MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Sunday January 26, 2003 at 4:57 pm
  
  Ugly Rumours

  Ugly and Unpalatable Facts

  He’s at it again. When will the UK electorate wise up to the ‘ugly rumours’ spread by Blair and his New Labour spin machine. Last Tuesday saw his latest ugly rumour as he dissembled before a Security Committee of the House of Commons. “There is some intelligence evidence about loose links between Al-Qaeda and various people in Iraq” he claimed: The evidence for his claim being as thin as the thinly disguised thin hair on the top of his head.

  In contrast according to today’s Sunday Telegraph: The ugly and unpalatable fact is that according to British military intelligence, following discoveries in the Tora Bora caves, at least 1,200 British Muslims trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and those not killed or captured have now returned to Britain. Britain, with the government’s knowledge, definitely does harbour al-Qaeda trained Islamic terrorists and has helped in that training.

  Blair’s New Labour ‘ugly rumours’ of the past include death camps, rape camps and genocide in Kosovo. Not even the ICTY has charged Kosovo’s then president, Milosevic, with any of these alleged crimes.

  In contrast the ugly and unpalatable fact is that Blair used these lies to support Islamic terror including elements of al-Qaeda and Mujahedin in Kosovo. Whatever its other many faults the recent BBC programme ‘The fall of Milosevic’ shows such troops marching and training with regular KLA terror forces in Kosovo.

  More ugly and unpalatable facts:

  Blair and his New Labour government continue to support Islamic terror in Kosovo at least by dereliction of duty. Blair says and does nothing to reverse the evils of this terror wrought with his help upon the minority populations of Kosovo.

  The Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan recruited and trained British Muslims in terror by the thousand. These trained terrorists are now able to return to Britain without sanction - to do what?

  In contrast the Iraqi government - having no established links with al-Qaeda and being a sworn enemy of Bin Laden - is to be obliterated in Blair’s Bush war on Islamic terror?

  None of this makes any sense. (-: It is almost as daft as the idea, broached by General Jackson, that the colonisation of Kosovo including the building of Camp Bondsteel was effected in order to protect and control the investments in Balkan pipelines for Caspian Sea oil :-)

  How long will it be before Blair’s ‘ugly rumour’ that the imminent Anglo/US attack upon Iraq is about ‘prosecuting the war on Islamic terror’ turns out to be the ugly and unpalatable fact that it was essentially really all about the control of Iraqi oil?

  Biographic footnote: Before his palingenesis into the ‘ugly rumours’ monger Blair was front man, during his uni’ days, for a rock band known as the Ugly Rumours. To quote the leading actor in ‘Get Carter’, he of the famous phrase about eyes, holes and snow: “Not a lot of people know that”.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Sunday January 26, 2003 at 6:39 pm
  Peter,Tony Blair is one of the biggest creeps on the planet. On top of all that,he is an asslicker. Its blatantly obvious that America wants to take over Iraqi oilfields,install a puppet regime that will give them all the oil they need and Bob's your uncle. They don't like leaders who are defiant of the West and who refuse to blindly follow the the West's stance. Isn't it funny how Blair can never say NO to America? It seems as if the UK is the only real "ally" left in western Europe that the U.S. can count on 100% of the time. I have to say congratulations to all those brave Brits who are going to Iraq to express their solidarity with the Iraqi people. Maybe the asslicker Blair needs to start taking into consideration the wishes and concerns of his own people for a change,instead of having his face constantly buried deep in America's ass. But we all know that's not going to happen. When he can't get the support of the public,he starts to tell lies in order to gain public sympathy (just like with the Kosovo conflict). He makes me sick to my stomach...
  
  Ryan Mircic
  St.Albans
  UK

• Sunday January 26, 2003 at 8:14 pm
  

  Never mind personalities, Bush, Blair, Clinton: oil transcend people...Continental Europe happens to have different oil companies and one can argue theirs are a little more civilized on some occasions. It was a good thing for the Iraqis to have nationalized their oil because it brought improvements to their country and people. Neo colonialism and pure imperialism will end that.

  Iraqi should provide the capitalist running dogs with a Pyrrhic victory. Watch and see.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Sunday January 26, 2003 at 11:16 pm
  I have been unable to get “Jurist for two days.”

  Speaking of Tony Blair.He was running after Clinton and everyone was calling him Clinton’s puppy and now he is the GWB Poodle.

  Do the Brits just think it is a good for them to be tied to the coattails of the American government and so they feel Blair is doing the right thing? Why don’t they insist this poodle stand up and act like a man or throw him out.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Sunday January 26, 2003 at 11:29 pm
  If you do not want to get sick do not read the following from the AP.

  On Wednesday Goran Svilanovic asked Pierre-Richard Prosper, the visiting U.S. ambassador for war crimes, for U.S. intelligence and other assistance to help with Mladic's arrest.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Monday January 27, 2003 at 1:24 am
  The Web went mad for the last few days, sorry for the late responding.

  Gogol, not only Karadzic's friends are being targeted now, his wife has already became a victim of the all-inclusive persecution: Dr Ljiljana Zelen-Karadzic was forced in December to resign from her position as the Head of the Red Cross in Republika Srpska (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Europe/2571579.stm). The ICRC officials were so kind as to explain that the donors objected her occupying the position and nearly stopped funding. Humanitarian, neutral, un-political, unbiased, charity-oriented donors, no doubt.

  Nebojsa, re using the Amnesty International reports by Milosevic in Poljanic cross-examination: no, it's not hypocritical, it's logical. The Prosecution has been using them, why shouldn't the Defence do the same? Nobody argued that the reports of all those 'humanitarian' NGOs are either totally false or totally true; they're just totally biased. They describe an event as based on a hearsay (perhaps it really happened, perhaps not), and then promptly jump to a political conclusion when the event concerns one particular side in the conflict that needs to be smeared. Here is an example in point. On 12 May 1999, the Amnesty International's Secretary General Pierre Sane launched a two-volume report entitled "Kosovo - A Decade of Unheeded Warnings". Notice the impeccable timing: in the heat of the NATO bombing, just like the Louise Arbour's indictment against Milosevic. In this report the AI put together all their previously collected hearsay from 1991 about 'unfair trials of political opponents and labour leaders' (this is rich: perhaps you could classify some tried KLA members as political opponents, but who the hell are these labour leaders?!) and from 1998-1999 about 'Serbian army attacks which deliberately or indiscriminately killed hundreds of civilians'. So, it is Serbian army and not Yugoslav Army (precision reporting) and there were hundreds killed, not one hundred thousand or tens of thousands, as the US officials claimed, and all of them killed by the Army, whichever was its name. In order to avoid the accusation of being eager to help justify NATO bombing, they put it in writing at the end, but with more than telling last sentence: "Amnesty International takes no position on the political issues concerning the status of Kosovo within the FRY or on the military intervention of NATO which began in March. It is clear however that NATO's intervention is primarily a response to the security situation in the region." Sorry, guys, this last sentence is pure political taking of position: when somebody uses terms like 'intervention' and 'response to the security situation' instead of 'aggression', 'attack' and 'war', it is clear whom you're defending and why in such a nick of time.

  So, it's totally legit to use their reports as a starting point to any legal procedure of establishing evidence. Their reports are not evidence by any valid legal standards (no investigations, no sworn statements, no forensics…), they're just biased hearsay and if one puts them to a witness, he can answer to the best of his abilities as he would to anybody's allegations, or he can simply say that this is just hot air. Poljanic fell into his own hole: he couldn't have possibly dismissed the questions regarding the Amnesty International reports, it would be denying their value in toto, thus renouncing their valuable smearing of the Serbs. And Milosevic cunningly exploited that, being able at the same time to argue that those reports are biased against his side. And as for their veracity, it's like with any hearsay: some of it may be true, lot of it is not. The problem is that the ICTY admits hearsay evidence, like no other real court in the world does, so this discussion is purely academic.

  But, if a court admits hearsay as evidence, than it is in deep trouble: where does it end? I don't see why it wouldn't admit, for instance, newspaper articles as evidence as well. Yet, May reacted like being pricked by a wasp whenever Milosevic mentioned, say, the articles from LE FIGARO and LE MONDE describing events at Racak as being a heavy shoot-out between KLA and police, with no civilian casualties seen or reported that day, and the 'massacre of civilians' staged the next day, after the police left and KLA came: he would invariably snap that he's not interested in some journalists' opinion, that they're not testifying here… That in spite of the fact the OSCE teams saw the same and all had been filmed by French TV. And then the 'reliable' Kosovo-section witness Ratomir Tanic came, and May did admit newspaper articles as the Prosecution exhibits. Remember how Tanic's self-professed paramount role in all the pre-war events was officially denied in writing by his own Party-colleagues, so the Prosecution submitted 3-4 newspaper articles from POLITIKA where his name was mentioned, to prove that he had some role, and this was accepted by the 'judges'. It seems that the Rules are adjustable. Indeed, newspaper articles never prove anything, they can only point at the right (or wrong) direction, and here they 'proved' only that Tanic perhaps was at certain places, but in what capacity, doing what and under whose authority they absolutely couldn't prove. The same goes for the NGOs reports: they contain a bit of truth, a sea of semi-truths and an ocean of lies as their conclusions. The only question is how one will use/abuse them. The reports being biased, the rules being adjustable and the judges being hell-bent on getting the conviction, it's clear that the abuse will happen.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Monday January 27, 2003 at 3:53 am
  Human Rights Watch is not Amnesty International, and you cannot say something of the one and then apply it mutatis mutandis to the other. This goes both ways. For instance, if you say HRW is dependent on the governments, you cannot automatically say that Amnesty International is so too. But neither can you say that AI is independent, so HRW must be independent too. I would like to refer to the excellent article provided by Philip Taylor a couple of weeks ago: the article by Edward S. Herman at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/72407> . It mentions HRW but not Amnesty International, if that is any consolation to anybody.

  There is also a very apropos remark in the article about the lack of due process in the tribunal. It says:

  "As normal practice it violates virtually every standard of due process: it fails to separate prosecution and judge; it does not accord the right to bail or a speedy trial; it has no clear definition of burden of proof required for a conviction; it has no independent appeal body; it allows a defendant to be tried twice for the same crime; suspects can be held for 90 days without trial; confessions are presumed to be free and voluntary unless the contrary is established by the prisoner; and witnesses can testify anonymously, with hearsay evidence admissible."

  Maybe somebody should doublecheck these criticisms with the Rules of Procedure, although one can see with one's own eyes that these criticisms are valid. You saw that? "Confessions are presumed to be free and voluntary unless the contrary is established by the prisoner". This invokes memories of the Plavsic confession. This is quite contrary to the "normal procedure". Even if the suspect confesses, his or her guilt has to be established objectively nonetheless, because there are many reasons anyone could make a false confession, for instance to protect the real culprit, or to make multiple confessions in which case the prosecution gets quite disoriented (this was done in Sweden after the "honour killing").

  But this is not all the hanky-panky we have witnessed. For instance, the prosecution wanted to proceed solely with written depositions before the trial even started, but Milosevic protested and wanted to cross-examine the witnesses (info courtesy Gogol). So the prosecution would have been quite happy without the witnesses and their cross-examination. But later, Nice has repeatedly said it is imperative the prosecution can call as many witnesses as possible. What could be his motive? To slow Milosevic down? It is all the more remarkable that he has complained about the poor quality of the witnesses himself. So here, Milosevic may have worn the prosecution down.

  On the other hand, the cross-examination is not where it's at. Milosevic may indeed like the cross-examination too much, and it is my fear that he starts making deals which could curtail his real defense.

  By the way, we have also speculated about the self-censorship of the media. However, it is quite clear that the tribunal calls the shots ultimately. May threatened to fine for contempt of court anybody from the press who would disclose the identities of the protected witnesses. Similarly, Nice warned the media not to be too critical of the prosecution's case. Maybe that would have been contempt of court as well.

  The cross-examination by Milosevic is wreaking havoc for the prosecution, but that is where the newspeak comes to its rescue. Indeed, even disproving a report can amount to "confirming" it. This is very tricky for Milosevic. His "command responsibility" relies largely on the question whether he "knew" of the atrocities. Now we get stuck in the old dispute of the meaning of the word "know". Technically, however, "knowledge" could be defined as anything that has been "confirmed". So it is possible that Milosevic may be digging his own grave as he "confirms" the reports by disproving them.

  The defense stage will be much more important. At least, then Milosevic can choose which reports he wishes to "confirm". But then the problem is what Milosevic's point is, i.e. what is relevant for his defense. You know, he hasn't entered any not-guilty plea. And yet one would expect him to establish his innonence.

  This failure to lodge a not-guilty plea favours the prosecution. It is not hard to guess that the prosecution wants to show Milosevic's guilt even if he has not entered a not-guilty plea. And whatever the prosecution argues becomes "relevant" for Milosevic too. That is why May can rule just about anything that Milosevic says as "irrelevant".

  The reverse side of the coin is that it all amounts to a mistrial. It would be even harmful to enter a not-guilty plea, even if it would rhyme better with what Milosevic is actually doing. One doesn't have to go any further than the Edward S. Herman article to see what is wrong with the trial. But it does go further. The detainee is tortured. The indictments are "crazy" (an expert opinion), which means that the prosecution has no case. When one puts all the trials together, one can see that the motive was to disable the Serb political leadership. The anti-Serb bias is obvious. The judges are not independent, at least not from the prosecution, and probably not from their own governments.

  So the trial is political. It has been said that Milosevic may be losing, but at least he is scoring political points. But even then, isn't that really the only "relevant" thing in this trial, political as it is? The trial is political, so the political speeches Milosevic is making are to the point. This is the ammunition he needs if someone ever decides to argue that the trial has been a mistrial. He may also establish his innocence, at least to the "legal amateurs", which will add to the impression of a mistrial, even if that is not strictly speaking the point.

  Milosevic argued that the organ is illegal. Well, the tribunal could shove that off the table by pointing to the ruling in the Tadic case. However, once one invokes the mistrial argument, one can apply it to the Tadic case too. Back then, the tribunal was operating without any procedural rules. When it finally came to the question of the legality of the organ, the tribunal should not have been in a position to rule on the matter itself, because the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN. Mistrial in he n:th power!

  The question is: when and where should one argue for the mistrial? Not before May, because anybody can see May is the root of the mistrial. There is no independent appellate body. The European Court of Human Rights even had the nerve to argue that the trial is impartial because the tribunal Statute guarantees an impartial trial. There are not very many choices. Since the paralysis of the Serb leadership effected by the tribunal is a violation of the Serb sovereignty, the ICJ might be worth a try, although it hasn't been quite as reliable as one might have hoped. I don't know.

  Besides, I have earlier argued that the tribunal has no jurisdiction because there are similar case pending in the International Court of Justice. However, the Milosevic indictment has passed a review by May, so there is no coming back. By the way, May didn't think the indictment was "crazy", which may give a hint who is actually in need of the psychiatric evaluation. The accused can later challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal in the preliminary motions pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure. However, in paragraph D the "jurisdiction" is defined on the basis of the Statute, and lis pendens (i.e. the case is pending in another court) is not one of the valid criticisms.

  The ICJ would also get bogged down on the trite dispute whether Yugoslavia was a member of the UN. However, one could turn this argument around and ask if the UN has the power to police in the Balkans, if Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN. Real reason for the mix-up is of course political. The British government demonstrated it beautifully last week: "We will block the admission of Yugoslavia to the OSCE." OK, I agree that may not harm the Serbs as much as Britain would like (in accordance with the spirit of security and cooperation in Europe), but it is telling that the most dramatic measures taken by international organizations are now directed at those states which are not members. And no secret is made of this skewed policy.

  Similarly, the US has revoked Yugoslavia's rogue state status when Mladic was still at large. Now it is issuing new threats, because Mladic is still at large. This is extortion, you know.

  Similarly, Djindjic delivered Milosevic to The Hague in the hope to get some money from the West. Now he says that the loss of the American money wouldn't be such a big deal. Alexei, you may be right, maybe everybody is now just going through the motions to make that hag in The Hague shut up(yes, I mean you, Carla).

  Finally, another subject. Ever wonder why Pakistan and Malaysia were the principal financiers of the tribunal during the first couple of years of its activities? Could it be because India was at the same time trying to torpedo the Western policies in the Balkans by voting against the UN resolutions, possibly anticipating that the same kind of troubles on its own doorstep? Whatever India does is a signal to Pakistan to counteract. It is good to have some real "international community" dimension in this discussion, instead of Ms Albright's pocket-size international community.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday January 27, 2003 at 6:21 am
  Kathryn,I don't think the Brits are to blame so much because the latest opinion polls show a slight majority (55%) against the war in Iraq. However,the Brits are very....well,soft people. They just can't be bothered to stand up forcefully for what they think is right. Even if most people wanted to get rid of Blair,he would not go.
  
  Ryan Mircic
  St.Albans
  UK

• Monday January 27, 2003 at 9:36 am
  To: Jari

  On the possibility of filing an unlawful harm suit.

  In your Jan.27 comment above (as in many previous ones) you convincingly describe how pseudolegal arguments are employed by ICTY and other legal bodies in order to deny justice from Milosevic and, in effect, from the Serbian people. Although a tight politico-legal trap is certainly set against Milosevic, I wonder whether legal challenges filed by ordinary citizens against NATO countries for unlawful harm (personal injury, loss of loved ones or property) may have a better chance. Such a case, well known in Greece, is the one of Loizidou vs. Turkey, at the European Court of Human Rights. Loizidou, a Greek Cypriot, argued that she was unlawfully denied her rights to her property in Northern Cyprus, which has has been occupied by Turkey since an 1974 invasion. She won the case, which is viewed as a legal landmark (although Turkey has refused a compensation). What are the possible legal merits of a citizen of Kosovo or Serbia proper filing such a suit in the European Court of Human Rights or another appropriate court?
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Monday January 27, 2003 at 2:23 pm
  

  Jari,

  The internet is being tested in ways to insure its control. It is not coincidence the country which suffered the brunt of the "attack" was South Korea, a country in the process of shaking off the occupier for fifty years. I see now I was right in adding to Kwon's name its OCCUPIED tag. This I hope will insure his independent thinking from the NATO dominated tribunal.

  Further it is becoming uncomfortably obvious the US is planing to use nuclear weapons in Iraq. I don't remember feeling that powerless ever before in my life.

  I did watch Mr. Milosevic tired as he is and looks defending himself against the first civilian Croatian minister of defence saying idiotic third hand things to the point judge May asked whether he had himself any direct involvement and did not budge when the minister replied he did not have. Some prosecution and some trial chamber!

  The emperor is at last showing its racist, intolerant character. It is incredible to see this contradiction being played over and over again. People defending all kinds of human and civil rights and at the same time treating Islam with the utmost contempt, brandishing anti-semitism or just the most basic levels of intolerance in condemning Islam wholesale. It is a bad argument when religious factions praise superiority of virtue above other religions. History does not seem to have taught us any lessons and here the Western World goes for another crusade whether all blows are being permitted!

  I am increasingly pessimistic about the trial. I know writing letters to the chamber will not help at this stage, perhaps just before sentencing asking for clemency. My frustration is directed at the people, or the system rather, that make this possible. I have to remind myself Adolf Hitler was a product of democracy, bourgeois democracy but democracy never-the-less: how accommodating this type of democracy can be!

  Keep at it my friend, you're good at it, you have the right approach and fencing several fakes all at once is not much of challenge for you. I am right now feeling the terrible loneliness of a loss battle together with the realization the regime of terror and cruelty will continue. If there is one thing I miss from Europe is the sense of solidarity with some very basic internationaly applicable principles to all people, this solidarity could be found anywhere, in a morning market, or in an afterfoon stroll in the park or in the solemnity of the radio announcer when giving the news, grave news. Here in the new World this does not exist, it is unknown.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Monday January 27, 2003 at 2:31 pm
  

  Milosevic is not well after all: click HERE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Monday January 27, 2003 at 4:58 pm
  Gogol, you shouldn't despair. We are just humans. We can't change the world. It is good that there is at least this forum were we the public can state our opinion. I feel stronger when I can exchange what I know and think with you and others on this board.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:25 am
  Gogol I feel the frustration so I have sat back and listened for the last week or so unable to comprehend how a society endowed with such ability to do well can be so evil. In the name of democracy America dominates the world for her own ional interests. This is not something new. The nuclear age provided gave America the ability to tell others to do what I say and not to do what I do.

  Since America became a member of international conventions and treaties they have violated every one in the name of their own interests. One only needs to examine the United Nations declaration of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” to see the sadness of their hypocrisy.

  Article 1 states that we should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. What bullshit. Article II states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration” is bullshit. Article 3 states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Tell that to Milosevic and others who languish in the cell far away from home.

  Article 5 states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Wow more crap. Article 6 states that everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Boy is Belgium a member of the UN.

  Article 7 states that all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. It seems that some are more equal than others. In the Milosevic case the prosecution is first among equals.

  Article 8 states that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Justify, Justify, Justify repeat, repeat, repeat, lie, lie, lie, CNN, CNN, CNN.

  Article 9 states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Oh well Finland is not Elba and Spain is not St. Helena but to a Yugoslav trust me it is exile.

  Article 10 states that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. WHAT GARBAGE (sorry for yelling) and we pay for this public hearing and independent and impartial tribunal. Are you puking yet????

  Article 12 states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Civilization will be judged by the law we impose on the ones we judge.

  Gogol I feel your frustration but I am sure you will know the advice “gather wild flowers here and there …. But remember always, Dante, in the play of happiness, don’t you use all for yourself only …{H}elp the persecuted and the victims because they are your better friends …. In the struggle of life you will find more and love and you will be loved”
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:51 am
  Bush is planning a luncheon with the media tomorrow before his State of the Union. Brokaw, Russert, Jennings, Stephanopoulos , and others. After the State of the Union they will be singing his praises. It will be bombs away. It has been awhile but it seems to me the Bosnian Serbs had their radio transmitter blown up when the United States claimed they were being brain washed by the Serb Republic.

  Lately I am convinced that the human race evolved from the gorilla family and quite a few never made the complete evolution to human.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 4:51 am
  Good grief, have I been blocked from this discussion? I can't access the discussion from the JURIST homepage any more. As soon as I try to access the discussion, the page warns me of a "failure". I couldn't help noticing that the latest posts have been from North America (excluding Mexico). Where is the Yahoo group somebody opened months ago?

  Individuals don't have any better chance of winning cases against Nato. There are a number of cases pending in Europe. In Holland, for instance, the problem in the law suits against the Dutch government as a Nato participant has been that the Nato bombing has not been regarded as unlawful. And that will be the case as long the case against Nato countries at the ICJ is being stalled. And of course, the governments have brandished Carla's former decision where she concluded no investigation into the Nato crimes would be opened because the Nato claims were usually reliable. Besides, one of the conditions for Yugoslav membership in international organizations is that Yugoslav citizens drop their cases against Nato governments.

  In the Milosevic trial in The Hague, one of the strange things is that the defendant cannot raise the objection that the judges and the prosecutor have a conflict of interests! Do you think somebody might have a conflict of interest in this trial (or rather, who doesn't)? An objection to that effect might be raised in the form of preliminary motions (pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure), but the preliminary motions are very limited in their scope.

  The preliminary motions are defined as motions "which challenge jurisdiction; allege defects in the form of the indictment; seek the severance of counts joined in one indictment... or raise objections based on the refusal of a request for assignment of counsel..." I think this list is exhaustive.

  That means that as long as the Statute says the judges are impartial, no-one has the right to question their impartiality. And as I pointed out, many other objections which would be quite normal in any trial have been blocked, like the lis pendens.

  The really tricky thing in this trial is the fact that the defendant is a former head of state, who should be protected by the immunity rules. Nico Steijnen has pointed out that since the ICTY jurisdiction is concurrent with the domestic courts, domestic courts could also be competent from now on to deal with (foreign) heads of states! So the obiter dictum which the ICJ uttered in the case Congo v. Belgium would seem to be beside the point. In the case Congo v. Belgium, the ICJ said that the immunity rules extend to heads of state and representatives of governments even after their term has ended. The explicit exception was made for the ICTY. But it seems that this exception doesn't end there, if you allow such an exception for the ICTY: you drag the domestic courts to the quagmire as well - as long as the ICTY and the domestic courts have "concurrent" jurisdiction.

  Even if one is convinced of the hanky-panky going on in the trial, one would need evidence. It is probable that Britain is the party which is most involved in the mess, but you would then need the documents from Britain to establish that. Then it is possible that Britain would become as reluctant as Serbia is now. The pertinent documents may be classified, and it will take decades until we can confirm that the MI6 was involved in the trial up to its eyeballs.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 5:07 am
  About the HRW and Amnesty International thing. HRW is a part of a larger conglomerate of different NGO's. I think they have evolved from the different "Helsinki" groups, which started sprouting after the Concluding Document of the CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) was signed in Helsinki in 1975. It is likely that these NGO's are not so NG, because the Western governments had an interest to use these NGO's (and the "human rights" on their agenda) to bring the East Bloc down.

  On the other hand, Amnesty International is, as far as I know, a grass-roots movement pretty much like our International discussion. Amnesty International has a reputation for being reliable and even-handed. It condemned the bombing of the RTS tower in Belgrade as a war crime. I think Amnesty's greatest flaw is that it is too anti-government. It doesn't seem to understand that the human rights have to be curtailed sometimes to run a government.

  HRW's reputation on the other hand is severly tarnished. HRW's Dick Dickers "is the show" in the Milosevic trial, according to Jared Israel. That brings into question all the other organizations in the conglomerate.

  And must one subscribe to everything a report by a human rights organization says? Not at all. Dick Dickers himself said that the judges "will piece it all together". It is a jig saw puzzle to everybody. You retain the parts you like and discard the rest.

  I'm afraid I go along with the US government to a large extent. I don't think the West is to blame for the lack of religious tolerance. It is time for someone else than the West to point the finger at themselves.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 5:20 am
  

  I think it is time to remember the ICTY can only prosecute individuals and not governments and institutions. When Carla asks the quislings of Belgrade for evidence about the Nato crimes she is really asking for specifics about the leadership of Nato involved in crimes. Not a meager task since presenting the devastation of Nato attacks during 78 days is no in itself evidence of a crime, this would only be true if say for example the indictment of Mr. Milosevic could be substituted with Nato personalities names and presented as such to Carla, then Clinton, Blair, Clark, Holbrooke, Albright, etc., they will all be part of a common enterprise to, etc., etc.

  I don't think the present clique in Belgrade has such an imagination and even less the will for such a move.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 5:36 am
  

  The whole notion of NGO's is flawed.

  Why does a NCO has to substitute a government , a state to point out to violations of law or rights?

  We see this all the time in this trial, evidence presented by a NGO has to be taken as if it were pure and above any other less credible source. It is really as if saying the evidence of a priest is unquestionable because his closeness to God and the evidence of a say a policemen is questionable and the evidence given by a security guard employed by a private security firm is the most doubtful of all because it is private! In some countries were private ownership, property is a holly right anything emanating from public power is seen as being suspicious, impure, valueless. I know a little about AI and yes, it is a rather independent organization but without the structure of government it has no power at all. AI is and remains a tool for the first world to rule the third one. AI was not (in general) involved in the Yugoslav tragedy. This is not a coincidence.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 8:33 am
  Hi, Is there any alternative site to the ICTY website where one can obtain english transcripts of the trial? The ICTY transcripts are released so many days after the event that one loses the thread of the case. For those of us who do not have broadband or DSL, its painfully slow business watching the video coverage. Moreover the bland and toneless translation completely neutralises the punch and irony with which Milosevic takes on the witnesses and Richard May. Its like having Hamlet's soliloquys being delivered by a C Span newsreader. Vera, I am sure you are correct about our ancient methods of medical exams--the West had its Immaculate Conception, the East had its Immaculate Examination!
  
  Seshadri Raghavan
  India

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 10:07 am
  
  The article, quoted and sourced below, by a law professor states that it is possible to initiate legal actions in the USA for human-rights violations in other countries.

  Has anyone in Serbia attempted to get a hearing in a US court for any of the many human-rights violations committed during the aerial attack in 1999?

  “Internationalism is taking root in American courts as well. They have imperiously begun to use a 1789 statute, intended for wholly different purposes, to accept tort suits alleging human-rights violations in other countries. Some American judges also look to foreign law for guidance in interpreting the Constitution.” Robert H Bork, Professor at the Ave Maria School of Law, USA.

  Source
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 10:42 am
  

  Such a law has permitted many interesting cases involving foreign interests to be heard in US Courts, however I doubt the same courts will rule or hear cases against the US itself.

  Further, Robert Bork once considered and rejected as a justice to the US Supreme Court, court which rules based on a simple 5 to 4 majority and not in consensus, is considered in the United States a danger to the US Constitution since he finds it far too liberal a document (!) the same article of the WSJ you bring Peter, has Borke saying:

  The Supreme Court has created a more permissive abortion regime than any state had enacted; prohibited any exercise or symbol of religion touching even remotely upon government; made the death penalty extremely difficult to impose and execute; disabled states from suppressing pornography; catered to the feminist agenda, including outlawing state all-male military schools; created a labyrinth of procedures making criminal prosecutions ever more difficult; used racial classifications to exclude children from their neighborhood public schools; perverted the political process by upholding campaign-finance limits that shift political power to incumbents, journalists and labor unions; licensed the advocacy of violence and law violation; and protected as free speech computer-generated child pornography. These decisions are activist, i.e., not plausibly related to the actual Constitution.

  There are at the moment more than 50 Mexicans nationals on death row in the United States all of them considered by the Mexican government to have been tried without the full protection of US and International Law, in fact the Mexican government is attempting to stop the executions at the ICJ in The Hague since it has exhausted all legal and diplomatic means with the US government.

  Robert Bork is unhappy?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:01 pm
  It was asked if individuals have a chance to sue Nato governments than the governments themselves, and I said the Nato governments throw make you shut up with Carla's document stating that there is no need to investigate the Nato crimes. Well, this is the document that Carla is now calling into question, so there might be some meagre chance to follow up the law suits against the governments in the individual Nato countries.

  It was interesting that Gogol reminded us of the individual dimension of the ICTY prosecution. However, Carla's document had to do with the responsibility of the governments, and once that is dismissed, the individual responsibility of the government members is also dismissed. That way, the different law suits in the different courts can also be tied together.

  And if you want to see a mistrial, let us not forget about one more thing. The tapes that have been recently heard in the hearings have not been ruled admissible and they have not been ruled inadmissible. They are just heard and taken into account. This is sick.

  And why do we have these closed sessions? It is not to protect the witnesses. May's threat to the press (prohibiting the disclosure of the identities) may have been a red herring. The closed sessions were not necessary to protect the witnesses. The reason explicitly cited was the wishy-washy argument of "interests of justice". Could these interests have something to do with the uncertain status of the tapes, and evidence in general? I think some of the "protected" witnesses were in fact questioned about the tapes. And interestingly enough, it is in moments like this that May throws back at you his professionalism. Don't you start questioning the quality of the evidence. Isn't it obvious that the tapes have been doctored? If May were really professional, he would not rule closed sessions just to protect the obscure provenance of these tapes, and issue a threat that has nothing to do with the actual objective of the closed sessions!

  Any one of the flaws I have pointed out would be enough to declare a mistrial. But the problem is that when there are so many flaws as there are now, those responsible can argue that there is a funny type of consistency. And in modern times, consistency means legitimacy, no matter how crazy the rules thus established may seem.

  Doesn't anyone have suggestions for another forum? Couldn't ICDSM open a discussion, or does it want to keep a lid on the heterodox views? I think we are relegated to obscurity in JURIST. The hyperlinks don't work and they were too low in the hierarchy of the site map in the first place. Could we have outstayed our welcome? I am not sure all of the old regulars (not to say anything of the newcomers) can find their way here without the hyperlinks. I certainly had some problems.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:22 pm
  

  I am thinking for the near future, an uncertain future, when perhaps the internet or this very site could be made unavailable for all of us making it impossible for our mutual support to be continued.

  I suggest we look for alternative sites, perhaps away from North America where we could meet if necessary. Keeping in touch outside of the forum is also a good precaution, I recommend we exchange, privately or here our email addresses:

  gogolc@hotmail.com
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:24 pm
  To get directly to this thread, bookmark: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milo_discuss.php. But even with this bookmark there was a problem accessing the site over the weekend (and the previous weekend).
  
  D S
  US

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:30 pm
  Maybe the US 1789 Statute couldn't be applied to the US even in principle. There are of more up-to-date laws to sue the US government directly, and I am afraid I don't know if any such law suits have been initiated against the US in the US. The 1789 statute could be used to sue other Nato governments in the US of the human-rights abuses during the 1999 bombing! This is of course just as remote a possibility as suing the US government itself, but I think that would be the primary application of the Statute.

  There are some law suits against Holland and Germany, but I don't think any of them have led anywhere. Against this background it is interesting that the only success (of sorts) has been the law suit against the RTS boss in Yugoslavia for letting his employees stay in the RTS building during the bombing.

  And back to the discussion business. I think Andy's website would be a good place for a discussion, because there you would have all the material close at hand. And Sheshadri, all the problems you mentioned are as old as this trial.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:49 pm
  OK, I should have done my homework properly. Andy's website (http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org) had a discussion, but it has been closed since January 1. The users have been referred to this site. Could the ICTY or IWPR site open a discussion? That would be interesting: "Hardtalk with Carla and Mirko".
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:49 pm
  

  The 1789 was legislated at the time the US wanted to be a great Mediterranean power something it has succeeded at, becoming the greatest European power has fallen a little short, but close. It was a the time when Algerian, perhaps Tunisian as well pirates of all places, were keeping hostages for ransom in Alger and this the new and just nation of the United States wanted to be able to resolve in their legal system

  More recently t Swiss bankers had to go back and forget about the agreements they reached in the early 50's with the US in regard to post WW 2 unclaimed Swiss banks deposits when NY senator d'Amato lead the charge against Switzerland and eventually this 1789 law come to threaten Swiss investments in America. You see, torts and injustices in foreign lands can be redress in America!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:53 pm
  

  A little of today's court hearing:

  HERE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:55 pm
  Recap: "Milosevic said he had now received more than 300,000 pages of material and more than 1,000 hours of videotapes from prosecutors." Even here, Nice has to contradict Milosevic.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 12:58 pm
  

  Nice (NATO) wants Mr. Milosevic to adopt English (NATO language) as his mother tongue.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 1:24 pm
  Jari:

  The Serbian Unity Congress has a forum. The problem with the site is that there are some who in the past come on the site only to provoke. There is one individual in particular who changes her name from time to time and may be the same one who comes on as different individuals on the Jurist site. The Moderator on SUC does not appear to watch the site as much as he should and she is hell bent in her pursuit to destroy Serb credibility.

  I think others on this site are familiar with SUC and maybe they can give their opinion.

  You can try it and see what you think.

  It has a good set up but from time to time the site is hacked by you know who.

  I do like this set up the best and I like the fact that most give their names and not clever pseudonyms. This does give one the impression that you are dealing with people of a higher caliber.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 3:30 pm
  

  The latest problems with the Jurist site are due to the recent virus attack on the North American network that has slowed it considerably. The reason that the people outside the North America had more problems than "insiders" is that basically they are further a way and that it takes them longer to connect and transmit/receive data packets. I hope that Jurist site will stay on, because I like it and the Moderator is doing a good and honest job. In case of emergency I share Kathryn's proposal that we can use the SUC site. I share here concerns, as well. The good side of this site is that it is password controlled. The URL is:

  http://news.serbianunity.net/forums/list.php?f=3

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 4:43 pm
  

  Guity of genocide ->

  Admitted crime against humanity ->

  Traitor ->

  No jail time to serve ->

  No Comment

  According to the newspaper Dnevnik: Mrs. Plavsic has asked the ICTY to allow her to spend her jail time in Sweden. It looks that her request will be met. In this case she would be practically pardoned, regardless of her sentence, for in Sweden all persons convicted and older than 72 are not to serving their sentence.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 5:09 pm
  

  There was recently a lot of discussion on the board on conspiracy to torpedo the Mr. Milosevic's trial and the leadership role in this respect was granted to the MI6. I was pretty skeptical about this theory, until I have read the following news item today:" The British ambassador to Belgrade Charles Kroford has said: Yugoslav government should handle the ICTY like a heavy weight judo opponent. You should use its wait against it. People in Serbia are watching with their eyes opened, they want things to be solved honestly and they are concerned whether or not the ICTY is honest. I think that this is good, but you have to tackle the problem properly and turn the table against the ICTY. Passivity against injustice does not work at all."

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 5:42 pm
  

  Just a little bit of math:

  Lets assume and agree that everybody in the ICTY was working for 300 days last year and that the bottleneck of the trial are the judges and that Mr. Milosevic is convicted on 60 counts of war crimes and that the judges are not doing anything else but riding the provided documents and watching the videos. Each judge has to read and watch all the videos submitted to the trial chamber in order for the trial to be fair. Let's further assume that the pile of documents provided buy the prosecution is 300,000 pages long and that the length of videos is 1,000 hours. Let's assume that these are the only facts that the judges have to deal with.

  So our honest judges have read 1000 pages of documentation per day and watched videos for 3.33 hours a day. The prosecution has provided 5000 pages of documentation per crime committed by Mr. Milosevic and 16.7 hours of videos per his crime.

  I think that our "friends" Mrs. Del Ponte and Mr. Nice are begging for mistrial. If Mr. Milosevic dies before defense stage of his trial there will not be a mistrial pronounced. If Mr. Milosevic lives, it is very likely that a mistrial will be pronounced just before the beginning of the defense phase of his trial. By that time we will hear all the evidence and there will be never a chance given for the evidence to be properly challenged. Just remember the WGJ article and its point how trial of Mr. Karadjic even in his absentia would be beneficial.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 5:49 pm
  Gogol, you have my e-mail address and I have yours. In case that we loose this site you can share my e-mail address with other participants that you like, at your discretion.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 7:38 pm
  Nebojsa Matic,

  You raise an interesting point, using the prosecution's evidence against is one good way of getting your point accross. I will try and explain why this is so with an example.

  Let us say we take Hitler as the epitomy of evil. To call his book "Mein Kampf" biased would be an understatement. Now let us suppose that in some part of his book he wrote that hate is a destructive force. Of course, one who would argue for the insanity of the Nazi cause could, would and should certainly use this tidbit and argue that the Nazis were self-contradictory and cooky by their own standards, right?

  After all, being biased is all about being contradictory. When a report claims that most of the ethnic cleansing was committed by Serbs and then matter-of-factly mentions that the Serbs have the largest refugee population in Europe, alarm bells go off.

  In this game, the credibility of the Serb people is being attacked so if they are to use their own sources they are prone to being discounted on their very basis of being Serbian. However, if the Serb side uses the prosecution's evidence against it then there is no defence against that.

  So you see, one can be against something and use it in court. That's the most infallible method of all. Kudos to Milosevic for using it.
  
  Igor Jaramaz
  Canada

• Tuesday January 28, 2003 at 11:22 pm
  Vera

  Dusica....please don't forget to write the article once the transcripts are published. The topic Iztebgovic regime ordered BiH Territorial Defense units to start attacking Vj/JNA
  
  AP V
  Upper West Side
  NYC