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

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 12:11 am
  The eunuch Goran Mihajlovic, hides behind a socialist façade, demeans women, and it is obvious that he can’t read. Every one of your silly questions was answered on this forum not once but many times. Names of those responsible for the war were named and number of death discussed until the cows came home so read the archives. Almost everyone here knows that it was not Serbian nationalism that destroyed Yugoslavia and by your statement “TEN MAJOR PEOPLES OF FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS ON THE SIDE OF SERBIAN NATIONALISM” you know it as well. It is exactly with these words,

  PLEASE FORWARD THE FOLLOWING TO ALL MEDIA that a lawyer would give directions to his legal assistant. Goran protests too much, methinks. to hides his bourgeois vulgarity

  The only COWARD on this forum is Goran Mihajlovich whom socialists would call a moral degenerate and an obvious raving lunatic. My apologies to lunatics since I meant to say a driveling idiot who mistakes midnight for noon and he himself does not know the precise moment when twilight becomes darkness in his mind.
  
  WAlter Trkla
  Kamloops
  Canada

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 12:27 am
  Good stuff Vera. I guess the proseuction likes the term "joint criminal enterprise" better than they like the term "consperacy theory."

  Did you perhaps see Gen. Morillion's testimony?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 12:53 am
  

  "Grateful for being found smart enough, I¡¯ll go about my further irrelevant trifles¡­"¡­ "Now, back to trifles" ¨C I respect your honesty on this, and agree in your assessment of yourself.

  In the light of the two paragraphs in which you do try to answer the critique, I must revise my assumption that you are an intelligent person. For example: "And BTW, I cannot possibly be labeled a Serb nationalist, because I¡¯m not even a Serb." One does not need at all to be a Serb in order to be an extreme Serbian nationalist. You could find many examples in history of prominent leaders of certain nationalisms who were even not members of that nation. Your nationality, or anyone else¡¯s is not an issue, we are talking about your world outlook, and you have just openly admitted that your outlook is deeply nationalistic, conservative and reactionary. Its your right for sure.

  Just you cannot support it by logic! Because you should explain why the greatest nationalistic fervor coincides with decline and evaporating of Serbian nation, and exactly in the proportion to that nationalism and your posting of trifles. With some more, perhaps Radical Party government, there would be no Serbs left at all. Apart from that you follow suit of other nationalists here in falsifying the critique to which you are unable to counter. Example is for the hundredth time: "They don¡¯t suggest that everybody should renounce it. Just like they don¡¯t suggest the whole concept of national states should be abandoned; all they want is for their national state to prevail and their ¡°way of life¡± to be accepted universally." To whom you ascribe this rubish? To the World Socialist Web Site? Could it be that you are such a liar? I now realize how dark, mediocre and limited is your perspective, but I never supposed you are a liar. To me it is a surprise. BTW your political understanding lags at least decades when you believe that it is national state and not transnational companies and big capital that are the main player. In fact national states are already outmoded and not even viable. Result of globalization of production, which is itself an inevitable result of development of capitalism.

  Continue with your trifles, you are not interesting to me any more.

  Just to add, that you too have no guts to answer those few questions stated in recent posts. What is the point then of the whole discussion? Your answer ¨C trifles.

  OK Trkla, let it be your way. I am glad you have become a defender of socialism, that is a good development, and I do acknowledge that you are right about the inappropriateness of some of my language here. Indeed vulgarity is in general unthinkable in a serious socialist politics, so in that you are right, I admit it as my problem which I will have to overcome. On the other hand the nature of the forum also plays an important role in the level on which the debate is conducted, don't you think? TO THE MIN POINT: you are contradictory, if those questions are ¡®silly¡¯?? then why have you ¡®answered them on this forum not once but many times¡¯? Second, I don¡¯t know what have you been doing here for two years, but these days in our discussion nobody was able to provide a consistent and systematic reply to those crucial, and not silly, questions. You used to speak about your family experience, but now you describe those questions as silly?! The main problem is that you don't realize that it WAS INDEED THE SERBIAN NATIONALISM ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS THAT DESTROYED YUGOSLAVIA. I am not in any way joking about that, and have no reason to have a bias on that question. You are too much looking from the position of Serbian nationalism and the role of a ¡®glue¡¯ that you ascribe to her, so you are not able to answer why WHY OUT OF TEN MAJOR PEOPLES OF FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS ON THE SIDE OF SERBIAN NATIONALISM, INCLUDING MAJORITY IN MONTENEGRO, AND FOR THAT MATTER IN BELGRADE? WHY SUCH HOSTILITY AGAINST SERBIAN NATIONALIST POLITICS? DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPLANATION? Historically, either you will be able to brake with Greater Serbian nationalism, or Serbia would be as a result of your and Vera Martinovic¡¯s defense of Serbs be shrunken to the proportions that it would not be able to find a glue even for herself.
  
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 1:23 am
  

  CORRECTION Vera Martinovic: "Grateful for being found smart enough, I'll go about my further irrelevant trifles¡­"¡­ "Now, back to trifles". ¨C I respect your honesty on this, and agree in your assessment of yourself.

  In the light of the two paragraphs in which you do try to answer the critique, I must revise my assumption that you are an intelligent person. For example: "And BTW, I cannot possibly be labeled a Serb nationalist, because I'm not even a Serb." One does not need at all to be a Serb in order to be an extreme Serbian nationalist. You could find many examples in history of prominent leaders of certain nationalisms who were even not members of that nation. Your nationality, or anyone else's is not an issue, we are talking about your world outlook, and you have just openly admitted that your outlook is deeply nationalistic, conservative and reactionary. Its your right for sure.

  Just you cannot support it by logic! Because you should explain why the greatest nationalistic fervor coincides with decline and evaporating of Serbian nation, and exactly in the proportion to that nationalism and your posting of trifles. With some more, perhaps Radical Party government, there would be no Serbs left at all. Apart from that you follow suit of other nationalists here in falsifying the critique to which you are unable to counter. Example is for the hundredth time: "They don't suggest that everybody should renounce it. Just like they don't suggest the whole concept of national states should be abandoned; all they want is for their national state to prevail and their "way of life" to be accepted universally." To whom you ascribe this rubish? To the World Socialist Web Site? Could it be that you are such a liar? I now realize how dark, mediocre and limited is your perspective, but I never supposed you are a liar. To me it is a surprise. BTW your political understanding lags at least decades when you believe that it is national state and not transnational companies and big capital that are the main player. In fact national states are already outmoded and not even viable. Result of globalization of production, which is itself an inevitable result of development of capitalism.

  Continue with your trifles, you are not interesting to me any more.

  Just to add, that you too have no guts to answer those few questions stated in recent posts. What is the point then of the whole discussion? Your answer ¨C trifles. OK Trkla, let it be your way. I am glad you have become a defender of socialism, that is a good development, and I do acknowledge that you are right about the inappropriateness of some of my language here. Indeed vulgarity is in general unthinkable in a serious socialist politics, so in that you are right, I admit it as my problem which I will have to overcome. On the other hand the nature of the forum also plays an important role in the level on which the debate is conducted, don't you think? TO THE MAIN POINT: you are contradictory, if those questions are 'silly' then why have you 'answered them on this forum not once but many times'? Second, I don't know what have you been doing here for two years, but these days in our discussion nobody was able to provide a consistent and systematic reply to those crucial, and not silly, questions. You used to speak about your family experience, but now you describe those questions as silly?! The main problem is that you don't realize that it WAS INDEED THE SERBIAN NATIONALISM ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS THAT DESTROYED YUGOSLAVIA. I am not in any way joking about that, and have no reason to have a bias on that question. You are too much looking from the position of Serbian nationalism and the role of a 'glue' that you ascribe to her, so you are not able to answer why WHY OUT OF TEN MAJOR PEOPLES OF FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS ON THE SIDE OF SERBIAN NATIONALISM, INCLUDING MAJORITY IN MONTENEGRO, AND FOR THAT MATTER IN BELGRADE? WHY SUCH HOSTILITY AGAINST SERBIAN NATIONALIST POLITICS? DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPLANATION? Historically, either you will be able to brake with Greater Serbian nationalism, or Serbia would be as a result of your and Vera Martinovic's defense of Serbs be shrunken to the proportions that it would not be able to find a glue even for herself.
  
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 3:44 am
  

  Mr. Markiewicz: Regarding your post of Wednesday February 11, 2004 at 9:07 pm - Thanks for your Vagabond Pages - reminded me of my grandfather, who died in the Holocaust.

  I'd like to share your opinion that "lies concerning History shouldn't be a topic for criminal investigation but is the domain of the universities (to avoid suspicion of political manipulation)." Unfortunately, the universities were pivotal in turning the Holocaust from an undeniable fact into a frivolous subject of trivial debates on  technicalities. Too many scholarly books were written only to obey the "publish or perish" order that shaped the campuses into knowledge extermination camps.

  The Holocaust historians make the strongest case yet for locking science back into the Ivory Tower. Many decades and mountains of evidence later, historians are still struggling to define the Holocaust. Arrogant and bellicose, they remain concerned mostly with carriers, reputations and bank accounts. I lost my patience with them long time ago.

  I am not alone in ignoring the experts, it seems. The US Social Security Services, for example, defines the Holocaust in a manner that makes Zundel a kinder, gentler denier, at least to scholars like Prof. Lipstadt. Her biblical definition of the Holocaust as "The attempt to annihilate the Jewish people" hyperlinks the tragedy to biblical events that make Hitler "pale in comparison to the anti-messiah and his evil schemes”. Even Irving won't go that far. Hence, until further notice, I'll stick to the 'revisionist' official US definition of the Holocaust.

  P.S. Beside Zundel's, Irving's trial also points to the versatility of modern court proceedings. The case was an action for defamation against Lipstadt of Emory University for statements made in her book Denying the Holocaust mentioned above. There, she paints David Irving as a Holocaust denier and as a frequent speaker before neo-Nazi/anti-Semitic groups. Irving filed a lawsuit in Britain to, inter alia, recover damages to his reputation.

  Irving lost. While he focused on showing that a historian damaged his reputation of a great historian of fascism, the opponent moved to show that 'history' was damaged by Irving's reputation of... fascist historian. The British judge loved the twist.

  The Prosecutor's twists at The Hague are less subtle, but no less lethal, I am afraid.

  
  
  John North
  Canada

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 7:13 am
  Goran needs a bigger penis
  
  . .
  .

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 7:17 am
  Vera

  another brilliant piece !

  Does anyone have any insight as to how high are the ICTY per diems for the OTP witnesses ?

  I tried asking Frank T., but Frank T. seems to be upset because the OTP favourites get big cushy OTP witness gigs and fat advisory fees for writing useless analysis. Meanwhile, Frank runs Domovina on a shoe-string begging for handouts.

  
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 8:03 am
  

  What is there to define in the murdering of inocent people, women, children, wasn't that what war does to millions, whether under the incendiaries in Tokyo, Dresden or starvation, hard labour in labor camps in the Transvaal?

  Or is it perhaps that this kind of dead body is more valuable than that kind?

  And just in case, holo is Greek for sacrifice and caust is Greek for fire . Ancrient Greek . . . .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 8:11 am
  The fatal size of Gorans penis and his retarded brain are according to his pimp Arben Q compensated by his Serbian ass now exposed on the "open market" in Albania.
  
  brainexhi Retarhdeth
  Albania

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 8:21 am
  

  Vive le Quebec libre!General Charles de Gaulle
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 9:16 am
  

  I would like to farewell with everybody in a friendly manner. I am sorry if sometimes the way I tried to convey some messages, in good will, was offensive. If I am to look for an excuse, one would be the enormous pressure that present decaying capitalist system exerts on all of us, the second perhaps a little bit too free and open way of communication that most of us got used to in Yugoslavia. Anyway, I on the other hand never felt offended by "insults" and jokes delivered to me. In fact I find most of them very humorous, and have enjoyed reading them. How much is now "my ass rated on the "open market" in Albania?" "Goran needs a bigger penis", well who doesn¡¯t? Any suggestions? "Doctors are reporting that many men like Goran are having allergic reactions to latex condoms" I learnt a lot from you, this about latex was unknown to me, as I hardly remember the last time I used condom, so I guess I didn¡¯t miss much, it was better natural way. Sometimes it was not easy to outsmart an opponent in these fields, as I am not as much informed about all these aspects as they are. Joke! Serbian saying: "Ko se bije taj se voli." "Those who fight each other, love each other".

  Of course, we have all been through a great tragedy, and now we should try in a progressive way to reverse the vicious circle. So, hope no bad feelings. After all, it is Valentines day.
  
  Goran Mihajlovic
  Yugoslavia

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 9:42 am
  "After all, it is Valentines day"

  Goran, is it possible that you celebrate a petty-bourgeois holiday?
  
  
  

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 10:34 am
  Nice try Goran, keep up the good work!
  
  Dario Fo
  Italy

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 10:39 am
  Goran it is Valentines day it's not only petty-bourgeois day it is religious holiday too.
  
     
   

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 11:12 am
  

  Rudolfo Valentino?
  
  G C
  SL

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 3:06 pm
  D Jovanovic you can see difference between sabotaged post from me or Goran. But anyway.

  Mr Peric you are right. I was wrong by one month - my mistake. You dont see often people to admit mistakes at Jurist? In fact never - must be something to do with age or pride. Will you admit to making mistake?

  That does not change argument about confederation or any of connected points I make about army in Slovenia. The army was ordered into Slovenia - why toy guns?

  David - Jovic did not have to organise putch. The Presidency sent in toy tanks and kids to fight for Jugoslavia. Question is who decided that only toy tanks and kids would be sent to Slovenia and why? In 1990 / 1991 there were only about 3 countries in the world that supported independence. (PP will correct if Im wrong) Why would Serbia have a problem with the world? It was only after that Serbia had problem with the world.

  what sort of "democracy" are u proposing where someone is forced at gunpoint to do as they are told and contrary to their wishes. - I propose that this was much better than what happened. 'Needs of the many' as somebody said to me. You must agree with me on this.

  Quesiton about constitution I answered. Its like looking at marriage certificate when marriage is braking saying ' ahh but you cant leave me it is braking your promise'. It is unreal, not based in reality. It is about making compromise before it gets nasty.

  David I dont think we are getting somewhere far here. We agree on equal right to self determination at least. We agree that 'they' (whoever they were) let Slovenia go. Even we agree that Milosevic is not guilty on some charges at the Hague. But I believe that Milosevic is guilty of some charges in Hague (smaller ones ok but guilty). I also believe that Tudjman Izetbegovic and Clinton were guilty of these charges.

  Before you go crazy at me for saying I think that Milosevic is guilty of some charges I also think that more less every single war leader in history of man also be found guilty of smaller charges that Milosevic is charged with. I think I said before but even if Hague is biased my argument is not that it should not exist. I think it should exist and everybody should answer to it in equal way. All of them.

  Gorane it was nice to have different input. Maybe nobody will say it but it makes change from same old argument at Jurist all time.
  
  Arandjel Pasic
  Jug

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 3:12 pm
  Some interesting articles about terrorism in the Balkans that you may have missed:

  http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/borba020704.htm

  http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/b92020104.htm

  http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/tanjug020104.htm

  http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/fonet012004.htm

  http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=56548
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 3:35 pm
  I agree with all of you! What happened is that i left my brain....SHIT! has anybody seen it? About the size of a walnut?..Please!
  
  Arandjel Pasic-Penis
  Jug

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 4:43 pm
  "David I don’t think we are getting somewhere far here. We agree on equal right to self-determination at least. We agree that 'they' (whoever they were) let Slovenia go. Even we agree that Milosevic is not guilty on some charges at the Hague. But I believe that Milosevic is guilty of some charges in Hague (smaller ones ok but guilty). I also believe that Tudjman Izetbegovic and Clinton were guilty of these charges."

  well done Arandjel, but issue here is who is charged and with what. I do not have problem with Milosevic being charged and sentenced for the crimes he committed, but I do not see Gotovina and Tudjman being charged with genocide and joint criminal enterprise (or better yet Clinton). I do not want a court that works as a tool for rich and powerful, I want impartial justice. And that is why I am against ICTY.
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 5:05 pm
  Arandjel Pasic,

  Jovic and the SFRY presidency didn't send anybody into Slovenia. It was Ante Markovic who (illegally) ordered the JNA into Slovenia.

  You are right that it was done in a half-assed fashion. That is why the JNA was defeated.

  It is my opinion that if the JNA was going to be used to stop Slovenia from leaving then it should have been done 100% or not at all.

  Jovic was against using the JNA to prevent Slovenian succession.

  At the time of Slovenia's succession paramilitary forces on the SFRY outnumbered the JNA.

  In the event of a war between the JNA and the Slovenes. It may well have turned out that Croatia would have joined together with Slovenia to fight against the JNA.

  Croatia could have cut off JNA supply lines and a lot of people could have been killed.

  From the stand point of saving lives it may well have been better to have just let Slovenia go.

  The Slovenes were overwhealmingly hostile towards Yugoslavia, and the number of people in Slovenia who wished to remain in Yugoslavia were small.

  Croatia and Bosnia were different because there were substancial numbers of people there who wanted to stay in Yugoslavia.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 7:42 pm
  John,

  The link you provided seems more to define Survivors for the purposes of according benefits, rather than defining the Holocaust as such. I notice lots of sources predating Lipstadt’s work on revisionism spoke of the multiplicity of peoples targeted for systematic destruction by the Nazis in the Holocaust, of the Holocaust as an aggregation of this planned destruction of peoples by the WWII German rulers. For example, The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, (http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Witness___Legacy_-_Educators__/Holocaust_-_Definition/holocaust_-_definition.html), etc. Wikipedia states a common understanding of the term: The word Holocaust (Greek, "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering") was introduced in the late 20th century to refer to the attempt of Nazi-ruled Germany to exterminate those groups of people it found "undesirable". Yad Vashem for its part explains:

  The biblical word Shoah (which has been used to mean “destruction” since the Middle Ages) became the standard Hebrew term for the murder of European Jewry as early as the early 1940s. The word Holocaust, which came into use in the 1950s as the corresponding term, originally meant a sacrifice burnt entirely on the altar. The selection of these two words with religious origins reflects recognition of the unprecedented nature and magnitude of the events. Many understand Holocaust as a general term for the crimes and horrors perpetrated by the Nazis; others go even farther and use it to encompass other acts of mass murder as well. Consequently, we consider it important to use the Hebrew word Shoah with regard to the murder of and persecution of European Jewry in other languages as well.

  Actually the problem I have with the U.S. and German governments’ definitions of *victims* - you indicate you accept the U.S. one - is their omissions, not their “revisions.” The German Claims Conference did not accord compensation to Jasenovac Survivors, though the Holocaust actually began in NDH Croatia, well before the Wannsee Conference. Notwithstanding that Nazi/Fascist bayonets were the midwives of the NDH régime, the German government’s position was that the systematic mass murder carried out in the NDH camp system was carried out by indigenous Croatian forces and not by German Nazi troops, administrators or politicians. While that’s fundamentally true, it means victims/Survivors of the Holocaust on NDH soil, the majority Serb, fall through the cracks with respect to recognition and compensation, and it overlooks the crucial role of Nazi troops in creating/defending the NDH frontiers, defending the Pavelic régime through armed actions against Allied and Partizan forces, and so on.

  Far from having spawned a profitable “holocaust industry” in acadème or institutions, the Holocaust in NDH perpetrated chiefly against Serbs has been the target of a *very* profitable and cynical industry of negationism (a more precise term than revisionism) whose window of opportunity was the collapse and destruction of Yugoslavia which the West abetted over a decade. The élite and media impetus to defame the Serbs as a people and demonize Serbian/Yugoslav leadership figures incorporated negationism and the cynical relativizing of Serb suffering and loss in the NDH Holocaust as weapons in its arsenal. Others in this forum have pointed this out, that this is a phenomenon we’ve seen *since the 90’s*, before which such discourse was the preserve of fascist and revanchist émigrés, and that it’s no accident that it really began in wider circles at this time. The cynical reducing of the NDH death camps to a mere episode in some millennial inter-ethnic “tit for tat”, the talk of a “Jasenovac myth” or a “Serb myth” about Jasenovac - all this enjoys a respectability which would not be accorded those reducing the Holocaust in Poland to a “Jewish-German” tit for tat. The equating of the Cetniki with the Ustashe by a Western “leftist” like M. Karadjis is taken seriously by people who wouldn’t take seriously equating the actions of Nazi troops in Poland with those of the Polish Home Army or Jewish Partisans. Talk of a “Jasenovac myth” or Serb “myth” about Jasenovac which ignores entirely scholarly work by Croatians in the pre-1990 period (see some review of the latter at http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bl/istorija/batakovic/batakovic-ustase_fr.html) and Croatia’s own republican war crimes commission in the 1940’s is taken seriously by people who’d react very differently to talk of an “Auschwitz myth” or a “Babi Yar myth.” And *this* is a very profitable industry of defamation and negationism which has launched or enriched the careers of many discount Balkanists, bomb-throwing social workers, “advocacy journalists” and their NGO hangers-on. It explains why a Zwann presents as an “expert” witness at the Hague, why a Philip Cohen is vaunted as a historian. That the “Holocaust industry” of which you speak has flown at half-mast on these questions as they’ve arisen in the former Yugoslav space for fear of their interests and relations with institutional benefactors in Washington and elsewhere is lamentable, but they’re not the culprits in this. They’re not driving this train. This is another tool in the West’s colonial war on the people of Yugoslavia, as is the ICTY, which continues the war by “other means” than ordnance. That’s why I think talk of the U.S. somehow debasing or undermining the ICTY’s work or prejudicing a “fair trial” there misses the point. It’s like talking about the Southern bourbons bringing discredit to Jim Crow laws. The problem was the laws, their very existence. There was no “fair” trial to be had under those laws, and likewise there’s no “fair” trial to be had in an institution which is the bastard progeny of an aggressor state and its allies and a tool of war. How the owner feeds and cares for its attack dog is very secondary here, I think.

  And that’s why I found the suggestions of analogies in the Irving and Zundel trials with that of Milosevic so ironic, because Milosevic obviously understands that the Prosecution is using holocaust negationism as a weapon against him and Yugoslavia and Serbia, just as did an array of intellectual apologists for Western policy for a decade. If negationism/”revisionism” has been less profitable to Zundel and Irving than to Tim Judah and Michael Karadjis and Mr. Zwann and others, put it down to lousy market analysis. They didn’t hit on the right niche.
  
  Jim Yarker
  Canada

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 9:09 pm
  Why does the media refuse to examine The Hague Trial Transcripts when they told us two years ago that this was atrial of the century:

  
  ICTY trial at Hague is the biggest war crime trial since Nurnberg.

  
  Prosecution has been readily and repeatedly admitting that its witnesses are “not telling the truth”.

  Puzzle:

  
  Why is the world’s media silent about this?

  
  How often do the prosecutors at any trial, anywhere in the world, volunteer that their witnesses are lying?

  
  How does:

  
  “reluctance to speak” progresses, to

  
  “people aren't telling the truth”, to

  
  “lies, or untruths, shall we say”;

  words of the principal prosecutor Mr. Geffrey Nice when talking about his witnesses’ testimonial evidence.

  When the prosecutor readily and repeatedly makes statements that his witnesses are lying, is the prosecution in trouble?

  On May 28, and on several occasions thereafter, Mr. Geoffrey Nice, the principal prosecutor at the tribunal pleaded with the Court Chamber that the Chamber should accept testimony and report of Mr. Barney Kelly as evidentiary. To the prosecutors chagrin, the Camber refused to do on the ground that neither would have any probative value.

  Mr. Barney Kelly is an investigator who joined OTP (office of tribunal prosecution) on 15th of September, 2000. Mr. Kelly was “charged with investigating and preparing a report or reports on Racak”. (Page 5711, lines 4-11; May 28)

  Mr. Kelly’s report and oral testimony were to summarize 60 written statements by the witnesses of the events that took place on and around January 15th and 16th, 1999 at Racak. Mr. Nice argued that report and testimony by Mr. Kelly would save courts time and flag errors and contradictions in the witness’s statements that have been providing a field day for defense.

  The following excerpts (from ICTY transcripts) are chosen, without prejudice?, to illustrate Mr. Nice’s arguments. Excerpts are indented. Letter “Q” stands for the prosecutor Mr. Geoffrey Nice, letter “A” for a witness. Every new excerpt contains the page and line number in the ICTY transcripts and the date of proceedings.

  Q…… Mr. Kelly, at this stage, one further question which isn't covered in a statement or indeed in your report, but it's necessary that I tell the Court and indeed the accused about it, and I'll do it through you although it's only just come to our knowledge. The KL -- the live witnesses from Racak have started to arrive, haven't they? (Page 5728, line 22; May 28)

  It would be of interest to all parties involved to know what, indeed, only just, came to the prosecutions knowledge. Incidentally, could the beginning of the last sentence be more than a slip of a tongue? Say: Freudian slip!

  A. That's correct.

  Q. And are they sophisticated urban people or are they country folk?

  One can find the characterization of people by the prosecution rather offensive.

  A. They're country folk

  Q. Did you detect yesterday something in them which may have been observed in earlier witnesses right at the beginning of the evidence?

  Inspector (detective!) detected (pun intended) only yesterday “which may have been observed in earlier witnesses right at the beginning of the evidence”? Bravo detective Kelly. Should the word “may” be, to stay in courts parlance, redacted in the previous sentence, and should the word “at” be replaced with the word “from”.

  
  A. Yes, I did.

  Q. Namely?

  
  A. Their reluctance to speak about the KLA.

  Ts, ts , prosecutor, all were equally “reluctant” (what an inappropriate euphemism) to live by the oath they gave to the court.

  
  Q. Is this something you were advised to consider and investigate so far as you could?

  
  A. Yes, I did

  
  Q. To track down, if there was a reason for that reluctance, what the reason was?

  
  A. Yes, I did make inquiries from them, and I did source the reason.

  Hold it Mr. Kelly the prosecutor ask you what the reason was? Never mind, prosecutors will remind you of his question.

  Q. And having sourced the reason, did you also check on the -- the emotions, the considerations of the witnesses themselves?

  A. I did, yes.Q. And did you then put them in touch with someone?

  Hm , it does not look like that the prosecutor will ask you to answer re: what is the reason for, he, he, he reluctance.

  A. Yes, Your Honours, I did.

  
  Q. Namely?

  
  A. The village leader in Racak.

  The village leader in Racak. But how about witnesses from other villages. How about witnesses that are, to use prosecutors words, sophisticated urban people. Is this, the village leader, pardon, village and cities leaders, er leaders et all source for reluctance?

  Q. Were they able to speak to the village leader this morning?
  A. Yes, Your Honours, they did

  
  Q. And so far as you're now able to tell, is there any impediment in their way of giving evidence about the KLA?

  
  A. No. The village leader advised them to speak the truth and to speak about everything in their statement and to answer any question put to them, and he reassured them

  When Barney Kelly vacated witness’s seat, the seat was taken by the witness Drita Emini, from Racak.

  Testimony of witness Drita Emini was vintage of prior testimonies. Let’s stay with the prosecutions euphemism: there was plenty of “reluctance” . Latter on we will learn that the prosecutor drops it. The euphemism.

  Since, Barney talking to the village leader and village leader’s advise did not bear any fruits, prosecution is forced to push for Chamber to accept Barney’s report or REPORT ON THE REPORTS as well as Barney’s testimony (evidence).

  JUDGE MAY: Why don't you go into the witness box and make the -- make the same statements? No one is going to question your integrity, but it's your case that's being produced. And it doesn't seem to me to have any probative value. (Page 5930, line 18, May 30)

  Judge was addressing the prosecutor Mr. Nice who, at this stage, was arguing that the judges reason for not willing to accept testimony by Mr. Barney is (mis)placed on judges mistrust of his integrity.

  NICE: …I suppose in the ultimate analysis that somebody is not telling the truth, there's been quite a lot of evidence in this trial already that people aren't telling the truth…. (Page 5931, line 8, May 30)

  Well, well, even for the most seasoned aficionados of courts theatrics, this must be the first: Prosecutor is stating that “there's been quite a lot of evidence in this trial already that people aren't telling the truth”. But, hold your horses, he didn’t say that his people are not telling the truth, did he? Let’s see what is he going to say continuing his monolog.

  …Everybody's observed that the early Albanian witnesses seemed rather shy about acknowledging the presence of the KLA. Maybe it's going to go on. Maybe it's understandable

  Well, he does not leave a smidgeon of a doubt whose “people aren't telling the truth”. And then comes probably the crux of his worry (continuation of the same monolog):

  …It certainly doesn't invalidate the rest of their evidence

  But what would happen if it does invalidate the rest of their evidence? Do you remember Mr. Nice your first witness. It was on February 18, 2002 and the witness was, well the high profile witness was Mahmut Bacali. Here it is, like all the quotes here, streight from the ICTY transcripts, what was said and done.

  
  JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the solemn declaration. (Page 510, line 15)
  THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth.
  JUDGE MAY: What does the solemn declaration say? That did not sound right.
  MR. NICE: I haven't got the English version with me at the moment, but it may be -Come, come Mr. Nice. You haven't got the English version! You don’t know it by heart? Are you fortelling us what is to come? Solemn, molemn who cares for declaration?
  JUDGE MAY: Could you read what's on the form, please. Yes
  THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth
  JUDGE MAY: Thank you, if you would like to take a seat.
  THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
  WITNESS: MAHMUT BAKALLIMr. Nice, oath, or solemn declaration is made of three equally binding integral parts. For clarity:
  I solemnly declare that I will speak
  the truth,
  the whole truth,
  and nothing but the truth.

  Do you understand why, one has to believe, the Judge May insisted on the proper and complete wording? Why do they, and you just about admitted that, stayed with only the first component of declaration and abused the remaining two thirds? Did you advise your witnesses properly?

  Solemn declaration does not say:

  
  I solemnly declare that I will speak
  the truth,
  partial truth,
  untruth and anything else.

  Thus allowing judges to accept selective parts of witnesse’s evidence. There is no parsing of truth in the sworn declaration.And here is the final transformation of “reluctance”. As seen and reported by the prosecutor Mr. Nice.

  Mr. NICE: … Can I just make my last few points and then I'll close? It's an important point, though. I've dealt with the fact that in fact this sort of material is valuable because it shows lies, or untruths, shall we say. (Page 5934, line 7; May 30)

  Several witnesses and three court days latter this is what the principal prosecutor Mr. Geoffrey Nice had to say:

  Mr. NICE… One last thing: Several witnesses now have spoken of mutilation of bodies at Racak, hearts being cut out and so on. It may be, and this will be an argument in due course, and may be that that is explicable by damage done to bodies by gunshot and similar weaponry….(Page 6295, line 21, June 5

  Oh, Mr. Nice, but the witnesses “saw, with their own eyes, the mutilations being done, saw the knifes, saw the hearts cut out from alive …”

  
  ZTN
  PS: Why are witnesses, to use prosecutors words, “not telling the truth”? The true (sic) reasons are most definitely known by the witnesses. And they are mum about it.

  There are, possible, more reasons or “rationals” for that. Could one of the rationals be: The world, especially since 1999, believed absolutely everything we (the Kosovo Albanians) told it. Why should we change the winning strategy?

  R. NICE: … Now, perhaps I can say a little more about that next week, but one can imagine -- in the trial, we've already seen a change in the attitude -- we've seen a change in the attitude of witnesses coming to this Tribunal to give evidence, and it's a slowly developing and very welcome change. It needs every encouragement it can get.(Page 6934, line 24, June 13, 2002.)
  
  Walter Trkla
  Canada

• Sunday February 15, 2004 at 11:51 pm
  Nothing becomes Goran as much as his going
  
  Seshadri R
  India

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 7:02 am
  TO SLOBODA/ICDSM FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS:

  THE PROSECUTION CASE ENDS ON 19 FEBRUARY 2004.

  THE CASE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC SHOULD START IN ONLY THREE MONTHS, ON 19 MAY 2004.

  THE COALITION OF CRIME - US/NATO/DOS/ICTY IS ATTEMPTING TO SILENCE PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC, TO SILENCE TRUTH AND FREEDOM.

  TURN THE NEXT WEEK INTO A WEEK OF PROTESTS. DEMAND IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC. WRITE TO UN, ICTY, YOUR GOVERNMENT.

  ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS ONE CAN FIND AT:

  www.icdsm.org

  READ THE LATEST NEWS AT ICDSM WEB SITE:

  -LETTER OF RAMSEY CLARK TO UN, DEMANDING SUSPENSION OF AD HOC TRIBUNALS AND RELEASE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC http://www.icdsm.org/more/rclarkUN1.htm

  -COMMUNIQUE OF THE RUSSIAN COMMITTEE FOR THE DEFENSE OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, SIGNED BY ALEXANDER ZINOVIEV http://www.icdsm.org/more/russia1202.htm

  -ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE ICDSM PRESS CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE ON 17 FEBRUARY 2004 http://www.icdsm.org/more/haguepress1702.htm

  -APPEAL OF SLOBODA AND MILOSEVIC FAMILY TO UN AND HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS http://www.icdsm.org/more/rights.htm

  ------------------------------------------

  IMPORTANT NOTICE:

  UNTIL 21 FEBRUARY, PLEASE SEND ALL YOUR E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO SLOBODA AND/OR VLADIMIR KRSLJANIN TO THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY ADDRESS:

  walterkinley@netscape.net

  ------------------------------------------------

  STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM AND TRUTH ABOUT THE SERBIAN PEOPLE AND YUGOSLAVIA IS IN THE CRUCIAL PHASE. NATO AND ITS SERVICES IN BELGRADE AND THE HAGUE HAVE NO INTEREST TO SUPPORT IT.

  SO IT TOTALLY DEPENDS ON YOU!

  A SMALL TEAM OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC'S ASSISTANTS, WHICH IS BECOMING INTERNATIONAL, HAS TO HAVE CONDITIONS TO WORK AT THE HAGUE IN THE TIME OF INTENSIVE PREPARATIONS FOR THE FINAL PRESENTATION OF TRUTH AND DURING THAT PRESENTATION.

  TO DONATE, PLEASE CONTACT SLOBODA OR THE NEAREST ICDSM BRANCH, OR

  find the instructions at:

  http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm

  To join or help this struggle, visit:

  http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)

  http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic)

  http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)

  http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)

  http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)

  http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)

  http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)

  (mail carried TO ALL (incl. Goran Mihajlovic!) as received by:)
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 7:16 am
  Walter Trkla

  Nice work !

  Is it reasonable to conclude that after 2 years of parroting such lies, half-truths, and misinformation that the OTP is demoralized ?

  Nice and DelPonte are of course putting on a brave face. But, what about the hundreds of bright young things who flocked to the ICTY hoping to use the ICTY as a high speed escalator to furture success ?

  The shrewdest of these OTP juniors must have long since seen how the ICTY was going to be a laughing stock. These bright ones realized they had to put as much distance between the ICTY and their careers as soon as possible. The shrewdest OTP juniors are long gone, having polished up their resumes.

  By now, the OTP juniors must be a sad lot. Only those with no other alternative remain. Or worse for the Prosecution Case, those juniors that remain are too dimwitted to realize having ICTY service on their resumes is a future liability for any legal eagle.

  It is fairly clear that the OTP is deeply demoralized and divided. The quality of their efforts (which was never high to begin) with has diminshed in the last few months.

  
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 10:48 am
  A response from Bard college on the time coding of the trial:

  It is the cause of a recent (forced) upgrade with the realserver software we use to house the archive. It's a glitch that we've been trying to fix since the problem initially surfaced a few months back, but we've realized that it is, in fact, a bug in the real software that is quite difficult to circumvent. Basically, some of the chunks of video that are generated automatically from our video feed in The Hague are not time-coded (this is the glitch) so this rules out any further editing of the footage because we have no time-code to work with. It's an annoying problem, and I am aware of how inconvenient it is for everyone watching, but for the moment we'll have to make do with having to watch the entirety of the segments, dead air and all! "
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 1:15 pm
  

  Good post Walter!!!

  War Criminal to Testify at The Hague "War Crimes" Tribunal

  URL:http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BLA312A.html
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 2:05 pm
  

  Latest:

  UN prosecutor Carla Del Ponte charged that Belgrade and the international community were "reluctant" in cooperating with investigations into war crimes by ethnic Albanians fighters in Kosovo.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 2:09 pm
  'You are right that it was done in a half-assed fashion. That is why the JNA was defeated. It is my opinion that if the JNA was going to be used to stop Slovenia from leaving then it should have been done 100% or not at all.'

  Bravo Andy the point Im making said in clear way. Careful - you might be accused of wanting people dead now. What is the problem in that opinion I dont know... Must make me warmonger who wanted to see dead people in Slovenia...

  At the time of Slovenia's succession paramilitary forces on the SFRY outnumbered the JNA. - Do you have statistics for this Andy? You know that JNA at this time were against Slovenian defences. Paramilitary forces statistic includes Serb side. I dont know any time in war when JNA fought against Serb paramilitaries. Talking about weapons and men JNA would have done job if they wanted in days.

  In the event of a war between the JNA and the Slovenes. It may well have turned out that Croatia would have joined together with Slovenia to fight against the JNA.

  I do not agree with this. Croatia was not ready / remember they let tanks pass through Croatia to Slovenia. There was a big problem between both sides. If situation was used in clever way by Jugoslavs it could have broken 'independence' solidarity. Myth of solidarity between Croatia and Slovenia is exposed today. There are so many problems with Slovenia and Croatia.

  'From the stand point of saving lives it may well have been better to have just let Slovenia go.'

  That assumes that if Slovenia was let go then there would be no war in Croatia and Bosnia. You know that isnt true. But I do say if you are right I would let Slovenia go to stop death and refugees.

  Thank you for clear and honest points. Others at Jurist could learn from this openness.
  
  Arandjel Pasic
  Jug

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 3:12 pm
  You've got to be kidding! Do you have any idea how even the sham pretence by the JNA of securing the YU borders in Slovenia was presented in the West? As an aggressive act by a communist military apparatus designed to prevent the advent of democracy in Slovenia. They had a field day even with the unarmed JNA kids going in. Imagine if the JNA unleashed its full potential. You really seem to think that the JNA could have operated in a political vacuum ignoring the West altogether. Dream on! The US Congress even passed a LAW to prohibit any aid to anyone in YU who failed to move to "democracy" after the fall of the Soviet Union. Democracy, as far as the freedom loving West was concerned meant secession and break up of YU. That was the strategy. You REALLY need to step back from your self absorbed parochialness and see a slightly bigger picture here.

  Maybe you can now tell me which of the charges at the ICTY Milosevic is guilty of specifically?

  Pero Peric

  You're right about Jovic and Slovenian secession. My point to Arandjel was simply that if Jovic represented Milosevic in the YU presidency, Jovic didn't have the controlling hand irrespective of what Milosevic might have wanted to do or whatever instructions he might have issued to Jovic. It is probably a case of blowing in the wind as far as Arandjel is concerned, notwithstanding the fact that Arandjel now accepts that Jovic wasn't a key player re Slovenia. Just as it is difficult for his kind to accept that the JNA never fought or took greater action against the Serbs because they BOTH supported the YU concept and the YU constitution.

  So now we have LEGITIMATE, LEGAL objectives being placed in the dock and the ILLEGAL, law breaking factions in the clear.

  That's justice NWO style. The LAW BREAKERS get a free ride and the law abiding folk get canned because they dare to resist. Shades of the roaring twenties in the US, corrupt Tamanny Hall and all. A new Mafia in emergence. Protection rackets as you like, on a global scale!
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 4:41 pm
  Arandjel Slovenia was never a real issue. The rest of the yugoslavian ( a lovely country it used to be be)republics would have certainly let it go (some with more, some with less sympathy).We could speak for the opinion of ordinary people, politicians were reflecting that as well,so were army representatives. The tragic of yugoslavian civil war comes from a croatian global desire for an independance, mixed with their equally strong belief that Serbs are the cause of all their troubles.All that on a massive scale (from a farmer to the presidenrt) and for quite a long time (practically since the end of WW II ) The whole thing was unstoppable unless using Tito's ways (Goli otok) All the rest was simply a domino effect.
  
  milan c.
  netherlands

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 5:13 pm
  David (from "Oztralia"), This is what you posted on Thursday January 08, 2004 at 7:46 pm: "... Does anyone have any idea why so many Jewish guys in high places are supporting this Albanian "intifada" against the Serbs? I'd be most interested for a cogent explanation as I can't imagine why they'd have a problem with the Palestinian intifada if they can so readily support the Albanian mujahideen. Has Slobo run foul of these guys for some reason best known to themselves?" I posted my $0.02 on the subject on Thursday January 15, 2004 at 7:14 am. I have not noticed your response yet. This is not to put you on the spot, as I completely agree with you on this subject, but to check my own cogent abilities to read through the "real-politik" of today. Please, let me know how I did.
  
  D(usom) S(arajlija)
  BosniaHerzegovina

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 5:25 pm
  Dan B.,

  When trying to watch one of the non-timecoded videos from Bard college have you ever been able to get past more than the first hour before the stream gets lost and you have to start the video over again?

  It's been my expierence that their video streams are notoriously unreliable, thus making it impossible to ever see more than just the very beginning of a nontimecoded video. Is that your expierence as well?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 10:06 pm
  Yes, this has happened to me as well.
  
  Dan b
  Canada

• Monday February 16, 2004 at 10:51 pm
  Walter, on the issue of lying, the most remarkable lie of this trial to my mind is Rugova's claim that the KLA never threatened him or caused him any concern, and that he did not leave the country at Milosevics urging for Italy because the KLA were making threats on his life.

  Contrast that claim to this document.

  I consider Rugova a principled and intellectual politician. If even Rugova would lie on the stand about his fears of the KLA, I think it can be taken as a given that (a) anyone might, and (b) they'd have cause to lie.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 12:11 am
  Ian David Kay America’s Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq ended his interview with Larry King with the words ”my wife warned me that I should not make a mistake of being unemployed”. Even though he did not find WMD David Kay justified Bush’s lies and in the process saved his job. Mind you these statements were made in the court of public opinion

  Conversely, Wesley Clark manipulated his evidence, used the trial as a campaign platform and with the help of Mr. May refused to answer statements that he made in his book about his role in the NATO attack on Yugoslavia.

  Ian, I can understand Rugove lying as well as other Albanian witnesses since for them and their families this was a matter of life or death. I am sure other witnesses lied for the same reason. Ian to me it is more acceptable and understandable that Rugova lied than someone lying to save their job or to promote themselves into public service. Than again isn’t that a prerequisite for a political career both below and above the 49th parallel.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Canada

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 1:15 am
  Crash and burn for Queen Carla

  Walter, I'm not condemning Rugova for lying, but rather trying to say that it is insightful that even Rugova lied.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 1:16 am
  Arandjel Pasic,

  They presented a transcript of an SFRY presidency session at the tribunal, and according to Kadejevic, paramilitaries outnumbered the JNA by something like 85,000 men.

  Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and test your theory against my theory. What was done was done. If crushing Slovenia's succession would have prevented the successionist civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia then I would support your position.

  It's too bad that any of this had to happen at all. The people of the former Yugoslavia were all better off living together in a common state. All of that misery and all of that hell that those wars brought, and for what? Even the successionists have it worse now than they did before.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 1:49 am
  Walter,

  Here's some stuff to add to your material above:

  Bilall Avdiu was allegedly a survivor of the Racak "massacre."

  Page 5979 Line 6:

  BILALL AVDIU: I saw that myself. He had no bullet injuries. I saw the knife and saw how they ripped his heart out.

  MILOSEVIC: So therefore, who ripped his heart with a knife? Did you see that? Were there many people involved or just one person? How many?

  BILALL AVDIU: I know it was the police who did it themselves. I don't -- he didn't have any bullet wounds on his body. I know that. It was just the wound from the knife when they ripped out his heart. That was the only injury on his body.

  What did Walter tell us that Mr. Nice was saying on Page 6295 again? Ah yes, he was saying this: MR. NICE: Several witnesses now have spoken of mutilation of bodies at Racak, hearts being cut out and so on. It may be, and this will be an argument in due course, and may be that that is explicable by damage done to bodies by gunshot and similar weaponry.

  I think that this is how we in this discussion should spend the 3 months between the prosecution and the defense case. We should go back over the transcripts, especially for Kosovo, and find these sorts of outrageous contradictions in the prosecution's case.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 6:54 am
  WERE THE CHARGES AGAINST MILOSEVIC JUST WALKER'S CREATION?

  I entirely agree with Andy Wilcoxsson on the need to focus on the Trial Transcripts - especially for Kosovo!

  From all sorts of contradicting statements - incl. the testimony of witness K6! - we may still raise vital questions, - such as whether in fact anybody else contributed to or caused the CIA-man William Walker to use the words in his press statement dated 16 January 1999 on the incident at Racak, - or whether they were indeed all his words, - "totally my creation", as the former KVM-chief was claiming on 12 June 2002 (Trial Transcripts, Page 6805, Line 3).

  Now, - what is your considered opinion?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  DENMARK

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 8:02 am
  BTW: Did anybody ascertain that those "Persons" named in Schedule A attached to the Indictment against Milosevic and others as "Known (to be) Killed at Racak" on 15 January 1999 were in fact residents of that village?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  DENMARK

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 8:04 am
  
  Is The Trial of Milosevic Fair?

  As the prosecution case closes on Thursday let us consider the words of Ian Traynor in the Guardian:

  Some war crimes suspects in the former Yugoslavia are likely to escape international justice because of a drive by Washington, with strong British backing, to curb the powers of Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor at the war crimes tribunal in The Hague.

  Under American plans to reconfigure the way power is wielded at the tribunal, judges would decide who goes into the dock, for the first time in the court's 10-year history.

  Tribunal judges are blocking indictments submitted by Ms Del Ponte, sources said, while awaiting the outcome of the power struggle which could see far fewer suspects tried.

  Did you hear the joke about this being a UN court: Who does not believe that a court is only fair if it is free from political interference?

  On the other hand: AFP at The Hague, 16 February 2004:

  UN prosecutor Carla Del Ponte charged that Belgrade and the international community were "reluctant" in cooperating with investigations into war crimes by ethnic Albanians fighters in Kosovo …

  "I will tell you it is very, very difficult. When we are talking about witnesses, about documents both from Belgrade or the international community... There is a certain reluctance," she said.

  And here’s another joke: Carla del Ponte claims ‘Belgrade is reluctant in cooperating with investigations into war crimes by ethnic Albanian fighters in Kosovo’. Does anyone believe this: anyone?

  Once the OTP found that most of the relatively few victims in Kosovo were victims of the KLA del Ponte expressed no further interest in them. Massive documentation on KLA crimes has been presented to the OTP by Belgrade and this has been virtually ignored.

  Carla del Ponte claims no evidence or witnesses to KLA crimes: Her own prosecution witness K6, a Kosovo Albanian, is on record testifying to murders carried out by Thaci and other KLA leaders: see the trial transcripts. Bujar Bukoshi, a Kosovo Albanian political leader, is also on record detailing KLA crimes. How many more witnesses does she need?

  Blair and associates blame del Ponte: del Ponte blames Blair and associates. We’re all being taken for a ride: on a merry-go-round.

  Yes that’s right: it’s a joke UN court with comic characters: Mr Bliar, Groucho May, Not So Nice and Carla the clown: See what Chris Deliso has to say about her:

  Placing a gag order on Milosevic and Seselj - hardly anyone's idea of human rights - has only served to show Del Ponte's fury and frustration, how she has become an international laughingstock rather than a messiah.

  The sentiment is that the tribunal has gotten out of hand, and become far too much of a personal vendetta of one woman against the (Serb) indictees …

  It is in this context - thwarted, ridiculed and with time running out - that we can understand Del Ponte's histrionic performance yesterday. Even more over the top than usual, the frumpy dowager charged that fugitive Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is hiding in - Belgrade. NATO's continuing failure to catch the elusive Karadzic is apparently starting to affect her sanity.

  The ‘(Serb)’ is my addition.

  If only Amadeus Mozart, Jacques Offenbach or Arthur Sullivan was around today: it would make a make a wonderful comic opera:

  Defendant (Milosevic):

  #Hear me, hear me, if you please,
  These are very strange proceedings--
  For permit me to remark
  On the merits of my pleadings,
  You're at present in the dark.

  Defendant beckons to Trial Judges (May, Robinson and Kwon): they leave the Bench and gather around him as they sing the following:

  That's a very true remark--
  On the merits of his pleadings
  We're at present in the dark!
  Ha! ha!--ha! ha!#

  From ‘Trial by Jury’: W S Gilbert, music by Sullivan.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 9:04 am
  Andy 'They presented a transcript of an SFRY presidency session at the tribunal, and according to Kadejevic, paramilitaries outnumbered the JNA by something like 85,000 men.' - Do we know time period for this? It sounds very much like after Slovenia declared independence. Maybe 1992 or something?

  'Unfortunately, we can't go back in time and test your theory against my theory. What was done was done. If crushing Slovenia's succession would have prevented the successionist civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia then I would support your position.'

  'It's too bad that any of this had to happen at all. The people of the former Yugoslavia were all better off living together in a common state. All of that misery and all of that hell that those wars brought, and for what? Even the successionists have it worse now than they did before.'

  Fantastic Andy thank you. I agree 100 percent with you.

  Milan C I dont think politcans reflected will of ordinary people. I believe that wars caused by power elites and not people of Jugoslavia. I know many Croats have complex about Serbs and I know that their nationalist diaspora with their myths and pride supported them. But it is simplistic to blame just this. There were many reasons for break up including economics. Jugoslavia was living on borrowed money and time. It would take a brave leader to take responsibility for this. So elites decided easier to turn Croat against Serb, Bosnian against Bosnian and Serb, Croat, Bosnian against Jugoslav. It is not easy when everybody left you standing alone. And it makes you angry when you see people who told you for years they were Jugoslav get caught in this disease. In end it was 'you must choose'. Well f??k them all. I stayed same. It was others who changed not real Jugoslavs.

  David again. You tell me how did BBC for example report Slovenia? Anyway David as I said before this was wrong way. For third or fourth time right way was to negotiate on confederation first 1 or 2 years before. If direct negotiation fail then call in international mediator from US or Norway. All the time the Jugoslav side is warning (media, US, Europe and mediator) that it is willing to negotiate but there comes time when territorial integrity of Jugoslavia must be respected. If Slovenia or Croatia try to leave by force then JNA will respond with force. What is problem with that?

  I know little about realpolitik enough to know this tactic would put Jugoslavia in strong position both with international comunity and Jugoslav public.

  David you ask me what I believe Milosevic is guilty of. Answer is 'Violation of the laws or customs of war'.

  But so was many American Presidents. Many leaders of many countries did this and face no trial. I think they should all face trial.
  
  Arandjel Pasic
  Jug

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 9:54 am
  Let us remind ourselfs two facts. One is that JNA only sent 2000 boys in light tanks and so.

  Two that JNA left after only 10 days. Not really fighting for Jugoslavia at all.

  Three December 1990 Slovenians voted for independence. But Slovenian government would still talk about confederation. 6 months pass and no negotiation.

  25 June 1991 Slovenes declare independence. 10 day war. Another 9 months pass.

  January 1992 Slovenia recognised independence.

  So David or anyone else in a way JNA action in Slovenia was too late I will admit it. I remember it different but logically JNA action was much too late. Better time to move may be when soon as Slovenian guard was made. Of course this should happen only when negotiations brake down between Jugoslav and Slovenian side about confederation and after international negotiator empolyed.

  In end it is bad politics but really bad politics for 'Jugoslav' side including Presidency table of 1990. But was it mistake or was it planned in this way?
  
  Arandjel Pasic
  Jug

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 10:15 am
  Blalalablablablablabal......I can´t see..blablablablaa.......i´m deafh......blabla.......no evidence... blablablablablabla..........Etc..
  
  Arandjel Pasic
  Jug

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 10:58 am
  Andy

  You are correct.

  The best witnesses for the defense to call will be mebers of the KLA (ie Commanders Remi, Ramush, Gashi, and Bardhi) as well as key commanders of Iztbegovic's forces (ie Nasir Oric, Slizadic (sp?))

  And as a final coup d'grace.......Fikret Abdic
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 11:01 am
  Probably guy who is pretending to be me is some ethnic Slovenian (living in US) who wanted independence. That is too bad you think its something to joke about. The fall of Jugoslavia cost millions of people.

  On other hand this idiot could be that New York ethnic Greek who smokes too much grass but cant point to Greece on map. How did I know that?
  
  Arandjel Pasic
  Jug

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 12:23 pm
  Interesting news

  OSCE official says US falsified grounds for 1999 bombing | 13:19 -> 13:32 | SRNA

  SOFIA -- Tuesday - The United States justified the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia with false claims of genocide being committed in Kosovo, an OSCE official and participant in peace talks during the war in the province said in comments published today.

  Bo Pellnas, a member of the OSCE mission in Belgrade, said there were some 1,200 OSCE observers in Kosovo who could confirm genocide did not take place, reports Sofia daily Monitor.

  Pellnas said he was certain the US had assisted secessionist guerrillas in the province since 1998, and saw them as a future ally in a ground assault on Belgrade. He said that former US president Bill Clinton had imposed his policy on the international community for dealing with Belgrade and Kosovo.
  
  Michael Thomas
  London
  UK

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 12:56 pm
  

  The United States falsified history to intervene every where it pleases. The problem is that the gullible (with the aid of the gutter media) people like it.

  So, now Bo Pelinas tells the world, as if anyone cared, that five years earlier the OSCE was falsifying, under orders one can assume, events in Kosmet. Well Mr. Pelinas, why didn't you, say so at the time?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Snagri-La

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 1:16 pm
  I hope Bush shall care about lies of Kosovo when they ask him about WMD during presidental race.
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 1:26 pm
  Arandjel Pasic,

  The transcript was definitely from 1991, and if I remember correctly Kucan was even at that meeting. At any rate, the Slovene militia was being counted among the members of the paramilitaries.

  I'll see if I can find it in the trial transcript for you.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 2:47 pm
  US fabricated evidence in Yugoslavia, says former official

  Any US evidence against Iraq should be viewed with skepticism

  by Frank in Stockholm

  The US "fabricated evidence" against former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic during clashes between Serbia and Bosnia in the mid-1990s, according to a prominent and experienced international peacekeeping official who served there.

  Retired Swedish Brigadier General Bo Pellnas, who was head of UN Military Observers (UNMOs) in Croatia, now says that the US should not be trusted. Pellnas says that he learned to distrust US-provided evidence during peacekeeping service in the former Yugoslavia.

  Pellnas's misgivings are described in an article from the Swedish daily newspaper Aftonbladet. Here is an English-language translation of this article:

  In an interview with Sweden's leading news-wire TT, retired Brigadier Bo Pellnas claims that the US "faked evidence to suit their own interests."

  "If the US were to present evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the countries of the Western world would have no way to substantiate these reports due to the technical superiority of the US."

  These are the words of retired Brigadier Bo Pellnas, who says he witnessed the US "fabricating fact to suit their own needs." Pellnas says he witnessed this first-hand when he led an international force which safeguarded the borders between Serbia and Bosnia in the mid-1990s, where he gained a very good insight and understanding of US operations.

  "The technical superiority of the US gives their politicians the option of bringing forth fake evidence, in this case in front of the United Nations Security Council."

  Pellnas served in Yugoslavia during a time when US efforts, led by then Secretary of State Madeline Albright, presented evidence to the UN Security Council that Milosevic's Belgrade government ran unmonitored arms shipments. Pellnas claims that Albright's staff presented manipulated satellite photos to document false allegations, leading the Security Council to act in accordance with the US hard line against Milosevic.v "There might be a possibility that Albright thought the pictures to be true," says Pellnas, "but several incidents pointed towards the fact that the US lied." The US stood firm by their claims, refusing to show supporting evidence to Pellnas and other members of the peacekeeping crew.

  "If the US were to come forth with evidence against Iraq which were "difficult to confirm," the permanent members of the Council will be put in a difficult situation, since they lack the sufficient tools to research and verify such claims."

  Pellnas said he hopes that nations of the European Union make it their responsibility to build their own intelligence agency which has the capability to act as a counterbalance to the US. "It would be great indeed if the EU could act as a balance to the world's only true superpower, which acts alone these days."

  In addition to his UN duties, Pellnas was also in charge of an international monitoring mission to Yugoslavia in 1994 sponsored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and worked with the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY), a group established in 1991 to find a peaceful solution to the region's conflicts.

  
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 3:38 pm
  After 293 trial days and with only two more to go on Wednesday and Thursday, chief war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte is happy with the first phase of the trial.

  "In the end I am satisfied. We have succeeded in showing the responsibility of Milosevic," the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia told AFP.

  Many legal experts agree that the prosecution has been able to show that atrocities were committed systematically by ethnic Serb forces in all three wars and that Milosevic pulled a lot of the strings.

  "It is clear that war crimes were committed in Kosovo and that Milosevic was the man in charge there. For Bosnia and Croatia I think it has been established that Milosevic controlled Serbian and federal Yugoslav institutions and that he played a crucial role in the conflicts," said Heikelina Verrijn Stuart, a Dutch lawyer and publicist who has been following the Milosevic case.

  "From the start I knew that it would be very difficult to prove genocide in the Milosevic case ... the great difficulty is the special intent one has to show," Del Ponte said in an interview with AFP.

  Del Ponte laughed off the suggestion that a failure to get a genocide conviction for the former Yugoslav president would be a personal defeat.

  "In all trials ... there are charges like this one with the genocide for Milosevic that I could have dropped from the indictment myself but I do not want that responsibility, that responsibility lies with the judges," she said.

  There have been complaints that the trial is difficult to follow and the procedures with protected witnesses and closed sessions in court are not transparent.

  Del Ponte is firm that these problems are "inherent to the procedure".

  "We are not staging trials to rally public opinion," she said.

  Well I gues we can expect more of this tripe as "Many legal experts agree..." over the next days! Although the Guardian article was very enlightning. Up to this forum to rebuke this all and compile some hard facts based on key wtnesses that proved not so key for teh prosecution!!
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 3:40 pm
  Forgot teh source:

  http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?&nav_category=2&nav_id=27011&order=priority&style=headlines
  
  P V
  Belgium

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 4:08 pm
  Mhhhm; it turns out that the "Many legal experts..." is just one: Heikelina M. Verrijn Stuart, working for the Dutch minsistry of Foreign affairs. We'll surely hear more of her in the next days. Add judith Armata and McDonald and you can indeed justify the use of "experts", but many? Here are some other of her statements:

  SNIP

  Utterly unheard in the media are the views of the serious international lawyers who maintain that Milosevic enjoys greater privileges in the proceedings than the defendants in any national trial (Geoffrey Robertson), or who systematically monitor the proceedings on the spot and, at the end of the first year of the trial, found that the Hague prosecutor offered evidence warranting conviction of Milosevic (Avril Macdonald, Heikelina Verrijn Stuart).

  SNIP

  Even though Milosevic, who is acting as his own council, put up a vigorous defence legal experts believe the prosecution presented sufficient elements to secure a conviction just on Kosovo. "I feel it has been established in court that numerous Kosovo Albanians fled from their homes after the Serb forces came to their village following a similar pattern of threats and attacks," lawyer and tribunal watcher Heikelina Verrijn Stuart told AFP.

  "The prosecution has also shown that Milosevic knew what was happening to a large extent," she added. The jurisprudence of other tribunal cases shows that can be enough for a conviction.

  SNIP

  So far experts agree the prosecution has been doing a good job at proving the charges. "All the testimonies show the same pattern," Heikelina Verrijn Stuart, a legal expert who follows the trial for Dutch media, told AFP. She feels that "many elements" in the Croatia and Kosovo charges have been proved already.

  "To be honest I find it hard to believe he will not be convicted of some crimes there is already enough evidence to convict him for command responsibility (for Kosovo and Croatia)," McDonald agrees.

  Heikelina M. Verrijn Stuart Heikelina M. Verrijn Stuart (1950) studied law and philosophy in Amsterdam. She is member of the Advisory Counsel of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs , department of Human Rights. As legal commentator for Dutch radio and television Verrijn Stuart followed the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia from the start. She has published several articles and essays on international criminal law, justice, revenge and forgiveness, among which ‘An ordinary man - Cruelty and betrayal at the Yugoslavia Tribunal’.

  
  
  P V
  Belgium

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 4:11 pm
  bold off
  
  P V
  B

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 4:18 pm
  help
  
  p v
  b

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 4:26 pm
  The reason that Bo Pellnäs steped forward with this article(not in Aftonbladet! it was in Dagens Nyheter) is a debate that started (to late of course, but newertheless) in independent media of the facts on the war your highly estimated participants here already know about, mainstreamedia then started an attack on one of those independent, "Ordfront" calling them revisionist and liars, other mainstream followed and "Ordfront"(until now one of few independent) had to excuse in a rather strange way saying that their where wrong and that Dr.D Jonstone where hiding facts (The old NATO Racac story)but without contacting her or E.S Herman to for that matter. The debate was then silenced except on swedish I-net. Bo Pellnäs has now made it accepable to question the imperial lies from USA and London.
  
  Magnus Olsson
  Ljungby
  Sweden

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 4:38 pm
  test
  
  test test
  test

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 4:39 pm
  Small Obeservation: Heikelina M. Verrijn, Judith Armata, Christian Amanpour, Carla Del Ponte, Avril McDonald, Louise Arbour. A bell starts ringing here!! No offence to the women on this board!

  BTW found this on Avril McDonald: Avril McDonald is Legal Assistant Press and Information Officer of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

  http://www.pixelpress.org/bosnia/forums/macdonald.html

  A quote by her: "The Milosevic trial, although not perfect, demonstrates that it is possible to try the most senior leaders for the most serious international crimes, even where a defendant is obstructive, recalcitrant and disrespectul of the criminal justice process."

  Long live google, if only journalists would use it!
  
  P V
  Belgium

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 4:45 pm
  Oh I forgot Albright! Hope teh Swedish guy will testify! Thanks for the HTML help
  
  P V
  Belgium

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 5:00 pm
  Deja-vu by Frank Tiggelaar, 6/13/96

  The Tokyo Tribunal left the Japanese Emperor, in whose name so many war crimes had been committed, in power, albeit, as the Western powers then said, as a 'figure-head without power'.

  I suppose most people agree that the West's attitude towards Slobodan Milosevic indicates a similar line of thinking in the 1990's - in Milosevic's case the West is not even bothered to strip him of his powers.

  Under funding the Tribunal might also have a second purpose: there are people within the UN whom we could regard as accomplices to crimes against humanity - just think of what happened in Srebrenica. Keeping the Tribunal on an ultra-tight budget will prevent it from investigating who was responsible for handing over thousands of civilians to what was at the time already known to be a gang of butchers.

  http://www.pixelpress.org/bosnia/forums/digmacd.html
  
  P V
  Belgium

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 5:03 pm
  Two More Witnesses for the Defense Case

  1) Rollie Keith Canadian retired officer OSCE observer Kosovo and Metohija

  2)Gen. Bo Pellnas, Swedish OSCE observer Kosovo and Metojia

  Please note that during the pre-bombing period, there were different entities issuing reports from the Observer mission. Those daily SIT-REPS written under William Walker's supervision had a distinct tone. Sit-reps written by others had a decidely different feel and alwasy described KLA killings, terror. William Walker's sit-reps ignored the KLA.

  A while back, some OSCE observers came forth and complained that William Walker had doctored their reports.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 7:29 pm
  

  Biased and cruel if not even illegal processes of law does not only apply only to the Milosevic trial.

  In the good old US A a Serbian physicist immigrant to USA of 1991 was jailed for four months.Is this because he is a Serb?

  This is reported today in the monthly APS News of February, front page. The physicist name is Branislav Djordjevic, married, two kids and employed as a software computer expert for Verizon. Owns a house in Falls Church VA.

  He was held in jail for four months under rather cruel conditions, and now faces extradition on technicality.

  I do not know the web site but one can search for the article in the APS.org.
  
  D. Jovanovic,physicist
  USA

• Tuesday February 17, 2004 at 10:41 pm
  To AP V: I couldn’t get the info about the ITCY per diem for the OTP witnesses; in the meantime, it comes to mind how one of these, the journalist Dejan Anastasijevic, who testified in October 2002, wrote in his magazine VREME upon returning from The Hague something that shed light on the material side of it all. Describing his prolonged Dutch weekend, he mentioned meeting literally dozens of his former acquaintances, colleagues and friends in the ICTY corridors and offices, all employed as - interpreters/translators. None of them is actually a translator by profession, they are journalists, writers, doctors, engineers etc. etc. ICTY pays them so handsomely for years already, so much so that they are able to support their whole families (and leave their real jobs). I doubt that all those young paralegals and lawyers working for the OTP are being paid less handsomely. Sure they’ll all be sorry to see the milking cow drying up. As for career-boosting, this stint at the ICTY might indeed prove to be something to delete from the CV for this latter group, while the big fish will, as always, find the way to represent it as praiseworthy and use it for their further political promotion, since their position as judges and prosecutors there is legal only in name (see Louise Arbour).

  Andy, I did manage to see the testimony of the French General Philippe Morillon on 12 Feb. but unfortunately I’m so terribly busy that I’m unable to write abut it in more detail. Let me just say that it was extremely interesting and not at all to the Prosecution’s liking, I’m afraid. The elderly but fiery General caused troubles back in 1993 when he practically forced the UN into the operation “Srebrenica safe haven”, when he went over there, jumped onto the tank and spoke to the masses of refugees that he would defend them, after which they kind of took him hostage. The UN brass knew it was lost cause from the start, so they soon forced the General into early retirement, so he was long gone when the “Srebrenica genocide” happened. His testimony at The Hague was peculiar, full of psycho-babble military-style about his personal views on the “hellish spiral of hatred”, but delivered by a warm, gruffly grandpa it was not totally unpalatable. He spoke matter-of-factly, as if talking about a common knowledge, how the whole thing in Srebrenica started with Muslims not being disarmed, attacking for years unpunished under the UN noses and Nasir Oric’s units slaughtering some 50 Serb villages. He said he personally saw the victims, severed heads and all. In the same off-hand manner he spoke about the Muslims most likely being the ones who shelled their own people in those famous Sarajevo incidents. His words, regarding the “bread-line massacre”, are worth noting: “The question should be, and it applies also to the case of Markale, who might benefit from it?” So true, mon General. And he also calmly described how at one point the Muslims even shelled his own headquarters in Sarajevo, not even bothering to deny it when faced with his accusations! The General had to be stopped several times by Nice, because his answers were too long, too picturesque, too inconvenient and too wrong for the Prosecution’s case. He sometimes answered what he wasn’t asked. He said that the Serbs should not have been demonised and that they did not commit aggression against BiH. He also said that in this war there were no “good guys”, but only the Serbs admitted that much. He recalled with fondness how, when visiting Milosevic with general Nambiar in 1992, he saw that famous Monument of Gratitude to France [in the Belgrade main park by the citadel, a giant bronze rendition of Marianne, erected after the WWI], and General even quoted the inscription at its base: “We love France as she loved us”. Nice cringed nervously. Then, General would remember where he was and what was the script, so he would put in something incoherent about Milosevic and his “propaganda”.

  Like with the US General Clark, there were 2 sharp-looking young officials of the French government present in the courtroom throughout, but they intervened only once, when Milosevic in his cross-examination started to quote extensively from the minutes of the French Parliamentary Commission hearing re Bosnia, with the damning claims that Srebrenica was a ploy organized by “Sarajevo and New York”. The youngsters jumped up and demanded a closed session, but it lasted only two minutes, and once in the open Milosevic continued unperturbed, quoting Morillon’s answers from that hearing. The General, flamboyant and sure until then, started to mumble and sweat: this was neither expected nor pleasant to hear at this juncture. I would guess that perhaps this lobbying group of the French Serbs did their homework in obtaining the document. Yet, the Govt. officials had let the thing to continue. The contents of that hearing, the letting it out and the whole testimony speak volumes about the French stance. According to Morillon, the sole culprit for everything in Bosnia is - Mladic! Not Karadzic, nor Milosevic, but Mladic, who acted on his own, never listened to anyone’s orders “and certainly not Karadzic’s orders” (?!). [On the basis of such claims, what do you think: will Karadzic ever be apprehended? This certainly gives food to the theory of a secret deal.] Looking forward to reading the transcript on this one, I’m sure. Hope there will be no excessive editing.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia