MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 12:58 am
  

  As I watch the puppet Serbian PM grovel for US aid as more and more conditions are put on it I can't help but think of the situation in North Korea.

  Since 1994 they have been waiting for a promised reactor for power. To this date, the construction consists of a townsite with swimmig pool, pool hall and a bar for construction personel. The US never intended to build the reactor just as they will never provide the promised aid to Serbia.

  I do not blame them for going it alone. Perhaps Slobo should have used the fusile material "which just a few mounths ago was shipped to Russia,"and built a bomb. Korea is getting respect.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 3:22 am
  AP V. I was referring to a post in this discussion on May 10, 2002. The passage I had in mind was this:

  "It was the same with the trial of the Japanese General Yamashita who was tried in a similar way after false and misleading evidence of war crimes was pitted against him and it took 50 years before an American intelligence officer was prepared to reveal all - it is now clear than General McArthur wanted Yamashita out of the way because he defeated McArthur when they fought each other in the theatre of war."

  Pythagoras, it is true there isn't much hope, but I wouldn't still give up on the Chinese. It would be extremely important to see the document: what was agreed on and on what conditions. As to the Chinese political will, well, they may have the will pretty soon to stop the Americans. Besides, China is now the only country with the political muscle to stand up to the US.

  As bad as the ICTY is, we have to remember that the documents from the Nuremberg and Tokyo era are now opened, and it might be worthwhile to see if they contain any stuff that might be relevant for the ICTY. The Yamashita doctrine is a case in point.

  And let us not forget the point which Vera referred to: the Serbs are initiating lawsuits against the witnesses in the Milosevic trial. That is indeed very good. I just hope the lawsuits get off the ground before the Trial Chamber starts its deliberations (this time without Nice - hopefully).

  It is very hard to understand why "the US still insists on The Hague". Don't the US politicians listen to their own bullshit reporters who insist it is over with the Balkans? I read yesterday that the Americans now call Western Europe the "Axis of Weasel," because France and Germany are not sure about attacking Iraq. However, no matter how good the Axis of Weasel is as a term in itself, it doesn't describe any other country as well as the US. The US "insists on The Hague". The US has made sure that it is not associated in any way with the actual activities of the tribunal, but the weasel thing consists of its insistence that another country should cooperate with the tribunal. Otherwise: no money. That means that the US would have the power to stop the whole bullshit tribunal at any time.

  I don't understand it. The US would never, ever give its own citizens to a tribunal like that. So why do they insist that another country should? If the US is so sure that the tribunal is all about justice, why is the US trying to avoid indictments instead of letting the US citizens clear their names there?

  But that is not all: the US can say the ICTY, the ICC and the UN are political organs, which gives them the excuse (in their own eyes) not to prosecute the war criminals even in their own country.

  And the Americans still don't know what Clinton's crime was. A Townhall column said yesterday that Clinton's crime was lying and thus making the Americans so callous. That only shows how callous the Americans really are, but they still don't know what Clinton's crime was. It seems to them a greater crime to put one's dick into somebody else's mouth than to bomb a country (and indict the victims).

  And how is the Bush administration faring? The Bush administration has revoked Yugoslavia's rogue state status last year. The three men who it now insists on (including Mladic) were still at large. An aboutface came last January, however. The US threatened with new sanctions, if the three men don't come to The Hague. Is the US really that hard to please, or is there something more going on?

  In the meantime, Carla is writing new indictments. This can only mean that Carla is threatening the US with indictments.

  But if that is so, wouldn't there be something to indict the US war criminals for? Here we have "circumstantial evidence" that the Americans are indictable. On the other hand, this is also the circumstantial evidence we need to show that Carla and the US both admit that the ICTY cannot guarantee a fair trial.

  Now that the tribunal admits hearsay, are we allowed to use hearsay too to indict the tribunal? From what we can gather from the Croatian press (and the Moonist press) is that the Croats don't think the tribunal would guarantee a fair trial. This bit of hearsay would suggest that the tribunal is bullshit, especially when seen against the background of Carla's excuses not to insist on the Croat indictees to be transferred to The Hague. So, the hearsay would suggest that Carla knows as well as anybody else that the tribunal doesn't guarantee a fair trial.

  Or are you still in doubt about the unfairness of the trial? Just consider the private sessions, which would suggest that the trial is neither fair nor public.

  And as to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence itself, I think the name of that document is misleading, because the procedure and certainly not the evidence have no rules.

  However, the Rules come in handy when a detainee goes to the European courts and complains about the violation of human rights by the tribunal. The European courts only conclude that the tribunal has Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and since the rules guarantee a fair trial, the trial is fair.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 5:26 am
  US State Department Legal Adviser David Andrews said this:

  "We will seek funding in Congress so that we can provide $28 million for damages to the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. The Chinese have agreed to pay for damage to US facilities in China in the amount of 2.87 million dollars. These figures reflect what both sides see as a fair payment for the property damage based on our delegation's five meetings that comprise an exhaustive review."

  The link is http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/uscn/state/1999/1216b.htm .

  Chinese news on the Chinese embassy bombing can be found at http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/features/Kosovo/nato.html .

  The US apparently wanted to get the compensation over and done with, so people would accept its explanation that the bombing was a mistake. That is the condition the compensation was paid. However, if the thread of the CIA agent were to be followed (if he is still alive), one might be able to show that the bombing was not a mistake but an intentional act, in which case the "concurrent jurisdiction" pursuant to the ICTY Statute would come to play.

  More articles on the same subject can be find on Google with "Chinese Embassy bombing compensation".
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 5:32 am
  And you don't even have to show the bombing of the embassy was deliberate: all the bombing in Yugoslavia was deliberate, so in the case of the embassy bombing we are talking about gross negligence, if nothing else. But such suave agreements is what you get when the damage is negotiated at the "diplomatic" level.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 5:39 am
  In the end, the promised $ 28 million came down to $ 4.5 million according to BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/407889.stm .

  This article is important, because Andrews emphasizes the bombing was a mistake. He also says this will not create a precedent. Was that the deal? Apparently, the US pays whoever it wants, if left to its own devices. Andrews says the the Sino-American relations are too important. Well, Andrews, it was good you realized that this payment might be a precedent. You should not have drawn any further conclusions, because they are not yours to draw. If you agreed with the Chinese that this would be no precedent, you are in trouble.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 7:04 am
  This is confusing. In December 1999, China said the US would pay $ 28 million after all. It is interesting to see what conditions China set for accepting this deal: The US should punish severely the perpetrators. The US should also conduct an investigation of the bombing later. Is this agreement valid? Spokesperson Zhu uses the word "including" when detailing the US duties. Check the statement from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/5751.html .
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 7:12 am
  

  Belgian Legal system seems to be making progress in bringing well known war criminals to justice. I like this development very much.

  Mr. Milosevic made clear to the court the prosecution was acting in bad faith by objecting to the fact the general had never requested to be a protected witness, the prosecution using this as an excuse to undermine Mr. Milosevic's investigation of the witness. This time judge May (NATO) did not defend the prosecutor and said the issue will be raised in due course.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 7:27 am
  Whatever progress Belgium may be making, I think the "well-known war criminals" still come from different cultures.

  Anyway, the compensation agreement between the US and China has been infringed on by the US, and it is easy to see why. Andrews continued negotiations on the assumption that the bombing was a mistake. China said the US should conduct a thorough investigation and punish the perpetrators. Obviously, this was done because the US had said the bombing was a mistake. Should China now say it's OK, or should it say what it really thinks: that the whole bombing campaign was a mistake, and the perpetrators should be punished?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 7:39 am
  

  Bombing Yugoslavia was an illegal act perpetrated by NATO under the US leadership. It is hard to believe China will not acknowledge this fact explicitly or implicitly. But I won't rely too much on what many in the West claim about Peking's thinking.

  True, war criminals should be judged in their own countries, but perhaps this principle will eventually become a reality if the world at least agrees about who is a real war criminal and not just a political liability.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 9:22 am
  When reading “official” press reports which are now reviewing one year into Milosevic trial I find the following:

  "The most incriminating evidence has come from middle- and low-level Serb officials who testified Milosevic ordered the coverup of a truckload of more than 80 bodies of Kosovo Albanians dumped into the Danube River in 1999."

  How is that connected to Milosevic and is this indeed the “most incriminating? Evidence?

  I truly do not understand how the reporting about the trial differs so radically from what one finds in the transcripts.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 10:34 am
  

  More juicy stuff:

  The eagerly awaited witnesses from Slobodan Milosevic's inner circle have so far not added much to the war crimes case against the former Yugoslav president.

  When the trial started in February last year, chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte announced that the court would hear from around 20 so-called insiders. She described the witnesses as "high ranking officials from the military, the government and diplomats" in positions close to Milosevic.

  So far only three from this category have testified against their former leader.

  The first was Radomir Tanic, but his credibility was easily undermined by Milosevic when the political party Tanic said he belonged to denied he was a member.

  Radomir Markovic, the former head of the Serbian secret police, who testified here also, is still loyal to Milosevic and told the court his forces had strict orders to protect civilians in Kosovo.

  The third is Vasiljevic. For the prosecution, the former general is the star insider witness.

  In general, the office of the prosecution explains, it is difficult to persuade high-ranking Serbs to testify against Milosevic because of the resentment against the tribunal in their Balkan state.

  When a Serb stands to testify, his name is dragged through the mud in Serbia, observers agree.

  The most eagerly awaited Western insider is Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy who negotiated the 1995 Dayton peace accords that ended the wars in Bosnia and Croatia.

  Washington is apparently not allowing him to take the stand unless there is a clear agreement beforehand about the scope and subjects of the questioning.

  His appearance in court is still a matter of negotiations between the US government and the tribunal.

  Read the whole thing HERE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 12:38 pm
  Gogol, you are right, it is not easy to decipher what the Chinese think, but as long as they belong to the same species it should not be too hard to figure out. See what the US understands by the "severe punishment": one CIA agent was fired and disciplined six others. In other words, the measures were purely administrative. That is hardly what one understands by "severe punishment". That is what they did to the agent who scribbled "Islam is evil" on a mosque in Chicago. Are these two incidents comparable, even if one accepts the official version?

  As has been suggested, these CIA agents may have been punished for exactly the opposite reason they should have been punished: because they wanted the matter investigated thoroughly.

  In any case, it is clear that the Chinese did not accept these measures in April 2000, because it did not accept the US explanation that the bombing was a mistake.

  In order to proceed with compensation we need at least an indictment of Nato personnel. Here we see that the Chinese have serious misgivings about the Del Ponte argument that the Nato reports are generally reliable. Read the story about the Chinese protests in April 2000.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 12:42 pm
  By the way, that ABC report doesn't say anything about a thorough investigation (which I take to mean a criminal investigation). It only speaks about an "internal review". This case is not finished.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 12:44 pm
  Moderator WAKE UP and split the page up - We dont get pleasure from trying to load the page 100 times
  
  E Obradovic
  Yug

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 12:55 pm
  Pero: Your long post was very informative.

  I read it and just shook my head in wonderment.

  I was born in the United States. My parents were both Serbian and my Mother was born in the USA.

  I do not speak Serbian and while growing up my parents told me that I was Serbian but that I was American. They also told me that I was Orthodox.I never attended the Serbian Orthodox Church at that time.

  Growing up I had many friends and we all called ourselves American...we were born here. My friends who were Italian did not speak Italian, most of my friends were such a mixture they did not know what they were and all preferred to believe they were decendents of the Puritans of Plymouth Rock.(My husband is one of these people) My friends who were Croats did not speak Croatian and I did not see any of them scurrying off to the Catholic church.

  When we met, we were the same, if we liked each other it was because we had something in common, it had nothing to do with nationalities. If we disliked someone it was because they had bad breath or whatever.

  When I got older and moved to the City, I was befriended by people who invited me to their home, because I was a Serb. They were delighted to meet me and they were Croats.

  The Croats I have just mentioned I have not seen in years, but I do not dislike them and I never will. They remain the same in my memory.Very nice people who grew up in the US under the same conditions as myself.

  What I cannot understand is why we have this melting pot here where we came together as Americans and over in the former Yugoslavia they cut each others throats.Here so many were drawn to each other. Croats and Serbs married.I recall introducing my Mother to a young woman at one time. My Mother thought the woman beautiful, and when I told her she was Croatian American my Mother was pleased.

  I do not believe I have ever met an Albanian. I have no personal knowledge of their true makeup. I was with a group of Serbs about a year ago and one surprised me when he said,“Albanians are okay, they were all Orthodox at one time.” What he meant...... I do not know.

  What happened at the Winter Olympics? They were so proud! Who would believe that they would be tearing each other up in a few years.

  If Croatia and Bosnia wanted independence they went about it in the wrong way, recklessly led by Germany.So.... is a lot of this bloodshed on the hands of the German people?

  I became interested and involved with the Balkans due to my Mother who urged, pleaded with me, to write letters and to make phone calls, followed me around the room never ending explaining what was happening and why.The people who were calling Serbs demons were stepping on the graves of my ancestors and one in particular my Mother’s beloved Mother.

  There are those who are coming here from the Balkans who call themselves “refugees” and are now trying to cause problems for the Serbs in the USA. This has to stop.We must not allow what is truly good to be destroyed. There are people, for example, the one who uses any number of names on this forum and other forums who are trying to destroy what we have accomplished.

  In the end Pero I wish that all of these people would come together as they did in the USA and maybe their fortunes would change.

  I also wish that every Serb in the US would take the time to write letters to their representatives and to the President on behalf of the Serbian people. Never stop. The letters must always show respect. You win more hearts with kindness than bitterness. Remember this is a great country and it belongs to all of us, not just a chosen few.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 2:43 pm
  Moderator:

  The forum is difficult to read when it is so spread out. Maybe you could archive a few of the oldest posts.

  Thank you.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 4:40 pm
  

  Kathryn,

  Societies, any society is made of two things, the base and the superstructure. The base is always the economy, the foundation of any form of life, the superstructure encompasses many things, religion, culture, race, almost anything except the language, this stands on its own regardless of the base and superstructure.

  Mankind has always struggled for a better life, security in which to get on with the pursue of the positive sides of living and this is only possible under secure and safe economical, the base, conditions.

  When society shares the base, spreads its benefits and collectively this base interdependence is preserved in equal shares, justice and peace flourishes. When these conditions, this balance is disrupted society becoming insecure, unstable, crisis and eventually war follows. It is that simple and has nothing to do with genes, religion or any other part of the infrastructure.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 5:21 pm
  One way that this base was disrupted in Yugoslavia is that a disproportionate amount of financial support was being poured into Kosovo for the benefit of the Albanian population, who, far from being mistreated, were given every possible social benefit by a government that bent over backwards.

  The first to split off, Slovenia, was sick and tired of contributing to that bottomless well and decided it would do better economically as Germany's lapdog. After that it was inevitable that Croatia would leave and the rest, as they say is history (awful as it was). But, certainly, Germany's meddling and US support for it was with the intention of dismembering Yugoslavia. I maintain that this intention and everything in between that and the bombing are just plain evil.

  The US is not so much a great country as a country with the potential for greatness -- the groundwork was done a long time ago. Sadly, the efforts of its leadership have not been in the direction of achieving that greatness so much as in shoving it down the world's throat that it is already great. That will be it's eventual downfall, unfortunately.

  The US could have saved itself many billions of dollars on bombs and used a fraction of that money to influence Yugoslavia (or Iraq) peacefully, by doing good and winning the people over. Yugoslavs were already looking so favorably upon the US that it wouldn't have taken much. And Serbs are so forgiving, sometimes to their distinct disadvantage, that even now, as a nation, they do not hate the US. Yugoslavia was just another pawn in the great political game, which is the only "great" thing about the US now.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  California

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 5:33 pm
  A US pharmaceutical company named Macro and Co. is working on a drug that will heal all the Serbs from their Yugo-nostalgy. You should be thankful, there is someone thinking of your future. By the way,Slovenians,Croats and Kosovar Albanians are the coolest people of that part of Europe. They don't even mention Serbs anymore, while all of you spend hours in grief for a country that is dead. Saluti, cari amici desperati!
  
  Marina per tutti voi
  Italia

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 5:43 pm
  

  This may explain how economical weapons can be used:

  ORIGINS OF THE BREAKUP?A U.S. LAW

  A year before the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on Nov. 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101~513.* This bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that a CIA report predicting a bloody civil war referred to this law.

  A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previ-ous warning cut off all aid, credits, and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within six months.

  Conducting trade without credits is virtually impossible in the modem world?especially for an indebted country lacking hard currency. The law also demanded separate elections in each of the six republics that make up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. The legislation further required U.S. per-sonnel in all international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut-off policy for all credits and loans.

  There was one final provision. Only forces that the U.S. State Department defined as ?democratic? would receive fund-ing. This meant an influx of funds to small, right-wing, national-ist parties in a financially strangled region suddenly thrown into crisis by the overall funding cut-off The impact was, as ex-pected, devastating.

  The Yugoslav federal government was unable to pay the enormous interest on its foreign debt or even to arrange the purchase of raw materials for industry. Credit collapsed and re-criminations broke out on all sides.

  At the time there was no civil war. No republic had se-ceded. The U.S. was not engaged in a public dispute with Yugoslavia. The region was not even in the news. World atten-tion was focused on the international coalition the Bush ad-ministration was assembling to destroy Iraq?a war that re-shaped the Middle East at a cost of half a million Iraqi lives.

  What was behind the sweeping legislation directed at Yugoslavia, especially when U.S. policy makers themselves predicted that the sudden unraveling of the region would lead to civil war?

  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. big business was embarking on an aggressive march to reshape all of Europe. Nonaligned Yugoslavia was no longer needed as a buffer state between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. A strong, united Europe was hardly desirable. Washington policy makers considered both to be relics of the Cold War.

  From NATO in The Balkans I.A.C. New York, for fair use only.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 5:46 pm
  

  NATO in The Balkans was published in 1998
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 6:05 pm
  One unkind cut deserves another, Marina. "Slovenians,Croats and Kosovar Albanians are the coolest people of that part of Europe. They don't even mention Serbs anymore.." I don't think it was true of the Slovenes, but the others named, along with Italians, were all pro-fascists in WWII. I wouldn't be nostalgic for the past either if I had that to overcome.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  California

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 6:15 pm
  http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=18577776 Who writes the rules anyway? To:DWB who wrote (5765) From: Maurice Winn Thursday, Feb 13, 2003 6:04 PM Respond to of 5775 DWB, it seems a bit anachronistic, but I don't recall there being a formal declaration of war. Wars just seem to stumble into being these days, so I suppose that's par for the course. But the USA does have a bit of constitutional intention regarding wars, with the very specific intention of avoiding presidents deciding about wars. Congress has reasonably agreed to hand the war-making in regard to Iraq to King George II, so I think that takes care of the intention of the constitution. But it doesn't take care of the Declaration aspect of war. Maybe war doesn't actually need to be declared now [in the USA constitution], but maybe, as with making somebody sane so they can be executed, there are some legalistic ramifications which should be recognized. If the courts decide that constitutionally the President does need to get a specific Declaration of War, then for one thing, it's a bit late [since there has been heaps of shooting already, which is definitely war]. But it's also a bit of legalistic form rather than substance. I bet the lawyers love it. No show without Punch! It's simply not acceptable from a lawyer's point of view for the heathens in Congress and the Presidential quarters to go around waging war, declared or not, without some payments to the legal guild. Who's country is it anyway? That's a rhetorical question. It belongs to the Lawyers' Guild. Come to think of it, whose world is it? That's also a rhetorical question. Poor Milosevic is being held permanently while a swarm of lawyers feast on the profits of control. They'll string him along forever, then flip a double-headed coin and string him up - except they'll keep him in prison instead, so there can be never-ending appeals and more fees. It's amusing how his trial takes years, or maybe decades the way they are going, but ordinary people without the associated cash flow are shuffled through the system and turfed in the slammer within days. But more importantly, who appointed the judges who are trying Milosevic? I don't recall giving anyone the power to set up a Kangaroo Court in Nevernederland. In the absence of a reformed, reconstituted UN, the "United States of Freedom", it's just the same old "Might Makes Right" system of justice. Maybe when they've dealt with Milosevic, writs could be issued for the arrest of Lt Calley, the napalmers and carpet bombers of civilians in Vietnam - come in Robert McNamara and co [who understand now the horror of their misjudgements]. Of course that won't happen because they are Americans and Americans are above the law. Lucky for Nixon he's dead, or the drunken decision to bomb Cambodia would be enough to keep the Nevernederland Kleptocrats Kangaroo Kourt in business for decades. Mqurice PS: Good grief, it's worse than I thought. I asked Google and there's a veritable feeding frenzy of lawyering over Milosevic and the money available. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milosevic.htm
  
  Mqurice Winn
  Auckland
  New Zealand

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 7:52 pm
  Anna, you mention WWII today, and you tell me you are not nostalgic about Yugoslavia!!! Whatever... I think you all should chill out because Milosevic was a sick head and all the Serb nation who support him should think better, and more! I am surprised he didn't hang himself like the rest of his family.
  
  Marina per voi ancora...
  IT

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 7:56 pm
  Gogol, since criminals are not eligible to sentence criminals, Serbs will not be charged in their country. Sorry buddy! We will have to take care of you. P.S. Marina, go girl!
  
  Rita Rita
  USA (big apple)

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 8:11 pm
  Marina,

  Your comprehension is lacking in reading these postings just as much as in your evaluation of people, it seems.

  I did not say I am not nostalgic about Yugoslavia (in fact I didn't say how I, personally, feel about that one way or the other). What I did say is that I understand why Croatians, Albanians and Italians don't like to remember the past since their past was one of pro-fascism -- something, no doubt, one would rather forget than remember. Serbs don't have that problem.

  By the way, have you ever had an original thought, or do you always take your opinions from the general media?
  
  Anna Pullinger
  California

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 8:16 pm
  Rita Rita Rita!p It is PRECISELY criminals who have taken it upon themselves to run the court in the Hague. Tell me, finally, Rita -- who are the ethnic cleansers? This is the 3rd time I've asked you. You seem not to wish to answer that one. And I know why: If you have to admit the lie of that assertion against the Serbs, which obviously you have to admit, then who know where it would lead, eh? There are a lot of other lies that follow from that false premise, skulking around, fearful of being exposed.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  California

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 9:39 pm
  Anna............about 5x-10x as many Slovenes fought in the Wehrmacht as fought in the Partizans. Slovenia was part and parcel of Das Reich during the period. Its inhabitants gladly fought in the Regular German Army.

  The crowds wept for joy and tossed flowers in Maribor and Laibach when the Werhmacht marched in. The Wehrmacht had it so cozy in Slovenia, they didn't even leave Laibach until one day AFTER VE day !
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 10:15 pm
  

  I love a good cat fight.

  Score one for Anna with the,"Who are the ethnic cleansers?" shot. Rita and Marina have only hissed and spit venom.

  Round one. First blood goes to Anna.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 11:18 pm
  AP V , thanks for the information about Slovenia. I must admit that they never seem to come up in the WWII talk and I just wasn't sure and didn't want to accuse anybody unfairly, but it makes sense -- like I said earlier, they are now Germany's lapdog.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  California

• Thursday February 13, 2003 at 11:24 pm
  Gogol,

  Even though I found your posts very educational, I would ask you to rethink one abut Yugoslavia foreign debt, since I found that the first enemies in Yu.used it as an argument how bad was Yu. politics. So, then, at that time I did some investigation:
  Yugoslavia took first loan of 1 bilion (US dollars or 1.000.000.000) (jednu milijardu - not to confuse with a language barrier) in 1966. It was taken as consumers credit.
  In 1989, Yugoslavian foreign debt was 10.800.000.000 The first Yu government to mention it and make reductions was Milka Planinc's government with Mika Spiljak as president.
  What I found was quite intersting, Canada with the same number of people, and with less developed technology(no tanks, no airplaine industry, no such developed railway industry, no nuclear development, no turism, no developed transit) had debt over 400,000,000,000. which is now double and nobody cares. Besids it Iraq owed to Yu 2,500,000,000 $USD, Vietnam 1,500,000,000. Indonesia 2,500,000,000. and Russia on cliring 2,500,000,000.
  Stories about Yu debt werrte esagurated and were used as propagande to show how unsuccessfully Yu was run.
  Beleive me, the first conversation I had about it was with one of the members of YU presidency in 1956 who pointed that out.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 12:02 am
  Rita and Marina
  Have you heard for the band "Braca bez gaca"?
  and their song "Srbin" here is the link you'll like it: Song
  
  Pero Peric
  Canda

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 12:16 am
  Rita and Marina:
  The link mentioned in the previous post would you take just to the site, then you have to select "b" and look for a band "Braca bez gaca" then in the list of songs yoll find one with a name "Srbin" select it and click on that. This will take you to the page for download, remember "right mouse click and save target as" does not work so you have to left mouse click "just once" it does not help you to click twice = the same applies to elevator. Then you'll get a pop up window, with several choices, do not select one with "open" select save and chouse the most suitable directory *handy one" You can select "C" drive and click "OK' after download is completed you can select open, or go to the directory select file and open it with "WINAMP" Instructions are free!
  Regards
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 2:53 am
  Back to the Chinese Embassy bombing compensation. The Chinese are in it primarily for themselves, but now that the bombing has been buried under so much bullshit news, I guess they wouldn't mind using the leverage provided by the ICTY (for whatever publicity it gets). It seems that after April 2000, nothing has happened.

  We now know that the Americans bombed the Chinese embassy, because their electronic sensors noticed some military equipment in the basement. Even in this scenario, the Americans violated the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This prohibits targeting military objects at the cost of injuring civilians.

  True, the US hasn't ratified that Additional Protocol, but as long as the law is the same to everybody, the Americans are bound by it anyway. § 89 of the Croatia indictment against Milosevic says that Milosevic was bound by the additional protocols of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, counts 27 and 32 mention Additional Protocols I and II.

  Seen in the context of the whole bombing, the Chinese embassy bombing was grossly negligent. This is the expression used in the Popovic indictment: "The act or omission was unlawful and intentinal, reckless or grossly negligent."

  Whatever. In any case, the old maps argument won't wash. Even the American nationalists don't believe it.

  Together with the old-map explanation goes the Nato estimate of the damage done to the VJ. And together with it goes Carla's report on the Nato crimes, in which she said the Nato reports are reliable.

  In comes the Chinese estimate that the "old maps - mistake" explanation is bullshit.

  That means that China has the power to indict Clinton pursuant to the "concurrent jurisdiction". As long as no criminal proceedings are initiated in the US, the responsibility goes up to the highest level. There is reason to suspect presidential cover-up, and knowing Clinton, he would have pretty much to cover up even for himself.

  ICTY has no primacy any more. Carla hasn't even investigated the Nato crimes, so ICTY has relinquished its primacy - actually its jurisdiction altogether.

  As soon as China calls into question the official version of the bombing, the national courts cannot throw out Yugoslav claims on the assumption that the bombing was legitimate. Sure, this scenario is far-fetched, but so was the transfer of Milosevic a couple of years ago.

  Gogol, the war crimes prosecution will always be political. However, as long as the Americans continue their hypocritical we-are-the-justice bullshit, I think it is only fair to apply the same law to them.

  There would be many ways to get rid of Clinton. One is the electric chair, which is why the American jurisdiction is to be preferred. Other ways: an accident or a sniper à la Kennedy. Suicide has been recommended above. Or the Americans could hand him over to the Chinese.

  This is also the only way to get Milosevic out.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 2:57 am
  “The family of one of four Canadian soldiers killed in a "friendly fire" bombing in Afghanistan last year is suing the American government for his wrongful death” my website’s link If we in Canada can sue the US in Tort I would think that private citizens in Yugoslavia can do the same. In cases where American companies are doing work in Canada and are negligent and Canadian workers are injured these workers or their families are not able to sue in Canadian courts because Canadian workers are covered by Workmen’s compensation and as a result forfeit the right to sue. This does not stop the same workers or their families from suing the American based company in the United States. This was the case when an American owned oil rig sank of the coast of Newfoundland (Hibernia) killing some 15 Canadian workers. Their families sued and won.

  As for Rita and Marina when you know everything you cant learn anything. You can’t antagonize and influence at the same time, the rest of us on this forum are student and so far I have not learned anything from you two.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 3:01 am
  The link did not work here it is http://calgary.cbc.ca/template/servlet/View?filename=ca_ppcli20030213
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 3:35 am
  Walter. That's the way it should work, of course. On paper the whole case is extremely simple. However, it is a fact that the lawsuits are thrown out, on whatever excuses.

  I think the overarching idea is that Nato was on a policing mission, and the Yugoslav resisted a lawful arrest or whatever. This argument has more flaws than substance, one of the flaws being that they forgot to indict Milosevic until late May 1999.

  Insofar as the argument has any substance at all, it would imply that the "friendly fire" argument is not applicable.

  This idea of policing mission is of course idiotic, especially when Nato didn't even ask for an authorization from the Security Council, but it sticks. There is no lack of cosmetic pseudo-legal arguments that have been invented in the national courts.

  The only way to break the deadlock is to show the criminal responsibility on Nato's side. That way the civil liability or torts aspect would take care of itself.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 4:06 am
  In defense of the American government let it be said that it doesn't have an easy job. The latest terror alert in New York is said to be based on fabricated evidence. On the other hand, when the government doesn't act on whatever evidence it has, the critics say it knew of the threat and did nothing, like on the fateful morning of September 11.

  Oliver North wrote in his latest Townhall column that the US can't now observe its own laws. The ICJ had ordered the US to stay the execution of some Mexicans. Well, Ollie. There are many laws in the US that you love to ignore, if only you can ensure the maximum amount of deaths. It is a mystery why the American courts have done absolutely NOTHING to address the wanton destruction caused by the Kosovo bombing (even the term "Kosovo bombing" is an understatement).

  Ever wonder why the Balkans story is over? The Kosovo Albanians are now planning a takeover of Southern Serbia. This is hardly suprising. The Kosovo terrorists said years ago they would reduce Serbia into a "pashalik" around Belgrade. Since this was in the cards years ago, I wonder why the bullshit media still refuses to accept this as "news". Normally, the media covers only the "news" it knew for certain years in advance.

  Conveniently, 900 bodies have been found in Southern Serbia. I wonder what happened to the 900 bodies in Suva Reka, where there was an alleged mass grave of non-Albanians. In fact, how many bodies are not dug up, let alone identified in Kosovo? Maybe their ethnicity has something to do with it.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 4:52 am
  The moderator must be mad at us. Now the link from the JURIST homepage has been officially removed. However, it seems this discussion has touched a nerve somewhere. See this fresh article by Amy Chua at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew97.php . It makes the unlikely connection between the Chinese market-dominant minority in Asia and the election of Slobodan Milosevic, who is mentioned in the last sentence.

  And as to the Belgian universal law, which Gogol mentioned yesterday, my prediction that the cases will be selected according to a politically convenient agenda is shared by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ratzlav-katz021303.asp .

  I hope this enhances the intra-JURIST communication.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 4:59 am
  Ha ha. To show that this discussion has a quality-check on the accessible part of the JURIST website, let me comment on the latter article by Ratzlav-Katz. Rwanda was not a Belgian colony. It was a German colony until WW I and a Belgian mandate after that. On the other hand, I am 100% in agreement with the Ratzlav-Katz's denunciation of the bullshit hypocrisy of the European human rights laws. I think that article by Ratzlav-Katz is worth a read.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 5:18 am
  

  Regarding the situation in the United States I like to quote Gore Vidal:

  "If I were an optimist I would recommend civil war"

  Relations between Europe and the United States are deteriorating fast and out of control. Not that this is a surprise in itself, since there are many a good reason for this to happen, but what is significant is the fact this policy, Washington's policy. The warning the UNO by W is even more ominous: Obey or Drop Dead.

  Truly history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as a farce poor little sergeants.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

  Friday February 14, 2003 at 5:19 am
  

  
  
  G C
  USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 7:19 am
  

  I think this is it, the prosecution's case has collapsed when this general, head of the NJA intelligence alerted the interest of judge May (NATO) who over ruled Nice (NATO) wanting to restrict the scope of the cross-examination, the general spoke and the judges listen how they had in 1990-91 discovered six channels from out side Yugoslavia, to deliver weapons to Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, Kosovo. How 189,000,000 US dollars were found available from abroad just to arm separatist of Croatian National Party the BHZ, how the Yugoslavian National Army was assaulted in its own barracks in Croatia and how many summary executions and killings took place at the hand of the Croats separatists, armed and financed by foreign sources . . .Vera, we need you here to night, summarize it for it, how this general is making the case for Yugoslavia, Mr. Milosevic and the truth!

  All in open session!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 10:34 am
  Promising Investigative Thread on Chinese Embassy

  NATO officials who confided to the Observer (Oct.17,1999) that they knew the location of the embassy (and therefore the US bombed it deliberately) have understandably been reluctant to go publicly. However, one French former high ranking intelligence officer has done exactly that: Major Pierre Bunel, who was convicted to 5 years in jail (3 suspended) for allegedly passing secrets to Yu , had stated to the German magazine Konkret that NATO intelligence knew the embassy's location. Now that he is out of jail he may be able and willing to elaborate more on the truth.

  Milosevic's Evidence?

  In the beginning of the trial, Milosevic asserted that the bombing was deliberate. In order not to embarrass the Chinese, he assigned a political rather than a military motive to Clinton (to go down in history as the first US president to bomb Chinese soil). Although not strictly relevant to his defense, Milosevic probably counts on revelations by defense witnesses reviving the issue politically and journalistically.
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 11:29 am
  Again I ask the moderator to split the page up. I have tried to load this page about 50 times finally succeeding. I appeal to others posting here to support this request and to ask why moderator is not moderating?
  
  E Obradovic
  Yug

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 11:35 am
  

  Moderator you're asked to split up this long page

  Thank you
  
  G C
  USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 11:44 am
  Anna I have to apologize to you for not answering the questions. I am not a regural visitor that's why I missed your posting. Please check the website below. Other forum members are welcomed to check it out as well. http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/photo/underorders/index.htm Pythagoras, tha stamatisis telika na les malakies??? If this is not good enough, I will send you some individual pictures of more than 15 children slatered by the Serb troops (directed by Milosevic) in Kosovo, on July 1998. I gotta to go, but you might see me soon again. Hear the voice of American people tomorrow in New York City. And feel ashamed that during the wars in YU, non of you never started a forum against war. Now,debate for a psycho!!!
  
  Rita Weinberg
  USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 12:03 pm
  Hi Rita,

  I saw yours, do you have guts to see mine? And this happened after NATO liberation and democracy.

  http://www.kosovo.com/default2.html
  
  Ana Dakic
  Serbia

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 12:05 pm
  PS:

  what do you think who shoud be in Hague for this??? Slob did not do this guess who did.
  
  Ana Dakic
  Serbia

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 12:35 pm
  Kfor now agrees with the Yugoslav government that the KLA was murdering Albanian civilians before, during, and after Clinton's bombing.

  Kfor has arrested virtually the entire KLA leadership cadre for murdering Albanian civilians.

  Commander Remi and his notorious deputy in charge of policing disloyal Albanians Gashi were arrested for murders of Albanians prior to March 23rd, 1999. Remi killing spree was focused in and around the Pristina area. He is evidently responsible for the murder of the prominat Albanians Dr. Zelenjhau (sp?) and the publisher Mr. Maloku (sp ?)

  Commander Ramush and his brother were responsible for a crime and murder spree in the Pec area.

  As was revealed in the ICTY hearings, Rack was a anti-KLA villkage. The Local KLA gangpressed a few dozen villagers into 'fighting'. Some of the gangpressed men were over 50 years old.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 12:45 pm
  The Americans may have gone berserk, but we now we see first-hand that they prefer blaming the Serbs even for their own psychoses. That is why the anonymous NY journal is spewing the sort of racist hatred that justified the bombing of the RTS in Belgrade.

  If we should feel ashamed, we should feel ashamed for that anonymous NY journal. We should feel ashamed of the Americans he get so worked up even if their former bullshit war criminal president is walking free, while his opponent is in The Hague. Soon they will get so worked up that they will kill anything that moves. Try to intimidate us with your nukes, you fuckers.

  However, it seems that Clinton had gone berserk even before the Serbs. I have to question some parts of Amy Chua's article, like the part where she said that the US has never used power for its own sake but to bring prosperity and happiness anywhere it went. Even I couldn't parody her any better. What was the prosperity component in the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan? It is not likely any WMD's were produced there, no matter what the US bullshit president claimed, but the bombing sure wrecked the economy of that country, and I don't think that was a surprise to anyone.

  Pertti put it very well. The US may use the WMD argument to stall the projects it had started in North Korea, so it can show that only the US can bring happiness and prosperity to this world.

  Iraq is the next target. What we are never told is where Saddam got all these alleged weapons of mass destruction.

  A certain pattern is emerging here. Weren't the Serbs also said to be producing weapons of mass destruction?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 1:23 pm
  

  France got a good aplause after de Villepin speech asking to preserve world peace. Russia got a little applause, but England's Jack Straw and US agitated Colin Powell got nothing.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 1:34 pm
  Rita, Rita, Rita!

  That site does not answer my question. How convenient that you didn't see my full question, when I posted it twice previously. It's easy to lurk here and then say you don't come that often. I have another question for you -- Why come at all?

  I have news for you as well. Your Greater Albania isn't going to happen.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  California

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 1:41 pm
  

  He was right and had the right information, ICTY Act II set to begin!

  Serb Hard-liner Seselj Charged with War Crimes
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 1:44 pm
  

  Seselj, who came second in December's presidential election in Serbia, has been charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes for his alleged role in ethnic cleansing.

  Alles Klar!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 1:44 pm
  
  
  G C
  USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 3:36 pm
  Hey Anna, I can feel your anger from here! Maybe you should keep your breath while you write! I am not an Albanian to care for a great Albania. I don't think Albanians from Kosovo were fighting for a great Albania, they were fighting to get freedom from the Serb regime, they got it. You might hear for an independent Kosovo, but for Albania I can't help you there. I understand it is hard for you to swallow it, I would probably feel the same. But you know what I think you can not face another fact, that you people of Serbia didn't do nothing against the wars led by the pig you are defending in this page. Americans are aware of their nations power and they don't support the war that will happen preety soon, but they also raise their voice against it. In Serbia, you kept blaming each other and today you play ping-pong with the pictures of dead bodies, send it unknown people, to prove your well being. Today you wish every day that the States will go into war with Iraq just to be able to prove that USA is just an agressor, and that is what happened also in Yugoslavia. Well, I got news for you. Everyone knows who was the agressor in that dead country, since we are powerful we have developed powerful technology that supports our assumtions and the reality during the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. There are satelite dishes my dear that prove all the happenings in your dead country. Besides, I have another question, how did it happen that the Serb people betrayed their own nation and handed Milosevic to the Tribunal? Were they for a second acting in favor of justice or they just got sold out? Thank you Anna and enjoy your day.
  
  Rita Weinberg
  USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 4:02 pm
  All your phony assertions, Rita Weinberg, are debunked by the correct answer to my question, which you keep avoiding.

  That answer is that it was ONLY the Serbs who did NOT ethnically cleanse their land in the former Yugoslavia. That being true, everything else you say about Serbs is also a lie. Just like Clinton's government, you would stand truth on its head. I suppose white is black, too, and day is night.

  You're correct in one thing only and that is that, yes, I'm angry. Angry with people like you who feel justified in going around the Internet LYING and never answering a direct question with a direct answer.

  Whatever Slobodan Milosevic is, and I'm not a fan as it happens, he is not what he is accused of by the court in the Hague. Those are trumped up charges by war criminals like Albright who are looking for approval and justification for committing the unspeakable, so that they may hope to convince themselves in the process.

  I actually have spent time in Kosovo and know how the Albanians were treated there. So kindly cut out the BS. Your kind reek of it already.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  California

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 4:09 pm
  Rita

  "There are satelite dishes my dear that prove all the happenings in your dead country....

  how did it happen that the Serb people betrayed their own nation and handed Milosevic to the Tribunal?" Explain the satellite dishes comment -- WHAT are you talking about? Dredging up the same old, same old that was dropped already by Albright thanks to no backup evidence to that assertion????

  As for Djidjic's "government" -- you might as well have Madelaine in his place. It's almost ridiculous to restate the obvious, that Djindjic is a simple lackey of the West who was put there by the West and is handsomely being rewarded for it, as traitors usually are.
  
  Anna Pullinger
  California

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 4:27 pm
  

  Warrant issued for arrest of former state media director

  BELGRADE -- Friday ? A warrant has been issued for the arrest of former Radio Television Serbia director Dragoljub Milanovic after he failed to report to begin a ten-year prison sentence, say sources in the judiciary. According to these sources the warrant was issued after police told the court they had been unable to locate Milanovic at his registered address.

  Milanovic was sentenced to ten years imprisonment over the death of sixteen employees during the NATO bombing in 1999. The court found that he had failed to evacuate the building despite having had advance warning of the attack.

  The death of the employees was subsequently extensively exploited for anti-NATO propaganda by the Milosevic regime.

  Milanovic yesterday spoke to Serbian-language daily Vesti in Frankfurt, saying he was a scapegoat. He described the court proceedings as ?unjust?, adding that it had not been he who ordered the building bombing but NATO leaders.

  ?I am convinced that, sooner or later, justice will prevail and this nation and this state will not allow a puppet regime to besmirch the national dignity,? said Milanovic. B92
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 5:58 pm
  Oh Rita, your life must be hell with so much hate in your heart.

  Let me help you to get out of your misery. It is possible that some Americans hate Serbs for whatever reasons but there is no American who hates Macedonians as you do. They simply do not have any reason for that. So, yes Rita you are Albanian, you are high educated Kosovo Albanian women and that is exactly what causes all your problems. Deep in your heart you are grateful to the Serbs because without their influence on Kosovo education system you will never be what you are (high educated), but on the other hand you are Albanian and by definition you hate Serbs, but on the other hand, middle age social system among Kosovo Albanians doesn't allow you to express yourself within that society so you hate the fact being Albanian (specially today, you denied it) but on the other hand you love your parents...huh.

  Than you are Muslim and you live in America and you like to be Muslim and you like to be an American but they don't like each other inside you, and you don't like American arrogant and aggressive behavior in the world (you are going to protest for Iraq) but only Serbs stood up against that kind of behavior so you are on the same side with the Serbs but you hate Serbs...

  Rita, believe me people on this site understands you and nobody will attack you. We all feel sorry for you and you can come here from time to time and use this site for therapy purposes and we will all understand when you start with:

  My name is Rita Rita and I hate Serbs...
  
  Vedran Tosic
  Netherlands

• Friday February 14, 2003 at 11:05 pm
  We all are waiting for Vera's today’s report but I'm afraid she can not access this website because web page is too long. Moderator, please, listen to the loud requests from your visitors and break up this long page. I hope you are not doing this intentionally.
  
  Dragisa d_jovan@yahoo.com
  Toronto
  Canada

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 12:51 am
  

  Four out of fifteen,is the latest count for UN backing for war in Iraq. NATO nations will fall away from action with no support from the electorate.

  Where was this voice of decent when the US bombed Serbia?

  I guess it takes awhile to see trough propaganda. Perhaps now the trial of Jamie Shay is possible.

  C Powell again on CNN used Kosovo as an example of succesfull intervention. CNN no longer reads my protests of these lies. Please join me and condem the lack of truth. "email them till they capitulate."
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 4:35 am
  It is easy to start the ping-pong with the pictures of dead bodies, because when the Serbs reply, you can say that the Serbs started it, which shows how sick the Serbs are. Also, if the US attacks Iraq, it is easy to blame the Serbs for that too, because that attack shows that the US might have been the aggressor in Yugoslavia (provided the US is the aggressor in Iraq), which is what the Serbs have been saying all along, which shows that the Serbs are pigs.

  It is true that "everyone knows who was the agressor in that dead country." In fact, there aren't that many options available. Since nobody can be an aggressor in one's own country, that leaves those who attacked that country from outside: like the Albanians from Albania (as confirmed by Daan Everts of OSCE), Nato war planes from the skies, not to mention the outside financial support to get the rebel movements going inside the country.

  But I think we have better things to do than to rehash the obvious for the n:th time for the benefit of those who have trouble keeping up.

  Pierre Bunel may have been sentenced for a good reason, if he knew that the bombing of the Chinese Embassy was intentional. However, we don't need Bunel, because now we hear from a reliable source that the Americans have satellite dishes. This is of course very important, when one bears in mind that the American high-tech was what enabled the US to know there was military equipment in the basement of the Chinese Embassy.

  Now I understand why Del Ponte concluded that the Nato reports are reliable. Of course! The Americans have satellite dishes!

  On a different front, Amy Chua wrote that the US uses force only to bring prosperity. But let's look at it from the opposite angle. Is the US always there to bring prosperity? In this instance, I would rather believe George Soros than some Yale egghead like Chua. Soros says that he realized very quickly after the collapse of the East Bloc that the talk about bringing prosperity to the East Bloc was empty rhetoric, which was only meant to destroy the Soviet Union, the chief rival of the US. Remember, Soros is Hungarian, which is why I think he really means what he says. This would imply Chua brings the sugar-coated version that she knows the Americans love to hear (which also explains her teaching post at Yale.)

  The "Chua model" is important in addressing the war crimes prosecutions, because as long as the Americans really believe the bullshit stories like Chua's, any suggestion of prosecuting the Americans is preposterous. I just can't make sense when she says American ballot boxes brought Slobodan Milosevic to power. Is she really certain that American ballot boxes brought Milosevic to power? If the American ballot boxes are the problem, I think she would do well to take a look at her own presidents, which she won't do, because their job is to bring prosperity to the world.

  Now that the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory was brought up, what kind of compensation was paid there, if any? This time the bombing was deliberate. It is also certain the factory was UN-approved. Maybe some compensation was indeed paid.

  That, in turn, would explain why David Andrews was so careful to point out that the Chinese Embassy bombing was a mistake, which means that the US compensation didn't set any precedent. Andrews, I am sorry, but there seems to be some pattern emerging here, and I am afraid that the no-precedent statement is not quite water-tight.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 5:11 am
  

  Given the popularity of Chinese food in America, I can testify the Americans have much familiarity with Chinese dishes.

  The owner of the Kartoon pharmaceutical factory went to court and sued the US Government in the USA, when the case was accepted and risked to create bad publicity for Clinton & Co. they settled out of court, if my memory is correct, for the pittance of US$m80.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 5:22 am
  

  The factory, the Khartoum factory had a new contract with the UN to provide pharmaceuticals for sale to Iraq under the UN sanctions regime.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 5:28 am
  Settling out of court, must mean that no precedent is set, but what happens if an out-of-court settlement seems to set a precedent for another out-of-court settlement. I think the Chinese knew what they were doing when they insisted on the investigation and punishment. That is a kind of out-of-court/in-court mix.

  I don't think Milosevic had any intention of dragging the Chinese to the proceedings at a later stage, when he said that Clinton wanted to go down to history as the first US president to bomb Chinese territory. You see, the Chinese embassy isn't Chinese territory, it is Yugoslav territory. If Milosevic expected some support from the Chinese, he wouldn't have made an incorrect statement like that.

  On the other hand, Milosevic was lucky not to blurt out that the Chinese embassy was Yugoslav territory. Who knows, Milosevic might have been sentenced for not warning the Chinese embassy in advance of the Nato bombing. That would have been analogous to the RTS judgment. Now there is still a possibility for a start of a beautiful friendship.

  I was just about to correct myself and say I myself have trouble keeping up with this discussion. I can't make the connection here: at what time were the Albanians trying to stop the war in Yugoslavia? By the same token, I would like use to refresh our memories, and take another look at the Balkans wars as a whole. If the Bosnians were trying to stop the war in Bosnia, why were they killing other Bosnians so they could blame the Serbs? I don't think Michael Rose needed any satellite dishes to realize what had happened in Sarajevo.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 5:52 am
  

  Jari,

  This is what I think is important, important developments in the last 48 hours:

  General Aleksandar Vasiljevic tells the court about the role of foreign money, weapons indeed meddling in breaking Yugoslavia. Judge May (NATO) shows keen interest.

  Sesejl is as he predicted, publicly indicted effectively removing a formidable candiates in the future Serbian elections.

  Kosovo and Metohija becoming again, together with Albanian redentism in Southern Serbia a source of unrest. The US media and I suspect the European media has not paid much notice although the trouble is fueled from Washington.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 6:09 am
  Yes, Gogol, I noticed what you said about Vasiljevic testimony. But why did he say that about the foreign money and weapons? Is May now going to step down, because he realizes he might have a conflict of interests here: he is adjudicating a case where his own government (and that of the prosecution) is implicated? The Vasiljevic testimony is hardly relevant for Milosevic (which might explain why May didn't protest), but I guess these testimonies can be used as raw material for other lawsuits outside the tribunal, or indeed for declaring the Milosevic trial a mistrial.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 7:43 am
  

  Judge May (NATO), will not step down, he is not kind of a man or judge for that matter. General Vasiljev could not remember precisely about the English secret dealings, he remembered the Italians actively helping Yugoslavia in curtailing and jailing some of the agents, but England, well the general kept silence very mindful of the spot where he and his fellow Yugoslav were.

  Of, course judge May (NATO) could ask the prosecution, what exactly this witness was trying to prove in regard to the charges, how it did all connect to the defendant, how the killing without much of a fight, of NJA troops by Croatian illegal paramilitaries armed by foreign countries, etc, and the attempt to enforce federal Law, how all this made Mr. Milosevic the criminal he is charged to be. But the conspiracy of silence continues, not matter how blunt, no matter how obvious, this spineless bastard of the presiding judge has no guts, no stomach, and prefers to extend day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year a chance for the prosecutor, his fellow Englishman, to go on failing to produce his promised witness, neever mind any evidence of any value.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 7:48 am
  Vera

  we need your report :)
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 9:23 am
  Mr. Vedran Tosic,

  Your assessment of the person Rita Weinberg is absolutely correct one. She indeed appears to be Albanian in her mannerism of speech and the “philosophy” she espouses.

  On the New York Forum I have experience with a few zealots of Albanian persuasion. Rita completely duplicates them. In addition ,lingual mistakes she makes, are alike to those these Albanians make.

  It is truly interesting how she transformed from a seemingly moderate person to the one who does not hesitate to call all the Serbs pigs.( BTW pig is the hated animal in the Muslim faith and Albanians all hate pigs.)

  In conclusion, one should not waste time answering her.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 9:34 am
  I would like to appeal to legal minds in this website. This is an excerpt from an article by Economist. The two summary paragraphs are given below:

  Despite Mr Milosevic's antics in court, the prosecution is building a strong case against him. The trial's first phase, dealing with Kosovo, finished in September. It produced no “smoking gun” to prove that Mr Milosevic had directly ordered the atrocities or mass expulsions in 1998 and early 1999. That is hardly surprising. He committed very little to paper and often met his subordinates alone. But the prosecution did present a slew of evidence of a concerted Serb plan to drive hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians from the province through murder and terror-and demonstrated a clear chain of command leading to Mr Milosevic.

  The trial's second phase, which deals with even more widespread Serb atrocities in Bosnia and Croatia, has already featured damaging testimony from some Serb officials that in the early 1990s, despite Mr Milosevic's denials, he personally directed the Yugoslav army and Serb paramilitaries from Belgrade. This week Major-General Aleksandar Vasiljevic, the army's former head of intelligence and the most senior insider yet to appear, testified against his former leader. Other top Serb officials are expected to follow him into the witness chair in the coming months, many in the hope of escaping prosecution themselves.

  The question I am raising now is how can writer(s) of such article Appearing to be quite legalistic write down such claims.

  Second I would like people who know more about the details of the Milosevic trial to write to the Economist and express their educated opinions.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 9:49 am
  I was wondering if Vera or someone from Yugoslavia could comment on the trial, (the General's testimony)

  Vasiljevic said one of the state security recruits was Dragan Vasiljkovic -- known by his nom de guerre "Captain Dragan" -- who was an Australian air force pilot for 12 years before becoming a security advisor to the Tanzanian president in 1985. Captain Dragan set up a training camp and was to be the leader of an army to protect Krajina, a zone within Croatia set up for its minority Serb population. "After the fall of Krajina (overrun by Croatian forces in 1995), we wanted to set up a special army that would go to liberate it. After 22 days, Milosevic ordered these units to be disbanded. Perhaps he was afraid of the popular figures who were in possession of arms," said Dragan in a recent interview. His testimony for the prosecution is expected to Vasiljevic's next week.

  In coming months the tribunal prosecutors are expected to call other insiders to the stand against Milosevic, including former Yugoslav President Zoran Lilic. Do we know anything about the weight of their accusations?
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 9:50 am
  The information was taken from:

  http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030214-111023-5667r
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 11:16 am
  DJ

  The Economist and BBC recent articles are re-edited versions of what's coming out of 'media' surrogates covering the 'tribunal'. They both, acknowledged my Email, where I pointed out their shortcomings.

  You should watch the 'tribunal' transcripts and see how false the conclusions of the BBC and Economist articles en total are.

  Especially irritating is, that after reading the Economist Milosevic article, they have a pay to read recent article on the status of Kosovo. Who would subscribe to read such nonsense? It doesn't take a lawyer to see how contrived the proceeding of the 'tribunal are, and how contrived the 'reporting' is..
  
  J P
  US, Wis

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 1:12 pm
  Jari, your point is very interesting:” Soros says that he realized very quickly after the collapse of the East Bloc that the talk about bringing prosperity to the East Bloc was empty rhetoric, which was only meant to destroy the Soviet Union”.

  Two things to support your point: In 1989 Germany promised support to Croatian delegation if they secede from Yugoslavia.
  Tudjman in his public speech in 1990 said something in these lines: “There are four hundred billion dollars waiting on the border of Croatia, they would enter as soon as we secede.”

  Yet, today Croatian economy is in the very poor shape.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 3:08 pm
  Hello to all! This is the very first time ever I have been on this board, as can be documented. Thank you Jurist Forum. I appear here because I've been accused of posting on this board and being thrown off this board and other boards numerous times, I suppose because certain detractors do not care for my opinions, whatever. Having just found out about this particular site days ago when my identity was dishonestly and inaccurately linked to said site I decided to pay a visit, tour the area and probably fulfill my duty as guest to offer some comments. It's gratifying to see a well maintained and current resource for this trial. It serves a purpose of providing information, and more importantly an outlet for those who are sadly connected to the fate of Solbodan Milosevic (and et. al.) I'm not sure what advantage deriding and pernicious comments, remarks and nasty jokes directed toward certain ethnic groups will aid in achieving harmony and justice in the Balkans and throughout the world but I've heard it all before and I suppose I'll hear it once again. Good luck to all. I hope that truth wins out and justice will be served.
  
  JTKM (You can call me Jenny) Morningstar
  Babylon
  USA

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 3:48 pm
  It's very nice of the hosts here to provide one of the few web sites where some real opinion and reportage of the "trial" can be found. My thanks
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 3:52 pm
  I would ask the moderator however to consider a different form for the forum. I'm not used to such a small page loading so poorly, for whatever reason.
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 4:11 pm
  Suggestion for facilitating the writing of letters to mainstream media

  If you mention an article published in the mainstream media and you feel it deserves negative (or positive) feedback, try to provide a link to the article as well as the source's e-mail or postal address for contact. Many of us who are willing to contact the source are discouraged by the extra time needed to find this info.

  Case in point, the obviously uninformed and essentially propagandistic article of The Economist, noted above by D.J.. Here is the page with info for contacting the Economist. The e-mail address is letters@economist.com . Be firm but polite!
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 4:14 pm
  I am looking for serious documents and lawyers opinions about legitimacy of ICTY. While I need it for a scientific paper, citations I am looking for, also should be in proper form. If you know of any good publicationa on this please let me know (links to online editions, books and so on greatly appreciated). Please also e-mail me with answers, while this forum is not very easy to browse. Thank you
  
  Blazej Choros
  Poland

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 4:16 pm
  ooops, my e-mail adress is: bchoros@poczta.onet.pl
  
  Blazej Choros
  Poland

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 4:25 pm
  Thank you Jari and Pythagoras.

  I was sufficiently aggravated and angry with what I read that in my hast I did not provide the link.

  I will be more careful in the future.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 4:26 pm
  JP, To see a publication of the stature of The Economist wander into the abyss of ICTY-apologia is indicative of the despair on the part of the kangaroo court's backers. There have been several such articles in prominent English publications in recent weeks, and yet, they accomplish so very little with their writings, aside from tacitly admitting to what everybody knows: the US and Britain are neck-deep in a quagmire of their own making and sinking every day.

  I don't recall The Economist ever providing much in the way of useful analysis of the situation in the Balkans in the past decade. To its credit it did publish a very important letter from the Secretary-General of the nascent EU, Jose Cutileiro, who was forced to correct another one of The Economist's numerous biased articles and point out that it was the Izetbegovic-Muslims in Bosnia who reneged on an EU peace agreement after originally agreeing to it. The Portuguese diplomat wrote: "President Izetbegovic and his aides were encouraged to scupper that deal and to fight for a unitary Bosnian state by well-meaning outsiders who thought they knew better."
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 7:54 pm
  

  A similar situation occurred in the run-up to NATO's bombing of Kosovo in 1999 when a resolution authorizing force was withdrawn in the face of a threatened Russian veto.

  At the end of the 78-day bombing campaign, the United Nations then came together to pass a resolution authorizing a U.N. administration of Kosovo and a framework for its reconstruction. Several council diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a similar play on Iraq may be the best way around the current split in the council.

  No comment.
  
  Cogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 9:34 pm
  The testimony of the retired Major General Aleksandar Vasiljevic revealed many things, but not necessarily those that the Prosecution hoped for, or those that the media reported as being revealed. It showed plainly the courtroom tactics of the Prosecution, which, in the absence of hard evidence, applied every imaginable trick to make it look like there is some evidence (incorrect maps and charts; 'documents' without heading or signature; muddling with time frame of the events; hints and allegations; exploitation of the General's vagueness and impreciseness bordering on lies, due to his personal & professional rivalries with his former Army colleagues and particularly with the Police officials; constant resorting to private sessions whenever the testimony was leading nowhere and thus leaving the impression something important had been revealed far from the public). Such tactics was so obvious that even May had to react, resembling a real judge for a change, and for the first time overruled a major request by the Prosecution not to go on with the line of questioning re the arming of CRO (previously it was done only with some tiny issues). The testimony further showed the General's devotion to the ideal concept of the Military, his resentment over the Army's indecisiveness to take over the situation by the military coup, his loathing of the politicians in general and the Presidency of the ex-YU in particular, and sadly his petty internal grudges, blinding him for the whole picture and making him utter vague assertions, few semi-truths and even small lies. Finally, it showed in the cross-examination which is to be finished Monday that, when the role of the Army and his ego are being touched by the questions of Milosevic, the General proved to be the perfect witness to the Defence, spilling in long soliloquies all the coherent, reliable and vivid data depicting the events in a way the Prosecution never dreamed they would be depicted, i.e. exactly the opposite from their own depiction in that clumsily fabricated indictment.

  Let's see first the Prosecution's behaviour. Nice pulled his tricks throughout the examination-in-chief, and even more frequently during the cross-examination, but I'll try to point out here only the most blatant examples. Since some of the transcripts are already available (those for 5 and 6 February, with the beginning of the examination-in-chief), you can check some of that by yourselves at the http://www.un.org/icty/ind-e.htm, scrolling down to 'Milosevic' and to 'Transcripts'. I strongly urge you to read all the remaining transcripts re Vasiljevic as well, when they appear.

  At the very beginning of the examination-in-chief, Nice tried to create the impression that he's in control, that the witness obeys him; so he produced the first exhibit, a map of 5 military districts in the ex-YU, 'just to familiarize yourself with the overhead projector' and he asked the witness to use the pointer and show the 'otherwise pretty self-explanatory' military districts. It didn't turned out to be as self-explanatory as Nice expected: the General objected the borders of one military district to be drawn wrongly : the north-western border of the 1st military district should have been much further to the east. Nice pretended not to understand, but the General persisted it should include Osijek and Vukovar as well. Nice hurriedly thanked him and said 'Your Honours, we move on in the summary to paragraph 6…' He just moves on, and the incorrect official Prosecution exhibit, the map, instead of being immediately thrown away like a worthless peace of paper, remains. The extreme importance of this particular trick is the following: firstly, it was perfectly natural for the JNA units from Novi Sad to operate in Vukovar, being in the same military district and not 'arriving from another Republic', as the Prosecution keeps alleging, and secondly and more important, this shows how those military district borders never coincided with those artificial, administrative borders of the republics, that the JNA always treated ex-YU as one indivisible whole. And this sets a pattern of the Prosecution's intent to deliberately confuse the already confused judges, profiting from their confusion.

  Another example will show you how the Prosecution muddles up the time frame of events, which was also a consistent pattern throughout. Speaking of the role of the JNA in the events, the General tried to explain that the conflict between the local Serbs in CRO and the Croatian paramilitary units had 3 different stages and 3 different roles for the JNA: 'the first and basic objective was, during the first stage for the JNA to separate the parties in conflict. This is the conflict that the JNA did not take part in.' Later, another objective was added to this, the one to protect the JNA facilities and troops blocked and attacked by the Croats. The third stage included the protection of the people 'attacked by either side' and specifically when the full-blown National Guards Corps (ZNG), 'that had been established as an army by then' started attacking Serb civilians in the areas of Banija, Lika and Kordun. This stage started from August-September 1991 onwards. To a direct question about the JNA forcing the political solution to the crisis, the General replied 'Never. Not in any period of time.' Having heard all that, Nice switched backwards in his questions to the unrelated events from June 1991 concerning Slovenia; then he produced a document from the Federal Secretariat for National Defence (SSNO) from December 1991, again regarding CRO, where he found the words 'protection of the Serbian population' being one of the aims listed (the others were 'a peaceful resolution of the Yugoslav crisis', preservation of YU and of the combat readiness of the JNA…). Nice then slyly asked whether this accords with the General's understanding of the objectives of the JNA. When the General said he gave his opinion in the previous answer, and that 'I spoke about the period around September…', Nice rudely interrupted him with 'We move on to the question of arming the Serbs…' So, the half-asleep judges were lulled by irrelevant question first, then the impression was created that the crucial objective of the JNA was to put itself on the side of the Serbs throughout the conflict, and when the witness tried to explain this was not so, he was interrupted and the circus moved on. 'And now of something completely different', as Monty Python's Flying Circus linking jingle would say. And, instead of moving onward in time, Nice moved backward, to the events from the beginning of 1991. And one simply can not begin to understand what was going on unless one strictly observes what happened first and what followed.

  The second feature of this particular testimony was the behaviour of the witness himself. Here's a good example of his impreciseness, ignorance of the regulations or perhaps a deliberate lie, exploited by Nice and revealed by Milosevic. It concerns the command over the Territorial Defence (TO).

  When asked by Nice, the General said that 'in peacetime, the TO is run by the Republic concerned; it is practically subordinated to the President of the Republic. In times of war, the Supreme Commander [the Presidency of YU] becomes the Supreme Command [a body]; the President of the Republic becomes the Commander of the TO.' When Nice asked: "For those deployments and subordinations to occur, would the republican territorial commander's authorisation be required?", Vasiljevic answered: "I assume that it would be required." This was the very first question raised by Milosevic in his cross-examination and he started by asking the General about the regularity of his military schools, establishing the fact that his schooling and promotions were not something irregular which skipped over some necessary steps and that he presumed the General had to know at least a bit about things like the Constitution and military regulations. Then he started to quote from those two and it turned out that the General's assertions re TO were wrong. The armed forces of the SFRY are unified, consisting of the JNA and TO, the Presidency of YU commands all the JNA and TO units etc. etc. Each assertion was ended with "Also not disputable?" Vasiljevic was embarrassed, answered 'no' each time, and finally added angrily "This is well known to you as well.' Milosevic said: "It is indeed well known to me, that's why I'm quoting it to you, because at the beginning of your testimony you were saying something contrary to it, about the President of the Republic being in command of the TO, which results as wrong from this here. So, the Presidency nominates all the generals, including those of the TO?" Vasiljevic said: 'Yes, because these are the generals in question… but the proposals come from the Republics'. So, General, proposals for nominations, but not commanding role? Milosevic pressed his point: "They're all responsible to the Presidency, including the TO commanders; is it disputable?" Vasiljevic: "It shouldn't be, when there's SFRY…" Milosevic attacked: "So, to accommodate this opposing side, you have implicated that the TO is under the competence of the President of the Republic, and from what I've read here it turned out this is not so." May intervened and, rephrasing the question, himself asked the General whether he agreed or not that the TO wasn't under the competence of the Republic. Vasiljevic was offended, gave a little speech of "Your Honours, I didn't come here to accommodate no one, neither the Prosecution nor the defendant, but to tell the truth to the best of my knowledge. All that has been read applies to the normal situation." He hinted he had some knowledge of different behaviour, but when Milosevic directly asked him what examples does he have, it remained unanswered; the General's last remark re this subject was a vague 'the question is what the practice was like.' Some witness. Milosevic pounded him to the ground: "You have answered here with the 'I assume' to the question from Nice about whether the authorisation by the President of the Republic was required for the presence of the TO. As you can see from the regulations, it was not required." Milosevic took off the soft gloves and slapped the General with 'this was not my Police, as you said, it was the Police of the Republic of Serbia". He claimed that the witness 'made a whole series of mistakes', the Prosecution as well 'showing you that incorrect map with military districts…" May interrupted him: "Ask the question, ask the question…" Milosevic: "I'll ask the question with the greatest pleasure, because this is an extremely useful witness, but not for this other side, unfortunately." Milosevic then mentioned another incorrect document presented by the Prosecution: the chart of the chain of command within the Republic, linking the Head of Security Service (DB) directly to the President of the Republic. He previously established that he is responsible to the Minister of the Interior Affairs, who is in turn responsible to the Govt. of Serbia. To each assertion Vasiljevic answered that 'nothing is disputable in that'. The question was: "Then, how can you make up a scheme directly linking DB with the President? Doing it by heart or playing into the hands of the indictment?" Vasiljevic protested that he 'came here to testify neither against you nor in your favour' (Does he really believe that? He's the witness to the Prosecution, unless he forgot. Though, from what I heard during the cross-examination so far, he was extremely useful for the Defence. But, I'll come to that later on.) The matter ended again it hints that perhaps the links were indeed not official, but that a certain person 'had been appointed by the recommendation from the accused, because I know they were very close and intimate friends.' The problem is that the Prosecution made up an exhibit, a chart of the chain of command within the Republic, without stating that this is the chart of personal relationships, favouritisms and informal power structures, but of formal and official connections. This is the type of documents that the Prosecution prepares. And when asked to prove such hints and allegations, the witnesses either say that 'this is common knowledge' or 'it was different in practice' or some such vagueness.

  [to be continued]

  Gogol, thanks for the e-mail.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Saturday February 15, 2003 at 11:27 pm
  I have been reading this site since the beginning of the trial and have been very impressed due to the posts of certain individuals, i.e., Gogol, Jari, Walter, Peter, and later Vera and many others. I hate to see this forum tarnished by remarks that amount to “yea, yea, yea, your mother is fat.”You must realize that those who come on this forum to disrupt want only the failure. No one is helping their cause by responding to those who just talk cheap rubbish. I have seen other forums go down the drain. Let your enemies find another forum.

  It is good of Jurist to provide this forum for intelligent discussions.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA