when houses were empty, but few times some of the inhabitants got wounded, more than 50 Serb houses demolished between the summer of 1991 and 1992 … Poljanic tried to wiggle out stating that it was impossible for judges to investigate, while the JNA was keeping the area under occupation. Milosevic put in: "And what are we to do about the summer? Poljanic then tackled differently: "Perhaps that was the case of these unauthorized buildings?" [earlier on, Poljanic admitted he ordered some unauthorized erections to be removed] Milosevic: "But surely you didn't use hand-grenades to put down unauthorized erections? This is your judge giving his statement before this here institution." This same judge Gajic was furthermore quoted that he was ordered to release some criminals, who subsequently joined Croatian armed forces. Poljanic said he really didn't know about that, it's such a large municipality…And, anyways, 'I really don't believe this is true.' Milosevic: "I'm only quoting the statement I've received from the opposite side." This was the beginning.

  Milosevic reminded Poljanic that he claimed in his examination-in-chief a certain number of civilians got killed; but the truth was most of them were in Croatian uniforms. Poljanic got extremely upset, declared emphatically that 'not a single man got killed in uniform; in the list we have discussed here were 2 soldiers in civilian clothes, who came to the rescue of civilians shelled, that's all'. Milosevic tried to calm him, saying that 'it's unfortunate anybody got killed', and Poljanic agreed 'Sure, sure', thinking this is where the issue will end, but then Milosevic started to read some papers about the autopsy of 150 soldiers. He asked whether the name of one Dr Ciganovic is familiar to the witness. Poljanic confirmed. Milosevic said it was the autopsy official, assisted by one Ms Damira Poljanic, police photographer, 'a cousin of yours'. Baffled, Poljanic said: "I thought you were talking about your autopsies." What a revealing, Freudian slip of the tongue: he knows his forces killed many JNA soldiers, although he testified there was but a handful of defenders surrounded within the town, with one mortar and one cannon. You know, Jari, the Prosecution actually included in the documents also the autopsy reports of the Croatian side, revealing the autopsy of 150 Croatian soldiers! So much about only 43 civilians killed in the unprovoked shelling of the Pearl of the Adriatic. More like it, the Croats were engaged in a full-fledged 3-month battle against the JNA around Dubrovnik, where at least 150 of their soldiers got killed and exactly 158 Montenegrins, as claimed by Milosevic, who presented the list of names (most of the JNA units consisted of the Montenegrins, being the closest). That's why the suburbs of Dubrovnik got destroyed and the Croat units would simply retreat within the Old Town after each clash (an English journalist saw them, but that would be explained later on, when 2 videos are introduced). You know what was the comment of Poljanic to this 150 soldiers autopsy fact? He actually said: "Ah, if only just one got killed, it's one too many." Milosevic insisted: "This means that the JNA was exposed to sustained attacks?" Poljanic: "Well, not all the time were they sustained, but from time to time they were sustained." At that moment, Nice begun his jumping-up exercise: he tried to muddle the issue, 'explaining' this is a rather long statement that could be important, but also could burden the quantity of documents, and in short he is not opposed to it, but could it be tendered only a segment of it, although this would be out of context… Basically, he tried to ban their own document from the evidence! But, May surprisingly decided to accept this statement as a whole, being made by a professional. Take a note of that, this consists a precedent over which further battles would ensue.

  After this, more documents were pulled out of the stack made by the brave Prosecution, who didn't bother to comb out the paperwork for the undesirable traces. The next statement was by one Mr Simonovic, a citizen of Dubrovnik, who among other things, undoubtedly supportive to the Prosecution's case, also claimed that the Croatian military strongholds were deployed throughout the Old Town as well and he named 5 locations. Furthermore, the Croatian soldiers were heavily equipped with German rifles, Land Rovers and transporters; that they were breaking into houses, looting, even raping a woman. Poljanic was shocked, tried to deny everything, but Milosevic calmly informed him these are not his info, 'I also do not know that particular witness, but I've got all this from the opposite side here.' He proceeded to squeeze Poljanic: "You claim the JNA was not fired upon from the positions within the Old Town?" Poljanic: No! Milosevic read out from another statement by one Gajic about 'couple of dozens of shells fired on 6 Dec. early in the morning' [the provocation on the notorious day of 'destruction']. Obviously, these Dubrovnik characters blabbed too much in their statements. Poljanic blew the top: "Not even a single revolver bullet was fired then. It's a shameless lie! It was the greatest tragedy in the 2000-year long history…." Milosevic: "Please, do not get excited that much. Here I have yet another statement.." Poljanic: 'Is it again some Gajic bloke?!" Milosevic: "No, this one is from Simonovic." Poljanic lost all his poise: "Aaaa, it means another one just like him." Milosevic instructed him: "This is a witness of this here institution, just like you are, and you are free to judge the similarity between you two." From now on, Poljanic sat up, arms crossed, eyes tightly squeezed, measuring up each move of Milosevic, answering by pure instinct, not thinking anymore of the whole story, but only how to come out from the current question. Milosevic slammed the point even harder: "I'm just asking you the questions on the basis of the statements of witnesses such as you yourself are. Here is, for example, a statement from one Stipe Jelavic, a witness for this false indictment." [at that moment, an inspired TV frame was shown - Nice in a close-up, hurriedly reading the same statement, heavily sighing] This Jelavic guy stated there was a machine-gun nest on top of the St. Anne church in Brgat and in two WW2 bunkers. Poljanic allowed the possibility there was 'our army in Brgat' but not in the church. Jelavic even described how these units in Brgat were visited by a certain Croat military/paramilitary celebrity: 'Cengija came to survey the troops and to decide who is to be killed.' Poljanic stated: "Cengija is an honourable man."(?!)

  Robinson understood the enormity of what was going on and said to Milosevic: "These statements have a key importance for your defence and you should summon witnesses." Milosevic pointed out that he now speaks on behalf of the JNA, wrongfully accused here; this has nothing to do with him or Serbia. He proceeded to quote this Jelavic: an anti-aircraft gun was brought to Brgat, there were 6 other guns at 6 other points in the town, he even enclosed a drawing… Poljanic crumbled gradually: 'there was one cannon moving on a truck', 'maybe there were soldiers at the hotel', 'all these 6 locations are at Lapad', 'I was not in the Military Command, 'I accept it was so, but I wasn't aware of that'…

  Then, Kwon spoke to Milosevic: "Do you want all these statements to be tendered as exhibits?" May tried to gather some wool: "We shall hear your opinion, Mr Nice, whether witnesses should be summoned…" Nice again tried to muddle: "The general policy being not to admit them as exhibits, just to perhaps enlarge the passage quoted…" Kwon: "There are certain limitations regarding the statements given to the Prosecution. Are these statements accurate? [enigmatic oriental smile] Nice: "I shall not object, if you doubt the accuracy of these statements." Robinson: "It seems to me that now both of you are holding the same position regarding these statements." Nice: "I wasn't saying anything, I just mentioned the context; I don't mind if the Trial Chamber admits the statements, it's only the question of the weight that is to be attributed…" May: "We have already accepted one statement today, from a professional, thus we considered it to be truthful. Maybe Mr Kay might assist us after the cross-examination." Kay indeed assisted later on, practically leaving it to the judges; May said they will have to reconsider it; Kwon further troubled them by asking: "Are there any hindrances to the acceptance of these statements, particularly since they had been taken by the investigators?", and Kay pricked Nice: "The Prosecution, as far as I understood, is renouncing its objection." Finally, after conferring a bit, May announced they accept Jelavic statement as well, 'but this will not be a precedent in further procedure'. [again?] Well, Jari, what do you think?

  [to be continued]
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 12:00 am
  [continuation] After finishing his pleasant reading of the Prosecution's statements, Milosevic asked the technicians to please play two videos. One was a medley of Dubrovnik footage and the statements from some foreign journalists (I managed to write down the name of one Phil Davidson from the London Independent; there was also a former US Intelligence Service official, whose name escaped me, who spoke into the camera how the whole Dubrovnik story was a Croatian propaganda scam, how they cowardly attacked the JNA within Montenegro, then withdrew and proceeded with incursions from Dubrovnik, all the while spreading stories about the destruction of the town by heavy shelling. Davidson was a member of a large group of journalists invited to visit Dubrovnik in October, after the stories of 15,000 shells were spread by friendly Slovenian, Austrian and German press; he personally counted 15 small mortar traces; the town was in nearly pristine condition. He saw heavy machine-guns and soldiers within the town coming and going and during the night a heavy cannon was heard shooting from the rooftop of their hotel. When this video ended, May tried to dismiss it by asking: "What was it that we saw? We don't know who these people are." Silly Poljanic prevented him by saying: "Yes, I know even the day when this was filmed, I received these people in Dubrovnik. Yes, we made some loud noise earlier, although not a single shell fell on the Old Town before 23 Oct., but there were thousands of them that fell around the town; I picked up the journalists at the port myself, they came by sea and not through Konavli; they filmed the Old Town and sent that monstrosity to the world. Only after that the Old Town was terribly shelled." In other words, yes we did lie at first, but then we told the truth, please believe us.

  But, see how even this presumption of telling the truth the second time around was proven to be lie again. The second video played was the one filmed on 25 March 1992, only few short months after the 'greatest tragedy in the 2000-year long history' of Dubrovnik. This was made by the Professor of the Northeaster Illinois University, one John Peter Maher (yes, Alexei, the one you've pointed out in your post). It was a short home video, no sound, depicting the Old Town alone, walking slowly through its streets, showing every famous place and building - all nearly spotless, except for few shrapnel scars in pavement slabs, rails and walls. The only completely destroyed building, gutted by fire, was the library of the Serbian Orthodox church. To all that, Poljanic could only say that this gutted building is not the library, but a private house, that he doesn't know whether the library was actually burned down or by whom, and even if it was, he can 'guarantee with everything it could be guaranteed with' that the members of the ZNG (National Guard Units) didn't do it; and that an expert in architecture is expected to testify here soon, who will explain everything…[another one?] He again started to throw out numbers of shells from the 'official version' of the Dubrovnik story: 1,056 on the Old Town, 53 on the Franciscan Convent… When Milosevic asked him how come no buildings were destroyed with all those shells, Poljanic said: "Well, you know how solidly built these houses are, difficult to destroy, and densely packed, so they can not fall…"(?!)

  So, our brave witness finished shamefully. But, it was not over yet. Kay started his short questioning as the amicus curiae and focused it entirely on the first video. This was too painful a subject for Poljanic, so he started to answer quite rudely; I'm sure nobody so far spoke that way to Kay, not even May. [wow, rhymes & poetry!] When Kay put to him that those journalists alleged old tyres were burnt on purpose, in order to denigrate the Serbs and create the effect of the town burning, Poljanic exploded against Kay: "Well, let's finally agree and accept this truth that Dubrovnik was devastated as never before in its history!" Undeterred, Kay proceeded: "Were the guns placed on the rooftops, to provoke the reaction?" Poljanic, in a tone of impertinent biting, that could be used to address a street thug: "I don't know what you're talking about, which buildings, I don't understand the question, will you repeat?" Kay asked in his suave English utterances, perfectly unimpressed: "You've heard that journalist saying a heavy machine-gun had been placed on top of his hotel, in order to provoke reaction?" Poljanic: "It's nonsense, why would we do that, there's no logic… Kay: "In order to blame the Serbs and to create provocations?" Poljanic: "Bah, I don't understand any of this." I sincerely doubt such display of rudeness from Poljanic helped the Prosecution's case a bit.

  Nice then got the opportunity to ask few additional questions and he desperately sought to restore his crumbling case: "In regards the alleged connections with Serbia, could you please state these details?" But it was all in vain, Poljanic was shattered, still in his quarrelling mode, continued to answer in the same way as he did to Kay: "Bah, all that was connected to the programme of the Greater Serbia." [so much for details!] Nice: "Did anybody apologize, a President, perhaps?" [hint, hint, help the raging witness] Poljanic, totally lost, started to quote the song that the Lilliputian Montenegrin party sang at its rally in praise of Dubrovnik, but collected himself enough to remember that the President of Montenegro, noble mobster Djukanovic, indeed did apologize 'for the destruction of Dubrovnik'. Nice asked: "Do you remember whether he mentioned Serbia? If you don’t, I'll play the tape for you." Poljanic: "I don't remember, but play the tape for me and then I'll tell you."(?!) Nice, destroyed: "Some other time. Thank you."

  Then the discussion already described ensued, about the admissibility of statements. May also said they'll reconsider whether to admit these two tapes; 'maybe the one without sound could be accepted, and the other one, being with the comments, maybe will not be accepted'. Then the troika conferred, and announced to mark both videos for identification.

  I have addressed here only two segments of Milosevic's cross-examination: witness' statements and videos; but there were equally great lines regarding the Amnesty International reports and war editions of Dubrovnik local paper (read the transcript). Do you think that the Prosecution proved Dubrovnik had been devastated without provocation as never before in its history?
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 4:08 am
  The prosecution's "case" would make one angry, if Milosevic didn't know how to deal with it. Now he knows. The way to bait the prosecution is simply to let it speak. It makes a much better impression to beat the prosecution with the material it has supplies itself. Somehow we were lulled into thinking that if the prosecution shoves a stack of 10,000 pages before Milosevic's nose, the prosecution must have read all the material itself. Well, we have noticed before that it is not so, they get even more confused with their own documents than Milosevic. If Milosevic uses this advantage, he can approach the case more matter-of-factly and even convince the judges, as now seems to be happening. And this way, he will get the upperhand already in the cross-examination, without having to wait until it is the defense stage. The only danger might be that he is seen as being responsible for what the JNA did, if he defends the JNA.

  But that doesn't matter, because he is getting convicted anyway. And this is another minus that can be turned into a plus: he is getting convicted anyway. Those who want to get Milosevic convicted have their political reasons for it. Well, now that they get what they wanted, Milosevic has nothing more to lose, and it is the tribunal that comes under attack. Now everybody can join Milosevic in his attack on the tribunal, without having to worry about any political repercussions. He is going to stay behind bars, whether he wins or loses, so there will be no political repercussions. In this perspective, it might even prove harmful for his case, if he were released. Then he would be subjected to the political backbiting again, and the trial would be turned against him once more.

  As to the spirit of Nuremberg, Albright just doesn't get it, does she? We have all seen Neville Chamberlain waving the peace agreement he made with Hitler and saying that this piece of paper will guarantee peace. It was only afterwards that the civilized states noticed that they had made a mistake and that was when they resorted to the Nuremberg trials. But there were no peace deals with Milosevic. Well, there was, but even then the intention was to re-enact WW2 all over again: a worthless peace deal with a dictator, who will later get a trial. Only, this time the West knew in advance that the peace deal that they made in Dayton was worthless, and in as much as it wasn't, it was admitted to be a trap by John Shattuck. Is it unreasonable to argue that it was the West that made the peace deal in bad faith, just like Hitler had done before WW2?

  I find it amazing how obsessed some people are with WW2. And that way, they fall into the trap that they set for somebody else. What was the peace deal that was really made. Well, it was the policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. The thought was that if you give the Muslims what they want, peace in our time would be guaranteed. I doubt very much if the Muslims ever had the intention of keeping their part of the agreement.

  At least they have the excuse that they didn't give the West any paper to wave in public. And that is another mistake the West made. The war on Yugoslavia was a third mistake. The Milosevic trial is a fourth. The Albright testimony was a fifth, and so on. If the spirit of Nuremberg were to prevail, the West would put those who it tried to appease on trial. That way the West could at least hide the fact that the West was the sucker once again.

  And indeed, using "common plan or conspiracy" from the Nuremberg trial and renaming it "joint criminal enterprise" isn't exactly going to do the job, now is it?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 6:26 am
  

  Vera,

  The first tape Mr. Miosevic played was a section from Yugoslavia, the Avoidable War .

  The prosecution is getting really nervous now. Del Ponte gave a press conference Friday bitterly complainning about the Yugoslav government lack of co-operation .

  Judge May (NATO) clearly denied any extension to the prosecution beyond May 16 and that included the possibility of Mr. Milosevic mising time in court due to his sickness.

  Then, May 16, 2003 in the beauty of the spring, let the tulips of Holland flourish, let a thousand flowers bloom Mr. Milosevic will beging his case, his defence and I can assure you the troika will listen!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 8:44 am
  Vera I thought the following passage needs an explanation concerning names and surnames having in view those participants of this forum who are not familiar with the intricacies of the similarities and differencies between our ethnicities:

  (" Poljanic blew the top: "Not even a single revolver bullet was fired then. It's a shameless lie! It was the greatest tragedy in the 2000-year long history…." Milosevic: "Please, do not get excited that much. Here I have yet another statement.." Poljanic: 'Is it again some Gajic bloke?!" Milosevic: "No, this one is from Simonovic." Poljanic lost all his poise: "Aaaa, it means another one just like him." Milosevic instructed him: "This is a witness of this here institution, just like you are, and you are free to judge the similarity between you two.")

  Some names and surnames can be found in Croation as well as Serbian ethnicity but some of them are typical for only one of them. The latter are surnames Gajiæ and Simonoviæ, they are Serbian surnames. I thought that without knowing this the highlighted reaction of this witness cannot be clear.

  I have to add a note. If someone had told me 15 years ago that I would ever need to mediate this knowledge to anyone I would have said: not even in my worst nightmare. I am doing this only in case a similar exchange appears again.
  
  Jagoš Mirkoviæ
  Ljubljana
  Slovenia

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 8:50 am
  Peter,

  Thank you for the instruction concerning paragraphs. It works.
  
  Jagoš Mirkoviæ
  Ljubljana
  Slovenia

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 10:29 am
  Ms. Martinovic,

  I profoundly thank you for your reports from the Hague “trial”. Rather than reading always a week late, transcripts, you give us up to the minute concise reports of all critical items.

  The Dubrovnik testimony is of special interest because of all the places in Yugoslavia, this is the city the Foreigners remember the most. The overwhelming belief was that it was in ruins.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 10:35 am
  

  Jari,

  I don't think it is obsession with WW 2, it is policy since the victory of America brought her dominance while the USSR was a threat and now the USSR vanished America sees and pushes for her opportunity for global hegemony. Both things are the same and Lenin was right, he just did not give a time frame.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 10:40 am
  

  Soros Is Found Guilty in France on Charges of Insider Trading
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 12:00 pm
  Vera, why did they turn on Pavlic? Wasn’t she their “good guy” for a long time? When did they decide she was a war criminal? Articles after she lost the presidency stated that Nato was attempting a surprise arrest of her, in the early morning hours, at her home.

  Jari, Vera writes in her summary of the Dubrovnic testimony “Milosevic says he now speaks on behalf of the JNA, wrongfully accused, nothing to do with him or Serbia.” [I find that admirable.]

  Vera’s summarization of the daily events at the trial leaves me to believe that the prosecution must be very impressed with Milosevic’s brilliance as how could anyone deny it? Well....the media, of course, is paid to deny it but I have stopped reading lies along time ago. I am also impressed with Vera, I do not know how she does it.

  Today a caller to Cspan accused the media of being controlled by the Executive Branch of the Government. Seems the caller was or is unhappy about the new leader of the Senate, Bill Frist, whose father is the owner of an HMO that was previously fined, an enormous amount of money, for medicare fraud, and the media ignores the fact. That is our media!

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 2:03 pm
  

  Plutocrats, oligarcs, what else but America: remember General John Shalikashvily becoming Joint Chief of Staff while saying he did not know his father had been a major in Hitler's SS?

  So, his father lied when he applied to emigrate to the US back in the 50's and him son a teenager must have also lied, just a little filling that long form full of noughty questions . . .but he served the nation well and when he quit he joint the board of directors of Boeing.

  My, my . .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 2:26 pm
  

  And didn't you know General Clark the bomber of the Balkans had a nice relationship with General Shaliskashvily, and oh, I forgot, new revelations about Waco, yes Waco, General Clark was there and he directed the final asault (Army) against the compound!

  Their past, all these gentlemen past have something in common, something viceseral besides their connection with Nazi master spy chief in the East, also welcome in Amerika, general Gelend . . .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 2:48 pm
  

  More on self imposed censorship:

  Massacre in Afghanistan "I can't control myself," yes that is what Tapuskovic told judge May (NATO) about him getting excited and indignant: "You should supress it" answered May (NATO)

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 2:49 pm
  

  Correction
  
  G C
  USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 2:50 pm
  
  
  G C
  USA

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 3:43 pm
  I always saw myself as a Canadian from Yugoslavia of Serbian ethnicity and still do. In Canada more than in America one is treated as a foreigner because his name is not Smith or Jones. Names of early immigrants were changed by immigration officers or by the immigrant in order to accommodate the English speakers. For example when the Obilovic family emigrated the immigration officer, an Irishman, wrote their name as O’Bilovic and that is how they write their name today. The Serbs in Romania, Albania and Bulgaria have had to drop their Serb names of change the ending so in Romania “Markovic” becomes “Markovici”, in Bulgaria “Markov” while in Albania you didn’t dare use your last name if you were a Serb.

  When people ask me, “How do you spell thaaat?” or “What kind of name is thaaat?” I usually don’t tell them unless they had asked politely and than I just respond by saying “We are not all Jones and Smith and proceed to spell my name usually three times before they drop the “e” or the “u” between the “T” and the ‘r”. On the recent trip to Toronto I asked a Jamaican taxi driver where he was from, he responded by saying that this was a strange question to ask someone in Toronto since everyone there was from somewhere else.

  Mr. Mirkovic I hope you don’t mind if I explain the issue of the “NAMES” as Vera has more than enough on her plate. If I am wrong I am sure someone out in cyberspace will correct me. It is obvious that Mr. Poljanic’s sarcasm was directed at Gajic because that name is Serbian in origin while Simonovic and even Poljanic can be both a Croat and Serb name.

  Similarity between Serbian, Croatian and latter on Muslim names is found mostly in Krajina, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, south of Split. This region excluding the republic of Dubrovnik was populated by Serbs between the seventh and the twelfth century. On any map of the Balkans during the time of the Crusades it is very clear that Serbia extended just north of Mostar and the Neretva River. During the Great Schism in the twelfth century the Christendom was divided between Constantinople and Rome. The line of division went through the Serbian lands approximately where Sarajevo is located. East of the line came under the Greek influence while the west of this line fell under Roman influence. This is why both first and last names of the people of East and West Herzegovina are the same in 90% of the cases. Their language is identical more so than anywhere else in former Yugoslavia. Serbo-Croatian, the official literary language of Yugoslavia, is based on the language of Herzegovina. So the names like Kokotovic, Pavlovic, Komljenovic, Mirkovic and so on, and the first names like Ivan, Pero, Bozho, Mirko, Ljubo and so on are both Serb and Croat. Unless these persons tell you their religion or where they were born there is no way to tell them apart.

  As to Krajina, the Serbs came to this area after their defeat in the Battle at Kosovo. Some of these Serbs were catholicized and others remained Orthodox and that is why you will find similarities in names of people from this region.

  The coastal area around Dubrovnik was populated by Serbs between the seventh and ninth centuries. Many Serbs settled in the city of Dubrovnik and became its leading citizens. After the Schism there was continuous pressure from Rome and the Republic of Dubrovnik to catholicize this region. Even today many people in Konavle , just east of Dubrovnik, celebrate the family saints day which is an Orthodox tradition. The people around Mostar also have family saints but they have discontinued the “Slava” or the celebration some one hundred and fifty years ago.

  When the Muslims conquered Bosnia and Herzegovina many Serbs and Catholics converted to Islam. They islamicized their first names but in most cases they retained their family names. Today you will find many Muslims with names like Kokotovic, Pavlovic, Komljenovic, Mirkovic and Trklja. As I said before in one of my posts the Slavs had three choices: convert, pay tribute and if you chose not to you got the handjar and your head was impaled on a trklja that is if you were lucky, since most were impaled on the trklja through the anus to die a slow death.

  The burning of the library of the Orthodox Church in Dubrovnik was not an accident. It was done deliberately because this library had all the historical documents dating back to the arrival, in the seventh century, of the Serbian people in and around the Republic of Dubrovnik.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 5:30 pm
  Vera, When I was a little boy I believed the witches originate from stories or imagination...only. The thing became more interesting much later when I found out that it's the other way arround.They actually come from reality (and from there they were put into stories) ...Persons whose whole substance is made out of pure evil... .Must be quite some drive,such a negativity - spreading itself proportionaly to the amount of "whichesness" .To the chosen victims ,of course. Now ,what makes from a which a wicked which is actually on a first sight a perverse idea of expressing love to the victim. That can be twisted as well. In a way,it's s true love...without a victim the whole thing couldn't fulfill itself... Burning the library of the Ortodox Church in Dubrovnik just as destroyment of the monument in Jasenovac...same kinds of acts with the same purpose ... Jews have an important common element with Serbs - an experience of global demonization ( massively legalized through biased trials and condemnations).Does it remind you of anything ? They also know how does it feel to be massively hated without apparent reason. All of that, prior to most of differences pointed out over here.
  
  m. ciric
  netherlands

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 5:36 pm
  anybody,how to type a new paragraph ??
  
  m. ciric
  netherlands

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 5:43 pm
  The text that you type is displayed using browsers that understand HTML. Any HTML instructions you put in your text will behave properly. The HTML for new paragraph is <P>.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 7:33 pm
  Can you believe this? Is this real?

  BELGRADE, March 26 (Tanjug) - Five Serbs convicted of alleged war crimes in Croatia have been granted pardon by Croatian President Stjepan Mesic and will be released in a few days, head of the Veritas Documentation Center Savo Strbac told Tanjug.The five have already served the greatest part of their sentences, Veritas said.Among the five is Bogdan Banic, who was convicted for a war crime of killing pigs and horses owned by Croats. The court had observed that the owners were thus deprived of their livelihood and forced to seek work elsewhere, and thus ruled that the killing of livestock constituted "ethnic cleansing of civilian population", sentencing Banic to eight years.Veritas has from the start been convinced of the innocence of the convicts, and will continue to demand the release of remaining 100 Serbs convicted for similar "crimes", Strbac said.
  
  Ivko Rig
  Milan
  Italy

• Saturday December 21, 2002 at 7:39 pm
  Forgot the source.

  http://www.suc.org/news/yds/index.html?Suc_Session=4f6f7a89e9fb62f21392842b6b62075b
  
  Ivko Rig
  Milan
  Italy

• Sunday December 22, 2002 at 3:51 am
  List of Serb political prisonners convicted of 'War crimes' by Croatia http://www.veritas.org.yu/Spiskovi/zarobljeni/spisak_rz_en.htm These were convicted of civilian crimes (stepping on an ant?) http://www.veritas.org.yu/Spiskovi/zarobljeni/spisak_klk_en.htm General Web page of Veritas, concerned with Croat state human rights abuses against Serbs http://www.veritas.org.yu
  
  Igor Jaramaz
  Canada

• Sunday December 22, 2002 at 3:55 am
  Forgive me, my first time here

  List of Serb political prisonners convicted of 'War crimes' by Croatia

  
  
  Igor Jaramaz
  Canada

• Sunday December 22, 2002 at 4:10 am
  

  List of Serb political prisonners convicted of 'War crimes' by Croatia

  These were convicted of civilian crimes (stepping on an ant?)

  Veritas Foundation, dealing with Croat state sponsored human rights abuses against Serbs

  http://www.veritas.org.yu

  
  
  Igor Jaramaz
  Canada

• Sunday December 22, 2002 at 5:12 pm
  To mr. Trkla Just to add to your previous post; the oficial language in Croatia, was not Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian(although it was elswhere else in ex Yu; In Croatia the offical language in use was Croatian or Serbian, although Serbian was used as official language only in schools until grade 4 as a second language. (Not even in schools - the bilingual rights were only related to alphabet not the language - it was no officaial documents in Serbian language in Croatia; or I missed something) So since 1970 "Sabor's declaration about languages" the official language in Croatia was Croatian, with the exception I mentioned above, and all the political intentions about Croatian language were in fact followed by Tudjman's language declaration from 1968 and later followed by Savka and Tripalo what was justified by Constitutional law in 1974.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Sunday December 22, 2002 at 7:00 pm
  from J P Maher: 1. Susan L. Woodward. 1995. Balkan Tragedy. Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War. Washington: The Brookings Institution "An assault on Dubrovnik (beginning in early October), which was protected under the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), was particularly significant in creating antagonism toward Serbia and the Army: the Croatian government had calculated in using sharpshooters on the Dubrovnik walls to provoke a YPA attack on the city, knowing that Dubrovnik would attract more attention than the obscure city of Vukovar ..."_ 2. LIBRARY/ COLLECTION OF SERB ORTHODOX ICONS, DUBROVNIK: a haBSBURG PRINCESS WAS INVITED TO THE naTIONAL pRESS cLUB IN wASHINGOTN TO GIVE A SHOW: mY REPORTñ Francesca von Habsburg, Archduchess of Austria. "Restoration & Reconstruction of War-Damaged and Vandalized Art & Architecture in Dubrovnik, Croatia". Only some twenty souls were in attendance. The Archduchess apologized for stumbling over her script, drafted by an anonymous hand inexpert in English phraseology. Her Highness said Her Highness prefers to speak extemporaneously rather than reading. Touted as an art historian and founder of "ARCH," an organization to train restorators in former USSR and Yugoslavia, Her Highness mispronounced stele as a monosyllable, tantamount to catastrophe as trisyllabic. "I have nothing against the Serbian people, but..." Some of Her Highness's best friends are certainly Jews, too. Then, Her Highness went on: the good Serbs, 100,000 educated ones, have left Belgrade. Her Highness made repeated reference to "the Serbian National Army" [sic] and its "systematic" destruction of Croatian artistic heritage. Some 40 35mm slides were projected. The first one showed a damaged neo-Baroque building with a distinctly Orthodox cross. I asked "what kind of church is that?" Quoth Her Highness: "Catholic." Said I: "It's Orthodox; look at the cross. Any iconographer can see that." The audience was generally quiet then, but two shills and the moderator tried to hush me. The building was the Orthodox church of St. Nicholas in Mirkovci, the steeple shelled, iconostasis riddled with bullets, and the interior -- not shown -- dynamited in 1991. Despite the title of the talk, most of Her Highness's slides were not of Dubrovnik. Her Highness showed a slide apparently made from an old snapshot, showing herself as a girl with mother and father in Mostar, with parents. Her Highness observed that this slide was "reversed," indicating familiarity with this one, but she repeatedly said of art objects on other slides: "this is from a little town, I don't remember exactly." Regarding the old Turkish bridge at Mostar, Her Highness said it had been "burnt" down, I interjected: "it was a stone bridge. It was blown up, and not by the Serbs, by the Croats." Herself, with some irritation replied: "everyone knows it was destroyed by the Croatians." Her Highness remarked that many objets d'art were damaged not only by bad Serbs, but even more by poor conditions of storage in dank cellars. Apparently confusing her childhood tours to the Dead Sea and Death Valley with the plate tectonics of the region (Italy and the Alps rising, Dalmatia sinking, Her Highness explained to the audience [blessed are the meek] that "Dubrovnik was originally under sea level." For a finale Her Highness showed three slides, the ultimate and antepenultimate showing the shell of a two-level villa at Cilipi, near the airport. (Airports are seldom found inside the walls of medieval cities these days.) Between the exterior views of this villa Her Highness showed an interior shot of a gutted building. I requested Her Highness to show the last three slides again. "They're not the same building," I said. A couple people were hostile to this. Rattled, Her Highness ran through the last three slides again. I said "The villa in your pictures has two levels. The interior shot has five or six floors. This building housed a collection of Serbian Orthodox icons..." Some guests appeared able to count and note the mis-match. "We'll just have to agree to disagree," said Her Highness amicably. "I'll bet you a sixpack of Stiegl beer," I retorted jovially. ... ML 1) Née Thyssen-Bornemisza, (is the spelling on the the handout correct?) Her father is as avid an art collector as the late H. Goering. The name after the hyphen would appear to stem from the Hungarian for "teetotaler" bórnemissza (literally non (nem) drinker (issza) of wine (bór). 2) Evidenced by turns of phrase literally translated from German or Croatian and blended with the wrong turn in English: e.g. "blown up into thin air" (in die Luft gesprengt, u zrak dignut).'''' Professor Emeritus J. P. Mahr, Chicago
  
  john_peter maher
  Chicago IL
  USA

• Sunday December 22, 2002 at 7:35 pm
  Kathryn, re your question why did they turn on Plavsic, their 'good guy' for a long time: I usually don't go into guessing or assumptions, but this one is rather obvious, in my opinion. She became dispensable and available. No longer of any use to her Western sponsors (because even puppet figures have to have some local support), she was defenceless and with a tarnished past - an ideal tool for possibly nailing other, more substantial game.

  Yes, Jagos & Walter, you did hit the nail with your analysis of Croatian vs. Serbian surnames. The poised urbanite Poljanic is a rabid chauvinist. But, there was another, more 'prominent' presidential witness (actually, an insult for a presidential position, an insult for a human being) - Mesic. The man is a blatant racist. Check the transcript of 2 Oct. 2002, page 10730, when he was cross-examined. May [explaining a question by Milosevic]: "It's being put, Mr Mesic, that you're wrong when you say that the JNA was becoming Serb. In particular, two generals are referred to. Would you like to deal with that." Mesic: "I did not count anybody's blood cells or look at their chromosomes. Of course, no reaction in the media to this 'scientific' introduction of biology into a discourse about nations, and from such a public pulpit as the 'tribunal'. Talking about Senator Trent Lott!
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Sunday December 22, 2002 at 9:03 pm
  

  Elections in Montenegro failed. Apathy or dislike of the political plataforms ?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Sunday December 22, 2002 at 9:52 pm
  Pero the point that I wish to make has nothing to do with the nationalist view of language of Serbs and Croats. Croats have attempted to Germanize their language in order to show that, unlike the Serbs which they claim are Asiatic people, Croats are Indo European speakers. The Catholic priests who are proponents of this stupidity continue to write this nonsense.

  My point is that the literary language of the Serbs and the Croats was standardized in the 19th century by the Croat Ljudevit Gaj and the Serb Vuk Karadjic. This language was modeled on the Herzegovinan dialect. Whatever the Serbs or Croats may claim, today educated Serbs and Croats write using this standard language
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Sunday December 22, 2002 at 11:13 pm
  Considering that Croats lived for ten centuries under Hungarian and German cultural influence and that Serbs on the other hand lived under Turks for five centuries, it is absolutely amazing that the two languages have not diverged very much. I can read both languages with ease hardly noticing a word here and there which is different.

  The beautiful language of Simo Matavulj and Ivana Brlic Mazuranic are an example of pure Croatian language free of absurd contrived constructs which Croatian try to do nowadays.

  Origin of that is Hungarian effort to be different and “pure” Hungarian. Consider for instance that everywhere in the world the word POLICE is universal. Not in Hungary; they call it RENDORSHAG! I guess Croatian imitate calling the police “Redarstvo”. In conclusion Serbian and Croatian are VERY similar languages, if not the same. It is truly a pity that instead of striving toward better mutual understanding, Croatians are trying their utmost to diverge.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA