MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————

• discussion archive

• Monday December 22, 2003 at 5:16 pm
  When the Jurist discussion closes or is unavailable an alternative discussion is available on :

  http://disc.server.com/Indices/217548.html

  When the Jurist discussion closes or is unavailable an alternative discussion is available on :

  http://disc.server.com/Indices/217548.html
  
  
  

• Monday December 22, 2003 at 7:28 pm
  Welcome back JURIST I have missed you:)
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Monday December 22, 2003 at 7:36 pm
  Barely kicking. I thought you guys had been axed!
  
  Denis Peniss
  Angleterre

• Monday December 22, 2003 at 11:38 pm
  Welcome back all!
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 6:57 am
  Few, i though it would be gone forever! Too bad we mist the Clark show.
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 10:38 am
  But not much point if everyone has given up
  
  Denis Pennis
  Angleterre

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 10:43 am
  Ok I'll start:) Did anybody kept record as to how many secret witnesses were called by prosecutor and how many closed sessions were there. It would be good to make a bar graph out of it and compare it with Sloba statistics.
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 12:51 pm
  While the Jurist redacted the Milosevic Discussions during the testimony of the Perfumed Prince Wesley Clark they supplied their web page with all the articles courtesy of Google. The collection of articles from around the world which by the way the Jurist did not redact read “Wesley Clark Testifies that Milosevic knew about Srebrenica” This was also the nature of other reporting from the Media in Canada. There was not a single article in this Jurist collection titled “MILOSEVIC CALLS CLARK A LIAR”. Milosevic called Clark a liar not once but several times.

  If you want a summary of the Clark lies go to www.slobodan-milosevic.org

  One more time Mr. May showed his honorable self as a despicable excuse of a jurist. With every ruling he showed his legal incompetence or should I say servitude to his trainers.. With every question Mr. May protected the poor excuse of a military officer Wesley Clark who is responsible for grave breaches of international humanitarian law as NATO commander and who should be on trial rather than Slobodan Milosevic. History will see Clark and his testimony as “the mother of all lies”. It is understandable that this testimony should be so since it serves the interests of the mother and the father of the Tribunal, Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton who are now promoting baby Clark for the US presidency.

  The Tribunal is a sham since it is in breach of the UN principle of self- determination which the creation of the Tribunal denies to Yugoslavia. The UN Charter also states that nothing contained in the Charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. This fundamental principle has also been fatally undermined by the creation of the Tribunal.

  The most galling thing to me is how the rules of evidence are applied by Mr. May.. One example is “hearsay evidence” which Mr. May accepts from every witness but censors Milosevic if he should even be thinking of using such evidence. Wesley Clark in his testimony constantly premised his remarks “I have it from reliable sources”, “I was told by so and so”, “Albanians told me”, Albanians who saw over the border confined in me” and Mr. May accepted every word. When Milosevic accuses Clark of speech making, May responds “Were the witness to make speeches, he would be stopped, but he's not; he's answering the questions. This comment is made even when Clark reads a fifteen minutes campaign speech about his great leadership.

  Milosevic asks Clark “Now, General you were asked about Resolution 1199 (Which according to Clark authorized the use of force against Yu) we’ll deal with this and then we'll move on. The question is who said that you were authorized to use force in this Resolution that was mentioned or discussed in this meeting that you had with the accused? Clark responds “The content of the Resolution is a matter of public record, and I was following the instructions from NATO and from my government. Milosevic asks “And these instructions that you had from NATO and your government, are they in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, General Clark, and are they in accordance with international law?

  Well guess what they are not in accordance with international law so our dishonorable Mr. May comes in and does not allow Milosevic’s question with the words “You're going well beyond the bounds of the witness's evidence now. You've heard the explanation of why the threat was issued to you.

  Milosevic educates Mr. May when he reminds him “Do you know, Mr. May, that threats are also prohibited under the UN Charter, threats issued to states? In true form like a Pavlovian Dog Mr. May responds “No. Let us move on.”

  If by now you are not sickened by this Trial by reading the December 15th and 16th transcripts you will be sick for a month. America you deserve what you elect. Wesley Clark drips with slime. You deserve better.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops
  BC Canada

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 1:00 pm
  Albanians who saw over the border confined in me. This should read "confided in me". Boy these Albanians they can see through mountains.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops
  BC Canada

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 1:13 pm
  Hello everybody!

  Can anyone please post an email address of the manager of this Forum, ( Discussion group).

  I would very much like to express my displeasure that the Forum was off due to “technical difficulties” right at the time of Clark’s testimony and interrogation by Milosevic. Although it may have been indeed a technical trouble I find that to be a strange coincicidence.
  
  D. Jovanovic, physicist
  USA

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 2:11 pm
  Mr. Jovanovic I think this is the person you need to contac. JURIST Editor & Founder Professor Bernard Hibbitts University of Pittsburgh School of Law Hibbitts@law.pitt.edu
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops
  Canada

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 8:47 pm
  Tnak you Mr. Trkla
  
  D. Jovanovic, physicist
  USA

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 8:49 pm
  Sorry for hasty typing. Thank you Mr. Trkla
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 8:57 pm
  I have just finished reading Milosevic’s cross-examination of Clark. It can be read on:

  http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm

  It is worth reading just the opening few pages to see rather clearly the nature of the “Hague court” and in particular behavior of Mr. May.

  Milosevic is not allowed to ask Clark any questions about the war although most of that is public knowledge and can be found in Clark’s book or his interview with New Yorker magazine.
  
  D. Jovanovic, physicist
  USA

• Tuesday December 23, 2003 at 11:57 pm
  The recent technical difficulties have been fixed. Because they arose during the exam period here at the University of Pittsburgh, our resources for rectifying the situation were unavailable. Thank you for bearing with us during the recent unavailability.
  
  JURIST Moderator
  USA

• Wednesday December 24, 2003 at 12:01 am
  

  That's right! The "truth" is supposed to be out there, supposedly in the paid for and corportae owned media and crap books and stories like Clark's.

  In fact, it's everywhere except where the REAL TRUTH should be... in the ICTY!

  But that's not where May and Co want it so it seems until there's a change and a NEW New World Order is established we will have the REAL TRUTH censored by May and his masters.

  May's performance re Clark was nothing more than just plain embarassment!

  Even Mr Kay was clearly embarassed to the point where he cut sternly across May's interventions, putting May in his place. No doubt, May was NOT then going to treat Kay like he treated Tapuskovic.

  Maybe Kay is a higher level being as far as May is concerned?
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Wednesday December 24, 2003 at 12:49 am
  Wesley Clark claims that he had no knowledge of negotiations that went on before he came into the picture. He said I'm not the expert on the Owen and Stoltenberg talks. At the time I was not engaged in this issue, and I can't provide any direct testimony about it.” YOU WOULD THIKK THAT SOMEONE NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT TO THE BOSNIAN CONFLICT WOULD KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT NEGOTIATIONS THAT FAILED????? He continues by saying he had “no recollection of the details of the Serb position” but later he clearly names places such as Brcko Posavina and Banja Luka, names he seems to remember when it suits him.

  The complicity of the court in hiding evidence as David said was exposed by Mr. Key when he reminds Mr. May that Clark’s book was pulled at the last minute as evidence. Mr. Key tells Mr. May “And so in many respects, the accused has approached this witness from a particular way which it seems has been changed at a very late stage, and of course that has caused him difficulties with his case strategy. The court allowed it to be pulled so Clark would not be forced to answer for his crimes against the Serbian people.

  Mr. Key goes on and tells Mr. May “Yes. The history of it is quite important, because when we started with this witness and the Rule 70 issues, the book was served by the Prosecution {---} and there's been a situation where Rule 89(F) could have been used in relation to the book and that be the basis of the testimony.

  JURIST Moderator: It is interesting that all other sections of the Jurist Web page were functioning well during EXAM TIME. Milosevic section, for some reason, went bonkers at a convenient time. It is also interesting that the NEWS FROM GOOGLE on the trial that was posted on the Jurist had the same By Line. You did not have single article showing Clarke to be evasive, uninformed??? or should I say he was a perjurer.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops
  BC Canada

• Wednesday December 24, 2003 at 3:57 am
  That's right Walter

  Whenever the testimony of a witness is favourable to Milosevic it's discounted by ALL the media except for the supposedly incriminating parts which are pretty much discredited or destroyed in cross examination. Note how NOBODY mentioned Jovic's testimony despite the fact that Jovic was supposed to be a big fish, yet EVERYONE went for the Deronjic crap. Search Google as per the Jurist link and it's all there in glorious technicolour.

  Coincidence? I don't think so. Just goes to show how the show goes.
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Wednesday December 24, 2003 at 4:00 am
  The suppression of Clark's book and public statements was ordered by the court in the end. So what was there to hide, I ask you, Mr May?

  What was it in Clark's book that was so irrelevant that it didn't merit examination? The bullshit therein maybe?
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Wednesday December 24, 2003 at 1:45 pm
  Wesley"Guernica II"Clark's deposition is that but in an organic version also known as "guano" all he did is add more guano to the humungus pile at The Hague . there is fertilizer there to make flourish the Gobi and Sahara deserts together.
  
  M P
  Panama

• Wednesday December 24, 2003 at 1:48 pm
  Thanks mod. for a while I was afraid I was going to miss the greatest judicial mockery on earth . MARRY CHRISMAS TO ALL PARTICIPANTS EVEN TO THE AGNOSTICS
  
  M P
  Panama

• Wednesday December 24, 2003 at 4:39 pm
  

  MP Panama

  I wouldn't mind them fertilising with "guano" but the problem here is that they love to add "blood and bone" to their commercial projects.

  Usually other peoples blood and bone, not their own, as attested to by a whole lot of examples all over the world, YU being just one of them.
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Thursday December 25, 2003 at 10:42 am
  David, YU being just one of them,you're right - though they went quite far with that one...After agression and destruction,they didn't stop (or slowed down). They made it non-existing one,every single serb leader or anybody who might be on their way to fake or bend the facts (history management)ended up jailed.The planns for upcomming "events" are pretty much settled down as well,I'd say... This forum might be an interesting one for few of us here ,for someone reading it in 50 years or in the next century. So,it's got at least a double value. However,considering now and next half a century...very little can be done.
  
  milan c.
  netherlands

• Friday December 26, 2003 at 5:42 pm
  

  Hi folks!

  I was not able to enter the forum for all these days. What a surprise!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Friday December 26, 2003 at 5:44 pm
  

  I wonder how the farcical puppet show, a.k.a general Clark testimony went down in Serbia, how it will affect the outcome of the elections there.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Friday December 26, 2003 at 5:51 pm
  

  Also, Mr. Milosevic trial will resume January 12 and I assume the prosecution has not rested its case, so when is Mr, Milosevic due to begin his defense, if ever.

  The US and the Russian are in a jam at the UN SC disagreeing about how to end the ICTY: by 2004 all investigations are to end and by 2010 the old Nazi building in The Hague has to shut its doors. Interesting how the Rembouillet negotiations were conducted in another building with Nazi conections, NATO is never too far from Nazi memories.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Friday December 26, 2003 at 7:10 pm
  

  Gogol

  What's more likely to affect the elections is not Clark's testimony but Soros and US money (same thing!)

  And if that doesn't work again, there are still the sanctions and another helping of humanitarian assistance and "collateral damage" to free the Serbian people of "Milosevic's legacy".

  Now the "prosecution" has found another 250 tapes of Slobo's conversations with various people inclueding Mladic, Karadzic, Arkan, Legija and so on. These are all confirmed by yet ANOTHER SECRET WITNESS, B-1793, according to Radio Free Europe (another Soros type show)!

  No doubt, the trial of the 15 Zemun "gangsters" will implicate Milosevic in order to make sure the Serbs don't think he's a good guy and that what's happening in the Hague is the right thing.

  That's of course assuming that the 40 odd lawyers who walked out on the trial judge come back. Apparently the sessions were held behind glass partitions and the judge couldn't hear the hilarious uproar and laughter coming from the public. The judge went so overboard that it turned into a circus.

  Otherwise, they've taken a leaf out of the Hague book and they're going to have lots of secret witnesses and closed sessions too, just like in the Hague.

  Amazing how contagious democracy and justice can be, for a fistful of dollars!
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Friday December 26, 2003 at 7:16 pm
  

  By the way, stay tuned to Radio Free Europe, they're saying that they are going to BROADCAST some of the alleged tapes the so called prosecution has! Now there's a JOINT criminal enterprise in action for you! Seems like there aren't going to be any closed sessions when it comes to Radio Free Europe cooperation with the Hague.

  Maybe the Serbian govt could object on grounds of national interest and have them delayed and redacted like Clark's testimony because some of the people involved are also contesting elections in YU?

  FAT CHANCE OF THAT!
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Saturday December 27, 2003 at 12:38 am
  

  The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is now in session. Enter Judges, Prosecution and Milosevic.

  “You caused a humanitarian catastrophe, General Clark. You didn't save anyone.”

  This was a dramatic postscript for a bloody decade. Today it was a CNN truth about the Balkan wars, and once again it was on display here. It did not appear on CNN, but rather in a courtroom.

  NATO's former General Wesley Clark entered the courtroom with full confidence, with media being shut out, the public being kept in dark and Milosevic's cross-examination completely restricted, confidence was easy to obtain. Clark and Milosevic know each other very well. They met, talked and negotiated for over 100 hours. Clark testified that the former Yugoslav leader was the guiding force behind events in Yugoslavia. The heart of his testimony was Srebrenica and claimed that Milosevic knew in advance of the massacre in Srebrenica.

  You can read my full report on Clark at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047038/posts Please scroll down to the second posting, as I adjusted it for easier reading.
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Saturday December 27, 2003 at 7:08 am
  Gogol Its mistake to think that international events have much effect on election results in Serbia at the moment. Sure the Hague is an issue but for Radicals for example are trying to attract new and more supporters. They must moderate to be sure of first place.

  For the record Seselj's party will win but anybody can guess who will come second, third, fourth. If Seselj (party) did succeed to make them more moderate they might take votes from Kostunica. But there is also Draskovic / Ilic coalition on the right. I dont think SPS will do well but if they beat Draskovic and come close to fourth place vote they will be very happy.

  The result now is not so important. What is important is who is doing deals with who after election. Unless Radicals have enough votes with SPS the government will be combination of DS, DSS and G17.

  My vote will go to DSS or DS. G17 want to cut up the country for profit motive. DSS I dont respect so much because they dont really want power. They are afraid of responsibility and know if they come in power they will become unpopular. DS I would never vote for before because of Jovanovic and corrupt officials but its not clear to me whether vote for DS is vote for Tadic. Forces inside DS loyal with Jovanovic want to push Tadic out. I am afraid that if DS do badly those men will blame Tadic. They will blame him for being finally honest with the Serbian public in Neda Arneric afair. The truth is different - Zivkovic and Jovanovic are responsible for DS corruption, dishonesty and fall in voting for DS. That and economy is what voters dont like DS for.
  
  A Pasic
  yug

• Saturday December 27, 2003 at 7:52 am
  

  This ARTICLE in today's The New York TImes about the elections in Serbia and some other delicate details.

  Registration required.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday December 27, 2003 at 5:18 pm
  AS THE PRESIDENT SAID TO THE GENERAL...

  In Denmark our media - such as the daily POLITIKEN - were concluding from the 'Clark hearings' at The Hague last week, that "Milosevic knew everything", exercised an "extraordinary influence" even in Srpska (while he was the President of Serbia) and was in "absolute control of his generals", - the perfect head of some joint criminal enterprise, in fact!

  As kind of 'proof' of this being so POLITIKENs Lars Halskov specifically concentrated on the little private chat that Clark maintains having had with Milosevic during their very first meeting (in August 1995), - leading the President to suggest, that he "warned Mladic against doing this (or that at Srebrenica, you know! gl-j), but Mladic didn't listen" (thus making a striking exemption to the otherwise close control Milosevic was supposed to be exercising over "his generals".

  On the basis of the Trial Transcripts I have written a piece on these hearings yet to be published (in Danish), - as well as the below Letter to the Editor of the POLITIKEN, which tranlates thus:

  NATO LOOSING ITS CASE AT THE HAGUE!

  Wesley Clarks testimony, which was supposed to be a cornerstone in the Prosecution's case, is utterly useless; the former NATO-general didn't provide the Court with anything but his personal interpretation of (largely undocumented, one-on-one) chats with President Milosevic.

  Clark may not be lying excessively (1), but why would we have any confidence in him? Even if it were true that Milosevic at their first meeting some five weeks after the socalled "massacre at Srebrenica" said (to Clark) that he (Milosevic) had been "warning Mladic", that does not serve to show, (as POLITIKEN has it on 19. December, 2003), that "Milosevic knew everything," - or even that we are talking of a planned crime at all.

  (Reporter) Lars Halskov's superficial covering of the "trial" against Milosevic is entirely pathetic.

  Godfred Louis-Jensen

  The above may clearly reveal that it was conceived in the Danish and hastlily translated into (some sort of) English; I have done so almost 'word by word', except as far as the measure for Clark's truthfulness is concerned: Here I was using an older Danish expression that I quite like and found most fitting, namely:

  Måske lyver Clark ikke så stærkt, som en hest kan rende...(or: Maybe Clark isn't lying as fast as a horse will run).

  You may not have that expresion in English, - but surely you do know what I mean?

  PS: With regard to the (strikingly 'convenient') closure of the JURIST Milosevic Trial Discussion, I did e-mail Professor Hibbitts a polite 'letter of protest' on one of the very first days, that he still hasn't been answering, - thus failing to get high marks with me at least for his 'editing'.

  I certainly wasn't "bearing with them during the recent unavailability" of the discussion forum, - neither am I tempted to believe the professor's lame excuse about unspecified "technical difficulties" arising during the exam period 'there' at the University of Pittsburgh...

  Thanks, - but no thanks!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday December 27, 2003 at 5:53 pm
  I really do not know how these “reporters” got to the conclusion from Clark’s testimony that Milosevic knew everything and was in control. They must have only listened to Clark’s testimony but NOT to the Milosevic cross examination. These can be found at:

  http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031215ED.htm

  and:

  http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/031216ED.htm

  I challenge an intelligent reader to defend these statement based on this cross examination.
  
  D. Jovanovic, physicist
  USA

• Saturday December 27, 2003 at 6:41 pm
  Jovanovic, I wrote a report on Clark,

  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047038/posts
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Saturday December 27, 2003 at 8:55 pm
  To go after "guernica" Clark's testimony is like going after a fly , you know what you are gona get "not chocolates for sure"
  
  M P
  Panama

• Saturday December 27, 2003 at 9:02 pm
  D. Jovanovic, - honestly I doubt that it is worth challenging any intelligent reader - or any reader at all - on ret. NATO-General Wesley Clark's utterings in The Hague!

  The 'Clark hearing' was simply (and very naively!) geared towards displaying mr. Milosevic as being "in control" and "knowing everything" in advance; the leading questions by mr. Nice testify to the fact, that the Prosecution saw this hearing as their finest chance to finally prove that Milosevic was at the very center of some 'joint criminal enterprise'.

  They utterly failed in this endeavour, - hence there is no way the Prosecution's case wil ever raise from its shambles.

  By the way: Reporters didn't 'listen', as they were excluded from the proceedings like everybody else; they read from the very same transcripts as yourself, - although in most cases with eyes rather different from yours. In the case of mr. Lars Halskov from the Danish daily POLITIKEN his basis was (probably) just some telegram from 'ritzau', based in turn on 'Reuters', - originally worked out from the transcripts with an intent to convince everybody, that "Milosevic knew everything'.

  What a farce!

  Halskov - and other reporters - got to that 'conclusion' too, - hardly surprising maybe (but very depressing, I would agree).

  I thought that the ret. General answered the Prosecutor like a child; and I hardly blame mr. May, the Presiding Judge, who started out by admitting, that he didn't "understand" the position with regard to Clark's book (Waging modern War), - then fell asleep and adressed him as 'Mr. Walker'...

  "It's Clark, Sir," the retired General said, probably shaking up the old 'judge' for a while.

  What a farce!

  I accept, that Clarks 'recollection' of some chat with mr. Milosevic concerning Srebrenica and General Mladic was indeed a blatant lie, - since mr. Milosevic says so. But my point is, that even if it were an equally 'blatant truth' that Clark said this, and mr. Milosevic did answer that, it does not follow (and thus it cannot possibly be concluded by any honest person), that mr. Milosevic "knew about" a plan for a "massacre" at Srebrenica, - not even that there were any such plan.

  Even if there were - and even if Milosevic did know everything about this plan ( and why would he?) then Clark's testimony doesn't even serve to make it likely, - much less to prove it - or to prove anything but that Clark is indeed a fool.

  In view of the fact that Clark is their most important witness it is quite revealing, - and in some way reassuring - that the ret. General provided the Prosecution with nothing more than hear-say, - den lille opblæste nar!

  In my view it isn't worth it to challenge anybody in this connexion, - Clark's testimony was entirely useless, and is probably best forgotten...
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K