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

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 1:07 am
  Would you believe, Monday and Tuesday there were another two witnesses for Dubrovnik! The first one was Petar Kriste, former Croatian Minister of Defence and subsequently Minister of Trade, who finished Tuesday, and Ivo Simunovic, a Dubrovnik businessman and wartime deputy of the city's defence commander (the latter started to testify today and is to continue Wednesday). To include more Dubrovnik witnesses is getting increasingly counterproductive, because the whole scheme of the Croats of planning and provoking war is coming out in each its dirty detail. And Milosevic was more than good (for Simunovic he was at its best), while Tapuskovic drove May crazy for Kriste.

  Kriste is a meek man, one of those who stumbled into politics for reasons unknown, unless it’s the necessity of political sharks to have fumbling, Alice-in-Wonderland underlings who are needed to honestly say 'I know nothing of it'. He actually explained some actions by General Spegelj and Tudjman saying they 'wanted to avoid war and conflicts with the JNA'! The notorious Spegelj, who is on tape planning individual killings of the JNA officers at their homes way before the war and who later on submitted an official plan to the Government to remove the JNA from CRO. And equally notorious Tudjman, who is on tape giving the speech on the Ban Jelacic Square in Zagreb in May 1992 saying 'there would have been no war if we hadn't wanted it'. Both tapes were already played in the courtroom months ago, but Kriste wasn't doing his homework. When asked about Spegelj by Milosevic, Kriste said that his plan 'was never officially accepted'. Milosevic quipped: "But it was carried out." Kriste blurted: "Well, yes, some army barracks were blocked and taken over, but it was the only way for us to obtain weapons." When asked about Tudjman by Tapuskovic, Kriste actually said that he did not know 'what was Tudjman saying in 1992' (?!). As his Minister of something, he was most probably at that square, more like it.

  What did Kriste say in his examination-in-chief that justified his being summoned? I couldn't pinpoint anything significant. Maybe it was his answer to the question from Uertz-Retzlaff: "Why, then, was Dubrovnik attacked?", when he rehashed the good ole Greater Serbia slander. Or maybe his contribution was a new angle, a historical claim by the Serbs over Dubrovnik, which they called 'Serbian Athens'? Or was it quoting from the book by General Kadijevic, the former Federal Chief of Staff, about the secured lines of withdrawing the JNA, which the eager Kriste interpreted as the lines of attack and the planned lines of political division? Uertz-Retzlaff introduced the book as the exhibit, proving how desperate the Prosecution is. Even May was exasperated by that and wanted to know whether he had any knowledge other than that book about all this being a part of some plan. When Kriste started to mumble that 'this is all well known, the abolishing of the autonomy of Kosovo…', May actually said: "These are all parts of the general knowledge and of what you have subsequently concluded. But, do you have any specific knowledge, proofs, reports…?" Poor Kriste had to say: "There were no such proofs, we have just discussed all that at the Cabinet meetings…"

  Everything else that he said has brought more damage than benefit to the Croatian cause. For instance, he testified that he came to Dubrovnik before the fighting started, together with two Croatian MPs, and they brought an articulate truck full of mines and explosives. Later during the cross-examination Milosevic put to him this has been used to mine all the access roads from Montenegro, way before any clashes began. Kriste also testified about his own and other Croatian politicians' numerous comings and goings to and from Dubrovnik before and during the battle (he was in Mesic's famous propaganda convoy of ships). All those politicians, Kriste included, took part at one time or another in negotiations with the JNA about its withdrawal from Split and about Dubrovnik ceasefire, port de-blocking and reparations of water and electricity supply. He declared that the 'first skirmishes were on the eastern line towards Herceg Novi' (and what about the official version that there were no such things, only a handful of attacked defenders inside the town?). When he first came (with the truckload of explosives), he said he found some 300 defenders. And the ex-Mayor Poljanic testified there were merely 50. Kriste, not doing your homework again!

  His strong point should have been his eyewitness testimony of the infamous attack of 6 December ('the greatest tragedy in the 2000-year history', as Poljanic described it). Yes, our Kriste-in-and-out was again in Dubrovnik on that significant day, and watched 'the heavy shelling' from the roof terrace of his hotel 'Argentina' . He gave to the Prosecution an amateur video, made by the receptionist of the hotel and few moments of it were shown in the courtroom. Again, more damage to the cause than benefit: no heavy shelling, only few mild 'poufs' near the town ramparts, looking more like firecrackers, and some of them definitely going upwards; a small black fire was burning near the car park; added to this footage were few frames taken from the Montenegrin TV, showing a JNA officer, claiming all this is a set-up, explaining how mines were placed into holes much earlier and then activated - it really looked that way. Miserable, Uertz-Retzlaff complained that what was shown is just a small part of the whole footage and asked the witness: "Were the shells' incoming trail visible on the original whole tape?" Kriste answered: "Yes." Hildegard then pleaded with the judges: "Your honours, that was not seen here in the courtroom, but if you yourselves take a look at the whole tape, you'll be able to see it." How do you like that!? Hildegard proceeded to 'fortify' her case: "We have heard that the mines were activated. Was that true?" Kriste, naturally, answered in the negative. Ditto when she asked him whether rubbers were burned. But, where did she find that, it was not mentioned on the tape? Although, that smouldering little flame surely looked like one burned tyre.

  Kriste managed to mention that the next day another negotiations with the JNA took place, ceasefire had been agreed and two JNA officers with a cameraman were sent to the city to film the alleged damage. There were no more fights, 'only sporadic incidents' and in the summer of 1992 JNA started withdrawal, which was completed in October.

  Then Milosevic cross-examined and Kriste was exposed as a flabby, misinformed dunce. He claimed that the Serbs in CRO 'never lost anything' with the 'change of the wording in the Constitution'. To the question of unlawful nationality-based dismissals from jobs, he stated 'the Serbs were over-represented' and 'some changes were necessary'. His personal history showed him to be embittered Croatian nationalist in 1972, 'prevented to take his Doctor's thesis'. But, when Milosevic asked whether he was prevented by the Serbs or by the Croatian police, Kriste had to consent in was the police to be blamed. [This notorious 'Croatian Spring' or 'Maspok' was an early nationalist uprising mostly among Croatian intellectuals, but Tito swiftly and rudely suppressed it; Tudjman and Mesic, among others, were imprisoned.] Even here, silly Kriste tried to justify: 'Maspok was not nationalistic, but just wanted Croatia to be equal to others…' Ah, Kriste, Kriste, and I remember how Maspok members managed to infiltrate into some municipalities and temporarily took over, Vukovar was one such municipality, and the first thing they did was to form lists of all employees of all the companies and the lists of schoolchildren by their nationalities! Before that, many didn't even know which nationality they belong to!

  The ultimate proof of how much of a political ninny he was Kriste gave when he tried to disentangle himself from two short conversations he had with Tudjman and Gojko Susak. Obviously, nobody was telling him anything, although he was a Minister of Defence for few months (Milosevic ridiculed him that he became a civilian Minister of Defence to promote new democratic orientation of CRO, as he himself boasted, but that democracy had been short-lived, because he had been promptly replaced by Spegelj). So, the poor man had to gather information in passing brief one-liner conversations in corridors and on stairs. Thus he once met Tudjman in 1989, who told him that he considered the Muslims actually as being the Croats and that the eastern border of CRO should be on the river Drina [all of the Bosnia&Herzegovina included]. But Kriste promptly explained these were just 'historical - philosophical meditations', which were never acted upon. Milosevic instructed him of the well-documented intrusions of Croatian ZNG units into B&H, the first such being the notorious Sjekovac case (Bosanski Brod municipality on the Sava river), when the whole Serb village was killed; there were no armed incidents before that in the whole Bosnia & Herzegovina. Milosevic then produced the Croatian magazine NACIONAL dated 3 Dec. 2002 with the big interview by Kriste and quoted: 'Tudjman as early as 1989 planned the border on the Drina'! I can imagine how it is for the former Tudjman collaborators in CRO: they have to do the washing in public, criticizing Tudjman (only up to the point, not touching his role as the 'father of the nation'). Kriste did this rather late, only a month ago. More funny quotations from the interview followed, all opposing the testimony just given, with mocking of the type 'you must have told all that to Tudjman, being his close friend and collaborator and as such having the guts to warn him of being wrong'. Kriste squirmed that 'it was not Tudjman's politics and practice, it was just one conversation we had'; Milosevic pressed with another quotation 'right here you said it was his politics and you found fault with that'; Kriste just took a sip of water and kept quiet. The other staircase-conversation was with Susak; Kriste asked him how come he's in such a good mood, and Susak answered he had just came from the meeting with Stari=Old Man [Tudjman tried desperately to emulate Tito in everything, he even adopted his nickname!]; and the annexation of Herzegovina to CRO had been decided. Kriste testified about that conversation in order to connect it with the meeting Tudjman - Milosevic in Karadjordjevo, where they allegedly agreed the partition of B&H. But, when questioned, Kriste had to admit these were only rumours and when more quotations from the interview were read, would you believe that May asked whether Milosevic would like to introduce it as evidence and it was admitted! As I said before, the 'judges' are in serious trouble with hearsay: they have to admit everything now.

  And Dubrovnik? It was nearly forgotten, since Kriste single-handedly ruined his testimony by stating damning things for his own part. Even when Milosevic asked few questions regarding the letter of General Kadijevic to Lord Carrington, Kriste couldn't stop being foolish: of course, all that the General claimed was untrue, but anyway 'we had to use all possible means, even to take over that Army installation in Kupari'. Milosevic also stated the obvious, namely that Cavtat was not attacked nor damaged at all, since nobody from there was shooting, and Kriste had to agree. He also had to agree when Milosevic put to him that the first quantities of ammo arrived at the Dubrovnik airport on 24 Jan. 1991, that the Crisis Staff was established in September, and the plans for minefields were executed in August, all this well before any 'attacks'. Kriste's only explanations were 'it was our territory', 'we had to defend ourselves', 'we knew we would be attacked'. When faced with some previous statements from Croatian witnesses re deployment of weaponry and soldiers in the town, his only defence was 'impossible'. Milosevic asked what about Ivanica on 24 Sept. in the territory of B&H, was it razed to the ground by the Serbs perhaps? Kriste started stuttering seriously.

  But, when Tapuskovic got his time as amicus curiae, Kriste was demolished. Tapuskovic presented the written statement of the Croatian General Nojko Marinovic, who was announced as yet another witness re Dubrovnik, but who perhaps will not testify after all. Marinovic was the former JNA officer who deserted from the position of Trebinje garrison Commander and came to Dubrovnik to organize things well in advance and became the defence commander of the town. This whole statement is one big damage to the Croatian side; perhaps this guy is plain stupid or just boastful. Whichever he is, Tapuskovic quoted just few paragraphs and it destroyed Kriste. The Croatian delegations never really negotiated truce with the JNA, as the naïve Kriste claimed, but 'our strategy was always just to gain time, in order to smuggle in additional men and weapons during the ceasefire', as Marinovic wrote. May tried to save the witness: 'maybe that was something that only the General was involved in', but Tapuskovic held forth: "Marinovic was the defence commander, Krste came to negotiate for the Croatian Government." Re the number of soldiers in the town at the very beginning, it was not 50 as Poljanic said, nor 300 as Kriste testified, but 680 as Marinovic wrote. Tapuskovic established that Marinovic treated Kriste as he would mushrooms: kept him in the dark and… never told him any specifics before the negotiations, only the most general notions ('our forces are inferior'). He didn't inform the negotiator about his forces deployed at the border with Montenegro, about cannons at the town hotels, buildings and fortresses (all specified in his statement). May again tried to stop that embarrassment, but Tapuskovic said: "Your Honours, Marinovic may not testify at all and I believe all this has to interest you." May said: "Mr Tapuskovic, the time is limited. The accused asked questions for more than 2 hours, you have used up already 20 minutes…" Tapuskovic just proceeded, I couldn't believe the nerve of the man: "You have testified you brought a truckload of mines and explosives; did Marinovic tell you he used all that to mine the roads to Montenegro?" He quoted from Marinovic's statement that 'the artillery was mainly directed at Mt. Srdj'. May went crazy: "Do you claim that Dubrovnik was not shelled? Let's stick to what this witness saw, he was just an observer." Tapuskovic calmly responded he wasn't claiming anything, but just asking the witness precisely that. Tapuskovic said that he himself was in Dubrovnik may times, since Kriste was at the terrace of the 'Argentina' hotel with a good view of Srdj, 'did you see that the artillery shelled Srdj from Dubrovnik?' Kriste denied he saw that. [Remember this; the next witness will show a video explaining it and indirectly confirming Marinovic's statement.]

  Uertz-Retzlaff got a chance to patch up the damage, but her additional questions twirled around those two stupid corridor-conversations with Tudjman and Susak; she made Kriste state that he 'was not a close collaborator' of Tudjman (?!). And she even made him explain the second passing conversation with Susak, this time the latter being sour-faced, and explaining it by the current bad relations with the Muslims; when the well-meaning Kriste asked was there anything that could be done to improve that, the mean Susak answered that one unit is now on the move from Prozor and 'there will be no prisoners'. The clever Kriste thereby concluded that 'the escalation is on the way'. I really don't understand why the Prosecution had to pull out such a conversation, quoting these damning things by leading Croatian officials. Perhaps to prove that Kriste 'was not a close collaborator' of Tudjman? Who cares?
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 3:16 am
  Back to the 300.000 pages. If the prosecution's original intent was to proceed with written depositions, are these 300.000 pages (and still counting) the written depositions that the prosecution was going to present to the judges? Would the judges have protested if presented with about half a million pages of documents (that must be about 50 metres shelf space)? Obviously, the stack of documents has only increased because Milosevic wanted witnesses. If the purpose of the cross-examination of witnesses was to subject the original documents to closer scrutiny, the prosecution should not undermine the proper course of the trial by expanding the whole original stack thousands of times over! (Does it have something to hide?) The judges would never have accepted such massive amounts of documents, but it seems that the judges are happy as long as the accused is suffering too.

  At least one would expect the amount of documents to be regulated by the prosecution's own capacity to read what it produces, but this is obviously not the case. And considering that Nice has admitted the poor quality of the witnesses and still insisting on calling on as many witnesses as possible, isn't it obvious that his plan is to suffocate Milosevic, if only by the paper mountain that every new witness entails? Think about it: 300.000 pages is more than most people will read in their life times. Let's see how even-handed the judges are when it is Milosevic's time to present the prosecution with his documents.

  We touched on a very interesting little detail yesterday. Carla has refused to open an investigation into the Nato war crimes. She argued that the claims by Nato have normally been reliable. There are three problems with this decision. First, the Nato claims have been demonstrably exorbitant in regard to the damage to the Serb war machine. Wouldn't you expect the same bias also to tarnish the "collaterla damage"? Second, as Gogol said, the prosecution is prosecuting individual crimes, not the collective responsibility of some government or coalition of governments. Ignoring claims of some war crimes charges just because they were allegedly committed by some military bloc amounts to a clear admission of bias on Carla's part. Third, Carla has admitted there is something fishy with this document herself. Otherwise, why would she still entertain the idea of opening an investigation into the so-called Nato war crimes?

  All these problems are important when the individuals are suing the Nato governments. So far the governments' case has stood on Carla's reluctance to open an investigation into the Nato war crimes. And here we have problem number four: the refusal to open an investigation should not be interpreted as proof that no crimes (or unlawful acts) have been committed. Besides, Carla's taks is to investigate crimes. The concept of unlawful act is a bit wider than that.

  And I am still wondering why nobody has sued (to my knowledge) the American government for its leading role in the bombing campaign. Think about it. The Americans were ready to use a statute from 1789 to sue Switzerland (in America) for something that happened 50 years ago. Why is it impossible to sue the American government for something it did a few years ago itself?

  Talk about the 1789 statute, it has one advantage above the Belgian universal genocide jurisdiction. Belgium is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, whereas the US has made all kinds of escape clauses to make sure that the ICJ doesn't have jurisdiction over it unless the Americans can be certain they win the case (to prevent another Nicaragua catastrophe).

  Let us do our best in the meantime to undermine the legality of the ICTY itself. I have one more observation. It was admitted by the Secretary-General at the time ICTY was being established that a treaty would have been the normal procedure but the urgency of the conflict of the Balkans necessitated such an extraordinary measure. However, if the ICTY was based on the sense of urgency, it should only have dealt with the conflict that was raging at that time. Let us not forget that the original plan was to set an expiry date for the tribunal's temporal jurisdiction (which was never done).

  How is Milosevic connected to the conflict that was going on in 1993, which necessitated the urgent establishment of the tribunal? Remember that the MI6 plan to assassinate Milosevic goes far back in time. The Tomlinson letter ( http://www.mathaba.net/data/sis/mi6-milosevic.htm ) states that the plan was to be carried out as early as 1992. This is another suggestion of the MI6 involvment in the whole Milosevic "trap" (which Shattuck has now made his trademark).

  Finally, to the discussion forums. Peter Taylor said that these kind of discussions are allowed to go on only as long as they are ineffective. I think our effectiveness is shown by the road blocks. I don't think the cutting of the hyperlinks to this discussion has anything to do with the virus. The JURIST homepage (the part about "denial of service attacks") gives the impression that everything is supposed to be back to normal again. However, as long as the hyperlinks don't work, the number of new visitors drops dramatically. But I guess whatever its faults, the JURIST discussion is still the best.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 3:52 am
  There is little happening even on the Internet round the Milosevic trial, according to this link. Interestingly, it lists JURIST as the best place, though not directly referring to this discussion. I visited the SUC site, and you are right, I like this one better, because you don't have to open up the messages: everything is already open. The JURIST also has a more universal appeal (let's put it that way).
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 4:02 am
  Oh yeah, I forgot. It was said that the "spirit of Nuremberg" doesn't fit in the doctrine of sovereign equality. Now, what about the American statute of 1789? After the reintroduction of the 1789 statute, the "spirit of Nuremberg" seems hypermodern. This sort of anachronisms do relate to the same sort of topic (let's put it that way), and as I said, consistency means legitimacy, no matter how erratic the "rules" thus established may seem in themselves.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 5:31 am
  

  The American government was not directly involved in suing the Swiss banks. The plaintiffs were all civilians represented by a number of organizations. These had important international influence but they were not governmental in any case. What the 1789 law allows is for foreign plaintiffs to use US Laws and Courts to sue a foreign defendant according to US law, it is actually quite possible for the defendant to have not committed any violation of the law in the country where the event took place. The court can however impose penalties applicable under US jurisdiction and certainly it can have serious international repercussions.

  C013 is giving testimony about Bukovar. Frau Uertz-Retzlaff (NATO) examining.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 5:38 am
  

  According to the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, U.S. federal courts

  "shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

  So, there is quite a margin here.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 5:53 am
  Thanks for the 1789 info, but I actually, I wasn't suggesting the 1789 statute should be used as a basis to sue the US government. My point was that if a statute which is more than 200 years old (and thus has probably become subject to "desuetudo") can be invoked to sue a foreign government, how is it possible that no law supposedly exists to sue the US government in the US (which should be the primary territorial jurisdiction of the US courts)?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 8:31 am
  To those who have not noticed:

  BABIC TESTEMONY in CLOSED SESSION is now icluded in ICTY TRANSCRIPTS.
  
  Ann-Marie Laios
  Sollentuna
  Sweden

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 9:10 am
  
  
  Ivan Kokotovic
  Sydney
  Australia

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 11:05 am
  From: Mirror.co.uk

  “Blair is a Coward” by John Pilger

  A military strategist named Harlan Ullman told American television: "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad. The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

  <

  The strategy is known as Shock and Awe and Ullman is apparently its proud inventor. He said: "You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes."

  -------------------------------End

  Now what were we saying about Milosevic and the Serbs?

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 11:25 am
  Ann-Marie,

  Which days have they opened up? I looked at November 19 and he was still called C-61 and the closed sessions were still redacted. What day(s) were you looking at?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 12:24 pm
  Talking about the spirit of Nuremberg, we should recall that aggression was one of the crimes prosecuted in Nuremberg. As we all know, aggression is not one of the crimes listed in the ICTY Statute. Are we thus without recourse? As we all know, Yugoslav took most of the Nato countries to the ICJ in the Legality of Use of Force. The new Nato-compatible government has announced it will not pursue this matter further (although it briefly changed its mind before last presidential elections). If these two courts are not going to deal with the aggression issue further, does that mean that the Nato aggression should not be punished?

  As we all know, the ICTY and the domestic courts have "concurrent jurisdiction". If the domestic courts don't prosecute a war crime, the ICTY will do it. But what happens if the ICTY will not prosecute a war crime, as it doesn't do in the case of the "Nato crimes"? The concurrent jurisdiction means the domestic courts can take over the matter! In fact, they should, otherwise they will be guilty of denial of justice. And since concurring jurisdiction does not mean that the domestic courts have no jurisdiction in those matter where the ICTY has no jurisdiction, it would seem that the domestic courts could also adjudicate the cases concerning the illegality of the use of force.

  Anyway, the ICJ is now powerless. And even if it weren't, the practice of the ICTY itself shows that the ICJ cases have no lis pendens effect. In other words, if a case which is actually adjudicated in the ICJ, can be pursued in the ICTY, it can be pursued in the domestic courts as well, especially when the ICTY has no jurisdiction to look into the matter (as in the case of aggression).

  It is a very valuable distinction that has now been made: the unlawful act perpetrated by Nato should be separated from the individual crimes (or unlawful acts) committed in that same context. This means that even if Carla doesn't want to prosecute the individual Nato war crimes, she has not managed to whitewash the Nato aggression in itself. This is so important, because the domestic courts have argued - until now - that since ICTY has not investigated the Nato crimes, the use of force was not illegal after all. Beside the fact that Carla has no competence to rule on the legality of the use of force, the domestic courts should remember that even if the use of force was legal (as the "humanitarian intervention" argument would have it), the possibility of individual crimes is not excluded. And vice versa, even if there had been no individual crimes, that doesn't mean that the use of force was legal.

  However, the case is that the use of force was illegal (in the spirit of Nuremberg) and individual crimes - or at least unlawful acts - were committed. The court cases have hinged on two obvious incidents: the bombing of RTS and the use of cluster bombs in Nis. These two incidents should even be extricated from the crime context. Crime or not, the damage done in these incidents should be repaired. Whether the acts amounted to a crime, they were unlawful. In this light, it becomes obvious how irrelevant it is to argue whether the use of force was illegal in itself. If the use of force was justified as a humanitarian intervention, any "collateral damage" should be repaired with all the more reason. On the other hand, even the use of force was illegal in itself, it is even easier to argue that all the "mistakes" done were unlawful.

  As to the criminal dimension of the acts themselves, if you ever dreamt of being a misunderstood genius ahead of one's times, this is your chance. The secret documents which reveal all the goings-on in the Balkans in the 90's - as well as the farce in The Hague going on right now - will be laid bare when the classified documents are made public. That will be in about ... 50 years. In other words, sooner than you think. And using the Holocaust reparations as a precedent, it is still possible to seek reparation for human rights abuses after 50 years.

  No cases have been initiated in the US to my knowledge. But let us see this as a "advantage of backwardness". All the mistakes have now been made in the European court cases, so we can approach the American turf so much wiser.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 12:48 pm
  For those interested, the Toronto-base Centre for the Peace in the Balkans has a list of all the lawsuits against Nato on its website at http://www.balkanpeace.org/lan/index.shtml . I should have a look at it sometime.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 12:54 pm
  Andy,

  I tried the transcripts of December 4-3-2, and I assumed that they had all been disclosed then.

  As it has taken them so long ! >But maybe they are going backwards or maybe some parts are considered to remain redacted for some other reason than identity protection.
  
  Ann-Marie Laios
  Sollentuna
  Sweden

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 3:53 pm
  Just to expend on what Jari has hinted. If an average person lives for 80 years and starts real reading with comprehension after age of 10, this person has 70 years to read 300,000.00 pages. This amounts to 11.7 pages a day.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 8:18 pm
  Jari, the latest ideas of yours about ICTY and local courts and division of their roles are very interesting. I am wondering if any lawyer form Yugoslavia or associated with Yugoslav government is reading your posts. What I am sure of is that the Yugoslav/Serbian government will not dare to do anything against the NATO, USA, GB and UN soon. The only hope will be that the victims of the NATO bombing start a case in some court outside of Yugoslavia as private citizens. It would be beneficial if people cleansed from Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia can sue their new governments or UN and NATO in Europe or in the USA for not protecting them.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 8:34 pm
  
  Regime Change

  What do the Blairs believe in as they cling to power by means of their lying spin machine and lifestyle gurus?

  Blair the Anglican Christian with his Catholic Christian wife has delivered Kosovo into the hands of intolerant Islamic extremists by enabling Albright’s war effected through Clinton’s power.

  The latest initiative of the Kosovo Ministry of Education to demolish the Serbian Orthodox Cathedral of Christ the Savior in the centre of Pristina is a last drop in the three year's long anti-Christian campaign led by Kosovo Albanian extremists.

  While all most important Universities in Europe and the United States are proud of their University chapels, Kosovo Albanian Ministry of Education and University request destruction of a Christian church. Why? For the Pristina University, which is becoming an ethnically clean institution, with the vast majority of Moslem students, a Christian Church with a cross in its vicinity looks like "a pig in the mosque courtyard".

  Source

  Blair the avowed Christian, onetime pacifist and CND marcher: this self styled intolerant of intolerance imposes an intolerant regime on a onetime multiethnic Kosovo: through the use of cluster bombs, radioactive ammunition and Islamic terror - notably Mujahedin and or al-Qaeda.

  The mind boggles at the mental and ‘moral’ gymnastics. This self styled multiethnic anti al-Qaeda terror warrior uses Islamic terror to establish an ethnically cleansed Islamic state in Kosovo?

  As Blair the enabling warmonger prepares to embark upon at least his third unnecessary “crusade” - that of regime change in Iraq at the expense of tens of thousands of other peoples lives and billions of pounds of much needed British tax payers money - the British people must see to it that this is his last. It is time that we had a regime change of our own: In spite of an undemocratic electoral system which gives Blair power with less than 25% of the possible votes.

  “For the safety of our people and the peace of the world” Blair the enabling warmonger must be removed. And if he drops his cluster bombs on Baghdad or flies bombs into public buildings there he must be hauled before the ICC.

  Pilger on Blair referenced above by Kathryn Love
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 8:48 pm
  A direct link to the Pilger article http://www.mirror.co.uk Hopefully.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 9:44 pm
  The second of the last two witnesses for Dubrovnik, Ivo Simunovic, is the total opposite to meek Kriste: a former Managing Director of a company, then a private businessman (an occupation bordering on gangster in all of the ex-YU), a reserve officer of the JNA and a wartime deputy defence commander of Dubrovnik. He began testifying on Tuesday and finished on Wednesday, a lot less confident and cocky than when he started, causing headache to the Prosecution. The apple of discord was a witness/non-witness, the Croatian General Nojko Marinovic (defence commander of Dubrovnik) and his written statement amply quoted by Milosevic and Tapuskovic.

  Simunovic is clearly quite common, rude person, who tries hard to sell himself as refined. Yet, his rudeness and his vulgar type of chauvinism seeped through while he was asked about the Serbs: he explained twice how he regards them as 'the Croats of another religion'; when a Serb name was mentioned as the one who gave a statement to the Prosecution, he would dismiss it with a scorn of the type 'this one can not be trusted'. Simunovic was gradually becoming so enraged that he started to address Milosevic as 'Mister Accused', acted out fits of forced laughter and tried to stop by himself the line of questioning that was cornering him, so that May had to sharply reprimand him.

  Simunovic started merrily enough, describing the 'defence strategy' of Dubrovnik under the command of Marinovic, a JNA defector from Trebinje, 'a Croat by his nationality', as the witness felt the need to add. He stated the defenders had 300 men, 3 faulty cannons and some hand guns, while the JNA had up to 8,000 men, artillery, tanks, warships, airplanes…, 'an intimidating force, but we were not to be intimidated easily'. His thesis was that the JNA was not a good army and that's why Dubrovnik was not conquered. It took them some 15 days to come through from the Herzegovina direction and more than 20 from the Montenegro direction, to join forces and to start attacking the town itself, i.e. the Mount Srdj. Simunovic said Srdj was heavily shelled by cannons (in clear contradiction to what was seen on the video shown by Kriste the day before: mere firecrackers). This Srdj is a crucial point: the only rise in the area never conquered by the JNA. Even Nice, during his examination-in-chief, said that the 'Mt. Srdj remained unconquered, with good luck and various other circumstances'. That's just the point: the JNA never wanted to conquer it, it is too close to the Old Town and the Croats themselves shelled Srdj, as Tapuskovic quoted from the statement of General Marinovic!

  So far, Simunovic calmly described their civilian casualties, his own participation in the negotiations with the JNA, the famous JNA attack on 6 December, the subsequent agreement to send in 2 JNA officers and a cameraman to film the alleged damage and his own escorting them around the town. Then, a rather long piece of video was shown (some 15 minutes), capturing the Old Town damage already known, showing also those 2 JNA officers in plain clothes, taking notes all the time in their little booklets ('people didn't know who they were, we had to take care of their safety'), the witness himself in uniform, looking like a sausage, the JNA cameraman while filming… and then, the most telling frame: the Minceta tower and just above it, Mount Srdj. You have to picture this: a smallish mountain, more a larger rock, denuded of greenery, with an ancient fortress on top, and the Old Town literally plastered to its base. And now imagine the shelling going on between Srdj and the JNA positions, across the Old Town. It is a wander that the Old Town was damaged so slightly with all that going on. Until I saw that video, I have simply forgotten the actual position of Srdj in relation to the Old Town: they are glued together. So, the Croatian side can claim all it wants that there were no forces within the Old Town. Maybe it's true, but they were on Srdj all the time, shooting at the JNA. Another important fact: on the video the various fragments of shells were shown: they were all small-calibre mortar shells, you know, the ones with a star-shaped tail, like the feathers on an arrow at the end (stabilizers I think it's called), only few centimetres in diameter. The damages shown were consistent with that: it would most certainly look quite different if the heavy cannons did hit those railings, ramparts, tiles and pavement slabs. And you should have heard the rage of Simunovic when Tapuskovic quoted an EU observer, describing ricocheted shells in another similar situation later on! The famous under-the-ramparts car park was shown, too, all the while with the running comment of the witness how 'as you can see, the cannon shells fell there and all the cars were burnt'. Well, I looked hard, and no, there were no shell damage to be seen at all.

  After 15 minutes of that telling video, Nice asked few more rhetoric questions of the type 'were there soldiers in the Old Town?', to which it was duly answered 'no', Robinson wanted to have some 'proofs that the town is actually protected by UNESCO' (the first time that I heard Robinson to ask a wool-gathering question) and the witness was handed over to Milosevic.

  He wanted to know how come the JNA never conquered Dubrovnik, with all that power, and Simunovic arrogantly reiterated his belief in their poor quality: 'they had the power, but no courage'. Milosevic then put to him the well-known fact of the existence of the order by General Kadijevic that Dubrovnik is notto be conquered. Nevertheless, the witness continued to peddle his impressions as testimony. When questioned on the basis of what proof Serbia and Milosevic personally could be connected with the clashes between the Croatian paramilitaries and the JNA, the witness actually described how Milosevic used to come to Dubrovnik for his summer holidays and once at the restaurant 'Sarajevo' in 1989 he had the Army security protecting him! So, there you have it: the plot between Milosevic and the JNA! Milosevic explained he did regularly visit Dubrovnik, but was never protected by anybody, on the contrary he used to walk about the streets of Dubrovnik alone with his family and his Dubrovnik friends. Then he asked why Simunovic declared in his statement that the Serbs were over-represented in Croatia and in the Dubrovnik local power structures, and the answer was that he was 'just trying to explain the general situation to the investigators' and besides, he considers them 'to be the Croats, but of another religion'. This signified the beginning of a long string of documents that Milosevic submitted, all issued by CRO (police records and reports, customs documents, official letters, sworn statements of judges and officials); they were all very descriptive of the general situation in Dubrovnik way before any hostilities began. There were orders to demolish 'illegally built houses, but especially those of the Serbs', there were reports of houses demolished by bombs, of wounded inhabitants and released criminals incorporated in the Croatian armed forces. The witness tried to dismiss the statement by the local judge Dragan Gajic ('knowing him, I shouldn't say his reports could be accurate' - i.e. the guy is a Serb - or rather 'a Croat of another religion'). But here May stepped in and said the statement of Gajic has been already introduced as evidence. The witness retreated, but clumsily: "We were particularly trying not to violate the rights of the loyal citizens… of all the citizens of Croatia which are of another religions." Milosevic took the opportunity: "Mr Simunovic, you know very well that in those 10 years only in Serbia care was taken not to violate the rights of the citizens of other nationalities". There were more reports of 'sniper practice shooting' for which a permission from the police had been requested, to which Simunovic answered all is legit, because there were many hunters in the area (!?). Shooting rabbits with a sniper gun? Then followed documents telling about the systematic militarization of the Dubrovnik area, starting in February 1991: establishment of the Crisis Staff, calling out of the reserve police force and activation of TO. Simunovic tried to deny, saying this was done only in August and that he has 'no time to read the document now ant to burden the court'. Can you believe that May stepped in, saying 'just a moment' and ordering the witness to read the document and 'tell us what it is'! (This day was significant for that, too, because Robinson as well as Kwon, on the other hand, asked silly questions, the latter being recorded to ask whether "Gregoric was another name of Tudjman?' - he saw the name of the Croatian Prime Minister on one of the documents and he was patiently instructed these two are two different people and functions). Scolded that way by the judge, the witness tried to dismiss these Croatian documents by saying this was 'normal procedure' and that the reserve was that of the police, its special forces ZNG, and not TO, which were the armed forces. This is more than significant, because here the witness explains ZNG [Zbor narodne garde=National Guard Corps] as some kind of police force, but later on, when it suits him better, he speaks of them as the 'regular armed forces of Croatia'. Which is it?

  So, Milosevic concluded sardonically, 'judging by the evidence, it seems that all didn't start with the alleged clashes with the Army, but with much earlier militarization', and he produced few more Croatian documents: ammo and weapons requisition lists, official customs note on imports, official complaints by the Staff Commander on the chaos in weapons procuring, individual weapons receipts… Simunovic went ballistic: "Mister Accused, I'd like to ask you not to present some evidence here, because this is not what this trial is about…" And May again stepped in heavily: "Mr Simunovic, it is ours to determine what is evidence." Witness kowtowed: "I'm sorry…I'll try to explain to you. This is nothing strange that the equipment has been issued… All airports have security services…I can't comment these reports…" Milosevic: "An automatic rifle and 200 rounds per person?!" May: "I believe we shall admit these documents." Wow! Is it due process emerging? Or is it just another whitewashing?

  And the next document submitted by Milosevic was a bombshell: an Order by the Croatian Ministry of Defence of 30 July and 1 Aug 1991 to the local defence staffs to block all the JNA facilities, to disconnect electricity, water supply and telephones. Pretty much the same as the telegram-order that I have mentioned before when writing about the Stakic case, only that the wording of the Bosnian authorities was a bit more reckless: here the Croats avoided the words 'launch combat activities'. Simunovic tried to wiggle as he did once before, when May helped him by stating he's here to answer only about Dubrovnik: "Excuse me, does this apply to Dubrovnik?" Milosevic: "Of course this applies to Dubrovnik as well." So, Simunovic started to name some JNA facilities, said he's not aware whether they were blocked and disconnected, but that he does not see 'anything negative in this document', since this was only meant for the 'purpose of defence'. Milosevic: "Defence against whom, when you have not even been attacked?" Simunovic: "Well, we in Dubrovnik have not been." [Simunovic surely wanted to repeat his story from the examination-in-chief how they were looking at the events in Slovenia and therefore prepared themselves, but this would probably sound like a confirmation of the militarization, so he stopped.] Milosevic: "Thank you very much."

  Another 2 documents submitted: an official letter from the Crisis Staff of Dubrovnik, putting at the disposal of the 116th ZNG Brigade all its men and equipment; and a detailed drawing of mine-fields network on the roads by the Montenegrin border. In his attempt to dismiss that, Simunovic now switched the nature of the ZNG, turning them to the 'armed forces of the Republic of Croatia', forgetting what he said only half an hour ago. According to him, it was 'normal and nothing terrible'. Except perhaps that the alleged police unit suddenly became an army. And as Milosevic put it: "Except that all this was happening in June, when you were not in any danger, as you yourselves just said." Please, note later when Tapuskovic questioned the total number of armed men, the police is again excluded, in order to explain the discrepancy with the statement of General Marinovic! As to the minefields, Simunovic tried to make Vitaljina, the mined village at Prevlaka peninsula, to be some 5-6 km away from Montenegro, so Milosevic had to remind him that 'the whole Prevlaka is not 5-6 km long.'

  Then, Milosevic turned to the initial border incidents which were a provocation against the JNA. The witness vehemently denied. Milosevic introduced all those previously admitted statements of the Prosecuiton's witnesses and some ITN reports, describing the heavy weapons deployment in the town. The witness denied, denied, denied. Milosevic pointed out the discrepancies between the testimonies of Poljanic and Simunovic re the dates and the alleged number of shells, and finally introduced the General Nojko Marinovic's statement, quoting from it and asking the witness how come there are so many discrepancies, when 'you were his deputy'. Simunovic toiled among police and armed forces men and various types of artillery that he tried to represent as machine-guns (when the fact that Milosevic has finished the artillery military school emerged, and the witness actually praised his command of the topic!). But, despite the apparently friendly atmosphere, there remained a lingering impression that General Marinovic's spectre will haunt this procedure further.

  May announced Milosevic will have another 25 minutes tomorrow for this witness and then they discussed the mountains of documents (the link that Gogol already provided). What I remembered the most was the irony of Milosevic's commentary: "I have no illusions, I just want this to be said for the record as the indicator of the equality of both sides, on which you so much insist." He also told the judges that their 'former friend Wladimiroff' continues to abuse his previous presence in these rooms, indicating his recent interview to WSJ. Gogol, can you pls check?

  The next day, Milosevic and Simunovic were outwitting one another some more by trying to be smart and nonchalant, but the last quip by Milosevic was a nice cue for Tapuskovic: "You are talking about Srdj which was left empty at one moment, but the JNA have not conquered it after all. Is it not telling you they didn't even want to conquer it?"

  Tapuskovic began by addressing the judges, reminding May of his inappropriate remark of whether Tapuskovic denied Dubrovnik was shelled, which is entirely for them to discuss and decide and of his actual task to help them do that. Then he reintroduced the crucial statement of General Nojko Marinovic. The great upheaval happened in the courtroom, maps and copies of the statement started to circulate, and when finally everyone had his copy, Tapuskovic quoted and quoted, and the witness practically never answered anything, just got more and more nervous. Check one of those quotations: "We had to direct our fire towards our own positions on Srdj, to prevent the JNA from conquering it. We ordered our men to hide within underground rooms." Particularly waxing for Simunovic was the quotation of the statement by the EU observer, one Paul Davis, about the incident when the Croats fired at the JNA position, the shells ricocheted into the harbour and some boats got burned. For Simunovic, all that was 'ridiculous". The statement was submitted. Tapuskovic returned to Marinovic statement, according to which 75 km of roads had been mined well before the fights. The witness jumped at Tapuskovic: "Yes, but not one of your vehicles was damaged!" Tapuskovic: "My vehicles?!" Simunovic: "Well, you are representing this other side…" Tapuskovic: "I'm not representing anybody, just helping the court." Tapuskovic ended by putting to the witness that 6 tanks actually were destroyed and many JNA soldiers killed, which Simunovic proudly confirmed.

  Then, Nice got his redirect questioning, which started by his asking May to grant him few minutes of private session! Problems with General who is refusing to come, no doubt. When they came back, May stated that 'we usually do not admit statements', but this one has been used and claimed to contradict today's witness. He went on to say that 'we do not agree with the suggestion of Mr Kay to admit just its parts, which would additionally complicate things. Therefore we shall admit this statement, and we still advise to summon this witness after all.' What do you think of that? Nice used his half hour time completely in the attempt to smooth the discrepancies and he practically forced his witness to admit he agrees and accepts the data re men, weapons and their deployment as given by the General, and not his own, previously given data. Finishing this, he stated all's well and that he 'can not understand the cross-examination, claiming there were shooting from the Old Town, and as far as I can see, that was impossible'. Nice, this is not very nice, this is imputation: nothing like that was said, there were only some statements quoted. And if such a conclusion can be drawn out of them, who is to be blamed? 'Mister Accused'?!

  The whole shebang ended in Robinson's solemnity: 'The Trial Chamber encourages you to try your best to make this witness come and testify after all.' And 'it is important to present evidence about the UNESCO protection of Dubrovnik'.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 10:22 pm
  Vera,

  Would you mind if I reprint your last two posts on my website?

  They will appear on the site exacly as they do in this link.

  If you would be so kind as to give me your approval I will link your article to the main page of my site.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 10:29 pm
  

  Vera,

  Reading your accounts brings new life to my nocturnal trial sessions, what clarity of thought you have!

  Regarding the WSJ, I just learned a couple of days ago, the paper has an European edition, actually I suspect a nearly a very different paper since their arrogance I doubt would be digestive in Europe. I am looking atentively at the daily articles and so far no mention of interviews or the ICTY and I wonder if this is not for European consumption. Here in America we're now chewing the new worse than Hitler old stuff and getting ready for yet another campaign. I truly wish I were in Shangri-la and had a white horse to ride in the green valley!

  Peace!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 11:00 pm
  FYI to everybody,

  In the event that this site goes down again I have started a Yahoo message board at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MilosevicTrial/

  I am the board's moderator and I welcmoe all of you to join it

  One nice feature about the Yahoo Group format is that all of your posts are assigned their own unique URL which makes it so that other websites to post hyperlinks directly to your article. So if you like to write about this topic and you want to distribute your writings more widely Join the group.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday January 29, 2003 at 11:59 pm
  REGION: Croatia Should Pay Reparations to Serbia, Djindjic

  2003-01-29 15:23:22

  Serbian Premier Zoran Djindjic believes that Croatia should pay as much as 150 billion euro worth of war reparations to Serbia, because 200,000 innocent people from eastern and western Slavonia were driven out of their homes with planes and gunds, and because people from Serbia, who have built their houses along the Croatian part of the Adriatic coast with honestly earned money, lost their property in a vandal manner.

  "If we are going to speak about who owes whom, I believe that we are in for a long talk on the subject, but I believe that this is not an issue that should be raised this way," said Djindjic in a statement published by the Banja Luka daily Nezavisne Novine commenting on the recent statement made by Croatia's President Stjepan Mesic that Croatia will request from Yugoslavia 15 billion euros worth of war reparations, reported Tanjug agency.

  www.seeurope.net

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 2:13 am
  Vera you are amazing. I am particularly impressed with your insight into the personalities of the witnesses. I interpreted for a Bosnian couple (Muslim religion) in a divorce case. The wife’s lawyer requested an interpreter and I was it. When the husband found out that I was of Serbian ethnicity he immediately saw me as his enemy and all I did was interpret what each side said. When things didn’t go well for the man he lost his cool, started yelling and threatening his former wife. Reminded me of your description of the witness Simunovic.

  I have spoken to several participants who served with the JNA on the outskirts of Dubrovnik. They are in total agreement with your analysis of what transpired in court. I wrote about this in some of my previous posts. The staging area, I believe, for the Dubrovnik offensive was Bileca and Trebinje. Bileca is sixty kilometers by road and Trebinj a bout thirty, as the crow flies 20 and 10 kilometers respectively. Bileca had an officer’s training school located in an old Austro Hungarian fortress. This fortress was used to house captured members of the Croatian National Guard Corps. With the NGC there were many local young men forced by the NGC into service who were captured as well and imprisoned in the old fortress in Bileca. So I can attest that there were close to 300 captured NGC and militia in jail so maybe Simunovic was correct about no one guarding Dubrovnik. What a joke. Parents of these boy called friends in Bileca to search for their sons and I know there were many persons from Bileca who took food and other material to the prisoners.

  you raise some questions as to who was in the army attacking Dubrovnik. My nephew had just finished his army duty one week prior to being recalled into service. He personally told me that his unit was made up of all nationalities including Croats. Their task was to attack from the North East side some 15 kilometers from the city. As they approached a small bridge an elderly man warned them not to go in that direction as the area was booby trapped. The officer in command of the unit ordered his men to advance. The men walked into booby traps and half of his unit was cut to pieces. He spent the next two month in a psyche clinic in Trebinje. Every road towards Dubrovnik was mined and booby trapped. All Serbian homes were marked and many demolished. My relative’s home was damaged but since a Muslim family lived in one side of the house they were able to protect it from demolition. Muslims and Croats at that time were together. All Serbian families that went to salvage their property had to be accompanied by booby trap experts from the army as most Serbian homes were booby trapped.

  I mentioned here before that the city was boarded up some six month prior to any threats of war. Clerks in one of the main banks warned depositors to take their money out, six month before the war, because they expected that Croatia would freeze all accounts. My nephew and his father did not believe that this would happen and left their money in their accounts. Several months before the attack accounts were frozen. To their credit the Croatian banks have reinstated all these account but no interest. This happened ten years after the accounts were frozen. Also to their credit all Serbian property was returned, but of course there was no payment for damages. All contracts under duress for the sale of property were voidable.

  Dubrovnik is a declared international heritage sight under protection of UNESCO. UNESCO provides funds for the maintenance of Dubrovnik. The more the Croats can inflate the damage the more money they can claim. My understanding is that the all the red tiles in the Old Town need to be replaced because they only last a hundred years and then start to deteriorate so money is needed for new tiles.

  Gogol when I saw your Fuehrer speak the other night and all his SS in Black Suits clapping like so many good little Nazis I really thought that they have cloned Hitler. In fact he spoke, lied and looked a bit like Hitler, minus the comb under his nose.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 3:08 am
  Pera, my observations are largely based on the work by Nico Steijnen in Holland on behalf of his Serb clients. I think what has gone wrong so far is the fact that the criminal element, civil liability, individual criminal responsibility and collective responsibility have been tossed around instead of keeping them apart. This in turn can be traced back to the arrogance of the Dutch government. The Dutch courts follow slavishly whatever the Dutch government says.

  Let me recap what I was saying. If the big courts like ICTY and ICJ don't do their jobs, start looking for a domestic court which will. So far both the ICTY and the ICJ have done their best to wash their hands of everything that might implicate Nato. They are the ones obstructing justice. In that case, the case has to be devolved to the national level.

  And surprising as it is, there is no shortage of competent organs. One nice thing about the otherwise pathetic ruling in the Legality of Use of Force is that the bombing was said to be indivisible in time: once it had been started, it was impossible to stop it. That brings the responsibility for the campaign right to the doorstep of the respective Nato governments themselves, in other words to the national jurisdictions of the Nato countries.

  But even if there is no shortage of competent judicial organs in principle, there is a screaming shortage in practice. In principle, the domestic court doesn't have to mind the warnings and threats and guidelines issued by the respective national government in cases against that government. That is the whole idea of the separation of the three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. But how many courts would give an ear to the Serb complaints when the respective Nato government is being accused of serious human rights abuses? It is not a question of competence. It is a question of wetting one's pants, and so far the judges have had to keep their pants clean by refraining from any groundbreaking rulings.

  Neither is there any shortage of competent domestic courts which could apply international law directly. They don't have to wait for the national government to give the go-ahead to start applying certain portions of international law. This thing is called monism, and the Dutch system is the prime example of that. So far, it hasn't worked in practice, which means that the government decides in the end what international legal obligations should be observed. But in principle, monism means that the national courts can start applying the Nuremberg and Tokyo case law, including the criminalization of war of aggression.

  On the other hand, it is here, as I said, where a lot of mistakes have been made. Criminal responsibility, even in case of aggression, has to be kept separate from any civil liability it may entail. Otherwise you run into trouble. Criminal responsibility can only be imputed to persons, whereas you are trying to sue the State or the government as a whole for civil liability.

  The ICTY has done its damage. We are being "educated" to think in terms of "joint criminal enterprises" and other sorts of creative crap. This paralyzes the domestic courts.

  But there are other more interesting lessons that the ICTY is teaching us. Even the domestic courts now have the power to prosecuted foreign heads of state thanks to the "concurrent jurisdiction" of the ICTY and the domestic courts. Nothing now excludes prosecuting Clinton in Serbia (in principle).

  Do you think the bombing of the RTS should imply civil liability? Try exploding a TV studio in your own country. First, you will be charged with a crime, then you will be told to repair the damage. Does it help your case, if you say that the studio was disseminating propaganda? You might even use foreign militants to explode the studio. Does that help your case? You could argue that the military support from abroad which you use to help explode the studio entered the country illegally. Does that help your case? You could argue that the military support was in the country illegally to help bolster the cause (or "human rights" as it is called) of certain separatists in one of the provinces. Does that help your case, especially when the foreign military support itself had earlier condemned the separatists as terrorists (as happened in UN SC resolution 1160(1998) in case of the KLA)? Does it help your case that the foreign military support has done a lot of similar damage in the country as well (in the name of "collateral damage")?

  This is absurd, of course, and yet, this is exactly what the Nato intervention was about. No war was declared. No war was ever waged. It was all a pure humanitarian intervention. What these peacemongers forget is that such a peace mission incurs heavy civil liability for all the damage it does. And neither does calling such a campaign a "peace mission" or a "humanitarian intervention" exclude the possibility of individual criminal responsibility. Even if most of the crimes listed in the ICTY Statute are related to armed conflict (though not all), none of this curtails the powers of the domestic jurisdictions in any way.

  The bombing of the RTS studio is a classic. Was the RTS boss ever accused of disseminating propaganda? Well, he should have been, if that was the ineffable crime which made the bombing necessary. The propaganda might have originated from Milosevic (which no-one has so far tried to prove), but it should have been the RTS's boss's task to stop it. After all, he had just as much power to stop the broadcasts as he had the power to predict the possible damage done by the Nato bombing. This is insane. It takes an intellectually superior mind to create such a mess (no, I wasn't talking about you, Carla).

  A very important ruling is coming from the ICJ one of these days. It is the ruling on the Yugoslav argument in the case Bosnia v. Yugoslavia that Yugoslavia was not a signatory to the genocide convention because Yugoslavia was admitted to the UN only in the Kostunica era. This ruling will change many things.

  One household observation. One way to circumvent the roadblocs, i.e. the cutting of the hyperlink to this discussion, is to creat hyperlinks on your respective websites. Who knows, the following might actually increase.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 3:58 am
  

  " Of course the people don't want war.... that is understood. but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or parliament , or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice , the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country"

  Hermann Goering , Adolf Hitler's Deputy Chief and Luftwaffe Commander, At the nuremberg trials , 1946 From "Nuremberg Diary" by G M Gilbert
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 4:07 am
  Jari,

  The subject of RTS is near and dear to me. I work at a TV station and I know something about the way a TV signal reaches viewers.

  Even if RTS was disseminating propaganda, NATO didn't need to blow-up the RTS studios.

  NATO could have simply blown-up RTS transmission facilities, and that would have stopped RTS from broadcasting without killing those 16 people at the RTS studios.

  In fact NATO didn't even have to bomb anything to put RTS off the air. NATO could have simply transmitted electro-magnetic interference on RTS frequencies into Yugoslavia from Bosnia, Macedonia, Hungary and Albania and effectively rendered the RTS signals unintellegable throughout Yugoslavia.

  The interference transmitted on the right frequencies would disrupt home viewers reception of RTS signal, and it would disrupt RTS satellite uplinks and microwave STL feeds as well. RTS would be totally unable to operate.

  NATO's only motivation in bombing RTS was to kill and terrorize the people working there and to send a message to other broadcasters in Yugoslavia.

  If NATO only wanted to stop RTS from broadcasting "propaganda" (like NATO wan't disseminating its own propaganda) there would have been no need to blow-up the RTS studios.

  Walter,

  In your conversations with JNA officers who were at Dubrovnik, did you ever hear that the Croats had gunners positioned on the ramparts of the old city who were firing at the JNA?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 4:26 am
  

  Latest:

  A group of more than 100 law professors has warned Bush in a letter that senior officials could face prosecutions for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide if the Iraq war proceeds. Despite the US refusal to ratify the treaty establishing the new International Criminal Court, the letter stated, ?US officials involved in committing certain international crimes may nonetheless be held responsible under principles of Universal Jurisdiction and the War Crimes Act.?

  Click HERE for the whole article.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

  Thursday January 30, 2003 at 4:27 am
  

  
  
  G C
  USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 5:04 am
  

  The trial has been already many time in close session today, it is in open session for a couple of minutes at the time, with the C013 sounding very low key saying things like: "I don't know about that" or "I have never see it, or heard"

  I wonder what the gentlemen representing the press do when the trial is close session. Is there a bar, do the have drinks or play poker, bet on Mr. Milosevic's fate? In any case whatever they see or not hear, does not get much reported, perhaps in Shangri-La it is followed in detailed. You never know.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 5:23 am
  Andy, you made some very good points. Even after the destruction of the studio, RTS was on the air a few hours after the bombing.

  Gogol, I think you have been much too kind to Nice by calling him Scorpio. Could he be Satan? This is the thought that crossed my mind after reading about the 300,000 pages of documents. At least Nice is arrogant "as hell". He says the accused understands and speaks English. Well, maybe he does Russian too. The point is that the tribunal stops at nothing to make the prosecution's job as easy as possible. Let us not overlook the fact that it is Nice who speaks English as his native language. One might even remember that the presiding judge and one of the amici curiae do so too, which is the really odd thing. Having the documents in English certainly facilitates the synchronization of the prosecution-judge activities.

  Nice says apologetically that he doesn't know if there are 300,000. Of course he doesn't. He hasn't even read one percent of the material. Even if you are aiming at increasing the quantity of the material, at some point you stop counting. One, two, three, many, the Milosevic trial.

  Nice also starts nitpicking about Milosevic's remark that the material has been originally in Serbian. No, says Nice, most of it was produced in English. Attaboy, Geoffrey, you have a knack at missing the point. The point is that no matter what language the material was produced in, it hasn't been made available in Serbian. In fact, if it were to be translated, some kind of restraint could be put at increasing the quantity of the documents to such exorbitant levels. And by admitting that most of the material was produced in English Geoffrey may have admitted more than he would have liked.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 5:31 am
  

  So, now it is Mr. Milosevic time to cross-examine C013. Mr. Milosevic charges asking what are the reasons for C013 to tell "untruths to put it mildly" and when he is ready to ask the first question to challenge one of the "untruths" judge May decides "base on past experiences, when this kind of questions to be put, it is better to go in close session".

  Mr. Milosevic had commented on the fact that in modern times, trials differed from the Middle Ages in the fact that they are public not behind doors, but "you gospodin May (NATO) are keeping the public away, reversing that" to what May (NATO) replied "that is absurd, lets get on with your questions". So, here we are in the dark once again.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 5:36 am
  

  I think I understand better now the relationship between CO (carbon oxide)13 and the close sessions: it is all about a volatile gas!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 7:11 am
  

  "Yes Mr. May (NATO) a false indictement goes along with false witnesses"

  Slobodan Milosevic defending himself in court today.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 10:16 am
  Radomir Markovic, the former Head of Serbia's Security Service has been sentenced to seven years imprisonment for allegedly covering up the murder of 3 associates of Vuk Draskovic. Had Markovic been a little smarter and cooperated with the Lynch mob at the Hague, then he could now be sunning himself on a Florida beach where he could enjoy the companionship of Mr Babic and Mrs Plavsic. http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2140757
  
  Michael Thomas
  London
  UK

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 10:35 am
  Michael,

  This whole business of the attempted murder of Vuk Draskovic and the killings of the members of the SPO is interesting.

  Some people would try and say that Slobodan Milosevic and Rade Markovic would be behind these crimes, but that dosen't make sense.

  What motive would Slobodan Milosevic have for wanting to kill Vuk Draskovic or any members of the SPO?

  The SPO was splitting Milosevic's political opposition and siphoning votes off from the DOS. The DOS would have more of a motive to kill Draskovic than Milosevic because the DOS was losing votes to the SPO.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 10:41 am
  

  Michael Ignatieff is the Carr Professor of Human Rights Practice, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He teaches how our government do things Milosevic tried to resist. Might look out of context regarding current discussions, but I find it interesting and decided to shear with you all.

  I’m going to paraphrase his "The problem with proxies 101" ... and Kids, don't try this at home ...

  "Principal agents (“wild west democracies”) rely on proxies (Muslim fundamentalists) to carry out their own plans (control of energy corridor) and hope to control them by means of the Special Forces and "advisors" (MPRI) working on the ground. The balance of involvement is delicate. Too many troops on the ground risks sucking principal agent into the type of ground war that destroyed the Soviet empire. Too few exposes the principal agent to the risk of losing control of the proxy altogether.

  The legitimacy of the proxies (KLA) to an unsuspecting observer (general population) depends on their appearing to be independent of the principal agent (NATO) and not a stooge. The legitimacy of the principal agent also depends on not looking like an imperialist. That’s where demonization of a target and false pretext for a war come into a play.

  Proxy wars -- and the problems that accompany them -- are hardly new. America fought most of its wars against Communism through proxies. It also funded Jonas Savimbi in Angola, Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, etc.

  Proxies have a nasty way either of disgracing principal agents or turning against them (9-11-2001).

  Depending on proxies puts the principal agent's fate in the hands of people who may not define victory as the principal agent does: a Kosovo rebuilt on solid political foundations (“friendly” dictator firmly in charge) and free of terror (got rid of all opposition). For a warlord in American pay, victory might look like secure control of heroin production and distribution, prostitution, tobacco and gasoline smuggling, etc.

  The real problems with proxy wars begin, paradoxically, once victory has been achieved. The revenge killings of Christian population by Kosovo Albanians that followed NATO’s “victory” in June 1999 have threaten to reveal the false pretext of the war itself.

  A principal agent can win a war with proxies. A durable peace, however, cannot be built by remote control. Peace requires substantial commitment by the principal agents involved: peacekeeping troops, humanitarian assistance, rebuilding of infrastructure. No one in the international community has the stomach to actually disarm the proxies (KLA). But their leaders can be drawn into a political process and, with luck, be turned from terrorists into politicians (Hasim Thaci, Ali Ahmeti).

  That is the test of this kind of war: whether a criminal culture can be turned into a political one, and whether proxies can gradually become principal agents in their own right, rebuilding a country they once devastated and stole from others.

  
  
  D S
  USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 10:44 am
  Sorry, I created a real mess, but link stll works :=)
  
  D S
  USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 11:17 am
  Correction
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 11:54 am
  Walter T Your last paragraph concerning the the leader of the free world is irrational babbling. I'm surprised that Gogol lets that comment and previous ones stand without comment. At least you didn't call Bush supporters, 70+%, cheering German fascists.
  
  J P
  US, Wis

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 12:36 pm
  
  Thank you DS for highlighting Ignatieff’s article. His thesis is something I have long suspected lies behind the problems Serbia had in Kosovo.

  There are several facts coming to light which support this. Most recent was the BBC documentary ‘The Fall of Milosevic’ which showed Mujahedin and/or al-Qaeda units, in their traditional mufti, marching and training with regular KLA terrorist forces. Blair, with CIA/MI5/MI6 plus intelligence sources, clearly knew this but he pretends not to: just as he pretended recently not to know that his wife had purchased property worth half a million GBP through a well-known confidence trickster.

  Another major pointer is the fact that del Ponte has not indicted any of the KLA leaders for the manifest crimes against humanity committed by them in Kosovo. See the OHCHR and Red Cross reports among others for proof of these crimes.

  Nato’s intervention in Macedonia to rescue, complete with weapons, insurgent Islamic terror forces trapped by Macedonian security forces and bus them back to Kosovo was yet another otherwise inexplicable fact. What more evidence do we need that all that guff from Phoney Blare about ‘fighting terror’ is just a smokescreen!

  The most telling fact of all was the rapid way in which the incursions from Kosovo into Macedonia and Southern Serbia died down after 9/11. Clearly Nato sat on its proxies after that event: that is those they could control. Look out!

  As for 9/11 I imagine this was payback time for previous welchings by al-Qaeda’s masters. Bin Laden and the KLA clearly forgot Aesop’s fable: The Horse, Hunter and Stag. ‘If you allow men to use you for your own purposes, they will use you for theirs’.

  Historians must get to grips with these frauds, especially that of the ICTY, and the sooner the better.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 12:42 pm
  The Michael Ignatieff comment was really interesting. Not that he really said anything that we didn't already know. It just disabused me of the misconception that Mr Ignatieff is such a sucker that I had taken him to be.

  Let me come back to the jurisdictional matters. What are the "national courts" that the ICTY Statute speaks about? Are they just Serbian courts? This is really a complicated matter, because it is still unclear to me what it means to be a "member state" of the ICTY. But let us suppose that national courts include the US courts as well. The agreement that the US has made with the ICTY points to this direction, because it allows US citizens to be transferred to the ICTY. This transfer would be necessary if the ICTY claims the primacy which it has over the national courts. This suggests that the US courts would have some "concurrent jurisdiction" with the ICTY.

  Now the interesting thing is what happens if the ICTY does not prosecute the US citizens though it should. Now we can apply the "concurrent jurisdiction" the other way around. If the ICTY has jurisdiction over the US citizens, then the national courts do too - not just the US courts themselves, but all the national courts. This is where the national courts' concurrent jurisdiction with ICTY turns really interesting. This takes the American 1789 Statute to a new level. This means that US war criminals could be convicted in, say, Finnish courts.

  In one sense, this argument is apropos, because the US courts are doing nothing to prosecute US war criminals. On the other hand, all of this is of course idle talking as long as we have no means to take the American citizens to any court outside the US. But let us see how it would work. Professor Misunderstood (by choice), Martti Koskenniemi, argued that the international troops have the right to break to the Serbian territory to make an arrest of such notorious criminals as Karadzic and Mladic, even if that contradicts international law (strictly speaking the authorities should inform the Security Council). Now, if we agree that the US citizens can be such notorious criminals, then external powers could break to the American territory to arrest such individuals. This is what the Eichmann arrest in Argentina by the Mossad was actually about: breaking to a foreign territory and "transferring" the accused to another country.

  No court has arrest warrants for Clinton, for instance. But it doesn't matter (much). We have seen that the ICTY itself can expand the indictments after the indictee is in The Hague. It would be a logical step to dispose with the indictment altogether. Possibly this could even make citizens' arrests possible.

  This is the criminal side of things. The civil liability is more established. We have basically two options. Either we ask our own State to sue the other State which did the damage to us. This can be done in the ICJ, though that is not the only possibility. Or we go to the courts in that other country and demand our rights as any citizen of that country would do. This latter option has been called the Calvo doctrine. A combination of the two options is also possible. That is called the exhaustion of local remedies. First we go to the domestic courts, and if nothing happens we turn to our own country and ask it to grant us diplomatic protection, i.e. to take care of our lawsuit in its own name.

  It is important to keep the criminal and the civil aspects apart. A lot of "development" is taking place in the criminal field, but one should not lose sight of the crucial distinction.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 3:17 pm
  Jari again, this is interesting stuff. Does this mean that if the ICTY does not prosecute the NATO leaders citizens of the USA then the USA president, commander in chief in this case, is responsible for prosecution of the crimes committed by the USA citizens in Yugoslavia. Is then the president of the USA responsible in the same way as Mr. Milosevic for not initiating prosecution of Mr. Bill Clinton, General Wesley Clark and others? Has the USA voting for the establishment of the ICTY opened a can of jurisdictional worms in the USA and all over the world? Have they got something that they never dreamt of? It looks that even if the ICTY is closed the responsibility of the local courts stays on as long as all the cases from the latest Yugoslav ware are not resolved. Is your last post taking in an account the following statement of the British ambassador to Belgrade Charles Kroford: "Yugoslav government should handle the ICTY like a heavy weight judo opponent. You should use its wait against it."?
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 4:04 pm
  

  Jari, you said the following:

  "Let me come back to the jurisdictional matters. What are the "national courts" that the ICTY Statute speaks about? Are they just Serbian courts? This is really a complicated matter, because it is still unclear to me what it means to be a "member state" of the ICTY. "

  My suggestion for the resolution of this dilemma is as follows: The ICTY is responsible for all the crimes committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, regardless from which country the alleged criminals are? As a consequence all the countries whose citizens took an active role in the war are responsible to look into alleged crimes committed by their own citizens. As a consequence the local courts of these countries are responsible for this crimes as well. The list is not definite and limited since investigation can yelled new criminals in the future. When it comes to arrests it seams that all the member countries of the UN are responsible to arrest alleged criminals on their territory regardless of their citizenship. When it comes to sovereignty it looks as "we" have decided that when it comes to humanitarian matters sovereignty does not count, so we are back to the Wild West of headhunters and local sheriffs. Americans understand and approve this method the best since they practiced it to the perfection and they are still practicing it.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 4:16 pm
  
  Does nobody else here but Walter and me see the repeating pattern: manufactured reason for aggression followed by colonisation?

  “Before attacking Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999, the Empire bothered to create a pretext. First its diplomatic observers - actually intelligence agents - helped a terrorist group stage a "massacre," then its top diplomat proposed a "peace plan" that was in fact a naked land grab in the language of unconditional surrender. When the Belgrade government understandably refused, U.S. and its satellites unleashed Hell. But because it lacked any justification for the attack, the Imperial Alliance made wild allegations of "genocide" and "humanitarian disaster." The ongoing farce in the Hague Inquisition is an embarrassing reminder of the lengths to which they have gone to transform these lies into Official Truth.

  Now the same pattern is used on the eve of war against Iraq, only some portions are no longer necessary. The pretext, for example, which was to be fabricated by the weapons inspectors, has failed to materialize. Wild allegations are flying again, though, and there has even been a threat of charging Iraqis with "war crimes," such as resisting Imperial invasion.” Nebojsa Malic

  Source: http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html

  Hitler did this sort of thing in Czechoslovakia, Poland … but there is no evidence that Milosevic ever did so.

  On “irrational babbling”: You said it JP. Western Leaders have been portraying Milosevic as Hitler re-incarnate and worse at least since 1998. As for “the leader of the free world” tell that to the quarter of a million Kosovo Serbs dispossessed of their centuries old homeland for four years - and how much longer - by KLA style terrorists backed principally by US forces.

  If I were a Serb I too might react angrily to this incessant “irrational babbling” and with greater justification than the irrational babblers of the West.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

  Thursday January 30, 2003 at 4:18 pm
  

  
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 4:37 pm
  

  I get goose bumps when I read political annalists like Mr. Michael Ignatieff. How anybody can take him seriously when he can conclude his paper on proxy warriors wit the following statement:

  "That will be the test of this war: whether a warrior culture can be turned into a political one, and whether proxies can gradually become principal agents in their own right, rebuilding a country they once devastated."

  According to this "humanitarian" one can do excellent thing if he first devastates a country and then rebuilds it. What a waste of humans, time and property? The famous title to Hell and Back in the case of Yugoslavia can be rephrased than as: To Stone Age and Back cutesy of the NATO it's proxies and Mr. Ignatieff.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 5:02 pm
  

  Elementary capitalismPera, elementary. The product of the working people, the majority of the people of this planet has to be destroyed and build again, destroy and build: the surplus is the gain. The US government returns to the age of deficits ( plus quite an accumulated debt this time) and embarks in what it is predicted to be a war of vast destruction only to rebuilt again. Ignatieff's analysis is correct up to this point, there is no correction or transformation but just gain and destruction. The "heroes" are forgotten in the galleries of sacrificial victims or villains.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 5:50 pm
  Gogol, I agree with you. The analyses provided by Mr. Ignatieff is O.K. provided that one does not know that he was promoting usage of proxy warriors in the interests of the USA in the Former Yugoslavia. It looks to me that he is trying to paddle back now when ugly things are coming out and I certainly disapprove of his proposal how to test the character of a war and justification of usage of proxies. It actually depends how one read his article. If one reads it as impartial analyses it is O.K. I read it more as an excuse why and under what condition one can justify usage of the proxies in the realism of the New World Order
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 5:50 pm
  Andy Wilcoxson you ask about Rade Markovic. This story is something I heard directly from somebody in the know and is not available in the media at home or abroad. The supposed attack on Vuk Draskovic wasnt an attack on him at all. Draskovic was in collaboration with Milosevic for some time. Fact is that Draskovic posed as opposition for Milosevic. The attack was an attack on Danica Draskovic's brother and it succeeded. He was a 'busninessman' whos ideas got too big for his station. The assasination was organised by the accused but they were innocent of attempting to kill Draskovic. Draskovic knows this but thinks that its good publicity to make himself look like victim of state. The evidence to suggest that Milosevic ordered this is very slim at best. It is much more likely that Lukovic Legija (former head of Red Berets who last year ordered his former unit onto the street to intimidate governing authorities) and elements of DB state security were involved. Revelations of unsolved crimes are being reported daily in Yugoslavia with mafia men fighting each other through the media and the courts and police being ineffective. The sentence is a sham whichever way ju look at it - either they were guilty in which case a life sentence was in order or they should have been set free. More revelations about role of the accused and Legija have been coming out concerning the abduction and murder of Ivan Stambolic. From what I read and hear am convinced they were involved but it might be difficult again to connect Milosevic to the abduction in a court. It may be that they liquidated him because that was what they thought Milosevic wanted without Milosevic ever giving order.

  Those against tribunal should bear in mind that Markovic's testimony is not the trump some claim it to be. Markovic is very shady character and was always Milosevic loyal servant. He was also nasty piece of work who put profit above moral. What is harder to understand is complete stupidity of prosecution to call Markovic as witness. That may be a trump of kind for defense but Markovic has as much credibility as one those Albanian witness at the begining of trial.
  
  E Obradovic
  Beograd
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 5:59 pm
  Walter T, Peter T. You have laid out reasonable chronology but what I'm taking exception to is the 'babbling'.

  To equate W to Hitler, or the US to fascist WW2 Germany, is ridiculous. We don't condone gassing, firing squads, starvation, or lynchings.

  The Balkan players were NATO's Schroeder,Clinton, and Blair versus Milosevic. NATO wanted a 'mission', the EU wanted the Balkans, and Milosevic wanted 'sovereignty'. Many here believe a primarily culprit was Clinton, the 'worse' president we ever had. Unfortunate for all that he ever got elected, his poison still lingers .

  Iraq is a different problem, as is Afghanistan, and 60 other 'network accomodating' nations that must 'rid' themselves of Islamists bent on destroying 'civilization' worldwide as we know it. If they don't, then we must. Fortunately, this time we have a man of caliber in the driver seat.
  
  J P
  US, Wis

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 7:25 pm
  

  J.P I do not agree that Afghanistan compared to Bosnia and Kosovo is a different problem. In all these cases islamists that are now suddenly recognized as enemies after 9/11 were dear allies of the USA and trained and protected and given arms and NATO aerial support as a help. As such they are only the problem of the USA. You made them a formidable force. Deal with them alone in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, not Iraq. They were used as proxy warriors to bring communism down. Typical blow back. Do not cry wolf, you should have known better.

  Iraq is a different problem they are not islamists, but again the elementary know how in the weapons of mass distraction to them was provided by the permanent members of the security council for money and oil, of course, the biggest and most important arm traders in the world. As soon as the USA lead coalition gets into Iraq we will have a lots of new islamists there, i.e. much worser problem than we have now. As I am concerned go in on your own just don't drag other innocents into it. You may create there as many islamists as you wish but please do not export them to other countries. Please, import them to the USA. Your new clever president, if you listened carefully, plans to go against Iran very soon. They are islamists. By intervention in Iraq you are creating islamists that will attack you from the back and inside out once you turn against Iran. I would not like to be King George the Second when this happens.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 8:03 pm
  

  Le Nouvel Observateur intrview on January 15, 1998:

  Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

  Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

  Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

  B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

  Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

  B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

  Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

  B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

  Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

  B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries. From the mouth of the horse.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 8:11 pm
  J P US, Wis ! - Are You talking about the author of these GEMS!?- http://slate.msn.com/?id=76886 - Read them !- Aply your brain if available .... and You might resize HIS caliber......
  
  vytas abrutis
  phila
  PA usa

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 9:29 pm
  I really tried, but it was quite impossible to follow the testimony of another protected witness C-013: every 5-10-30 minutes there was a private session imposed. Although I'm familiar with the region about which this witness was to testify (Vukovar and Eastern Slavonia) and I have a special interest in it, I was unable to connect the events and establish any coherence from those meagre scraps of public testimony, so I gave up. I believe Jari is right: private sessions are meant only to confuse, to hide and to falsely blow up the importance of the witness, and not to protect his identity. Let me quote a bit from today's FreeSerbia report: "The witness, who was a secretary of interior affairs in SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem…" How many such secretaries were there, for goodness sake?! Isn't that revealing the protected witness' identity? And, by the way, when I read this report I couldn't recall all that from those bits in the open session that I saw. Does FreeSerbia have access to closed sessions, perhaps?

  Andy, it's fine with me if you reprint my last two posts as you have prepared them. Thanks. And since you are interested in the RTS bombing being a TV man yourself, I'm really sorry that you are unable to see the most exciting and gruesome footage that I have ever seen: our local TV Studio B sent a small camera unit that night immediately after the RTS building was hit, even before any ambulance car arrived, and they almost sneaked inside the building and broadcasted live the smouldering wreckage, with a man hanging between floors caught by his legs, all bloody, still moving, but dying on camera… This piece of video was never shown again. I believe that camera unit went there by themselves, without anybody ordering them, just following their professional nose, this being the local TV always running around the city for news, and this being notoriously an anti-Milosevic outlet, they were most probably reprimanded and the video destroyed. But that very night it was the horror I'll never forget and 20 minutes of real TV. All other subsequently broadcasted footage of the demolished RTS building was a bland total frame, almost always from the same angle, and it was reported as a little more than just another NATO hit. So much about Carla's accusations about Milosevic using the RTS bombing for propaganda purposes.

  Walter, you have acquired one distinguished new co-citizen: the lawyer Zoran Vujacic (a counsel to Zoran Lilic and Milan Milutinovic), speaking to our press about the possibility of Biljana Plavsic to serve her sentence in Sweden and get actually released because 72 (her procedure was halted until she turned the required age), also mentioned that Milan Babic has emigrated to Canada, cutting a deal not to be prosecuted himself. Pays well to co-operate with the ICTY. Sorry for diminished percentage of honest people in Canada now.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 10:00 pm
  phila

  In extemporaneous exchanges, gaffes occur all the time, many invented by the opposition, and promoted by 'liberal' kooky Slate.

  thanks for the link, now I won't have to buy a senseless book

  KURTZ: "At one level, the press protects him (McCain)," says Jacob Weisberg, political writer for Slate magazine. "He delivers these stupid lines all the time. The typical response from journalists is either not to report it or to congratulate him for being so blunt instead of treating it as a gaffe...If Bush had talked about 'gooks,' everyone would say how callow he is and say he's not up to running U.S. foreign policy." [Kurtz's deletion]

  I'll judge his 'caliber' by what he says he'll do and what he does. His SOTU speech is a good place for you to 'exercise' your brain, rather than 'trivia'..
  
  J P
  USA Wis

• Thursday January 30, 2003 at 11:43 pm
  Andy Wicoxen the people who should know what was happening around Dubrovnik are those who participated in the event. Of curse without evidence like much of Milosevic trial this is just hearsay. The people I have spoken with were not officers in the JNA but enlisted men and I would think their observations are more valid, since they were on the front line. Yes Andy, the Croats shot at the JNA from the Old Town walls waiting for the JNA to respond. The soldiers facing fire from the walls were told not to respond. As Vera wrote the Croats burned tires and dumped garbage in the sea so that it would play well on the Western TV screens since Dubrovnik was well known in the West.

  To make it clear, I also spoke with Canadian enlisted man who served two terms in the Medak pocket and with officers of the Air Force and Army who participated in Bosnia. The rank of these officers was colonel, major and lieutenant and they had no reason to lie since two were my friends from the high school graduating class and the third one was a son in law of a colleague.

  Peter T. I think most realist see the “repeating pattern: manufactured reason for aggression followed by colonization.” The high dependence on oil from the Middle East makes America vulnerable to any interruption in this supply and any sharp rise in price of oil products. As a result America has become preoccupied with access to oil. Imagine a drop in oil supplies to America by 50% for a short period of time (lets say for three month) this would be more devastating than the Vietnam War. American obsession with Iraq is oil Lebensraum.

  So JP, I am babbling when I say that “the leader of the free world is irrational”. No JP or whatever your name is, he is a firkin idiot and anyone who believes his State of the Union message is a bigger idiot. Your leader of the free world (the term free world euphemism no longer applies as the Soviet Union is Gone) was elected by 26% of the American people. To you this is democracy; to me this is dictatorship by the minority. What evidence did your leader of the free world provide that Iraq is more of a threat to world peace than the ass licking Pakistanis, Turks, Saudis, Yemenis, or even the Australians who like a flock of sheep are joining so that their wimp conservative leader will look primeministerial?

  JP you write that “We don't condone gassing, firing squads, starvation, or lynching”. Oh boy! Tell this to the Vietnamese whose forests were defoliated by herbicides and Agent Orange. Tell the Chilean Argentinian and the Columbian people that you don’t condone firing squads. No you are right you just send in advisors and pay surrogates to do your dirty work. Remember the nuns in El Salvador. As to starvation I am sure that thousands of Iraqi children who have starved because of American sanctions would have something to say to you if they could. As to lynching we can go for ever here but not to bore those on this forum it suffices to say that we are debating the lynching of Milosevic and your Fuehrer has his hand on the trap door. This case would be dropped ab initio in any American court of law because it violates due process and the rule of law, and you say I am babbling. You my friend are used to babbling by your government and as a result you are unable to see the truth from self interest.

  Vera, well Babic will be a Canadian. You know Vera someone said once that there are no more donkeys left in Yugoslavia since they have all immigrated to Canada. That is good because it will take him about a year to realize that we are a democracy in name only. I might add a democracy that needs to be nurtured because it does accept change and eventually sees the light and implements reforms.

  JP, Gogol’s answer is here “Of course the people don't want war.... that is understood. but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or parliament , or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" JP Gogol’s answer is very clear to me but you know the saying “Some can see a sliver in another person’s eye but they can’t see a log in their own”.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 4:18 am
  Pera, I think you are right. Whenever a national court doesn't prosecute a Western war criminal, it would seem his "superior", ultimately the Commander-in-Chief, to use the Milosevic analogy (except Milosevic was not Commander-in-Chief) should be prosecuted as well. But maybe this responsibility doesn't devolve on the President who was elected after the conflict, which would accord better with the way the crimes are defined in the ICTY Statute (e.g. "in armed conflict").

  I don't understand Crawford's judo comparison. Maybe he means aikido.

  I said that the civil liability and criminal responsibility should be kept apart. Only, the Americans don't keep them apart, the Statute of 1789 being a case in point. Why did they have to invoke a law about two hundred years old to get at the Swiss banks? The law had probably fallen into desuetude. If you keep rummaging old laws, you might notice that Lousiana wasn't legally transferred to the US, because there was something wrong with the documents (this has been claimed), so the former French part of the US still belongs to France. Caution!

  Trusting that Gogol's information is correct - that the 1789 Statute was directed at the Arab states on the south coast of the Mediterranean - we see that the Statute should be allowed to rest in peace. Algeria and the other so-called Barbaresque States were regarded as half-sovereign states by the legal scholar F.F. v. Martens. That means that the statute cannot be invoked against a sovereign state like Switzerland. That, in turn, means that the Statute is out of date in the UN era, where the principle of sovereign equality is still embraced.

  And this, in turn, means that if you make an exception for the US to use that kind of statute, the principle of sovereign equality implies that all sovereign states can start applying it or some similar statute. It is not an American domestic affair any more.

  So why was the 1789 resuscitated? It would have been a fiasco if the "spirit of Nuremberg" hadn't prevailed in the US at the time. The Nuremberg trials established the criminal responsibility of the individuals. The 1789 was artificially applied to attach a civil liability dimension to the criminal responsibility.

  So you see, criminal responsibility and civil liability keep twirling around each other even in international affairs these days, even if they shouldn't. That means that the case is not so clear-cut as I sketched. There are other possibilities available than the Calvo doctrine, exhaustion of local remedies and diplomatic protection.

  Gogol also mentioned that 100 American professors have warned Bush that the Americans can be prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq even if the US has not ratified the ICC Statute (and has actually unsigned it, which means it is not tied to its object and purpose). Sure, there are places on earth where the bilateral immunity agreements, which the US is now busy concluding, don't apply, like the high seas. But the professors mentioned "universal jurisdiction". I am not sure what they mean. Would that apply also in case of war crimes committed in Yugoslavia in 1999?

  Bush is not likely to heed such warnings. He will pursue the prosecution of Saddam with even more gusto. As much as I agree with the general thought of JP, I think it is wrong to design a tribunal to prosecute someone for crimes which he has not even committed yet. And let us not forget that the ICC Statute makes even the war of aggression punishable, unlike the ICTY Statute, so in the eyes of the signatories of the Statute, the US has committed war crimes by attacking Iraq. As much as I see the point in doing so, I wouldn't call the attack an act of defense (not even a pre-emptive strike). On the other hand, I believe that the Americans know that Saddam has WMDs, if only for the reason that they delivered them to Saddam. So the Americans can immediately judge the reliability of the UN lists by checking which of the weapons that they delivered are missing on the lists.

  Vera, if I have read Gogol's comments correctly, the closed sessions were never even pretending to protect the witnesses. I think they were explicitly ordered "in the interests of justice". If they had been meant to protect the identities of the witnesses, the tribunal should have ruled it expessly. You know, the tribunal has the choice from three options to motivate the closed sessions. Rule 79 provides that the closed sessions can be ordered "for reasons of (i) public order or morality; (ii) safety, security or non-disclosure of the identity of a victim or witness as provided in Rule 75; or (iii) the protection of the interests of justice."

  So as soon as the judges appeal to the interests of justice, they exclude the protection of the identity. That implies that May was talking bull when he warned the press not to disclose the identities of the witnesses. The closed sessions were not ordered to protect their identities. What the "interests of justice" actually means is pretty clear: to protect the obscure provenance of the tapes, to exaggerate the importance of the witness (as you said) and in general just to act as a red herring.

  An example of a red herring. We are supposed not to notice that Babic actually moved to Canada. Confessions are deemed to be made voluntarily in the tribunal, except when they are not regarded as confessions, as Babic's self-incrimination during his testimony was not. That shows how rewarding it is for the prosecution to make the tribunal invoke the "interests of justice".

  I was complaining about the national judges not wetting their pants. Well, the Canadian judge was a notable exception in declaring a mistrial. But how far will that take us? If such decisions are appealed, they can ultimately be taken to the Supreme Court, where you have none other than ... Louise Arbour.

  But in any case, this might give us some hint that the national courts are more reliable than these flashy international courts. This shows that our (or actually "my") overarching thought has been wrong-headed. We have been complaining about the lack of an independent appellate body. We have been complaining about the primitive judicial system in the UN. Let us turn around. When the international judicial system is not working, let us take the cases back to the national level. The "concurrent jurisdiction" gives a go-ahead. This concurrent jurisdiction is based on the ICTY Statute, and since the war of aggression is not mentioned in the ICTY Statute, aggression is the only crime this approach will have to miss (unless it is criminalized in the respective national law).

  And it is imperative to keep things apart even in criminal cases. A lot has been made of the cluster bomb attacks. Where things have gone wrong is attaching too much importance to the question if cluster bombs are forbidden in themselves. That is not so clear-cut as one might think. To my knowledge, the treaty forbidding them has not even been passed the drafting stage. But it is the way that these weapons were used that counts. And that is why they were mentioned in the Martic indictment too: "When the Orkan is fitted with a 'cluster bomb', such as used against Zagreb, it is an anti-personnel weapon designed only to kill people" (§ 7). You can even use something legal to an illegal end, like exploding fireworks indoors.

  Talk about the Martic indictment. This is the indictment that Carla and Co. have amended in December. See the difference. The original indictment is almost a pleasure to read (!): it is concise, it states explicitly what the alleged crime was. Well, that was the work of Richard Goldstone. Then see what Carla has made of it. The cluster bombs are still mentioned in passing (twice), but you get the impression that Martic's biggest crime was that he ever existed. And we know that this change in perspective was necessary to keep quiet about the unpleasant fact that Nato used cluster bombs too. The RAF has admitted most of the bombs it used were cluster bombs.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 10:02 am
  

  Because the 1789 law Congress passed legislation attempting to curtail it from being use broadly and perhaps dangerously. One of this laws has to do with torture allowing, again for foreign plaintiffs to use American courts to hear cases of torture having taken place in foreign lands. Foreign plaintiffs and foreign territories outside the jurisdiction of the US. But, in this case when a number of San Salvadorans plaintiffs charged their generals for the crime of torture, the US court found not crime on the generals!

  The Swiss banks case was settled out of court or rather with the assistance of the court when the Swiss simply asked if they plaintiffs were genuinely interested in going on a case by case basis to settle the unclaimed bank secret accounts or if they just wanted a whole sum to be dispersed by the plaintiffs under court supervision. The latter is what they wanted and the whole thing settled for $b1.25. Years later the victims and claimants of the funds are suing for not having received the money disputed under their names, but that is another story. Initially the plaintiffs wanted to re-posses the Nazi gold deposited in Switzerland, gold claimed to belong to victims of Nazism. This claim was very ambitious attempting to recover gold used by the Reich Bank to make purchases in Portugal and Spain or thru Switzerland at the Bank of International Settlements where American had a seat at the board of directors during the length of the war, to other belligerent countries(!). This lead no where and the gold issue vanished from the news. The bank accounts claims took strength when a number of state legislations notably in California and New York divested from Swiss banks and threaten with sanctioning Swiss firms and businesses. This of course was vital pressure outside of court for the plaintiffs and certainly unrelated to the "torts" referred by the 1789 Act.

  1789 was an interested year marked by the French Revolution in which Thomas Jefferson then the American ambassador had taken a great personal interest. First he wanted the French Revolution to remain of a limited character, like the American Revolution when years earlier, where the class balance or unbalance was maintained, he did not want one class overthrowing another as initially and beyond his control, happened in the French case. Jefferson blamed Marie-Antoinette, that Austrian bitch, when she said in regard to the reported people's hunger "let them eat cake", in fact she said merde,for the intrasingency of the King. Jefferson and many of his peers were concerned by what the French revolutionaries would do with their now equal in rights slaves in their overseas plantations, and what repercussions in the rest of the wold would that have. In fact, in Haiti the black Jacobin, Toutssaint L"Ouverture had already taken the fate of the revolution in his hands and revolted against the planters, sending fears to all the slave owners, including Jefferson in North America. It is in this context that the 1789 Act was passed in Washington. The Pirates of the Berber was a great background, like the weapons of mass destruction is today a suitable cover for the thirst for oil. By then Jefferson was in Washington waiting for the opportunity to return to Paris and continue his advisory role to the French.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 10:35 am
  Jari

  A few points I recall about the RTS bombing that might be interesting/reminder.

  The SFRY was an original signatory and shareholder(?)to the EUTELSAT program, i.e. pan european satellite broadcasting network. The RTS feed from Belgrade was illegally cut off from the network (in direct contravention of the EUTELSAT Charter) because of direct pressure from NATO states.

  Jamie Shea, former spokesman of NATO publically stated on several occaisons up to the bombing of RTS that is was not a military target and had no value as such.

  When NATO changed their minds about RTS not being a target, why did they not return to bomb the target after RTS trasmissions resumed six hours after the strike? This is entirely illogical and leads simply to the fact that in all defiance of international law, RTS was bombed because it was a threat to NATO information dominance (i.e. propaganda). This in my opinion, goes to the central reason why the NATO bombing campaign was a war crime.

  In addition to this, one US general(can't remember which), stated publically that the (to paraphrasing here) 'Serbs without electricty for light and heating would ask why this was happening and put pressure on the government to stop the war' - a direct admission of civillians being targetted.

  Also I recall that we were told NATO would be going after the Yugo army in Kosovo as aliviation of the 'plight of the Kosovo Albanians' was a NATO's top priority, yet the vast majority of attacks were against state infrastructure throughout the country! So, on a strategic level, the targetting of civilians was clearly the NATO plan and contradicted the propaganda message. This is supposed to be illegal under the Geneva Convention, but the fact that the weapons were not directly targetted upon civilians seems to be some kind of loophole. Does anyone know the exact legal text from the Geneva conventions regarding targetting of civilians?

  It is important to remember that it was never claimed that the RTS transmission network was used by the Yugo military to send orders to units in Kosovo. Ironically, after the Chinese embassy was bombed (deliberately), information was 'leaked' that it was bombed exactly because it was re-broadcasting military signals at the request of the Yugo government.
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium! ;)

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 10:42 am
  J,

  Re the Martic/cluster bomb thing. I think that the argument is not that cluster bombs were used, but that they were not targetted at a specific military target. Remember NATO many times repeated that they went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties and those that did happen were due to weapons failure etc. Martic only climed to have fired on Zagreb to draw the World's attention to Operation Storm and was never claimed to have been at a military target.

  The difficult part for the British government is that they were making all the noises about getting rid of cluster bombs and that they were used in a built up area where any use would in all certainty lead to civilian casualties, therefore contradicted everything that NATO was saying about doing their best to avoid civilian casualties. Ironically, the bloody things are still blowing up Albanians in Kosovo...
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium! ;)

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 10:44 am
  Alexei "Does anyone know the exact legal text from the Geneva conventions regarding targetting of civilians?" go to: http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#C and you will find
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 12:26 pm
  Walter refers to the Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare, The Hague, February 1923, which it says were never adopted.

  The most used legal base is Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, in particular Chapter VI (Precautionary Measures). There you will find thing like this:

  "Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects." (Art. 57(2)(a)(ii)).

  The problem with this legal base is that the US hasn't ratified the Additional Protocol. Anyway, this would go a long way to forbidding the use of cluster bombs, without any particular prohibition.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 12:46 pm
  Even if we can't prosecute Bush for not punishing Americans for war crimes, Clinton is nailed pretty swiftly. As the supreme commander, he bears the guilt personally, if no Americans have been convicted, because he has the ultimate command responsibility.

  And how are things going on this side of the Atlantic? E. Obradovic cautioned us not to put all the eggs in one basket, that of Rade Markovic. Actually, not very much depends on Markovic. The central points of his testimony are more interesting, and now I would like to ask for some assistance from the public. Have there been war crimes prosecutions in Serbia? That is the crucial question, and very little has been produced to substantiate it. The rest of Markovic's claims we can assume to be true. The fact that he is Slobo's chum would make it even likely that he, too, was tortured. And Slobo's instructions to JNA not to harm Albanian civilians is not too far-fetched. Actually, those who are serious enough about the business have claimed that the anti-terrorist squad of the special police units violated human rights and that these units were under Milosevic's command (which doesn't mean he should be held accountable for everything they did).

  Making deals out of court with the Swiss banks sounds plausible. That might work, even if using the 1789 statute for this purpose seems almost moronic. However, that construction has now become international customary law. If there were now somewhere a conviction of the Nato war crimes, maybe the torts could be introduced later. In this country, there is a fable which says that the Nato aggression did lead to some convictions for war crimes, at least in Canada, but to my knowledge, this great fanfare amounted to shelving the few cases there were pending.

  Let's see what we have. Maybe some case could be concocted from these ingredients. I think some court in Germany (?) concluded that the bombing was illegal. In Austria one case against some Serb was also declared a mistrial.

  Sometimes you can see in advance when a mistrial is going to take place. I think the case against the RTS boss is one.

  Dr Tepavac visited this discussion some time ago, and he quoted the Congo judgment by the ICJ as saying that heads of state enjoy immunity - the ICTY being the exception. One would have to check what the wording really was: ICTY or the ICTY Statute. The ICTY Statute provides for "concurrent jurisdiction" with the national courts, so even the national courts could prosecute people responsible for war crimes in Yugoslavia, no matter what their nationality. Actually, it doesn't matter whether the ICJ said "ICTY" or "ICTY Statute", because they are the same thing, and the matter was obiter dictum anyway.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 2:48 pm
  I think JP, US Wis has been spanked enough, but I can not let it pass without mentioning that the US was ready to reconize a coup in Venezuala, and Ms. C.Rice on national TV stated. "Just because he got the most votes doesn't make him ligitimate." Your hero did not get the most votes but acts like a king.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 3:36 pm
  Thanks for the information guys.

  If there's one single fact that pins the United States to the single largest case of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans since WWII, it would be that of US Navy A6E's attacking the Krajina Serbs radar sites shortly in advance of the launching of Operation Storm. If the pilots can be got hold of and forced to testify... I forgot, that's exactly why the US won't ratify the ICC, war crimes against less civilised foreigners are allowed...
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium! ;)

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 4:17 pm
  

  I have the impression the Balkans will be mild compared with what is in reserve to the dark skin, black eyes, long sheelabah waring people of the Fertile Crescent lead by the latest version of evil.

  The second witness of the day, a UNO official was interesting. This eloquent character took pride in having help to escape their translator while deployed in Bosnia implementing the Vance-Owen Plan. The interpreter had been charged by the Yugoslav police for a variety of serious crimes. It seems the interpreter was more interested in serving the Western propaganda than just being an interpreter. Even Judge Robinson (COLONIAL) was a little puzzled about what exactly the UN official did to drive the interpreter across the border outside the jurisdiction of Yugoslavia, "was she still under detention?" he asked "no, you honor we had obtain her provisional release". The UN official had used his position to have her released under provisional release juts to become accomplice, in fact the main perpetrator to make the interpreter a fugitive of justice!

  Imagine the UN inspectors in Iraq!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 5:13 pm
  

  Bush approves nuclear response

  Click on the text.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

  Friday January 31, 2003 at 5:13 pm
  

  
  
  G C
  US

  Friday January 31, 2003 at 6:37 pm
  
  Don’t forget Me-too Tony and his defence secretary Hoon:

  Referring to "states of concern", and Saddam Hussein in particular, Mr Hoon told the committee: "They can be absolutely confident that in the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons." The Guardian 9 January 2003.

  Source
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

  Friday January 31, 2003 at 6:39 pm
  
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

  Friday January 31, 2003 at 6:53 pm
  Pertti

  A while back, Algeria called off an 'election' as it was certain that 'muslin fanatics' would win. So, in the same vein , Condi may have a good point.

  W may have gotten only 26% but its more than anyone else, so its what we have, and I consider us lucky considering how it could have ended up.

  When you sit in the 'big' chair you should put on the mantle and lead. The word 'king' doesn't fit, we threw out all 'nobility titles' hundreds of years ago, and no one is more aware of that than W.

  The world moves in complex ways, in the negative and positive, and if you can anticipate and move forward 50+% of the time you win.

  What irked me is all the 'bloated negative' remarks with no mention of the 'positive' accomplishments.

  Hopefully we are on a positive tread, if not, why not? What is the biggest threat today? Some say it's W. I'll say it again that's perposterous.
  
  J P
  USA,Wis

  Friday January 31, 2003 at 6:54 pm
  
  
  HTML Correction
  Hopefully

  Friday January 31, 2003 at 7:03 pm
  
  
  You Need To switch off the HTML code
  Gogol

  Friday January 31, 2003 at 7:40 pm
  

  
  
  Quad Erat Faciendum
  Corrected

• Friday January 31, 2003 at 9:17 pm
  J P frp, USA,Wis wrote:
  “W may have gotten only 26% but its more than anyone else, so its what we have, and I consider us lucky considering how it could have ended up…
  What irked me is all the 'bloated negative' remarks with no mention of the 'positive' accomplishments.
  Hopefully we are on a positive tread, if not, why not? What is the biggest threat today? Some say it's W. I'll say it again that's preposterous.”
  To try to answer your question I would say that the biggest threat is the use of the following terms preposterously:
  Democracy = DEMOS (folk) + KRATIA (rule over)
  AGORA = place where democracy was exercised = "’public sphere’ in which each citizen could debate any issue affecting the city, and be evaluated by his peers on the merits of this argument"
  In Democracy “DEMOS” meant majority of population
  In Democracy “DEMOS” ceded ”KRATIA” to “DEMOS” representatives
  In Democracy “KRATIA” meant “DEMOS” ability to control “DEMOS” representatives (minority) in power
  Plutocracy: = PLOUTOS (wealth) + KRATIA (advocate of a form of government)
  There is another shape of “KRATIA” - rather than posting it here I’ll post a link
  oligarchy
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada