MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 3:43 am
  

  More new old problems at the trail this morning: Mr. Milosevic is no where to be seen and Mr. Nice (NATO) has problems finding witnesses.

  Judges looking baffled are in private session!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 3:53 am
  

  That is it:

  "Mr. Nice (NATO) there is nothing more we can do. We will get a medical report, oral or written from the doctor seeing the accused and we will decide after about further hearing this week" judge May (NATO) said. "We will adjourn"

  Killing seems a really opportunity out.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 4:35 am
  "Nothing more we can do?" Should we be preparing ourselves for the obituaries? Funny thing this happens after the prescient WSJ article and the Arkan scandal.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 4:53 am
  

  Andy:

  From the moment of his birth in 1925, in Thailand, Vergès had experienced racial hatred firsthand. His father, Raymond Vergès, a French doctor and a diplomat, had lost his job because he married a Vietnamese woman, something Frenchmen were simply not allowed to do in those days. The same racism that cost Raymond Vergès his career would play an important role in shaping the personalities of his biracial twin sons, Jacques and Paul. For the Vergès twins, growing up half-Asian on the island colony of Reunion in the Thirties would be tough and they would be victims of the racism that went along with imperialism for their entire lives. Everywhere around him, said Jacques Vergès of his youth, he saw racism, and where he saw racism he saw the evils of unfairness, and when he saw unfairness he became angry. When the young Jacques Vergès was treated as a second-class citizen, he became angry; when he saw native coolies being kicked by their white passengers, he became angrier; and when saw African men working fourteen hours a day on the docks for just a few scraps of food, he barely managed to contain his rage. One of the few political groups on Réunion that did not exclude non-whites was the island's budding communist party, and Jacques Vergès, hater of imperialism and its racist colonial system, joined along with his father and brother. When news reached Réunion in 1940 that some French were actively resisting the Germans and the collaborators, Jacques Vergès wanted to help them. In 1942, even though he was only seventeen, he joined the Resistance but because France was blockaded, he wound up with the Free French in Britain under the command of General Charles de Gaulle.

  Click HERE for more.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 4:53 am
  Hi everybody, I'm one of the "silent dozen" who think you're doing a great job. Looking at the stats for pitt.edu on alexa.com, you'll find some 8,200 visitors per day to the site (today for instance 16,000 visitors) using Internet Explorer (as they note, "For example, the AOL/Netscape browser is not supported"). The breakdown under 'Where do people go on pitt.edu?' does not list the jurist.law segment of the website, but it does list law.pitt.edu at 10%, which obviously contains JURIST, way above buisness (7%), math (1%) and library (5%). I suppose the major attraction of law.pitt.edu would be JURIST, so a 5% of all traffic to pitt.edu going here is not unreasonable. That gives a daily attendance of 5% of 8,200, or in the 400 visitors/day bracket.
  
  Fredrik Andreasson
  Sweden

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 5:21 am
  

  How can I, as an accused, agree to reply to a masked witness? Even at the Moscow trial, there were no masked witnesses. Neither the Moscow trial, nor the trials in Nazi Germany. The simple fact that a masked witness could take the stand renders the proceedings void. Testimony alone is nothing. Testimony also involves the expressions of the witness. I must be able to demonstrate that this witness is false, that he has been pulled out of a lunatic asylum or that the witness is a police agent or an Ustachi. Here, I cannot! The problem, and I used this image at the Law school, is that when one lives in Alabama, and the rednecks are preparing to stone a black man, the issue is not whether or not the man really raped a white woman; the problem is how to prevent the stoning. It is called an imminent crime. Here, we are witnessing a stoning. Some witnesses are going to make false assertions. How can he reply? What evidence can he obtain? He is in Holland. If he were in Belgrade it would be different, but he is in Holland. And it is not up to counsel to obtain evidence. It is for the Court to do this.

  Jacques Verges INTERVIEW
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 10:03 am
  Gogol,

  The excerpt above about masked witnesses is not entirely the way that Verges presents it.

  Milosevic is aware, and his closest legal advisors in Belgrade are aware of the identity of these protected witnesses.

  The practice of protected witnesses keeps the public in the dark, but Milosevic is aware of who is testifying against him.

  The practice of protected witnesses keeps Milosevic bound from revealing the identity of the witness to the public, and in the case that the witness was pulled from the nut house, or was a criminal Milosevic couldn't tell the public that information about the witness. They would have to go into the "closed session" if Milosevic wanted to bring up such things.

  Given the reality that the tribunal is a political institution and not a legal institution. Testimony from a witness whose identity the public does not know should be viewed as irrelevant anyway. This is pure politics and the only court that matters is the court of public opinion.

  The final verdict of the tribunal is predetermined already, but in the end it dosen't matter what Richard May, Carla del Ponte, or any other representative of the tribunal says.

  The point of this whole so-called "trial" is to manipulate public opinion in Serbia, to convince the Serbs that they are the guilty ones that they need to "atone for their sins," that they deserved to be attacked by NATO and that the leader who they elected was a genocidal war criminal.

  Even if Milosevic gets convicted by the tribunal and sent to jail for the rest of his life. If the Serbian people and others who have been following these proceedings say that Milosevic was railroaded and call bullshit on the whole thing, then Milosevic wins. Its as simple as that.

  But back to Verges, he is a political liability, and it is harmful to Milosevic for Verges to go parading around in front of the tribunal and the TV cameras saying that he is Milosevic's lawyer, which he absolutely is not.

  Verges said some pretty awful things in the Klaus Barbie trial. He didn't defend Barbie as a client, Verges attempted to defend fascism.

  Moreover, Verges tells lies and implicates Milosevic in crimes while he claims to be defending Milosevic. I have the tape of Verges on Deutsche Welle saying Milosevic was in command of troops massacreing at Srebrenica. This is in direct contradiction to what Milosevic has said regarding the matter.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Wahsington, United States

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 11:04 am
  From a Belgrade news website: "USA Congress new motion for recognition of Kosovo independence. Leading members of the Committee for international relations, the presiding Republican congressmen from Illinois Henry Hide and a Democrat from California Tom Lantos are asking USA to recognize Kosovo independence".
  
  Mira A.
  UK

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 11:14 am
  

  Andy,

  I don't doubt your assertions about Verges (except he is not an Algerian), and in fact before I read the article in the WSJ I wasn't even aware he was involved in anyway with Mr. Milosevic's case.

  Klauss Barby and the protection afforded to him by the US until his extradition from Bolivia is another case altogether. Let's leave it there. Why is Verges claiming absurdities in regard to Mr. Milosevic is beyond me.

  The Iraqis will also in the future put to the test of the Inquisition as Vera correctly calls these tribunals, Iraqis, Serbs are to be brought in line with the party line of what is good and what is bad. The Germans were also, still are punished collectively for the sins of their leaders, even the ones who were in exiled during the 12 years of fascism.

  Perhaps Verges now 78 years old is a little confused, perhaps he is been used. I would be interested in reading some of the stuff you have harming Mr. Milosevic.

  gogolc@hotmail.com
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 11:59 am
  Fredrik

  While the quality is high here, opportunities are missed in failing to garner more interest in NWO fraud. Re : http://www.g2mil.com/July2002.htm for another outlet that desperately needs quality first hand input.

  The posting there are a bit hit and run, but its where the numbers are.
  
  J P
  US, Wis

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 12:55 pm
  If one in five Americans gets his news from the conservative talk radio hosts, we are in the 20%-80& trap. As has been said a couple of times in this discussion, the mainstream media works on the assumption that it is not dangerous to give the truth to the 20% public, as long as 80% don't care. And not all of the conservative talk radio hosts support Milosevic, so even 20% seems too far.

  What makes the Milosevic trial so special, though, is the fact that it gets serious attention from both left and right. So I don't know if the truth about the Milosevic trial might well be above the 20% slice (and if it is, what then).

  Not all of the hypothetical 400 visitors on the JURIST site come to this discussion, but I think many of them do. And in this case, the actual numbers don't tell everything. Things look very different if those visitors are so-called opinion-makers (e.g. from the press), as I suppose many of them are.

  I wouldn't worry about Vergès too much. In fact he was the only lawyer in the so-called Milosevic team I know beforehand. In fact, I suspected that he would be part of it even before I learnt that he was (even if this is now contested). I don't believe he is a fascist (especially if he has belonged to the communist party - which doesn't necessarily sound any better), but he sure is controversial (that may be the nicest thing to say about him).

  JP, the regulars on this site barely have energy left to attend other discussions. Maybe we could map the terrain to see what else is happening. In this respect, it is very interesting to follow this controversy about Vergès. I don't think Vergès himself would mind. Gogol, does he have a website or some concentrated media effort somewhere? And as we know, Jared Israel has been subjected to character attacks as well. Indeed, it was me who gave the link to Israel Shamir's website (don't ask me how I found it). I don't think it advances anything to get too sensitive about persons. Maybe quarreling is desirable to clean the air. But I do get the feeling that a lot could be gained by joining forces.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 1:37 pm
  

  Wise words.

  Now, the ICTY has re-schudled Mr. Milosevic' trial for Wednsday and the media quotes his counsel as saying "he probably has the flu". So, maybe Mr. Nice (NATO) has the time to find a few more criminals, I mean witnesses for the continuation of the show trial so intensively followed by the world media, well at least in the Slavic world, which after all is not so small.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 1:49 pm
  

  For the information of discussants on this board, the ALEXA audience figures quoted earlier are entirely inaccurate for jurist.law.pitt.edu Our server logs indicate that JURIST as a whole is visited over 60,000 times a week by over 30,000 unique visitors. Our Milosevic coverage gets over 1300 visits a week.
  
  JURIST Moderator

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 2:20 pm
  Thanks Moderator.

  Tom Lantos a Californian Democrat, who is a United States Congressman, has been an Albanian admirer for as long as I can remember. There is no doubt that the Albanian community has contributed to his coffers.

  Yugo Ex President Milutinovic is to be extradited to the Hague.

  US State envoy for war crimes, Prosper Rissar, believes all suspected war criminals of the former Yugoslavia could be brought to the Hague by the end of the year. Including Mladic and Karadzic. (It seems that the Serbs were the only ones wearing the black hats, and if that is the case the Croats sure must have come a long way since the Second World War, and the Muslims, well......look at the world and see who is doing most of the fighting.)

  PS: With the Axis of Evil, Iraq, Iran and No. Korea (not my phrase), you would think Prosper would have something better to do than beat up on Serbians.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 9:10 pm
  Lantos and Soros are hungarians and they suported the hungarian nationalist movement in Transilvania ( Romania ) during the last 20 years.Very little is known about that. I think the same is with the hungarians in Slovakia and Serbia.
  
  Vasile Ianos
  NJ

• Monday January 13, 2003 at 10:21 pm
  Vera

  Is it true that the Open Society Institute "tops off" some Civil Servant salaries ? (ie Cabinet Ministers)

  I saw a two sentance mention of it in The Economist. Something about making it possible for talented 'Serbs" to leave their highly paid jobs in the US or England and return to help out the Djindic regime.

  Any confirmation ?
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 1:40 am
  Thank you, Moderator. It is nice to know we are not screaming into darkness.

  If only the insight of our contributers can find an even wider audiance.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 3:43 am
  It is my turn to thank the moderator for giving us the figures, which are very much appreciated. You really made my day.

  Remember, not everyone has to log in every day to keep up with what is being said. Some will even turn back and never come back again, but I am sure they get the picture. In short, it is not the numbers at any specific time that count, it is the sustained effort over time. Still, the figures are so high that I hope no-one will get shy about participating.

  What really matters, though, is the relative figures. Somebody find out how many hits Mirko Klarin gets! I would be very surprised if it were not only a fraction of what this discussion gets. This fact is so obvious that I don't even need to get crass about him this time. Both this discussion and Klarin are at the source of information, and the ultimate fall-out is sure to be many times over the figures Klarin and we get as such, when the information starts cascading through the different levels.

  It is also revealing how seriously Mr T as the representative of the corporate media missed the hit figures for this discussion. Remember, it is a sure sign we are breaking the institutionalized media when it starts breaking us. If Mr T's effort doesn't count, what does?

  And the really good news is that information about the Milosevic trial is pretty much untrodden territory by now, so whoever shouts in the darkness is bound to get a monopoly.

  The JURIST discussion is still the best choice. The ICSDM, TENC or Andy's website don't have discussions like this. The JURIST is also unlikely to send us packing some sunny day, unlike the BBC or the New York Times. Let them close their discussions. So much the better, because their clients will be heading here.

  The JURIST site is also politically absolutely neutral. There has been no hanky-panky to reach this overwhelming consensus. This is for real.

  Indeed, it would be hard to switch to another site, which is for something. I think our common denomenator is that all of us are against the tribunal, whether or not we are for Milosevic. Once you start being for something, that is when the divisions appear.

  Luckily, Milosevic has chosen this anti-tribunal position as the cornerstone of his defense strategy. His defense relies on the illegality of the tribunal, and the illegality of the tribunal is almost inescapable, if you give it enough thought.

  To give you an idea how wide the anti-tribunal consensus is, think about this. Maybe the way to unit the peoples of former Yugoslavia is to appeal to their common aversion to the tribunal! The disgust is also shared by right and left alike. The anti-tribunal sentiments are sure to appeal to intellectuals and anti-intellectuals alike (no matter what I have said about the eggheads).

  So I would say that 99% of the people on this planet would condemn the tribunal if given half the chance. And the big media is sure that they won't ever be given the chance.

  But just because the consensus is so wide, maintaining the left-right divide among us is irresponsible. Why? The US, for instance, can maintain the liberal media policy, because the assumption is that the extreme opinions will even out and render each other ineffective. But you see what is happening with us? We are evening ourselves out by exaggerating who is on the left and who is on the right. That means that we deprive ourselves of any leverage that might easily be ours.

  And to make matters worse, I must say one can detect some artificial anti-French bias in the condemnation of Vergès. If he has said some negative things about Slobo, we would still have the right to hear them. Don't start acting like the mass media by hiding things from us that you think we don't want to hear. Don't you think Del Ponte might lend an ear to Vergès, whether or not you give us the chance to do so? You know, she knows French. You can ignore Vergès only at your own peril. And to show that he has some considerable influence in the defense team, ask yourself why Milosevic's attorney was chosen from French-speaking Quebec.

  The fact that he defended a Nazi (Barbie) only shows his level of professionalism. I think that is exactly what we need to keep the Milosevic case from becoming some left-wing hobby-horse, which the leftists would be glad to lose, if they can blame the right. There is a Jewish attorney in New York, Cohen (I can't remember the first name), who said he would defend Osama bin Laden. Does that make him a Muslim terrorist? There just are that kind of eccentrics in the legal community and I am glad that there are.

  And no matter what Vergès's reputation is after the Barbie defense, sometimes bad publicity can be better than no publicity. He is almost a household name, unlike any other member of the defense team. He was interviewed in Le monde diplomatique lightyears before Jared Israel was given his chance to present his views on the BBC. So if you want to be negative about Vergès, at least complain that he lost the Barbie affair.

  And as to the quarrels between Jared Israel and Vergès, I think they reflect less favourably on Israel's character than on that of Vergès, because I don't think Vergès ever took part in the backbiting campaign that was going on a few weeks ago. In fact, those who were against Jared the most complained that Vergès did nothing!

  I am sorry to cut the posting at such a negative note, but I have no better punchline this time.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 5:22 am
  Gogol & Jari,

  Regarding Verges, I agree with many of the things he has said about Milosevic. It isn't all bad.

  But, Verges has said some harmful things, especially regarding Srebrenica. Things that contradict what Milosevic has already said and other things that just aren't true.

  On top of that much of the anti-Serb propaganda has made the alligation that Serbs are Nazis and that Milosevic is some sort of Hitler.

  The media only uses Verges' defense of Milosevic as a re-enforcement of that Milosevic = Hitler line of propaganda by bringing up Verges' prior defense of Klaus Barbie. So Verges is somewhat of a political liability, but that isn't my biggest problem with him.

  A case in point would be this Deutsche Welle report I have been refering to. I have this report on tape and can make it avaliable in RealVideo format for anybody who asks to see it. (E-mail: webmaster@slobodan-milosevic.org )

  I agree with Jari that it would be bad to divide this into a left vs. right debate.

  I feel strongly that Verges has the right to say what his opinions are. What I object to is Verges parading around infront of the TV cameras at the Hague and saying that he is Milosevic's lawyer, when he isn't. I also object to Verges going on TV infront of the world and contradicting Milosevic on Srebrenica while he is claiming to be speaking on behalf of Milosevic's defense committee.

  Srebrenica is the sweetest plum in the prosecution's case. That is the core of the genocide accusation against Milosevic. It is unacceptable for a person who claims to be defending Milosevic to contradict Milosevic on such a serious matter as this.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 5:35 am
  I agree with you that one has to treat the allegations about the Srebrenica massacre with all the seriousness it deserves. What I found about Gen. Morion, who you say Vergès said had told Milosevic to stop the killing, is that he said that Muslims were killing themselves in Sarajevo:

  "Even the Paris 'Monde' who never favoured the Serbs, remarks 4th January 1993: 'The city is full of recurring stories that the politicians deliberately prevent the International Aid from reaching the population in order to publicise the suffering of the masses and thereby bring about the military intervention'. General Philip Morion states in the same paper on the same day: 'Bosnian Presidency is inciting the battles for which it knows that it has no chance of wining, but are inclined to attract International attention'.

  The link to above is http://www.slobodnasrpska.org/en/prevare/odbrana/sarajevo.html . I would urge anyone to read the article, because it touches on the comments that Michael Rose and Lewis MacKenzie (and Francis Briquemont) have also made to the same effect in the French press. This is not about Srebrenica, but if Morion has said these things about Sarajevo, it is hard to believe he would say the opposite about Srebrenica, which makes it hard to believe that Vergès would have misquoted him.

  Besides, I think Vergès has been Milosevic's lawyer in the suits before the European Court of Human Rights.

  At least we now got a fresh subject.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 7:39 am
  

  There is nothing new, at least for me, in the way that Vergès can be used to create divisions. He defended Garaudi, he did not defended Eichmann as Kunstler told me he would have liked to do, but defended Garaudi the French historian who dared to questions some historical facts and figures, the end of the intellectual freedom of thoughts came on him, defended himself and as expected he lost, as it is expected Mr. Milosevic would loose.

  From Garaudi to Barbie and if the first was about academic freedom the latter was about political expediency.

  So, the problem is that unless you are ready to stand by a many important basic issues believing these are universally and absolutely accepted and recognized it is better not to get close to a giant like Vergès.

  It is easy to punch holes on his reputation the same way it is to punch holes on Mr. MIlosevic's since most people don't know much about it and that is where the big machine steps in in keeping the myth and shielding the truth.

  Andy,

  How did you come to conclude Vergès was Algerian?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 9:56 am
  I thought he was Algerian because I had seen in an interview with him that he grew-up in Africa and was active in the Algerian freedom movement, based on that I assumed that he was Algerian.

  I was wrong he is not Algerian, he was born in Thiland and grew-up in Reunion, a tiny French Island just off the coast of Madagascar.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 9:57 am
  In connection with the numbers of “visitors” to this site I have a following thought to add:

  My experience with the “New York Times discussion Forums” is that the discutants and people who frequent it are mostly “protagonists” and “antagonists”, depending on your point of view.

  Sometimes it is rather informative to read the opposing view, mostly because it is so absurdly revisionist of historical facts that it makes no sense. (Croatians, e.g. still insist that the number of killed Serbs by Ustashe in WWII was about 50,000 to 70,000. And Albanians on that Forum claim that they inhabited Kosovo since before historical times. They, the Albanians were the major work force of constructing the monasteries they claim..)

  Unfortunately, the average American, who hardly follows the global International affairs is never frequenting these sites. There is either no interest for them or they dismiss the content as squabbling of the Balkans.

  I particularly like reading the material on this Pittsburg site because of such intelligent participation and very informative reporting of goings on in Hague
  
  D Jovanovic
  USA

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 10:21 am
  Jari,

  You are right Verges did serve on a larger committee that filed a suit with the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Milosevic.

  Verges is not Milosevic's lawyer in regard to the Hague Tribunal, and he said on TV that he was.

  Send me an e-mail and I will provide you with a RealVideo file of this Deutsche Welle interview that I have been refering to, and you can see Verges contradicting Milosevic on Srebrenica and you can see him making a scene infront of the cameras at the Tribunal and saying that he is Milosevic's lawyer.

  Milosevic does not have a lawyer at the tribunal. Milosevic has some legal advisors in Belgrade who he consults on a regular basis, but Verges is not one of those select people that Milosevic consults about the proceedings at the Hague.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 10:31 am
  

  Andy,

  I am also interested in viewing the tape. Thanks.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 11:31 am
  Hello: I am one of the ten that clicks on to the Jurist.

  I bet Milosevic would not like Verges claiming to be his lawyer. Milosevc should denounce him immediately. Milosevic does not need him.

  As for hearing all sides........for ten years we have been hearing one side. What we need is to bring out the truth not the propaganda.

  There were those who were dying to bomb the Serbs and the Serbs were well aware of this. Why would they turn around and massacre ten thousand, or fifteen thousand, whatever the figure the drum beaters wanted to use to villify the Serbian people. Same thing with the bread line massacre. Do people really think the Serbs are stupid? How many recall at the time the Krajina Serbs were being battered by Croats, Madeleine Albright produced a satellite photograph of the “gravesite of thousands of innocent Muslim men,” just in time to avert attention from a pitiful scene.What happened? Distracted from the Krajina Serbs all media took off on the photograph which depicted total blackness with a few white dots and declared this to be the Srebrenica gravesite. After that the Krajina Serbs were forgotten.

  A journalist(?) from I believe the Christian Science Monitor came on Cspan and told the frightening story of how he crept into the Serb held part of Bosnia and even though it was highly dangerous and the Serbs were lurking everywhere and oh my they were so monstrous, but he went onward, sneeking around and what did he find, a bone sticking out of a mound of dirt and he knew it was what was left of an arm. A Muslim arm at that. The little twerp would have been standing in a pool of sweat from his body if he had met a monstrous person of any kind.

  BTW the media cannot wait for the bombs to start dropping in Iraq or anywhere else. You can almost see the adrenalin secreting through their bodies as they salivate.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 12:41 pm
  

  From the ICTY:

  The Hague, 14 January 2003 P.I.S./PA075 PRESS ADVISORY Please be advised that there will be no hearings in the Milosevic case on Wednesday 15 January and Thursday 16 January 2003, due to the illness of the accused. The Press Office will keep journalists informed as to any further developments.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 12:58 pm
  Those who have been in contact with Slobo have told that his only wish is that we make as much noise as possible. I think that includes Vergès too. Nobody is in the position to get choosy what kind of noise should be made. None of the figures is that impressive. So Vergès should stay, unless othewise proven. He is not on trial. He has defended both left-wing and right-wing radicals, so I don't know what kind of divine light dictates some people to say that Milosevic doesn't need somebody. Who does he need? What are the criteria, and how do if who meets them? Milosevic is a grown-up, I think he can make up his mind himself. This is just the kind of political parochialism that prevents us from reaching any magical limits. Things won't get any better if we discard some lawyer because he might arouse the impression that Milosevic is Hitler while opting for somebody else who gives some other people the excuse for saying that he is Saddam. We have been talking about political liability. I can't help wondering where the political nature of this trial actually comes from. From his "supporters"? As everybody should realize, the left-wing associations are a political liability too, only from another angle.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 1:53 pm
  

  Dimitrov had it easy, or so it seems, Not only defended himself but also his comrades in arms, poor Marinus, his fate was sealed because he was crippled.

  There were noises outside the court room and outside of Germany to be sure. But the world was very different in 1933 and there was no shame in being a communist, so even the Nazi had to reckon with that fact and Dimitrov and his comrades won, were set free and deported to Moscow where they were welcome as heros.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 1:58 pm
  Jari and Gogol,

  I have e-mailed you both the link to the video.

  Listen to what Verges says about Srebrenica and then look at what Milosevic says. (Trial Transcript: Sept. 27, 2002 - Pg. 10309 Line 12).

  Verges says that Milosevic is innocent because he stopped the slaughter at Srebrenica because Morillon asked him to. Which would to indicate that Milosevic had control over the troops who were doing the killing.

  Milosevic says that the troops who were doing the killing were renegade Serbs acting under the joint control of the French and the Muslims, and that Morillon might have been a party to the massacre himself.

  As I have stated before Verges being a political liability, which in my personal opinion he is, is a secondary concern. My primary concern is that he has contradicted Milosevic, and that he has claimed to be Milosevic's lawyer at the tribunal when he isn't.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 4:12 pm
  Del Ponte orders cancellation of NATO bombing investigation | 19:49 | Beta THE HAGUE -- Tuesday - The Hague Tribunal Chief Prosecutor has cancelled the preliminary investigation into the alleged war crimes of NATO during the 1999 bombing because Belgrade has failed to submit the requested documents. According to the Zurich newspaper Tages-Anzeiger, Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte said that as soon as becoming chief prosecutor in 1999 she requested that Belgrade send relevant documents about the crimes which NATO allegedly committed during the bombing of Yugoslavia, but has been “waiting for the reply ever since”. In a speech given in the presence of Swiss celebrities, del Ponte said she has had to call off the preliminary investigation due to the lack of relevant information. Del Ponte dismissed claims by the Serbian press that the indictments were not brought for political reasons as “nonsense”.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 7:23 pm
  Andy, I confess that in my Belgrade-centred frame of mind I lost sight of ANEM. Yes, this network of small local TV & radio stations throughout Serbia broadcasts the trial as well, so the wider public than Belgrade can follow what's going on in The Hague. Still, this is not even close to the total territory coverage of the RTS. And what's more important, ANEM is something else than meets the eye: local network is just a front. Let me quote Holbrooke from the 28 Oct. 1998 transcript of the briefing at the US State Dept. that you have provided the link for: "My wife is the head of ANEM, the international support group for B92." This further proofs my Dick's wife theory: if private agendas of public officials, their family and spouses converge in a sufficient number, any state policy can be careened, redirected or even completely U-turned to fit their selfish little goals. The crisis in a given country is being invented and/or nurtured by those who individually benefit from it, they represent it as some big national interest issue for their country, they create plush positions deriving from the crisis for all the family and friends while in office, and when their public-official career is over, the family provider himself moves to some particularly well-funded NGO such as the International Crisis Group or to a real heavy-duty consulting firm. So, vive la crise! Otherwise, what would a Dick's wife be a head of?

  TV B92 was duly ready to resume the trial transmissions yesterday, but Milosevic was a no-show due to his flu, so instead they broadcasted another trial for the last two days - that of General Galic, a Bosnian Serb accused for shelling Sarajevo. I watched that for an hour, to get the idea (there was no opportunity to follow that case before, and it is already in its defence stage). This told me everything there's to know: another farce, of a lower level only by the rank of the accused. The female Serbian-speaking defence lawyer questioned a witness to the defence - the former Commander of the Russian battalion of the UNPROFOR, Vorobjev. Would you believe that the ICTY did not provide an interpreter for the Russian language, so Mr Vorobjev, eager to help the defendant, agreed to testify in his broken Serbian! This seriously hampered the proceedings, the lawyer had to ask questions extremely slowly, repeating everything and the witness sounded almost half-witted, although from what I understood of his half-Russian-half-Serbian sentences he's on the contrary extremely sharp for a military man (he has finished the famous Frunze Military Academy and served in Afghanistan as well) . The presiding judge finally decided that in the afternoon they will get a Russian interpreter after all. And the contents of the testimony? The Commander simply showed on his military map of Sarajevo what was the demarcation line between the Muslim and the Serb side, which were his unit's check points and what were the distances in meters and he explained they reported in writing the shooting and shelling from both sides which they counted. For anyone hearing the issue for the first time it is absolutely clear the whole area of Sarajevo had been criss-crossed by the demarcation line, sometimes reaching to the very centre, so there was no siege of Sarajevo by the Serbs or the shelling of Sarajevo by the Serbs, but rather both the Muslim and the Serb side held various parts of the town and were shelling each other. But who cares for the truth, it's too complicated.

  To AP V: I couldn't find any confirmation about the alleged donations of the Open Society Institute towards the salaries of the Serbian Ministers; there are only rumours and hints. However, there are some facts: at least three of them left their jobs abroad to work as Ministers here for more-than-modest sums (Djelic, the Minister of Finance; Vlahovic, the Minister of Economic and Privatization Affairs; Mrs Kori Udovicki, the Minister of Energy and Mining). The case of Aleksandar Vlahovic is particularly telling: he worked for DELOITTE & TOUCHE, the renowned consultants who, lo and behold, got the job in the first privatisation of a Serbian cement plant, organized by Mr Vlahovic's Ministry! What would you say - who got the percentage? So, these 'experts' can very well afford to work for pittance. Mr Djelic is completely pathetic: he bragged in his interview to LE MONDE how exciting his new job is, how full of possibilities and how important. Yes, he can play with the finances of a whole country, instead of being a minor official at some French firm. His latest plaything are obligatory receipts for even the smallest purchases, such as newspapers; until they obtain fiscal cash registers, the news-stands vendors have to hand-write receipts, under the threat of high on-the-spot fines. And Mrs Udovicki's first move as the Minister was to introduce the increase in the price of electricity of no less than 50%. As far as I'm concerned, we would be better off if these 'experts' have kept their previous jobs.

  Gogol, thanks for the e-mailed WSJ article. I think you will have to search for another one: the fall-out from the first one already appeared. It was reported by our press yesterday that Djindjic gave an interview to WSJ's Mark Champion here in Belgrade, with the sole issue of the Milosevic trial and its impact on our public. Apparently, Djindjic complained that the trial, the way it has been conducted so far, "nourishes the worst nationalistic instincts in Serbia". He was especially irked by "Milosevic's almost daily tirades against the 'puppet regime' in Belgrade". Djindjic judged The Hague officials to be "naïve", in worrying only about legalities and disregarding those "hundreds of hours at Milosevic's disposal to promote his politics." Could you please try to find this interview, if it is published?
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 7:55 pm
  Ms. Martinovic,

  In connection with the trial about “shelling of Sarajevo” one has only to read the book by General Sir Michael Rose “ FIGHTING FOR PEACE” to realize how much duplicity and perfidy was on the part of Muslim government who caused or provoked all these incidents.

  I strongly suggest that somebody in Yugoslavia undertakes to translate that book. After all Rose was in Sarajevo and I such a position to know the facts.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Tuesday January 14, 2003 at 8:04 pm
  

  Vera.

  Not to my knowledge, but I will look for it and in any case I read, like Marx used to do, this mouth piece of Wall Street. Actually he said the real news are in the "financial" section of the newspapers.

  Regarding the issue of wives and politicians, there in the very same article Greenberg is mentioned. He is married to a local congress woman here, a democrat of certain standing in certain circles of the crowd wanted for years on end to bomb Beograd. So, no wonder Greenberg is involved in measuring the results of American largesse .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Les USA

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 12:16 am
  Vera

  Thanks for asking about the "topping off" of the Djindic ministers' salaries. I doubt you'll be having lunch with the Soros people anytime soon, but if you hear any firm confirmation that Soros is indeed 'topping off' the Ministers' salaries.......please tell us

  Regarding the "siege" of Sarajevo

  If the battle(s) in and around Sarajevo were indeed a siege of the city, then international law would regard the Iztbegovic regime as the guilty party in any civilian deaths caused by BSA action. The Karazdic government granted civilians free exit time and time again. However, the Iztbegovic regime refused to allow civilians to take advantage of the BSA offer(s).

  According to International Law it was the Iztbegovic forces who placed themselves inside, among, and behind the civilians. Therefore, it is the Iztbegovic forces who bear the burden of reponsibility should any civilians die.

  Nuremberg set a illuminating precedent for this sort of issue in the VonLeeb trial. VonLeeb was the Wehrmacht commander during the Siege of Leningrad.

  USFM 27-10 ( "Rules of Land Warfare" ) also supports the position that in a siege the investing Army bears no responsibility for civilian deaths. (shocking but true, chk out USFM 27-10 on the US Military website)
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 2:11 am
  The siege of Sarajevo as Vera states was a media fabrication. The city was divided like the rest of Bosnia into districts by ethnicity. TV images of NATO soldiers tied to lamp posts were represented by the media as UN soldiers. This is not true. These soldiers were members of NATO providing targeting information for incoming NATO planes. The media also claimed that Canadians were held hostage by the Serbs when in fact it was the Muslims that gained control of a bridge and the Canadians were stuck for several days as guests of the Serbs. This was told to me by the Canadian commanding officer in my living room.

  To understand where Isetbegovic comes from go to this web page. http://emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/svijet.htm and also to see the explanation go to emperorsclothes1@aol.com . Mark the last page as your favorite and I guarantee you will not be disappointed.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 2:46 am
  If Vergès is lying that he is Milosevic's lawyer, then there are more robust mechanisms to deal with the problem than this forum or the internecine ICDSM bickering. If he also hurts Milosevic's interests by presenting himself as his lawyer, one should contact the French bar association. I just find it remarkable that this sort of criticism is coming from people who have been turned down as Milosevic's lawyers themselves.

  I am open to learn new things about Srebrenica, of which I know next to nothing. Therefore, I can't dismiss Vergès's version of the events as downright bull. But you are right, the ICTY Statute criminalizes "attempt to commit genocide", so Vergès is treading on thin ice here. On the other hand, I can't tell what Milosevic's own position is unless and until I hear himself, because there are too many messengers buzzing around him to convey his thoughts to the public.

  And I know that the ICDSM is not acting in the best interests of Milosevic. The ICDSM insists that Milosevic wants all the amici curiae dismissed, yet the ICDSM wanted to become the amici curiae not so long ago.

  There would be a lot of support for Milosevic, if this quarreling would stop. Which reminds me, is the ICDSM there really to help Milosevic? He wants people to "make as much noise as possible", and the ICDSM members are busy gagging each other!

  By "a lot of support" I mean D'Amato and people of his calibre. He has said in the WSJ that the prosecution case is "crazy". Do you think the matters should be left there? If the indictments are "crazy", then the prosecution has no case, and the whole trial is bogus. That means that it should stop. That is what I think D'Amato is or should be saying.

  On the other hand, I can't understand his comments about Saddam, but maybe that is my own bias. I can't help thinking of Ari Fleischer's words about such tribunals: If it worked in Serbia, it will work in Iraq. But you see, it didn't work in Serbia, and it still doesn't, and it never will.

  The US should really do its homework on international law first, if it were interested in it at all. There is growing rumbling on the horizon which suggests that the US will recognize Kosovo. Come on, folks! You can't recognize a country just like that. There are conditiond, one of which is a credible government. As it is, Kosovo is a vassal state of the US, which would make a travesty of the whole recognition business. But after all, Kosovo has been recognized by Albania as well, and I guess Albania's relation to Kosovo is a bit like the American relation to it.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 4:43 am
  Would it be totally false to put forward the working hypothesis that Morion did indeed tell Milosevic to stop in Srebrenica? That would explain Milosevic's claims that the French were killing the Muslims in Srebrenica, which I must say sounds quite implausible. Let us remember that the Krstic trial tapes showed that French was spoken in the Bosnian Serb Army, which suggests that Morion would have been in a position to pull some strings in the BSA. Milosevic also claimed later that it was the French who were trying to kill him. Somehow this seems to be tied to the Morion affair, but could Milosevic be washing his own hands? I am asking this because the French plot to kill Slobo seems so implausible (which of course suggests it might be true). Would the French really be worrying about the Morion connection (in the Srebrenica massacre) after the Nato bombing, which eclipsed anything that went before it?

  So far the trial has brought no evidence against Milosevic. The trial in itself has become such a circus that it has no authority to give any credible judgment on anything. But don't underestimate us. There is still a possibility that Milosevic is not the cuddly dictator that some people are trying to make him.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 5:00 am
  Even if one is for Milosevic, this step is worth taking. If Morion stopped Milosevic, was there really a massacre (the near lack of evidence suggests otherwise), and if there was, who committed it? But if there was no massacre, how come so many people believe there was? In so far as this has to do with tampering the evidence, we have Louise Arbour's words that underline that evidence-tampering is a clear admission of guilt, at least in this tribunal.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 5:14 am
  The pieces are falling together. The defense strategy that denies the legality of the tribunal sounds very like Vergès, who has made it his trademark to attack the prosecution. And indeed, if there were something rotten in Srebrenica, as Vergès is allegedly saying, the illegality of the organ would be a very nice safety net, because it is true! The biggest problem is that denying the tribunal's jurisdiction smacks too much of an admission of guilt in itself. On the other hand, in this case the illegality of the tribunal is so clear that this impression doesn't matter much.

  Now does this give you a hint that Vergès, who has done this job for nearly 50 years, might actually calling the shots here? It doesn't matter what Milosevic or his supporters say.

  I am sorry that this points to some flaws in Milosevic's character (it was about time), but the mythology built around Srebrenica points to the real culprits, away from Milosevic. Milosevic may have been eager to act in Bosnia after all the heat he got for allegedly abandoning the Serbs in Krajina.

  See, the pieces are beginning to fall together after all.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 5:14 am
  Jari,

  Milosevic does not have a Lawyer at the tribunal.

  The tribunal has appointed Ramsey Clark and some guy named Livingston as Milosevic's "Permanent Legal Advisors." This was done without the consent of Milosevic and without even the consent of Clark and Livingston. Ramsey Clark is the chairman of the ICDSM, but he can't see Milosevic on a regular basis since he lives in the U.S.A. and it is hard on a man his age to be constantly crossing the Atlantic ocean. As for Livingston he was completely unknown to Milosevic.

  Milosevic has 2 personal Lawyers in Belgrade who he regularly contacts Mr. Tomanovic and Mr. Ognjanovic. They can be called Milosevic's lawyers.

  Verges does not figure into any of this. He isn't Milosevic's personal attorney like Tomanovic and Ognjanovic, and he isn't a recognised legal advisor like Clark or Livingston. So I don't know how Verges can call himself "Milosevic's lawyer." Clark and Livingston don't even go around calling themselves "Milosevic's lawyer."

  As for the Amicus Curaie your right Milosevic has objected to their use. I don't exactly know why those people in the ICDSM tried to get appointed as Amicus, but I think it was just a "back-door" attempt to gain some access to Milosevic. The tribunal does not make it easy for Milosevic to meet with or exchange documents with people, which hiders his defense. But ultimately I don't know what good that would have done. If they had attempted to relay anything that Milosevic had said to the public they would be banned from seeing Milosevic by the tribunal like Chris Black was when he relayed comments from Milosevic to the Dutch press.

  What is needed is for Milosevic to be allowed to hold a press conference or at least issue public statements so that all of this stuff can be brought out into the open and cleared up, but the tribunal won't let him do that.

  This is a horrible double standard. The prosecution is allowed to talk to the press freely, but the defense is prohibited from speaking to the press.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 8:52 am
  Lets agree to disagree about Verges. If you think that he is secretly calling the shots behind the scenes here then you can go ahead and think that. There is obviously nothing I can say to change your mind since you say, "It doesn't matter what Milosevic or his supporters say."

  Milosevic's remarks about Srebrenica are avaliable here on page 10309 line 12

  You have also seen what Verges said about Srebrenica in the video, and how that is different from what Milosevic said.

  As far as I am concerned this talk about Verges has run its course here.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 9:12 am
  Vera,

  You are right it would be far better for RTS to be broadcasting the trial. It should be distributed as widely as possible.

  I was only making the point that ANEM/B-92 is operating on behalf of foreign governments, especially the American government who makes no secret of their connections with ANEM/B-92. I was wondering how obvoius this connection appears in Serbia and how widely it is known by the Serbian public that this connection exists?

  You're right. It would be foolish to think that Holbrooke's wife being president of the international support group for B-92 would have nothing to do with B-92's political agenda.

  It would be equally naive for people to think that CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, being married to James Rubin had nothing to do with Amanpour's vicious anti-Serb "reporting" on CNN.

  Best Regards.

  PS: I really appreciate your analysis of the trial. You provide better coverage than any of these so-called "reporters" in the media.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 10:18 am
  

  The use of French by the Muslims army in Bosnia is explainned by the fact several of its officers had served in French Froeign Legion, you can only guess how cozy the French contingent there must have felt with them

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 10:24 am
  Walter T.

  It is to the advantage of the BSA to have the battle(s) in and around Sarajevo defined as a siege. Review the VonLeeb case from Nuremberg and the US "Rules of LandWarfare" (USFM 27-10) on the subject of sieges.

  International Law is very clear on the subject of sieges.

  The burden of responsibility for civilian deaths within Sarajevo is on Iztbegovic forces who placed themselves inside, among, & behind the civilian. population.

  J.N. & Gogol & Wilcoxson

  vis a vie SM and Gen M. in Srebrencia. You seemto be confusing two episodes. The Gen. M. & SM dialoge seems to have occured in 1992 (or 3) when Nasir Oric occupied Srebrenica and refused to allow the civilian population to leave. Recall that the civilian population in Sreb. from 1992 to 1995 was mostly NOT from Sreb.. They were refugees from other parts of Bosnia and wished to escape tiny isolated village of Sreb. and get to a bigger place.

  Nasir Oric kept these refugees hostage. (until he ditched them flying by helicopter to Tuzla in July 1995)

  The Gen. M. and President SM dialoge appears to relate to the establishment of the Sreb safe area in 1992 (3?).

  There seems to be a deliberate disembling on the HumWarrior's part to associate this dialoge with the subsequent Liberation of Srebrenica in July 1995.

  We don't need to review the details of how Nasir Oric abandoned his civilian hostages. How those civilians finally were able to leave Srebrenica after being held their against their will for 2 1/2 years. And How Nasir Oric's death squads roamed in and around Srebrenica murdering upwards of 3,100 people in those 2 1/2 years.

  The story of the Liberation of Srebrenica is well known and need not be repeated here.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 11:40 am
  OK, sorry that I am such a pain in the ass, but why does Milosevic have to tell this story about the French of his own volition, if it had been sufficient to attribute the murders to Naser Oric? And if the French were in the Muslim army, why don't we hear this story from the Muslims? What we do know is that French was spoken in the Bosnian Serb Army, and there seems to be a deliberate attempt to bypass that little detail. Or is some HumWarrior confusing this tape that was played in the Krstic trial with the establishment of Srebrenica as a safe area?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 11:45 am
  I agree with AP V on the HumWarrior part if he means Andy. It was Andy that has equated Morion advice with the Liberation of Srebrenica. Obviously that sort of little thing is trivial in some people's fight against HumWarriors.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 12:20 pm
  And if I may, why don't we believe the stories about Lewis MacKenzie and Michael Rose raping Bosnian women, but we do Milosevic's claim that apparently thousands of Muslims were killed by the French? This is especially hard to believe, if these French were peacekeepers. Why doesn't Milosevic just say that the Srebrenica massacre is a hoax?

  And if you are still wondering why some HumWarrior is equating the Morion advice with the Liberation of Srebrenica, let me tell you: to discredit Vergès. What I am doing is reconstruct the reason for that. Go on, tell me there is nothing fishy going on, and I will tell you who is naive.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 12:45 pm
  

  To J N Finland Regarding Verges controversy:

  Political activist William Spring (CANA, London, UK) has extensive experience dealing with MI6. In his letter to “judge” May he says (Link to letter is here):

  “I believe that you and the other UK officials at the Court, including Steven Kay, the MI6 agent drafted in so the prosecution can also take over the defense, all of you have systematically conspired to deny the prisoner a fair trial, both on account of the numerous rulings you have made against him, and those you have not, particularly in respect to the conditions of his unlawful detention.”

  I would like to remind you what Slobo had to say about Srebrenica. "Ask [the French president] Jacques Chirac about Srebrenica," Mr. Milosevic urged. He claimed that Bosnian Muslim officials and the French UN commander, General Bernard Janvier, had arranged the killings to trigger Nato air attacks against Bosnian Serbs. Further on, he alleged that French government paid Serb members of the French secret service and Serb mercenaries, to massacre thousands of Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995. The killings were carried out to discredit Serbs and provide a pretext for international military action against them. "I want the truth to be revealed for this insane crime," he said. "In the interest of justice it has to be explained before the world."

  Is it possible that French, just like Brits allegedly did, are trying to take over Slobo’s defense in order to cover up their criminal doings?

  
  
  D S
  USA

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 12:52 pm
  

  By doing a quick search on Google I have found several articles confirming that mercenaries from former Yugoslavia were recruited by French and did fighting in Zaire. (Key words: +mercenary +Zaire +Yugoslavia)

  http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1997/264/264p20.htm

  A quote from the above pointed to article:

  The mercenary force of 300 includes white South Africans, Britons, French, Belgians and many from the former Yugoslavia. The London Times and Le Monde reported on January 8 that they were recruited by Colonel Alain Le Carro, former head of the presidential guard under François Mitterrand.

  The force is led by former members of the French Foreign Legion and the British SAS. They are also working closely with the South African corporate mercenary army, Executive Outcomes.

  The mercenaries have heavy firepower at their disposal, including late-model French helicopter gunships and at least three Russian Mi24 gunships that were in action in Afghanistan. The Zairian air force is equipped with MiG-21 jet fighters.

  My Comment:

  What Mr. Milosevic is saying about Srebrenica was a big surprise to me because nobody ever gave any indication of a possibility that the massacre at Srebrenica was staged by mercenaries. After finding several articles on the Internet on Ygo/Serbian mercenaries his story started making sense to me. I remember that at the time there were several articles in the major world newspaper on the story of Serbian mercenaries in Zaire with quite negative connotations for the Serbs. It was kind of:" Now when there is no war in the Former Yugoslavia Serbian mercenaries are using their "skills" in Africa. Even in these articles it was never mentioned that there is a link between them and Mr. Milosevic's government of with French government, helping readers to jump to a conclusion that they are connected with Mr. Milosevic government.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 12:52 pm
  You're asking me? I am the one who's baffled. Whatever this has to do with Vergès, I can hardly imagine he would be working for the French government. Or maybe... About the other members of the ICDSM I am not sure, and it has indeed been put forward that some ICDSM are working for the respective governments. I used to find that hilarious until now.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 12:56 pm
  DS, about Janvier conspiring to trigger the air attacks in Srebrenica, it seems the air attacks were never such a big success, were they? How many bombs were dropped? And none of this excludes the possibility that Morion gave Milosevic the advice not to take over Srebrenica.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 12:59 pm
  
  Mrs Simeonka Spasic of Nis …

  her daughter-in-law Lilijana Spasic a medical student, her unborn grandchild of seven months and Simmeonka’s missing leg. All victims of a single cluster bomblet: one of the hundreds deployed from cluster bombs released over Nis on 7 May 1999. See here the horror of it all: not shown by the BBC. Ironically the BBC programme reporting this crime reports a Nato emissary banging his fist on Milosevic’s conference table and boasting that Nato’s bombs were so precise they could destroy even his table. Let us take Nato at its arrogant and boastful best: this then was a deliberate targeting of civilians.

  Britain and the US launched hundreds of thousands, yes hundreds of thousands, of these bomblets all over Serbia. In Nis on the 7 May 16 civilians were killed including Lilijana Spasic and her unborn child. Of the 70 injured many like Simeonka Spasic were severely injured and crippled for life. Just one bomblet out of the hundreds of thousands deployed in Serbia wreaked this havoc on two Serbian families: Lilijana’s mother and her family, her husband and his family: two killed one crippled and many heartbroken. No other examples of Nato’s thousands of bomb casualties were shown although the BBC did report the flying of a bomb on the same day into the Chinese embassy in Belgrade killing 4 and injuring 40 - a heinous crime according to Blair if committed in New York. What do we make of Blair the great ‘moral’ leader whose moral compass varies with location? To misquote a famous playwright surely ‘Moral is not moral which alters when it alteration finds’.

  The second programme in the BBC’s series named ‘The Fall of Milosevic’ shown last Sunday, covering the period of Nato’s aerial attack on Serbia, continued with its bias against Serbs. But it also continues to reveal enough facts to indict Blair, Albright, Rubin … as exampled above.

  Bowing to international pressure and realising the criminal nature of the use of these vile and indiscriminate weapons Clinton ceased to deploy cluster bombs shortly after the atrocities in Nis but Blair continued to do so.

  At this stage of Nato’s war the programme shows that many of the Nato leaders, including Clinton, realised the enormity of their criminal aerial bombardment and were ready to concede. The zealot Blair is shown rallying them all to save Nato’s credibility at the expense of human life and limb.

  BBC bias against the Serbs: No mention was made of the atrocities which the KLA continued to perpetrate during this period while much was made of Serb ‘atrocities’. In particular films made by Kosovar Bali Thaci were given great prominence. The body of his uncle was shown with massive wounds especially to the throat. Thaci claimed that his uncle’s throat had been ‘cut out by a Serb to keep as a trophy’. When you view this programme you will see that it was probably a wound inflicted by shrapnel from a Nato cluster bomb, a KLA heavy mortar round or a Serb tank shell. Many of the bodies shown had arms elevated which forensic scientists have claimed at Racak was evidence of the body being dragged, or staged, to another position after death.

  Thaci’s wife appears on the film claiming that she “waded through blood” and made herself look old in order to avoid being … Horrible things undoubtedly happened in Kosovo during Nato’s aerial bombardment: not all of them due to the Serbs: thousands were killed and injured by Nato bombs alone. War is the suspension of morality in spite of Blair’s claims to ‘humanitarian intervention’: There is absolutely nothing humanitarian about warfare. This Thaci film is as nasty a piece of propaganda as you will ever see and conforms to the KLA’s declared policy throughout their campaign. Propaganda swallowed eagerly by the western media at the time and continued by the BBC today. When will the BBC question Cherie Blair about the non-existent rape camps in Kosovo by which she was “horrified”? When will the BBC question Blair and his ministers’ on their lies about tens of thousands of Kosovars slaughtered by the Serbs? When will they examine the thousands murdered by the KLA?

  In the first programme the BBC revealed the fact that not only was Britain and the US supporting a Muslim KLA terror campaign in Kosovo but that this campaign included units of Mujahedin or al-Qaeda. It also revealed a deliberate and random killing of police and civilians by the KLA to provoke the Serbian security forces into counter measures that they could portray to a compliant western media as atrocities.

  This second programme reveals Nato’s war crime in the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs. Hopefully episode three will deal with the ethnic cleansing of the minorities after Nato’s occupation, their murder by the thousand, including loyal Kosovars, and the remainder being confined to ghettoes. So much for Nato’s, especially Blair’s, intervention in order to create a stable and multiethnic community in Kosovo!

  History will paint an accurate picture of events in Kosovo in spite of this current BBC bias. But in the meantime there is surely enough here alone for del Ponte to invite Nato leaders and leaders of their KLA allies to visit The Hague in order to explain their war crimes revealed in this series by the BBC.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

  Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 1:02 pm
  HTML

  correction
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 2:28 pm
  

  To me the most surprising finding of the Dutch government report on Srebrenica is their categorical statement that there is no proof of the direct involvement of Mr. Milosevic's or Mr. Karadjic's governments in the massacre. It was never revealed how they came to this conclusion, i.e. how they support it. Is it possible that they have found that mercenaries did the job, but are not allowed to announce that fact? Or do they know something else? It is strange that the ICTY prosecutions never found need to comment on this finding. What is known, up to now, is that they are ignoring this fact. For what reason and based on what evidence?

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 2:59 pm
  

  Another interesting search on Google (Key words: +arm +smuggling +UN +Bosnia) reveals who is dong what. The Guardian article is based on the Dutch government report on Srebrenica.

  URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,688310,00.html

  http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/used.htm

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 5:08 pm
  

  Come on. It is not so hard to figure it out. The Dutch, the French were doing the work with full knowlged, perhaps in denial, for their bosses the Yanks perhaps under threat of been bombed as well. The issue of Muslims groups is never too clear, some work ofr the west and their bosses are divided among them and their interests. Now the London and Manchester arrests are linked to groups involved in Bosnia!

  The forensic work has not yield no matter how remotely connected any results of a conclusive natute to substatiate the "massacre" and please do not forget there were skir mishes between Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats and certainly we know how inflitrated the Croats were.

  Mr. Milsoevic has two lawyers he trusts. One is in The Hague and was interviewed anecdotely by The New York Times, the other is in Belgrade and I bet he has as it is claimmed great support from many Yugoslavs from the old guard, from the one who have not sold their soul and keep an old idea alive and I can assure you they are in the six republics as well as in the other Southern Slav country Bulgaria as well as outside like in Greece. The battle line is long and they are very charged.

  The West looks always petty, unprincipled, undefined and above all winsical in its beleives. I am glad Mr. Milosevic will derrobe the false friends off, one by one or whole sale. This is a political battle for sure but it is also an idelogical one.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 5:37 pm
  ....I'd rather have a supper with a devil than with Serosh...if there is any difference at all...
  
  milan c.
  netherlands

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 7:31 pm
  

  On/Off On/Off...... It will never happen anyway

  Hague denies calling off NATO bombing investigation | 19:38 | B92

  THE HAGUE -- Wednesday - The Hague denied allegations today that Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte has suspended the investigation of the NATO bombing of Serbia.

  Florence Hartman spokeswoman for del Ponte said, “there has been no change in the status of the NATO case”.

  “Del Ponte has stated her opinion of the case in light of our current knowledge of the situation”, Hartman said.

  ”Since 2000 there has been much criticism from Serbia, and we have asked Belgrade to send us information which would enable the opening of the investigation, but we haven’t received anything. In this respect, there is nothing new to add to the case”, she emphasized.

  Hartman was responding to media reports which had “misinterpreted” the interview which del Ponte gave to a Swiss Daily yesterday.

  She reminded the press that immediately after the 1999 air strikes The Hague prosecution formed a team of experts to study the documentation of NATO war crimes committed during the bombing of Serbia”.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 9:57 pm
  Crucial article:

  US asks NATO support for war on Iraq, warns Iraq on human shields

  http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030115/1/36jaz.html

  Same story as in Kosovo: the West credebility is at stake, war must be waged. Prepare for for war for the higher cause in februari. A small exerpt:

  "The single most dangerous thing we could now do at the moment, which in my view would increase the chance of conflict, would be to send out any signal of weakness," Blair told parliament.

  He was speaking as 750 elite Royal Marines set off to join a growing Royal Navy task force that sailed last Saturday in readiness for any conflict in Iraq.

  General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iraq's recruitment of civilian human shields violated international law.

  Earlier this month, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said foreign volunteers were welcome to come to Iraq and serve as "civil defenders" around civilian facilities in the event of a US-led assault on the country.

  "They should come and set themselves up around places that we need to survive, to aid civil defense," Aziz said.

  Myers said that would constitute "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

  "It is illegal under the International Law of Armed Conflict to use non-combatants as a means of shielding potential targets," he said.

  "We're not into killing. I think that's one thing that separates us from ... the Iraqi regime, ... that we don't want to take on civilian populations, and we take every measure to avoid doing that."
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 10:28 pm
  You might wonder on wich trivialities we are waisting our time on this forum. The sheeple are already being prepared for the worst. More on Western war ethics:

  Child fighters would pose ethical nightmare for allied troops in Gulf

  http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=369722
  
  Peter Varavejke
  Belgium

• Wednesday January 15, 2003 at 11:06 pm
  Considering Afghanistan, The Balkans, Korea, and most of South America, the US is batting zero.

  How badly will they f##k up in Iraq? Americans I have met are not guilty, but are not informed. They were told by CNN, and the rest that Slobo controlled the media. CNN was never censored as is this trial coverage in the US.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada