MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 3:46 am
  K2 and Milosevic's cross-examination of him seem to be interesting in many respects:

  -WHO is a "murderer"? K2!

  -Who is cooperating with murderers? The prosecution!

  -If so, who might given orders to K2 to murder Arkan? (Answer: Blank space.)

  -Milosevic knows a whole lot about this affair. It will indeed be interesting what he will come up with in the defence stage, if he ever gets that far.

  -Does this "knowledge" implicate Milosevic any more than the prosecution?

  And then back to the BBC report called "Fall of Adam and Eve and the Great Snake called Slobo-with-the-small-eyes," or whatever it was called. A half truth may be a whole lie, but why is it that BBC would be telling half truths instead of whole lies? There must be some angry faction somewhere that the supposedly unbiased reporting by the BBC is designed to appease. And why would they do that? Wouldn't this mean that they have the feeling that "truth is out"?

  Of course, after Milosevic's conviction, the truth won't matter much. Nobody cares if he is a "murderer" or not, because he is getting convicted anyway. So why should we, Besnik? Did you think you told us something we hadn't heard before? So whatever "you are all saying," the truth won't change no matter how many times you keep repeating a platitude like yours. I think that is the whole point here.

  There is one funny thing about us, though. I don't know if you have noticed it. Let me reminisce. When we started this discussion, we had the very oppressive feeling that we were the fruitcakes, if not the criminals. The shift to our new role has taken place unnoticed, so I guess it must be true: we are not in the position to designate the fruitcakes, if not the criminals.

  Let me indulge in a bit of theory: We are making a big mistake, if we follow the accepted and thus the respectable theory concerning the so-called transition economies (i.e. the ex-planned economies on their way to market economy). The la-di-da theory says that one has to pay a heavy price for the market reforms, for instance in the form of increased criminality, so the legal system should be reformed as well so it can keep this "side-effect" of the transition in check. Bullshit! Just take a look at the transition in Kosova for starters. The formula should be turned upside down. Then the cause and effect are turned around: Promoting criminality speeds up the economic transition. The leading market economies are eager to help. The domestic judicial organs are of course trying to keep this development in check, so the leading market economies should encourage the creation of supranational judicial organs, as the new embassy of the inferno on earth. The US knows this perfectly well, because it has done it so many times itself, which is why it wants to have no part in the new ICC.

  Don't tell me this isn't so. When someone says that Milosevic stood in the way of the market reforms, what he or she means is that Milosevic tried to stick too much to law and order. That is counterproductive from the viewpoint of market economy (read: criminality).

  So enter the glorious ICTY prosecution. Actually I don't give a fuck if Slobo was a murderer or not, because we will never find out with a prosecution like this, which is a bunch of murders. It is quite fortuitous, and hence all the more telling, that I came up with my ideas about the connection between criminality and the ICTY just when a prosecution witness admits having murdered Arkan! What more "proof" do you need? The prosecution has a witness who is killing its indictees! And the prosecution will take care of the rest, i.e. Milosevic himself.

  Yes, a criminal past is a good way to manipulate people. That way the powerful have the weaker in their pockets. And if an international tribunal is not enough in itself to keep a whole nation in the pocket of the powerful, they need some ad hoc legislation which the people can break. Like embargoes. Anyone who is anything in a "transition economy" has to break the rules in order to survive in an economy that is falling apart. That way the Western moral grandstanders have the whole ruling class of the new economy in their pockets. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of that pathetic cigarette smuggler Milo Djukanovic, the darling of the West, unless he gets too honest.

  So whether Slobo was a criminal or not, it doesn't matter. The people around him or under him in Serbia were. The crooks don't want to be ruled by anyone but a crook, which is an easy way for the moral grandstanders to argue that the non-crook is not democratically elected. Yes, times change and we change with them. Only, this observation itself stays as apropos as it ever was. And it is exactly for the reason that the political situation is so volatile that the rules concerning the immunity of the heads of state were developed in the first place. And that is why the immunity rules have to be broken in the ICTY.

  Finally, back to the whole ICTY shit once again. We have the ICTY jurisdiction imposed on two UN member states, Bosnia and Croatia. Serbia (and Montenegro) may or may not have been a member state, but one should need a clear-cut ruling on this one. The preliminary ruling in the Legality of the Use of Force was contingent on the assumption that Serbia was not a member state of the UN.

  Could it be that since Bosnia and Croatia were UN member states from the start, the ICTY is much more gentle with them than with Serbia? But does this somehow enhance the tribunal's objectivity? It seems that the tribunal is biased down to its moorings.

  On the other hand, if the ICTY is not biased because of the UN membership of two of the countries and one was not, what is then the distinction between being a member of the UN and not being a member of the UN? There should be a distinction somewhere, otherwise the UN membership means nothing, and hence the UN itself means nothing.

  I guess the US is perfectly happy with these inconsistencies. It is almost hilarious when the Security Council expresses its deep concern when Del Ponte brings the sad tidings that the Serbian government is not "cooperating". That farce will hit at the credibility of the Security Council and that way the whole UN. And it is my guess that the US doesn't mind at all.

  Kathryn. I didn't mean "Greater Serbia" as a slur. The problem Milosevic was facing at the time was that his official position was the President of the Republic of Serbia, and his mandate didn't extend to helping Serbs outside the "Serbia proper". By Greater Serbia I don't mean the whole territory of former Yugoslavia, but the Serb-inhabited areas outside Serbia proper. Of course, the Serbs outside Serbia proper would have needed some support from somewhere, but I insist that Milosevic wasn't in the legal position to give it.

  Come to think of it, why does Greater Serbia have such a bad name? There is a very, very simple reason why conferring self-determination to the Serb-inhabited areas outside Serbia proper can be portrayed as some devilish plan to rule the world. The Serbs are peasants. They live on the countryside, where the population density is far lower than in the urban areas. So if you want to confer self-determination to the Serb-inhabited areas in Bosnia or Croatia, you will see the better part of the whole country "devoured" by the Serb-inhabited parts. The Muslims in Bosnia and the Croats in Croatia, on the other hand, are concentrated in the cities, where the population density is much higher, which means that the same number of people can inhabit only a very tiny part of the whole land area. That would mean that the Croat- or Muslim-inhabited areas would be reduced to tiny specks on the map, even if they might have been the majority in terms of population. And that is something the moral posturers, who know nothing of anything, can't accept. They will start a war instead.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 10:06 am
  

  As Michael Savage, one the most exciting radio hosts in America put it so eloquently long time ago:

  “… Big Oil required a pipeline through Kosovo and the poor Serbs just happened to own the wrong real estate at the wrong time.

  … The pipeline must first go from Bulgaria through Yugoslavia and Kosovo! Slobodan Milosevic, however, has had other plans for oil shipment through his country that are more to his liking (and Russia’s) and was unwilling to cooperate with this scenario. The NATO socialists were attacking Russia, by proxy, in stealing Kosovo from Serbia.

  Now it begins to make sense … why the One World media places Slobodan Milosevic, a small-time local tyrant, alongside Hitler and Stalin.

  During the shameful and cowardly NATO bombing of the historic bridges across the Danube River, the mouthpieces of the Government-Media complex ceaselessly propagandized. Jamie Shea, the English soccer thug; James Rubin, Mad Half-Bright’s Stooge; Solana, the Spanish socialist; an unnamed Luftwaffe general; and others continued the Big Lie. They were bombing Serbian civilians (hospitals, schools, trains, power plants, apartments, orphanages) to save Albanians! They were also destroying Kosovo to save it.

  These international war criminals were led by General Wesley Clark (a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansaw) who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton (another Rhodes Scholar from Arkansaw). But the greatest shame must fall upon the tendentious media hacks. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and most columnists of the neo-right all fell in line: "The criminal bombing was just. It was to save the innocent ‘ethnic’ Albanians from the evil [non-ethnic] Serbs." Have you now heard one of these hacks apologize or admit they were duped? Used by Big Oil to apologize for, no, to justify, NATO war crimes?"

  ) Add into this picture a militant Catholicism (present in Balkans from day one), short-lived appeasement of Muslims attempted by American Jewish lobby (sold their souls to devil in order to divert world’s attention from Israel-Palestine problem), American industrial military complex and you have a pretty good reason why Milosevic ended up in The Hague.
  
  D S
  USA

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 10:13 am
  My link to (http://www.newsmax.com/articles/print.shtml?a=1999/11/30/51335) disappeared from the above post. Sorry.
  
  D S
  USA

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 11:09 am
  

  The Wall Street Journal has today an important article about the TRIAL OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC full of distortions and a few lies.

  I can forward an scanned version of it to anyone asking for it at:

  gogolc@hotmail.com

  Among other details in the article it shows the US is interested in knowing the effect of the trial on the people of Serbia. USAID is funneling funds to "pay" journalists and PR firms are conducting the polls . . .One makes the propaganda the other messures its results. How scientific!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 11:12 am
  

  Sarajevo to reinstall memorials to killing that touched off World War I
  
  G C
  USA

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 1:04 pm
  
  The lie machine exposed

  “In the case of the Hague Tribunal also, the mainstream media portray it as a presumably unbiased judicial body seeking justice with an even hand, despite the massive evidence that it is a political and propaganda arm of the United States and other NATO powers. Its ultimate propaganda service was performed in May,1999, when the prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Louise Arbour, announced the indictment of Yugoslav president Milosevic and four associates for war crimes. This was done, hastily, at a time when NATO was increasingly targeting the civilian infrastructure of Yugoslavia in order to hasten that country's surrender. NATO needed this public relations support as a cover for its own war crimes -- the Sixth Convention of Nuremberg prohibits and makes a war crime the targeting of civilian facilities not based on "military necessity"--and the ICTY provided it, with the indictment quickly greeted by Albright and James Rubin as justifying NATO's bombing policy.” Professor Edward S Herman.

  Source:
  
  Philip Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 1:06 pm
  HTML correction
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 1:12 pm
  
  Source for post above:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/72407
  
  Philip Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 1:31 pm
  

  Gogol you may know more about the following than me, since you are living in the USA. In the USA measurements of some activities/interests of people are fully automatic. One of examples is the system used to determine ratings of TV shows. These ratings are then used to determine prices of ads aired during sows. The higher the rating the higher the price. Low rating a sow is toast. High rating the show gets extended life to the next year. There is carefully selected group of people through out the USA that is representative of the population of the USA. These people have accepted to have connected to their TV-s a box that is monitoring and taking data on TV shows that they are watching and sending this data to the centralized data base. I think that they get money compensation for this. The data is then processed and popularity of shows is determined. Additionally there is a remote control associated with the box so that viewers can answer to questions on the quality of ads and all sorts of other tings.

  My understanding is that during the rule of King George (Bush) the First this system was used for the first time to gauge public opinion in the USA. It was used when preparation for the First Gulf War has started and during the war. Whenever King George would give a speech, covered by TV, people were asked to press buttons that would best reflect their feeling about what they were hearing. There were several buttons involved, something like: I am very outraged at Sadam when I here this, I am not that much outraged when I hear that about Sadam and so on. The data was collected as King George was speaking and presented to the King's advisers and speechwriters at the bottom of the screen in the graph format. Armed with this data speechwriters and advisers were able to come up with the next speech that would contain only most damaging data (peoples opinion) from the previous speeches. From time to time a new theme was added and if it was damaging enough it was included in the future speeches, otherwise it was dropped. They had proudly presented this whole methodology on a CNN program after the war. It was amazing and frightening to see how a line started climbing rapidly up from the bottom (no outrage) up when the King started talking about destruction of incubators and throwing of babies out of them in the central Kuwaiti hospital. Now we know that even the USA administration has admitted that this whole outrageous story was a hoax. This was my most scary Orvelian experience since I am a grown up person.

  they have not yet installed the system in Serbia, so they need polls. What you have said is good/bad news, kind of. The good news is that people of Serbian are not buying into concept of de-nazification. The bad news is that the New World Order Masters have not abandoned the idea of de-nazification of Serbian people and that they are looking for ways to turn up the heat and propaganda.

  Gogol can I get an article, please. pertep@yahoo.com

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Otawa
  Canada

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 2:47 pm
  Mind Control is what this is all about. Keep telling them they are the bad guys and eventually they will believe it. You have seen how some New York Police got confessions out of young men for the raping and killing of a woman, and after spending some time in prison, DNA determined their innocence.

  Therapists were in vogue a few years ago who convinced their patience they had been raped anywhere from the time of the birth until they were fifteen years old by their parents.

  You hear it over and over and over and eventually you will even believe your own good parents were monsters.

  Nato and the international community are a gang of thugs who collectively beat up on a small nation who did nothing more than to fight for the survival of their people within their own borders. If I know this then I am sure everyone else knows it and the only way to dispel this ugly thought from everyones‘ mind is to make sure the Serbs repent and agree that they were the nazis of today. Personally I do not think Djindjic will be in the Serb history books as any hero.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 2:51 pm
  

  The system has demonstrated its efficiency, under ideal conditions it is possible to have anyone or anything, a lobster is my favorite, elected as president. It is now a science, I was amazed when Yeltzin was elected and the media here gave us plenty of its boasting about the power of America. The briefcases of dollar cash were also mentionned.

  But conditions are not always that perfect or predictable and the use of money says more about the type of science this method is all about it.

  Little whores, big brothels!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 3:28 pm
  

  Yugoslav Government War Crimes in Racak

  http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/jan/yugo0129.htm

  The following two paragraphs i.e. quotes are coming from the above listed article.

  Back in The Hague, Louis Arbour (Ex Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY) regarding the fears of evidence tampering, she said: "Evidence of tampering -- should such evidence become available, is, in fact, excellent circumstantial evidence of guilt. If one can trace where the order to tamper came from, it permits a pretty strong inference that it was done for the purpose of hiding the truth, which demonstrates consciences of guilt."

  One person told Human Rights: "Then we found Haqif, the guest from Petrovo. His body was lying on his side with the hands as if he wanted to defend himself."

  My Comment:

  These two quotes are very interesting to me. The first one gives very good definition how proof of tempering with a crime scene can be used to determine guilty party. And it comes form ex Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY.

  The second one is important because it comes from an Albanian (Human Right Watch source) it confirms that one body found in the ravine had his hands perpendicular to the body.

  Why this is important? A member of the OSCE's Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), an ex-policemen from Hong Kong was cross-examined on evidence about bodies found in the Racak ravine, by Mr. Milosevic. He was shown a photograph and the cross-examination continued something like:

  Mr. Milosevic: "Do you see that several bodies on the photograph lie on their backs and their hands are strait in the air perpendicular to their body."

  Witness: "Yes".

  Mr. Milosevic: "As an experienced police officer that have seen many crime scenes how do you explain that a dead men can keep his hands strait in the air long enough so that his body stiffens in the position shown on the photograph?"

  Judge May to the rescue: "Mr. Milosevic the witness is a police officer not a forensic expert. You may ask this question of a forensic expert as soon as we have one in."

  "Mr Milosevic: Mr. May he is an experienced police ...."

  Mr. May "Next question Mr. Milosevic."

  Mr. Milosevic was implying that their comrades dragged the dead Albanians, after the battle, from the place where they have been killed to the ravine. Since the bodies were dragged by their hands the bodies stiffened in the position of dragging i.e. with their hands in the upright position. So several of the dead Albanians were not killed even close to the ravine and were dragged into the position for the long time. Giving an impression to the naive peasants that at the time of their dead they were fighting of their killers (the second quote). This is the best-implied evidence of tempering with the crime-scene, at Racak, that I know of and judges and prosecution know of based on the presented peace of the cross-examination. It has not come to light yet, due to the timely save, by the judge May. If we now apply the logic from the first quote that Mr. Arbour was planing to use analyzing Racak evidence we know who was tempering with the crime scene. As a consequence we know that so called "Racak massacre" was Racak battle and not a massacre.

  So the key reason for NATO bombing of Yugoslavia has already been destroyed in the ICTY. The judge May's "order/permission" to Mr. Milosevic to ask the next forensic expert about bodies with hands in the air may be the reason that we have not seen after that Mr. Rant or any other forensic expert in the ICTY. They are hard at work to explain this new forensic finding and capability of the dead people. Some body must get a Ph. diploma for this before Mr. Milosevic can be accused of ordering a massacre at Racak.

  The ICTY was not in a position to afford to admit that there was no massacre at Racak so early in the trial? Mr. May is a very capable judge and a scoundrel.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 3:40 pm
  Ms. Kathryn Love,

  You have so aptly described what all of Serbian descent feel. To see our home country demonized and bombed has induced in me a surprising feeling of deep trauma and insult, a blow delivered by my new country which I so respected and cherished.

  I am a naturalized American for 50 years, and until the conflict a most staunch defender of all things American. I am relatively known educator, researcher and a professor, and I did write letters to my Senators, congressman even several letters to Clinton. I have sent a doctoral thesis of Ivo Andric to Hilary Clinton in the hope that she may better understand the conflict in Bosnia. To no avail.

  My maternal grandfather comes from Lika, Krajina. Now known as a “Medak Pocket”. He was a medical doctor in Gracac for many years. About thirty members of the family Trbojevic were killed by Ustashi in WWII. I guess Croatian general Bobetko managed to finish off the remainder living there. To suffer the falsification of truth in the press, TV and other media. To listen to the pronouncement of Senator Lieberman, general Clark, Albright and others is an insult to me. It just produces ill feelings and animosity to this country, which was so good to me. Here I received my education, had my active scientific life in the best laboratories, and interacted with all major scientist in my discipline. Yet, the propaganda and lies spread about my native land are very hard to bear. Thank you Ms. Love
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 6:49 pm
  BBC has small eyes...and very often,for some reason ...it keeps them closed eyes...lies...eyes...lies
  
  milan c.
  netherlands

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 6:56 pm
  Mr. Jovanovic!

  Croatian General Bobetko was no more than Mihajlo Hrastov. (The murderrer of the 14 Serbs in Karlovac, who was awarded personally from Tudjman)

  As I see it those Tudjman, Mesic, Bobetko etc. where sick chauvinists who were used as tool by US. (How sick somebody must have been from the White House?)

  There is interesting link:
  Search for a Headline: PLAVSIC ON HAGUE LIST?

  Newsline reports on Sept 3 1999, before Plavsic and others were indicted by the so called tribunal.

  I would say that at that time ICTY officials were looking for the potential witnesses against Mr. Milosevic

  
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 8:48 pm
  I love this site, and I wonder if the moderator has a hit count so we can know how many read without posting?
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 10:16 pm
  It seems that B92 was right to immediately invite Ms Kovacevic-Vuco to defend the ICTY: our public prosecutor is legally obliged to bother The Hague and to act against the protected witness K-2 (a self-confessed accomplice in the Arkan's murder). One of the lawyers from the team assisting Milosevic, Dragoslav Ognjanovic, took the opportunity today to further annoy The Holy Inquisition by stating the obvious to the press: 'Under the Yugoslav law, once a public prosecutor learns that someone has committed a crime or been involved in a crime he is obliged to initiate proceedings against that person.' And another lawyer, the one Milan Vujin representing Arkan's family in the relevant trial, stated today that 'Yugoslavia should demand extradition of K-2 from The Hague Tribunal'. So, the ICTY Prosecution which consorts with criminals (remember another one, the witness testifying via link, the famous 'baby-killer', who was also a fugitive from our justice?) will have to disclose the identity and whereabouts of its witness. Or not, if our prosecutor abides by the 'humanitarian lawyer' Vuco, disregards the law and lets K-2 go because of the invaluable service he's doing in nailing Milosevic. Here's one proverb (for Walter and Kathryn to refresh their collective memory) which applies here: S kim si, onakav si.=Whom you are with, that's how you are. Or, in a more juicy saying: Ko s decom leze, popisan ustaje. = He who makes his bed with children, gets up pissed all over. And indeed, the Prosecution stinks now more than ever.

  Today's witness, as reported by our TV news, was one Robert Hausvicka, who testified about Dubrovnik. There was no transmission and I'm particularly sorry I couldn't watch this witness because it seems he brought about his own undoing, which was obvious even by few meagre sentences from the cross-examination, as quoted in the news. I really don't know what happened to our TV stations, but one of them (this was Studio B, a local Belgrade TV) actually reported something from the 'trial' which is not the usual drivel about the high quality of witnesses. Apparently, the witness claimed that nobody opened fire from Dubrovnik, and when Milosevic asked who, then, killed all those JNA soldiers around Dubrovnik, [more than 180] the witness 'sharply' answered: "Why, you did!"

  I've read in an AP wire that Jim Landale stated that Biljana Plavsic, after her sentencing, will be 'ordered to testify in the proceedings against Milomir Stakic'?! As I said, this is not over yet. Arm twisting continues. But, at least someone told the ICTY to get stuffed: Dobrica Cosic, a famous writer and former President of Yugoslavia, after being contacted by the Tribunal Belgrade Office, wrote them a brief letter, refusing to testify against Milosevic, saying they should take into account his old age and the fact that anything relevant to the Tribunal regarding our civil wars has already been described in his novels. Somehow I got the impression the Prosecution is quite desperate for any witnesses. So, who knows, maybe they will even purchase Cosic's bulky volumes and hire an actor to read them out loud in the dock. Will this pass as a hearsay? Or an expert testimony?
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 10:31 pm
  

  S kim si, onakav si.Or in that Iberian language of Don Quixote:

  Quien con infante anochece excrementado amanece

  Oh, what the Mediterranean Sea can do keeping it all together!

  Vera,

  Please email me, I like to send you the WSJ article.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 10:39 pm
  

  Mr. Nice (NATO) told the court he is having burocratic difficulties in finding witnesses. A fact did not seem to bother Judge May (NATO) in the least.

  Robert Hausvicka is obviouly Mr. Nice's (NATO) protegé he was very embarrased when he suggested to the court to be sensitive to Robert Hausvicka traumatic experience as a war prisoner. Judge May (NATO) took offense to the suggestion and passed the ball to Mr. Milosevic who did not want to ask anything about Robert Hausvicka's claims of beatings anyway.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 4:46 am
  I think that I have heard Michael Savage's name before. Yes, he is the one whose article DS gave a link to above. Now that we are cussing our inefficiency and the lethargy of the public and so on, we should be thankful for those who are on our side. Last summer Ann Coulter made some comments that were not entirely detrimental to Milosevic's case. Now we hear the glad tidings from Michael Savage.

  Yes, in that article you get there the typical "small tyrant" epithets, but I think Mr Savage is closer to the point than we may realize. For instance. I used the phrase "Greater Serbia" in a careless fashion, which may have sounded offensive. The question is: why has the "Greater Serbia" become such a slur? One instantly associates it with the Nazi Drang nach Süden, Drang nach Osten etc. Mr Savage sees through the game. He reminds us that the German Kaiser dreamt of the Caspian oil. Then he shifts the focus to the "New Order" that the White House is now establishing. Clever, wouldn't you say? He doesn't go so far as to say that the "Greater Serbia" rhetoric was a hoax to keep the real "Neue Ordnung" away from public consciousness, but that is the conclusion for those alert enough to draw for themselves.

  As the picture gets more complete, you will inevitably find Israel caught in the middle. That means that one has to define one's attitude to Israel as well. I doubt whether we will ever agree on that one, and it isn't even necessary. Let me just say something I feel needs to be said.

  I just thought of something after revisiting the CAIR website a couple of days ago. One of the slogans were: Boost America's economy, not Israel's. That sounds so nice, and yet you know it ain't right. And you know the reason? Why does Israel need such an astronomical military expenditure and consequently relies so much on American support? Is it not because the surrounding Arab countries would readily push the Jews to the sea given half the chance (as they said they would do right after Israel's independence)? So the name of the game is this: the Arab countries pose a continuous threat to Israel. Whatever Israel does to retaliate is nothing compared to what it could do with all the weapons it has, so it is obvious Israel only reacts to the provocations. To update its defence system, Israel relies on American help, and as the military aid to Israel goes up, the Muslims in America accuse the US of using the American taxpayers' money to keep Israel on its feet so it can pose a threat to the Muslims. This is what the Muslims do in the name of the worldwide Muslim community.

  And what is the reason for the animosity felt by the surrounding Arab countries toward Israel? The best answer I have heard is this: why should the Jews come and settle in the middle of Arabs, who they knew wouldn't like it? Thus the question is not whether the Jews have the right to their own homeland. The point is, according to this explanation, that they can come all they want but they should be prepared for the Arab "anger". And then the question is: if Israel didn't exist, wouldn't the Muslims find another reason to get "angry"? What has the Chechen anger in Russia, for instance, to do with Israel? As to Israel itself, if it didn't get its weapons from the US, it would get them from somewhere else. The first war that Israel ever fought was with Czechoslovakian weapons!
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 5:33 am
  OK, so much for the big picture. You know what else we are doing here? A few months ago we discussed whether the Milosevic trial could be fair because there is no jury. Then it was put forward that actually we are the jury. Imagine what a travesty the trial would be if there were a jury! Obviously, there couldn't be a jury in this trial. Either it would start questioning the legitimacy of the whole organ, as we are doing here, or else the jury would be gagged, like everyone else who gets too close to the tribunal. Milosevic exclaimed: the world is my jury, and now it seems they stopped televising the trial even in Serbia.

  We should also be thankful for JURIST for hosting this discussion. You know, whatever your opinion of the Milosevic trial, we are doing something groundbreaking here. We are testing the ability of the Internet to break the prevailing power structures, which rely on the institutionalized media and the PSYOPS that go with them. And for that reason alone, I guess the hit number for this discussion is pretty high.

  And indeed, we have exposed that the power structures are filled with crooks. What I find difficult to understand is how the power elite can keep the new ruling class of the transition economies in their pockets by playing on its criminal past, when the international power elite is corrupt to the core itself. In other words, what gives the international power elite the right to moral grandstanding?

  I think there are two explanations. First, there is the "international community". This should be familiar to everybody. You create the impression that the American power elite is speaking in the name of everybody on this planet, so it doesn't matter what the rules are, because in a "democratic" system, the majority sets the rules, no matter how quirky they seem.

  Second, the eggheads are bought off with the buzz word deconstruction. You might say that murdering Arkan was wrong, but the deconstruction explanation would say: yeah, but you have to define the context first - in an outdated conceptual matrix such an act would undoubtedly have been wrong, but such an outdated value system, unquestioned as it was, was only an invisible channel for the patriarchal power system and fallocratic hegemony. You might also get the argument that it wouldn't have been wrong to kill Hitler as a baby, if one had known what he would do later.

  The problem is: where does this deconstruction stop? In Kathleen Parker's column (in Jewish World Review) it was said that after the 9-11 attacks, the Muslims have become the new victim class. Isn't this wonderful? You might even ignore the CAIR's theory that the 9-11 pilots impersonated Arabs to stigmatize Arabs?

  This is quite apropos in a discussion like this. Srebrenica suggested it should become a sister-city of New York, because they were both subjected to a large-scale massacre. I haven't heard what became of that plan. But it seems nowadays the best way to become a victim in special need of privileges is to make victims. It all depends on the context.

  And I might add that this is background of the rhetoric that Milosevic is a murderer. What happens if someone denies that he was? You instantly get the feeling that you are callous brute (as if you should care), so is better to call Milosevic a murderer just in case, to show that you are not incapable of compassion, even if it meant murdering Milosevic himself. And maybe that reasoning would be acceptable up to a certain point, if we didn't know that those who cry the loudest about Milosevic being a murderer, have enough skeletons in their own closet (more or less literally) to have an interest in keeping the world's attention fixed on somebody else than themselves. Or does the refusal to investigate the mass grave in Suva Reka allegedly containing 900 non-Albanian bodies appear more compassionate if Milosevic is lynched instead?

  Luckily, the scam is getting so big that one cannot be accused of anti-Muslim or anti-Albanian sentiments anymore. We know that the British were the prime movers behind the ousting of Milosevic. Let us remember one thing: Arkan was killed at this time, i.e. before Milosevic was ousted. So where do the tracks lead? Might the killing of Arkan be fitted in the British plan to get Milosevic ousted?

  Nice argued, not so long ago, that the prosecution needs all these liberties to penetrate the circles of power on which Milosevic's system was built. The metaphor came of course from the fight against al-Qaeda. But I think Nice spoke more from personal experience. There was the British subversive activity going on in Serbia. Yes, they did penetrate the multi-layer shield protecting Milosevic. Arkan was one such layer. But what Nice may have had in mind was that he had a similar protective multi-layer shield built around him as well. We know of the British subversive activity. We know that many of the prosecution witnesses have had some dealings with the British intelligence (or at least British uniforms). We know that Nice and May are British. We know that Nice belongs to or at least is in contact with the network that finished off Arkan, who in turn was part of Milosevic's network, which the British were eager to topple.

  I think this is a more promising avenue than the old theory of French connection. We heard above some words that showed Chirac was genuinely concerned of bringing peace to Yugoslavia. That is also the impression I got from Ahtisaari's memoirs, where he recounts his meetings with Chirac. We heard French language used in the Serb troops in Bosnia. In a word, it doesn't make sense.

  And to crown it all, Del Ponte was instrumental in keeping Yeltsin in check with the impending impeachement concering the Russiagate, which reached back to Switzerland. Are you still wondering what she discusses with the Yugoslav top brass during her visits in Belgrade, when she expresses her grave concern that Mladic is still free? And let me ask, why does Mladic have an army of 300 elite soldiers surrounding him, when he apparently does nothing with them?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 5:44 am
  In Der Spiegel the Serbian hero Zoran Djindjic has said that the independence of Kosovo will no longer be a taboo subject. And I got this info from the Advocates of Kosova Independence (AKI).
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 7:18 am
  OK, maybe somebody can educated us on Michael Savage, but judging by the short Google search that I did, he is a bit of an eccentric (as one would expect anyone to be to survive these days) and a doctor from Berkeley (I think that says it all). He was also the guy who coined in 1994 the phrase "Compassionate Conservatism", which was a slogan even we non-Americans heard in George W's presidential campaign.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 7:44 am
  

  Susan Sontag, another American icon, told the American media back in 1993 or was it in 94 that Sarajevo was the Madrid of the Balkans. She was referring to the fight Madrid put against general Franco's at the time when fascist troops in their push to the capital were stopped by a determined people. No Pasarán was their battle cry and with the help of the International Brigades among them 3,000 or so Yugoslavs Madrid stood her ground until the end of the now forgotten Spanish Civil War of 1936-39.

  Did Susan Sontag really mean it or was she just misquoted? Well, it turns out she did mean it and by doing so demonstrated how incredibly confused some public figures can be and get away with it.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 8:01 am
  In the Wall Street Journal article, Professor Anthony D'Amato (of Northwestern University) called the Milosevic indictment "broad-ranging and crazy," because it contains too many charges. D'Amato was the lawyer who defended the first Serb that was ever taken to The Hague (can't remember the name). The detainee later died in custody. However, whose side is D'Amato really on, if that is not an impertinent question? In the article, he goes on to give the advice that the future Saddam indictment should not include "everything he has done in Iraq".
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 8:06 am
  FYI, the DS/USA poster of yesterday is a different person from the DS/USA who made a couple of brief posts in the past.
  
  (the early) D. S.
  USA

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 10:52 am
  J N Finland

  I’m a latter D S, USA. Sorry for a little mess I’ve created. From now on I’ll be srpsko-hrvatski.

  Now, back to Michael Savage. At this stage of his life Michael makes his living as an entertainer.

  According to Los Angeles Times, one in five Americans get "their daily dose of news" from the likes of Michael Savage and other conservative talk radio hosts. The Left Wing of the War Party is up in arms that the American people now have an alternative in talk radio that allows them to escape from the daily torrent of liberal propaganda served up by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, etc. as news.

  Only naïve, dumb-down electorate might think that they have a real choice when searching for credible source of information or when casting their ballot. No matter who is in the White House, we are still going to keep our bombing campaign worldwide. It’s all decided between CFR (i.e., Corporate America) and various lobbies that are the real power behind the throne.

  Why would the bankers and industrialists want America to be a nation of "ignorant blunderers", according to Oxford Dictionary's definition of "mutts"? Or a country of "mongrels, fools or muttonheads", according to Webster's?

  Because such a stupefied population is easier to subjugate by the elite's financial shackles than would be the free-spirited, free-thinking, patriotic, enterprising Americans who had made this country the envy of the world.

  While war criminal was in the office the Right Wing of the War Party pushed their agenda in the guise of anti-Clintonism, while people like Michael Savage had concentrated on the anti-Clinton aspect while ignoring sometimes the anti War Party mplications.

  Obviously Michael is very well informed about the Balkans. Why he took a big risk and pushed pro-Serbian point of view during NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia we can only guess.

  
  
  srpsko - hrvatski
  USA

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 11:07 am
  

  Jari,

  D'amatto is obviously defending justice more than the defendants. The article also refers to the French lawyer Jacques Verges who defended Klaus Barbie. Jacques Verges, this not mentioned in the article is of Vietnamese (Indochinois) ancestry and certainly knows a little about the vagaries of French justice. I once met here a well known American Jewish defense lawyer who told me he would have loved to have defended Eichmann in Jerusalem, because he believed due process and justice is equal for all. So, the point is that it is possible to try to be fair even with your worst enemies and you would expect that to be precisely what the judiciary would do, the ICTY and the like tribunals will actually achieve the opposite as the very same article says:

  When the U.N. Security Council set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in May 1993, the stated aim was to establish that Mr. Milosevic and certain other individuals?not whole nations?were responsible for atrocities committed during the wars.

  Not quite the factually truth but revealing enough.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

  Saturday January 11, 2003 at 11:08 am
  

  Correction
  
  G C
  USA

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 11:11 am
  

  The question marks are not mine. I suspect the htlm of this site is a little up set.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 11:18 am
  Stand up for what you believe...give your true name and the forum will have credibility. It will not just be another place where people are considered “wackos“ who give pseudonyms and initials.Honesty is respected and that is one reason I like Jari.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 2:28 pm
  Hi everybody, I've been visiting this site from the beginning, almost (April 02), and it became my 'portal' to the Internet. It's nice to see there are truth-loving people around the World, other than Serbs. I'm wondering what happened to Andre Huzsvai from Boston? He used to have very informative posts.
  
  D Jovanovic d_jovan@yahoo.com
  Toronto
  Canada

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 7:37 pm
  Vera,

  Could you tell me how B-92's coverage of the Milosevic "trial" rates.

  I just read in yesterday's Wall St. Journal that The U.S. Government spends $16,000 - $24,000 per month to bring Serbian journalists to the Hague and the B-92 journalists were used by the WSJ as an example.

  Do you think that the U.S. Government is getting what it wants from these Serb journalists?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 8:14 pm
  Gogol,

  The Wall St. Journal lied when it said that Jacques Verges was a legal advisor to President Milosevic. I am a member of the ICDSM, I have checked this with Jared Israel (the vice-chairman of the ICDSM) and I can tell you quite categorically that Mr. Verges is absolutely not a legal advisor to President Milosevic.

  Jacques Verges is an Algerian fascist and President Milosevic never meets with him or consults him in any way.

  Verges is like a leach who has connected himself to President Milosevic. Verges runs the so-called French ICDSM website and Verges recently appeared on German TV falsely professing to be Slobodan Milosevic's lawyer.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 9:58 pm
  Another thing about this Verges who claims to defend Milosevic. Verges told Deutsche Welle's "European Journal" program on October 25, 2002 that Slobodan Milosevic was responsible for the massacre at Srebrenica.

  Verges said that a French General named Morion (spelling?) asked Milosevic to stop the attacks at Srebrenica and Milosevic stopped them. In other words, Verges said that troops under Milosevic's command were massacreing at Srebrenica, but Milosevic stopped them once he got caught and was asked to stop.

  Jacques Verges is not helping with the defense of Slobodan Milosevic. If Verges was as dedicated as he claims to be to the defense of Milosevic he wouldn't contradict Milosevic and then implicate Milosevic for Srebrenica on international TV.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 12:26 am
  Vera: What do you think of the Ex French President Francois Mitterrand? Do you think he would have gone along with the bombing of the Serbs in Bosnia?

  I remember that he was impatient with a question about Bosnia and he said “France was built on blood shed.”

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 7:36 am
  

  Pertti Lindroos wrote:

  I love this site, and I wonder if the moderator has a hit count so we can know how many read without posting?

  Looking at the stats for pitt.edu on alexa.com, you'll find some 8,200 visitors/week to the site. The breakdown under 'Where do people go on pitt.edu?' does not list the jurist.law segment of the website, so it appears that weekly attendance is below 1% of 8,200, or in the 10-20 visitors/day bracket.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 10:07 am
  When first posted here this article criticizing the ICTY appeared to me very biased and unjustified in it intent. I see that there are many people who agree with me:

  The Washington Times

  Letter to the Editor 11 January 2003

  Criticism of ICC misguided

  Grace Vuoto's criticism of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is based on a misunderstanding of well-established international law, including ignorance of a basic concept first established by American prosecutors following World War II

  ("Sleepwalking in the Balkans," Commentary, Dec. 30).

  She attacks the prosecution of Croatian generals because they are charged with "command responsibility" for "isolated crimes that took place during major military operations." Yet the principle of command responsibility was firmly established in international criminal law at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. It does not mean that a commander is responsible for all criminal acts of his subordinates. It does mean that a commander has a responsibility to take all possible measures to prevent his troops from committing war crimes and to take appropriate action when they do.

  Gen. Ante Gotovina and Gen. Janko Bobetko are accused of violating their obligations under international law and, as with all war-crimes fugitives from throughout the former Yugoslavia, should surrender to the tribunal or face arrest.

  JUDITH ARMATTA

  Coalition for International Justice

  The Hague
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 11:01 am
  D. Jovanovic, USA. Thank you for the nice response to my post.
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 11:27 am
  Peter we should not be surprised that BBC stereotyped Milosevic as a beady eyed daemon. I am quite used to reading about Milosevic’s ‘dark side’ but then again they apply this same stereotype to all Slavs. Like Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, a three-star general in the SS who had fought in the invasion of the Soviet Union, stated: at Nuremburg "If for years, for decades, a doctrine is preached to the effect that the Slav race is an inferior race, that the Jews are not even human beings” why would one have compassion for them? Words like ‘slavishly’, ‘slovenly’ and ‘Searvia’ are used and mispronounced by the most educated but what is most repugnant the media uses these words because of Slav phobia. BBC is learning and you know the saying “little learning is a dangerous thing” particularly to the uninformed since more often than not, it leads to the truth.

  Jari the peasant class in Bosnia and Herzegovina was both Croat and Serb while the Muslims bureaucracy lived in the cities. Muslims did own some of the best lands close to the cities and close to water while the “raja” the Christians owned pasture and the least productive land which was most of Herzegovina.

  Jari the Western World knew and the United States government knew of the killing centers of Jews as early as 1942, but failed to respond until 1944. The governments in the Western nations refused to accept Jews who were fleeing persecution in Central Europe. It is interesting that Jews were not persecuted in Italy until the German occupation of that country in 1943. The king of Denmark objected to the German occupiers on the treatment of the Jews in his country and his people responded in the like manner by all wearing the Star of David. The Dutch, at the beginning collaborated in masse with the Nazis; however, many ordinary people in Holland tried to help their Jewish neighbors. In Serbia as was mentioned before on one of these posts Jews were protected and over five thousand served with the Partisans including Tito’s advisor and national hero Mose Piade.

  As to the witness from Dubrovnik he forgot to tell Milosevic trial that preparation for war in Dubrovnik was taking place in the city seven month before the Germans unilaterally recognized Croatia and before the JNA surrounded the city. All national monuments in the city were sandbagged and plywood was placed over windows. The Croatian rebellion was planned many years ago internationally. Prominent citizen of Croatian ancestry, in many Canadian cities, organized their community to respond with protests and petitions as soon as they got the green light from their managers. Every Croat was asked to pay ten percent of his or her wages for the cause. The Croat community leaders met nationally and internationally to plan strategy. Meetings were held in Germany and Hong Kong to plan overall strategy. Full credit to them they were well organized and now they are saying that they were not culpable since it was a war for self determination. However they tend to forget that self determination is a two way street since one should not deny others what one seek for oneself.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 8:11 pm
  Well, Andy, I wouldn't say that the US Govt. is getting neither quantity not quality from B92 journalists, but that is a side issue for any bureaucrat: the important thing is going through the motions. They provide the money, the recipient is doing something in return and it all looks good in monthly reports. This is what I could perceive they are doing, being myself a part of that target group they aim to please/mould:

  TV B92 is showing trial transmissions (except for the last two days; let's hope this was just the exception and they will continue on Monday) but, as testified by our own Frank T. here, these are for free. Each morning, before the trial begins, they have a link with The Hague lasting 1-2 minutes, when their journalist Ljubica Gojgic, standing in front of the court building, recites few sentences into the camera stating the obvious - how today's session is about to begin in a few minutes and who is to testify. She should have well remained in Belgrade for all the on-the-spot contribution: all that she says could have been said from here. Her travelling expenses & subsistence allowances must be figuring in these monthly expense quotations. In 20-minutes recesses and during lunch breaks they sometimes invite some local Milosevic-spitter, whoever is available at the moment (journalists, HumWarriors, lawyers, or that ridiculous Mathias Hellmann from the Tribunal Belgrade Office - their Outreach Dept. or some such stupidity, who is the most frequent guest); a studio-host talks to the guest or rather incites him/her to more spitting. This must cost something. They also give a 15-minutes evening report of the day in court: first, a few sentences of the off-screen commentary claiming how excellent and damning today's testimony was, accompanied by the mute footage of the courtroom one; then the sound is heard as well, almost exclusively of the examination-in-chief. Some days a question or two of the cross-examination is also played, out of context and without a point. And that's all regarding TV B92 (apart from being our only TV station still broadcasting the trial at all; as I said before, our national TV RTS stopped it after few months into the trial under the false excuse that it costs too much). And mind you, TV B92 is a local Belgrade TV, so the vast majority of the country is not covered.

  B92 also has a local radio station, but the trial coverage there is even slimmer. And at their web site they practically don't cover the trial themselves (apart from hosting Frank's effort), only occasionally they quote some agency wires, and they have ceded the commentary to Judith Armatta from the CIJ (Coalition for International Justice), a Soros-funded NGO, so this shouldn't cost the US Govt. You can check this yourselves at www.b92.net.

  So, you see, I really wouldn't say they are earning the money spent on them by the US Govt. Nevertheless, the money is being spent and I believe this has something to do with a sudden purchase of a sumptuous villa on the Montenegrin coast by a relatively young former radio host who used to work at B92 for a pittance, who was always notoriously penniless, who then practically hijacked this insignificant youth public radio station, who subsequently became a recipient of ample financial aid to help a 'regime change', who then started a TV from scratch and who now owns it all as his own private company (presumably to prevent evil Milosevic to take it over if it remained a public entity, as he eloquently explained at the VOA studio during one of his recent trips to Washington - but now this danger is no more and he is still owning the company) - yes, the anti-war profiteer himself, the B92 editor-in-chief Veran Matic. I believe he would certainly argue the US Govt. money has been well spent.

  There are non-monetary donations as well, such as the HBO's 'Sex and the City', the show of Jamie Oliver (a trendy British cook), or the NBA games live. But this is only a cherry on the mud cake. The rest of donated TV programmes on TV B92 is the less-than-subtle propaganda of British and the US documentaries, teaching 'this is how it was', howling 'repent, repent' and preaching 'national is bad, international is good'. After showing such educational stuff, a group of local de-nazifiers talks it over in the studio and this segment of the prime-time programme is called 'Truth, Responsibility, Reconciliation'. Because both the donated documentary and the in vivo talk are sadly lacking in the first item, the other two items are understandably impossible.

  And the rating of B92? We also have 'people-metres' installed with the representative sample and according to the latest results, the highest rating is still with the RTS evening news, followed by the most kitschy turbo-folk private TV PINK shows; TV B92 is nowhere to be found. The US Govt. should reconsider its expenditures - Veran Matic receives too much and has zero influence and area covered.

  Vasile, sorry to have missed your question about the outlook of Belgrade during the holidays. Well, it was and still is modestly decorated (the Orthodox New Year is tomorrow), but this is a far cry from what it used to be in the 'dark times of Milosevic', even during the embargo. From what I saw on TV, it really used to resemble Paris very much by the style of decorations (each chestnut tree along its downtown streets had hundreds of electric bulbs in the shape of stars, bells, snow-flakes etc.). The first New Year after Kostunica & Djindjic crew took over, they had tried to surpass it and it was downright ridiculous and in poor taste, so now it's much more sombre. The shops are well supplied, though, but no rush from customers - everything is too expensive now for the average citizen. You can check the official site of the Belgrade City Assembly (www.beograd.org.yu) to get the idea of the city, but it's not very good - too few photographs. Personally, I find it more than enough to see my favourite boat-restaurant on the Danube glowing in the dark of the river every night of the year (Belgrade lies on two big rivers, the Danube and the Sava, and both are thickly lined with great boat- and raft-restaurants and clubs, always full of people).

  Gogol, mi hermano mediterraneo, non hablo that Iberian language, but I did understand your quotation: truly amazing. I've just sent you an e-mail for that WSJ article.

  Kathryn, it's really difficult to tell what would Francois Mitterrand have done, but judging from reality, the French always preach their independence from the US and then play along in the end. The last truly independent French President was De Gaulle and today's Chirac is just a big clown, I'm afraid. I think you've seen the gutted French Centre Culturel in the downtown Belgrade, demolished by the angry mob after the French took part in the NATO bombing in 1999. They have reconstructed that now, but the disappointment of betrayal by the French will always remain with us. Btw, the American Library nearby, also demolished by the same mob, is not reconstructed and apparently will not be.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 8:16 pm
  

  Andy,

  Thanks for clarifying the record on Jacques Verges. I remember him as being Oriental of Vietnamese ancestry and a lover of large cigars, always one puffing at his mouth.

  In any case it seems the WSJknows more about the case than they tell, even though they can spell Nüremberg correctly.

  I am scanning The New York Review of Books article on the Rwanda Carla's pet project where one of the complains reported is how far for the victims it is to travel from Rwanda to Tanzania where the Tribunal sits. This is not a consideration apparently for the Yugoslav's regardless of how expensive it is to get from the Balkans to The Netherlands or how difficult it is to get the necessary visas.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 9:49 pm
  Vera,

  Did you know that Holbrooke's wife used to be the Head of ANEM and that Matic was in regular contact with the Holbrooke family? And did you know that the U.S. Government was the motivating donor behind the ANEM TV network in Serbia? Its interesting how the "rags to riches" Veran Matic is the president of ANEM today isn't it?

  ANEM operates 16 TV stations and 28 radio stations all over Serbia it amazes me that a media organization that would not exist without handouts from enemy states can call itself the "independent media."

  An organization like ANEM would never be permitted to operate within the United States, or any other Western country.

  If I may quote from Sec. 310 of the U.S. Federal Communications Act: "A  license may not be held by a non-citizen, a foreign government, a foreign corporation, or any corporation of which any officer or director is an alien or of which more than one fifth of the capital stock is owned by non-citizens. Such requirements ensure that the electromagnetic spectrum is not being distributed to foreign interests that might use the frequencies in a manner that does not benefit the public interest of the citizens of this country. The applicant must be of good moral character and there can be no questions regarding the honesty of the applicant either in other business dealings or in the application itself. This provision of the application process is a rather subjective decision made by the commission."

  If B-92 was an American station operating on foreign capital, from a foreign government, especially a hostile government -- its transmission facilities would be seized and all of its property would be confiscated. If Veran Matic was an American and he was doing the same thing in the United States as he was doing in Serbia he would be in jail.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 10:23 pm
  Mr. Gogol has kindly supplied me with the copy of the Wall Street Journal article describing the Milosevic trial.

  Here are some relevant paragraphs which this writer, Marc CRAMPION has written:

  When the U.N. Security Council set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in May 1993, the stated aim was to establish that Mr. Milosevic and certain other individuals “not whole nations” were responsible for atrocities committed during the wars. They also wanted the court, the first of its kind since the Nuremburg trials of Nazi officials after World War II, to help Serbs, Croats, Albanians and Bosnian Muslims heal their wounds and move on.

  “You can’t help falling under his spell.” says a former employee of the tribunal who declines to be named. “He’s very sharp and he’s funny. It’s sick, I know, given what he’s there for, but he’s so cynical and quick that he’s had the courtroom in fits of laughter at times.”

  b The first head of state to be tried in an international court has turned the spot light into a soapbox, muddied the process of reconstruction in Serbia and revealed the pitfalls of this new effort to bring rogue leaders to justice.

  Even the most neutral reader will gather from this that the intent of the Security Council has greatly failed. The writer wants us to believe that the failure is due to the fact that Milosevic is “smart”, quick witted and that court can not control his “antics”.

  This is far from the truth. The fallacy of the procedures, the charges brought about Milosevic are so fabricated that even a modest politician, which Mr. Milosevic is, can turn into a sham.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 3:38 am
  Yes, I agree, D. Jovanovic. I think he WSJ is very interesting in its attempt to be poised. Lest they succeed, let me make a few points.

  The article states that Milosevic's case is built on the fact this it was a "civil war". Now where do they get that? If that were his defence, he would be sure to lose, because the ICTY Statute expressly states that no distinction will be made with international and domestic conflicts.

  The article also states that so far there hasn't been any real "defense" yet. Well, that may or may not be the case, but that is hardly any of Milosevic's fault. The defence stage will begin in May. As to what little Milosevic might do in the cross-examination by way of defense, he is being interrupted by May.

  But to beef up its "case", the article states that Milosevic makes mistakes. One such colossal mistake is supposed to be his putting questions that he doesn't know the answers to. On the other hand, the article says nothing of the mistakes that the judge and the prosecution have made, as if there weren't any.

  Well, actually the article touching on one such mistake. It is telling that they mention one witness by name: Babic. Why would they do that? It was obvious that it was here that the judge/prosecution team made one of its biggest mistakes. The protected witness was protected "in the interests of justice". Now we know what that "interest of justice" was: getting Babic to testify against Milosevic on pain of getting incriminated/indicted himself. A truly remarkable interest of justice.

  The article also hints that the trial is not going too well. However, that has supposedly nothing to do with the poor quality of the prosecution's case. No, it has everything to do with Milosevic's personal qualities. Actually, that is a bold admission in itself, if one compares it to the pathetic smearing in the press earlier. And consider this admission coming from an anonymous ICTY employee. But on the other hand, his personal charm could be just the reason he had a whole nation under his spell. The article leaves that open.

  Then comes the attempt to be poised. The anonymous ICTY employee says it is "sick" to fall under Milosevic's spell. On the other hand, the article closes with D'Amato's condemnation of the indictment as "crazy". And we have D'Amato pitted against Wladimiroff in a way too. Wladimiroff is quoted as saying that Milosevic was heading for sure conviction, but the article does the courtesy of mentioning that Wladimiroff got discharged. That lifts D'Amato's assessment high above Wladimiroff's. On the other hand, even D'Amato's condemnation is played against itself as it were, when D'Amato supposedly gave the advice to be a little more succinct in the coming Saddam indictment.

  A half truth may be a whole lie, but it is amazing that the WSJ is at least going through some of the motions to appear honest. In part, it has succeeded. It was quite magnanimous to cite a few names in the Milosevic "defense team". Some of them might even ring a bell: like De Gaulle's adviser who developed the doctrine of separate nuclear deterrent. I didn't know that.

  Still, the article has its flaws. Why is the mainstream media so "mainstream"? I think one reason is in the term itself. Mainstream cannot have too many opinions of its own, because it can't take the risk of being shown wrong at a later stage or adopt a policty that may seem foolhardy in retrospect.

  There is also another very simple reason. The CAIR is the extreme example of this phenomenon: different pressure groups. The feminists kicked Benny Hill out of the British TV. The CAIR has banned the Muhammed jokes. The ADL has banned anti-Jewish "defamation" and the "Israel lobby" threatened the New York Times and Chicago Tribune with a boycott if they didn't stop what it perceived as anti-Israel bias.

  And if the wishes of a pressure group are ignored, you might even get litigation.

  It is interesting to see how Mr T, as an obvious representative of the big-media-gone-internet, arrived at his calculation that this discussion might have about a dozen visitors a day. That is what happens when you divide the 8,200 visitors a week evenly between all the features on this website. If there were a valid assumption, why does he keep popping up here? I don't believe his calculation simply because we have about a dozen contributing visitors a day, and I would expect the "lurkers" to be at least a dozen times more. Subject to the definition of "a visitor a week" it is possible to reconstruct the visitors to this discussion in the hundreds if not thousands.

  Besides, you must not forget the multiplying factor. We know that some of the posts here have been taken to other discussion forums on the web.

  It is interesting to see how Mr T showed his aversion to scandal by erring on the safe side. By a wide margin. Ten visitors a day! Give me a break! It is certain that we are breaking the institutionalized media, when it is trying to break us. And if this discussion is not doing the trick, Mr T, let us not forget about Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and others of that ilk in the US. Say something mainstream about them.

  And after all, it is not the numbers, it is the quality. It is interesting that the WSJ picked up the Babic case. Why? It was in this discussion that the identity of that "protected witness" was exposed. We might also surmise that it was for this reason that his protection was later dropped. So let us not be too modest. It is not healthy. It is probable that the WSJ would never even have heard about Babic (like most of us), if it hadn't been originally in this discussion.

  The WSJ doesn't want to take risks. It wants to have the opportunity to say "we told you so" in the future. And there is a very natural explanation for this. It points out that Milosevic's ill-health is the biggest question-mark. What happens if he really drops dead? He will become a martyr, and the WSJ wants to have some of that leverage too. Maybe the WSJ is already sensing the growing resistance to the tribunal in America, especially after the ICC boycott. And let us not forget that people probably read the WSJ for the same reason as we are doing here: to know what other people are thinking.

  Hello Belgrade. Is your TV broadcasting the trial or not? If not, might somebody consider getting it on Internet? If one can read between the lines in the WSJ article, the direct broadcasts will be dropped: The Serbian people have the right to know about the trial, but the reaction has been undesirable. The Croatia indictment is toast, but what the system will do its utmost to protect is the genocide charges in Bosnia, so get ready.

  There has been so much going on in this discussion during the last few weeks that one tends to forget what went on before the Christmas recess. Let me mention two names: Tim McCormick and Helena Ranta. Any news anybody?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland