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

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 4:47 am
  
  Hashim Thaci

  KLA leader, who boasted of murdering Serbian policemen, arrested by Hungarian police but del Ponte and the ICTY still not interested.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 5:19 am
  Godfrey, I'm simply pointing out the facts.. It was not my intent to imply that I endorsed all of the conclusions of the court.

  Regarding the issue however of campaigns of terror, human rights violations, etc. isn't that only to be expected in any conflict. Iraqii's are now starting to terrorise the Americans and British, and the Americans and British are responding in kind. Amnesty International complained today that American treatment of Iraqis violates international law, and there is strong evidence that crimes against humanity were committed with the covert knowledge and approval of US forces in Afghanistan.

  We were told there were no friendly forces," said Guckenheimer, an assistant gunner with the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. "If there was anybody there, they were the enemy. We were told specifically that if there were women and children to kill them.

  When considering war it is largely a given that bad things happen. This is precisely why initiating a war of aggression constitutes the supreme war crime. The only question is what shade of grey does one choose to call black, and what shade white.

  The primary goal of terrorism is to force the state to become repressive, and to over-react. If a state becomes oppressive, repressive, or just plain brutal, precisely as a terrorist organisation intends, it seems close to double jeapardy to both condemn the state for responding precisely as terrorists planned and intended, while simultaneously siding with terrorists against the state, because of the all to predictable state response.

  I think that the US responded precisely as terrorists expected following 9-11. It is easy for me to draw up a long litany of wrongs committed by the US following that attack. But am I to use this litany of wrongs, to justify aligning myself with those who committed the original attacks. Personally, I think that would be absurd. Yet, in Kosovo, the clear evidence is that the KLA provoked the conflict there by repeated deliberate terrorist attacks on Serb security forces and police, precisely to create the resulting conflict.

  In the days immediately prior to Racak, 8 Serbian soldiers were kidnapped by the KLA -- would you call that action a campaign of terror. Serb forces became involved in Racak because of a belief that individuals who had earlier murdered a policeman were to be found there. Is murdering policemen consistent with a campaign of terror. Reports suggest that the villagers at Racak were press ganged into fighting for the KLA.. how was this achieved except through a campaign of terror? Racak was one of several villages in which Serb forces engaged the KLA on the date of the alleged massacre. There clearly were two sides involved in this civil war. It is not even clear that the Serbs were winning the battles. Racak remained under KLA control, when the battle in Racak was over.

  Rugova's deputy was assassinated by the KLA.. was that an act of terror. The KLA put a price on Rugova's head, and sentenced him to death during the war in Kosovo. Could one describe this as an act of terror. Rugova clearly lied about this during his appearance in the Hague, claiming that he never had any fear of the KLA, despite them having assasinated his deputy, and later sentencing him to death. Do you think he lied because he was afraid to tell the truth. Witness after witness had not one bad thing to say about the KLA.. one could actually see that some remained terrified of the consequences of speaking candidly about both Serb forces and the KLA. Were they influenced by an ongoing campaign of terror being conducted not by the Serbs, but by the KLA.

  Did the Serb forces commit acts of terror -- well British forces in Iraq did, and they have the photographs to prove it. Canadian forces in Somalia committed acts of terror too. I would be very suprised if there were to be found no similar bad apples among Serb forces.. and quite astonished if the same held true for paramilitary forces under no command but their own. But that is not the issue.. the issue is whether crimes committed against the civilian population were something that just happened because individuals decided to commit them, or were something that was orchestrated as part of a deliberate campaign approved and conducted under the orders of the Serbian administration.

  The Kosovo section of the trial which I followed fairly closely presented no clear evidence to convince me that any of the crimes committed in Kosovo could be blamed on the state. To the contrary I was left with the impression that the state neither encouraged or condoned these crimes, and indeed prosecuted them to the extent that it was able to.

  Personally I am of the opinion that both the KLA and Serb forces encouraged people to leave Kosovo at the barrel of a gun. The KLA wanted to create a flood of Albanian victims for the media, and the Serbs wanted to eliminate civilians who might get hurt in crossfire or assist the KLA in areas where there was active conflict with the KLA. I have a hard time accepting that forcing someone to leave a war zone, and become the charge of the enemy or extended family for the duration of a war, constitutes a crime against humanity. Dropping bombs on people seems far less humane than forcefully making them leave what has in effect become a lethal firing range. It also must be pointed out that not all Kosovo Albanians were expelled. In Pristina Paul Watson had access to Adem Demanci (the former head of the KLA) who lived out the war peacefully in Pristina. There were an awful lot of Albanians there to great NATO troops when they eventually rolled into the city.

  If you put all the truths into the grinder and study the output, my sense is that the Serb's got painted blacker than they deserved, and the KLA were no where near as white as they were painted.

  There is definitely a double standard when Serbs are condemned for waging a war against terrorism within their borders, by a nation which is debating which nation to invade next (counter to all accepted rules of international law) in its own war against terrorism.

  It reminds me of a long cherished dictate of my own father: Do as I say -- not as I do.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 6:33 am
  

  Ian,

  After all your comments about victims of war I can't ignore the fact the US in Iraq is hiding its own casualties to please the political clique in Washington. Really bizantine don't you think?

  At the trial Slobodan Milosevic has turned yet another witness, a protected one of course, to his side big time. The monkeys are all up set!
  
  G Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 8:41 am
  Moderator, At your earliest convenince, please break up this page (it has become too long for many regular posters). Thanks in advance, DS.
  
  D. S.
  US

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 9:02 am
  
  The United Kingdom Parliament

  Select Committee on Foreign Affairs

  Fourth Report

  An official of the Ministry of Defence even went so far as to tell our colleagues on the Defence Committee that "we did not think that [Milosevic] was a war criminal before then [March 1999]. He had behaved in a reasonably responsible way in trying to get the settlement in Bosnia actually. His track record was not so bad as it has become."

  From Section 20: Evidence taken by Defence Committee in its Kosovo inquiry

  Here we have conclusive evidence that the British Government did not believe Milosevic was a war criminal before Nato started bombing Serbia.

  How very convenient it must be for Blair and his cronies that Milosevic should transmogrify from peacemaker into ‘The Butcher of Belgrade’ - Hitler reincarnate - the instant Nato started raining cluster bombs down on the Serbian people.

  Was Nato’s attack on Serbia legal?

  The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force except in self defence or when the Security Council determines that there is a threat to peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in which case the Security Council may determine (under Chapter VII) that force should be employed "to maintain or restore international peace and security."

  The NATO military intervention was patently not an act of self defence, nor was there any specific Security Council authorisation for the operation.

  From Section 126 of the Fourth Report

  One does not need a five year court case to determine who are the war criminals among the candidates: Cluster-bomber Blair, KLA Terrorist Thaci and Slobodan Milosevic. As leader of Serbia, Milosevic was forced into resisting an Islamic terrorist incursion into the Serbian sovereign Province of Kosovo: An incursion which has been responsible for the continuing murder of more than 3,000 Kosovans, the continuing displacement of hundreds of thousands, the continuing destruction and desecration of hundreds of Christian religious churches and monuments and the continuing destruction and sequestration of property and businesses.

  How much longer can the ICTY, the western powers that be and their hacks, especially the BBC, keep ignoring these incontrovertible facts.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 9:13 am
  Dan B,

  Sorry for sounding as if I was "questioning your motives". I did not mean to. However I do not accept, that you (or anyone?) could be "well informed" about the crucial incident at Racak on 15 June, 1999 merely by having "read all the material that is published on it", since (a full scale police) INVESTIGATION to clarify the matter has (to the best of my knowledge?) never been carried out. Then how can we know?

  You've had to "guess", - as did the hapless Finn, Dr. Helena Ranta (an many other people with her, including Louise Arbour and Carla del Ponte, Judge May and mr. Nice).

  I would not deprive YOU of an intelligent guess however (my own perception (of a Gvt. forces firefight with the KLA in a stronghold of theirs) stem from the Danish papers of 16 January 1999 (Politiken) and it was only reinforced by the account and the Schedule A given in Louise Arbour's "Indictment" issued in May 1999 before the end of the NATO aggression and the occupation of the province of Kosovo (and Metohija!).

  It is not (yet) something that I believe to "know", - but admittedly this "trial" against Milosevic seems to confirm my interpretation/guesswork

  Now here is a bit of translation of the "Aftonposten" article that you advertised for:

  [translation of article starts here]

  Carl Bildt: It's only fair to welcome (mrs. Biljana) Placsic (1).

  "For the (Swedish) Gvt. it was (only a) natural (thing) to bid Biljana Plavsic welcome (to her 11 year prison term at Women's Prison Hinseberg)," says former (Swedish) prime minister Carl Bildt (M) today.

  "She was a(n early) representative of the conflicts at the Balkans".

  Plavsic and Bildt met during Bildt's peace mission in Bosnia during the second half of 1990'es. At the trial in the Hague he (Bildt) was one of those (persons)witnessing in her favor. Why was that?

  "Madeleine Albright, the former U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs believes as well as do I, that it was of importance to report on her (Plavsic's) decisive efforts to crush the power of the extremist Serbian nationalists. At considerable personal risk she was having the courage to challenge both Milosevic and Karadzic," Carl Bildt says. His personal impression of Biljana Plavsic is, that she is uncorrupted.

  "Which is quite unusual in the Balkans," (Carl Bildt comments!). He says, that she is deeply religious and that she was showing a considerable personal courage.

  "I have seen that at close range," (Carl Bildt is quoted for saying). Did he at that time know about her war crimes?

  "Well, at the time she was not accused of war crimes. And the odd (or "funny"?) thing is exactly that she was not indicted until many years after the war and several years after she'd become a very important partner of cooperation in the peace work in Bosnia".

  [translation of article ends here, but it may be continued if required] Very "funny", isn't it? I have a few comments to this, - including a remark that I picked up "in the street" in Sweden the other day: That's going to be a very costly exercise to have her, - Plavsic is certainly not welcome (for that particular reason).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 9:53 am
  

  Peter,

  Of course the British Government had realistic opinion of Slobodan Milosevic and his policy. They had advocated a political solution and settlement as Carrington and Owen had together with UNO envoy former Secretary of State Vance.

  The trial transcripts vindicating them: it was the US that waited for the opportunity to turn the whole thing into a military occupation following NATO intervention in Bosnia first and Kosovo later after having managed to get the EU and UNO out of the ground. Blair as a good lap doggy of his American masters performed as expected under the rules of the special relationship between GB and the US.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 10:07 am
  Tapuskovic to step down as amicus curiae | 13:34 | Beta THE HAGUE -- Tuesday - Belgrade lawyer Branislav Tapuskovic will step down as an amicus curiae in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic when the prosecution completes its evidence, the Trial Chamber ruled today. The bench has appointed British lawyer Gillian Higgins to replace Tapuskovic during Milosevic’s defence presentation. The remaining two amici, Briton Stephen Kay and Australian Timothy McCormack will continue to the end of the trial. Higgins has occasionally attended the trial as deputy to McCormack.
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 10:51 am
  
  Hypocrisy writ large

  Reading between the lines Nato’s Viceroy Steiner in Kosovo demanded the release of Thaci an Islamic terrorist leader arrested by Hungarian police on an international warrant for terrorism: specifically for the murder of three policemen an event Thaci is reported to have boasted about.

  With these continuing contradictions can anyone believe Blair’s words regarding war on terrorism or anything else for that matter: And what of del Ponte’s oft-repeated promises to indict those responsible for the KLA campaign of terror?

  Here a KLA leader of an organisation responsible for thousands of murders and the continuing displacement of hundreds of thousands of Kosovans is given licence by Blair and his chums to roam about Europe presumably practising the evil he and his fellow Islamic terrorists have wrought on Kosovo.

  KLA threats of a return to mass murder in Kosovo were made if Thaci was not released according to the report. The cowardice and hypocrisy demonstrated by Blair and his Nato cronies in the face of these terrorist threats is breathtaking.

  The BBC will not, will not be minded to or will not dare to comment truthfully on this matter so where do we now turn to for the truth?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 10:53 am
  

  Great stuff, the only Slav who managed to infiltrate the famous Circus Court of Saxons, Americans, Australians, English, Germans jurisprudence gets sacked, or did he leave on his own?

  Not surprising, really. Judge May (NATO) could hardly contains his dislike for him. A few days ago Tapuskovic told the judge after being interrupted time and again: "Your honors I have to tell you these things, things you owe to know, but if you tell me to stop and sit down, I will!"

  Mr. Tapuskovic I will miss you.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 12:00 pm
  Letter to the Editor of the Swedish daily ”Aftonbladet”

  Dear Sir,

  NATO LOOSING TO MILOSEVIC?

  It all started with a lie! Staffan Heimerson’s account of 28 June, 2003 which at some length describes the ICTY process in the Hague against mr. Milosevic as if it were succesfull, is but an echo in support of U.S. led conspiracy: Routinely mr. Milosevic is represented to the public as “the mastermind and iron fist behind the (...) genocide of the Kosovo Albanians” (1).

  A (seemingly protected!) witness he quotes for testifying, that “the police took a part in the physical terror”, making this catch phrase for headline: We dynamited the Catholic church! The portraits of mr. Milosevic and even of his wife, Mira Markovic, who alledgedly “is also a war crimes suspect” would leave the ordinary reader of the “Aftonbladet” with little or no doubt as to whom they are to blame. As if to soothe the Swedes paying so dearly for the U.N. set up at the Hague, Staffan Heimerson quotes one domestic prosecutor, a Marie Tuma from Helsingborg, for suggesting that “it is just fine that Sweden contributes with our particular sense for (international) law. My own latest case at home also was all about brawling between neighbours”.

  Significantly American Gary J. Bass, a Princeton professor of Politics, is cited for hailing this show trial against “a marxist and chauvinist nationalist” as “the most important...since the trial against the Nazi (German) Adolf Eichmann in 1961” (2). All said, in fact “there is not much more for mr. Milosevic) to show,” Heimerson concludes his echoing.

  Well, - in spite of all the halftruths, or even because of our outright lies, one may still be in for a surprise in this case: In fact mr. Milosevic has torn apart the testimonies of every single witness for the Prosecution including the infamous American “Ambassador”, William Walker, who once convinced the international community (!) that the incident at Racak on 15 january, 1999 was indeed a “massacre” by Serbian forces - thus causing the criminal NATO air war of attack to start just a few months later. Walker is now on record for admitting that it “was entirely my own invention” (3).

  In fact it all started with that lie (or "invention") of Walker’s, then Head of the OSCE’s Kosovo Verification Mission. The ICTY Prosecutor subsequently has been maintaining an allegation that in the Serbian Province of Kosovo forces of Serbia acting at the direction of then President Milosevic “murdered hundreds of (unarmed) civilians” including the 45 Kosovo Albanian “Racak villagers” found dead by Walker and Western media at a nearby hilltop gully (4).

  The Prosecution however has found little, if any evidence at all to support their charges and on 12 March this year after hearing scores of witnesses for the Prosecution over a period of more than a year concerned with the Prosecution’s case - their case only - the Presiding Judge May resolved that quite on the contrary there is evidence “that there were some KLA members killed” at Racak. Which is exactly the position of mr. Milosevic (5).

  The Finnish pathologist, Dr. Helena Ranta who headed a European union team of forensic experts on the autopsy “investigation” prior to the NATO war only recently appeared as a “court witness” (the very first during this trial!), but she fared no better in her attempt to support William Walker’s invention of a “massacre on civilians at Racak”. Said Dr. Ranta when confronted with her previous statement that the “shoes of some of the victims seem to have been removed, probably before they were taken inside the mosque” (6): I am not aware of the religious tradition of these people...(but being short of )...shoes, they might have taken the shoes of those, who didn’t need them any more (7).

  Asked Milosevic, who is acting as his own attorney: Mrs Ranta, isn’t it logical, if this had been done out of religious custom, (that) all (the victims) carried into the mosque would have had their shoes taken off? Isn’t it logical (or: rather obvious?) that their shoes were taken off because they were military boots?

  Well, mr. Milosevic may have a point! The former president’s having obviously the “logic” on his side doesn’t seem to be waisted on the Trial Chamber either; questioned by the Court on how she came to know that “Racak was a KLA stronghold” Dr. Ranta was merely referring the Judges to reports of the OSCE and “an office of the Yugoslav authorities in Pristina” (the precise name of which she could not give however). When asked what she possibly meant by stating, that: “Our initial investigation results suggest...that the entire scene had been staged”, Dr. Ranta denied having said “exactly that, because our forensic investigations did not point to the set up in the gully” (the “massacre of civilians” alleged by William Walker).

  Well, having not only “logic” on his side, mr. Milosevic at one point confidently declared, that “the only advantage that I do have here (at the “trial”) is, that I speak the truth”.

  Neither media folks like Staffan Heimerson of the “Aftonbladet” nor the less than timid professor Gary J. Bass of Princeton have done much to prepare the public for consequences of mr. Milosevic’s stern and cohesive defense. The trial at the Hague is hardly likely to be the last battle of that determined statesman.

  The question seems to me rather to be whether the public, which is generally ill informed about this “kangaroo trial”, will still remember the former president, once mr. Milosevic is aquitted?

  (1) Staffan Heimerson: Milosevics sista strid. Artivle in Swedish daily "Aftonbladet". 28 June 2003.

  (2) Gary J. Bass: Milosevic in the Hague. Article in Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003.

  (3) William Walker during hearing at the Hague, 12 June 2002.

  (4) Second Amended Indictment filed by the ICTY Prosecutor, 29 September, 2001.

  (5) Judge May during hearing af Dr. Helena Ranta. 12 March, 2003. Trial transcripts, page 17793, line 6.

  (6) A reference was made to a "Report of the Expert Team of Pathologists of the European Union about the Events at Racak", actually a Press Release by Helena Ranta, pristina on 17 March, 1999.

  (7) Dr. Helena Ranta during hearing, 12 March 2003. Trial transcripts, page 17741, lines 1-16.

  (8) Milosevic during hearing of secret agent mr. Lazarevic (whom both Staffan Heimerson and professor Bass is quoting).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 1:10 pm
  Pastor Niemoller

  First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

  Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

  Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

  Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

  They are done with Serbs, who is next???
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 2:15 pm
  

  I and the Rest
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 4:33 pm
  Ian,

  Ref.: Your July 01, 2003 at 5:19 am

  Right, - I did not really suspect, that you would "endorse all of the conclusions of the (Pristina) court."

  However I was vaguely sensing that someone else might.

  I agree with you, - not least on that "the Kosovo section of the trial...presented no clear evidence to convince...that...the crimes committed in Kosovo (incl in particulat the incident at Racak!) could be blamed on the state (FRY or Serbia)."

  Well said!

  Regards
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 4:58 pm
  Well praise Hosanah the moderator has finally divided the page. Call me suspicious but Im starting to think that this is a tactic to bore us into submission.

  Gogol - as man we can see that Tapuskovic is ok but he is also a man who made a lot of money participating in an illegal court that is persecuting his own people.

  In the end it makes him no better than all the other whores there.
  
  R Desmond
  US

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 5:27 pm
  

  Desmond,

  True, but it is quite comical don't you think to call a Court international when all the key figures are Anglo-Saxon and all defendants Slavs, Serbs to be precise!

  In any event why is Tapuskovic leaving?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 5:33 pm
  

  Besides the gas explosion in The Hague injuring 21 people in three shops (do shops have gas?) what happen to the anti ICTY march on Sunday?

  The main media is silent but what about the alternative media?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 5:45 pm
  A CORRECTION CONCERNING WALKER'S STATEMENT

  Much to my horror and shock I now see, that I have been mis-quoting that infamous American Ambassador, William Walker, who during the court hearing in the Hague on 12 June, 2002 in response to the Prosecutor Nice's question as to whether "anybody else contributed to or caused him to use any of the words" in the press statement that he made when back in Pristina after his visit to Racak in the morning on 16 January, 1999 was simply answering that:

  "My statement was totally my creation. These were all my words." (Trial transcripts, Page 6805, Line 3).

  So in fact the "words used" were Walkers own creation (not his "invention", as I have foolishly been suggesting in my above "Letter to the Editor" of the Swedish daily Aftonbladet).

  Walkers statement should be seen also in the light of his insistence that back in the office, the Ambassador was "trying to construct" what he was going to say at a press conference hastily put together and thus he would "frankly have no memory, no recollection of -- of talking to any of these people."

  That does not mean (of course?) that the Ambassador did not talk to "these people" (or that he did not get instructions as to the "words used"?): "If they say I did, I'm quite sure they are not lying," the Ambassador frankly stated in the Hague (Trial transcripts, Page 6800, Lines 1-5).

  And the Ambassador went on to explain that: "Between my arrival and when the press conference started, I spent most of the time, if not all of it, in my office with my computer, trying to collect my thoughts and put it into a statement. The statement was essentially a description of what I had seen, a description of how the news came to the KVM the night before from General Loncar's office, and then my conclusions as to whether or not what we had been told by the government and what we had seen coincided, and my conclusion was they did not coincide. I said that on what I had seen -- again, I emphasise that I was not a specialist, I was not a crime scene investigator, but from what I had seen, the stories did not jibe. From what I have seen, it appeared to me to have been a number, perhaps as many as 40 or more, men and boys had been taken away, unarmed, and later turned up dead.

  I described it as a massacre." (Trial transcripts, Page 6800. Line 18 onwards).

  (The full text of William Walkers statement headed "Massacre of Civilians in Racak" is given in the trial transcripts, Page 6802, Line 1 onwards).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 6:49 pm
  Why take it for granted that mr. Tapuskovic "is leaving" his post as an "amici"?

  I could easily imagine that some would want him replaced by a British lawyer during Milosevic’s defence presentation.

  Questions to ask are: What can be done to prevent his departure, - and is it worth trying?

  While Desmond is right in that the court is "illegal" it is nevertheless there, - as mr. Milosevic and others have had to admit. Does it then make any sense to suggest, as Desmond seems to do, that mr. Tapuskovic would have been "better than all the whores there" if he had been working for less money or even for free?

  Would that have made the "trial" more fair?

  Desmond's suggestion does not make sense to me (who do not even know if mr. Tapuskovic "made a lot of money" anyway).

  It does not matter (to me) what the court calls itself, - as long as we stop to think about what it really "is" and what it "does". It's the same thing with mr. Tapuskovic: If we were to critizise him, we should focus on what he has done professionally (as an amici).

  Would you be capable of that, Desmond?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 7:51 pm
  MODERATOR, thanks for shortening this page, finally. Please, try to do that every 5 days instead of every 10 days.

  After watching the testimony of Peter Galbraith on 25/26 June, I wrote a report but was unable to post it. Today, when reading the arrears of the last week here, I found a rather good report on Galbraith by Dan B. from Canada on 28 June. I'm pleased to find it very similar in observations to my own, so I was in a doubt whether to post mine at all now: but then I decided to post it anyway, just to make a point of two people with different backgrounds as myself and Dan coming to pretty much the same conclusions watching this witness. The reason for that is quite obvious: neither of us is a paid hack, and we are in to obligation to fawn on the Ambassador, so we just reported what we heard. Here is my somewhat stale report on this less-than-diplomatic testimony.

  While war watchers like Dr Williams are so-called useful idiots (those who with the authority of their position as the UN officials parrot the Official Truth, partly even believing it), Peter Galbraith is a totally different type. He is among those who help create Official Truth. He also belongs to those scavenging dogs who gain personal profit from war situations.

  Galbraith could be compared with another US Ambassador on the witness stand before him, William Walker. But, while Walker was needed just to reiterate his amateurish and prompt conclusions about one isolated incident (Racak), Galbraith was there to sling some general mud on the Accused, and that not even relevant to the Indictment (how "Milosevic had no interest in the welfare of Serbs who lived in Krajina"). And the US Government cared so much that they OKd and helped the Operation Storm, as well as the arms smuggling from Iran to Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina! Both Walker and Galbraith are nothing but cynical warmongers of the lowest kind.

  Galbraith's "testimony" against Milosevic consisted of broad sweeping allegations, not substantiated by even a shred of evidence. One exchange tells it all. The Ambassador (both Nice and May were fawning on him, immensely enjoying to address him thus) stated that Milosevic was "a proponent of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia", and that the Government in Belgrade was "responsible for the killings in Bosnia & Herzegovina". [To me it looks more like the verdict then the evidence. Where was May to exclaim: "This is on us to decide it!"?] When Nice dared to ask how His Ambassadorial Highness came to such a conclusion, the thug Peter simply answered that Milosevic "was the architect of the policy of creating a Greater Serbia". [Ironclad evidence, full of valuable first-hand details, no doubt. This man really knows how one is supposed to testify at the ICTY.] Nice was interested whether the witness perhaps actually witnessed any statement of the Accused championing ethnic cleansing, but the witness simply said he had witnessed nothing of the sort.

  And it was the pattern for this part of the examination-in-chief that served for the general mud-slinging. But, the bigger part was left for explanations (or rather, for justifications) of the Operation Storm. Neither part was successful.

  The general accusations sounded like Galbraith just read them out loud from the Indictment, and he never provided any facts nor those juicy details that one could have expected from a diplomat participating in the events. In short, Galbraith was not only generalizing, he was boring. He merely parroted the most general slander from the mainstream media and cited as his sources for penning his "report" on ethnic cleansing such unbiased bodies as the US Embassies in Belgrade and Zagreb, Croatian Government and certain journalists. And he made a huge mistake by taking as his point of reference among the local Serb politicians from Krajina a hugely debunked and ridiculous "witness", one previously known as C-061 and then revealed to be that silly Milan Babic. [If you want, you can check my posts on him from 2002, namely on 20/21/22/25/26/28 November and 2/3/6/7 December.] Not only did Galbraith stupidly copy & paste Babic's claims (on political happenings in Krajina and particularly on Z-4 Plan) already revealed to be untrue, he also had the gall to call Babic "a charismatic and popular leader"! The only thing this "charismatic" creature ever succeeded was, after Galbraith personally informed him that Croatia got the US blessing to launch the Operation Storm in the next few days, to flee Krajina with his family and to hide you know where? In Belgrade.

  Perhaps Galbraith should have brought with him a lawyer to the courtroom, to get preventive advice before blabbering out something damaging for his Government or something particularly stupid. But, there was no lawyer present and Galbraith did blabber out two damaging and one particularly stupid thing.

  He admitted that the US Government gave the green light to CRO on two diplomatically very sensitive issues: to launch the Operation Storm against the Krajina Serbs and to proceed with illegal arms shipments from Iran via CRO to B&H, keeping 30% of shipments in CRO.

  The US Govt. played a crucial and highly cynical role in "aiding and abetting" that small, but tragic war. The US was in fact a warring party, by openly taking side and all the time falsely preaching about peace. Galbraith was, by his own admission, constantly in contact with Tudjman, "who considered the military option to be the only viable one", who firstly planned to do it later that year, in December, but then "the happenings in Srebrenica enabled them to act earlier", and "they considered it to be a convenient moment, and that the international community will not punish CRO." Indeed! But there's more. On 29 July 1995 Galbraith penned a telegram to his Government, conveying a story from one "Srebrenica survivor", the material for which was provided by no other than Galbraith's wife! All that time, Tudjman kept pouring dispatches to the almighty US Ambassador, wanting to know what will the US reaction to his military action be. In Galbraith's own words, "we have expressed our understanding for their position, their readiness to spill blood to protect Bihac [I?? an enclave in Bosnia], and if they faced any trouble they could not expect any help". Nice wanted to be "precise": "Were you opposing the plan or not?" Galbraith: "We were neither opposing it nor supporting it." Yeah? So, that stupid Tudjman "misunderstood" it for the green light, as it indeed was? Galbraith then proceeded to spread his personal cynicism and that of this Government, by claiming that "nevertheless, we wanted to prevent war" by trying to organize some meetings in those last days before the attack (of which Galbraith obviously knew the exact date well in advance). Which war, if they were not supporting one? And why did they not oppose it, by clearly telling Tudjman not to do it? Be as it may, they were perfectly aware that the war is imminent, because they gave their imprimatur for it and only then they started with frantic 11-hour attempts to supposedly prevent it, by seeking all kinds of meetings. Milosevic was on holidays and unreachable, which made him guilty of being not interested "in the welfare of Serbs", because "everybody in Europe knew the war was about to start". Interesting! How exactly could they have known that? Was it not the status of the UN protected areas (UNPAs) that could have led everybody in Europe, including Milosevic, to believe that Tudjman would not dare attacking them? Well, Tudjman had the express "understanding" for his "readiness to spill blood" directly from the horse's mouth of Galbraith, so he went on and attacked. Galbraith warned Babic a few days in advance, the guy fled to Belgrade and Krajina went down. Blame Milosevic, that's the easiest thing to do. So, what's the charge here: letting Krajina go down? Mind you, this is not in the Indictment, but will serve to make him look bad anyway. Is the Prosecution that desperate to accept anything, although the Indictment states just the opposite - "joint criminal enterprise" in order to create "Greater Serbia"?

  The same cynicism was displayed by the US Government in arming the warring sides, this time not only the Croats but also the Bosnian Muslims, thus effectively creating a foothold in Europe for the Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism. Read the excellent link that Andy provided on 25 June. It is a US Senate Report on Iranian arms transfers for B&H and CRO, emphasizing the role of President Clinton, the National Security Agency Chief Anthony Lake and Peter Galbraith in this little scam. And why did the US Government deliberately helped the violation of the UN arms embargo? Well, Galbraith simply explained that they thought it was a right thing to do.

  The particularly stupid thing that Galbraith said was his outrageous revision of the notion of ethnic cleansing, in his effort to exculpate the Croats. Like Gogol rightly noted: according to Galbraith it is not ethnic cleansing when huge armed forces sweep the region, making hundreds of thousands flee in pathetic columns (machine-gunning and aerial-bombing these columns, too), looting and burning the villages and killing the slackers. And you know why Galbraith thought this could not constitute ethnic cleansing? Because the people had fled in terror of what might happen, there were not very much people remaining to terrorise (only those slackers)! Maybe they should have all remained to be tortured, raped and murdered, as Galbraith detailed it is done when terrorising someone, and then should have fled (what's left of them). Even the most fervent on-duty apologist of the ICTY, a US lawyer writing for CIJ, Judith Armatta, had to say that "it should be noted that is not a legal conclusion", "it is merely the opinion of one former US Ambassador". Really!?? His whole "testimony" is nothing more than just his opinion. He provided no facts whatsoever. And you know what they say about opinions: they're like asses - everybody has one. People discussing in bars or participating in the Internet forums are entitled to some indecent exposure. But on the witness stand one is supposed only to sit on one's ass, not to exhibit it instead of the evidence.

  Of course, Ms Armatta hurriedly explained that, even if this one former US Ambassador has merely exposed his derriere in his attempt to defend the non-defendable, "this is irrelevant for the Milosevic case". Not so. There's no such thing as the Milosevic case. But there are loads of other things that get exposed in the process, such as the criminal role of Ms Armatta's and Mr Galbraith's Government.

  And why did I presume Galbraith gained personal profit from his warmongering? Do you think that those rich arms smugglers just say "thank you" to those diplomatic field facilitators of their trade? They use cash-on-hands, more like it.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 8:33 pm
  

  Bravo Vera, just one point about how Gailbraith explained the giving the green light to Iranian weapons delivery: " . . the Clinton administration did not agree with UNO resolution 713 (arms embargo on former Yugoslavia and the latter) and so it did not see any objection to such a plan"

  By the way on a n other remote part of the World, Mundi Americanae Argentina, president Menem was accused later of delivering (illegally) weapons to Croatia and he said the same thing, he had the consent of the Clinton clique. The charges were dropped later when for other political ( and economical) reasons Menem became desirable again. Luckily for Argentina, Menem cowardly withdrew from the elections before they were completed.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 8:45 pm
  

  Vera,

  Sorry, but you did not mention the document where the discussion or rather the genesis of a massacre Srebrenica was discussed, in order to blame it on the chetniks . May (NATO) refusing to exhibit it calling it preposterous while ambassador Gailbraith all in convulsion was speechless. A rather nice moment, I thought.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 9:31 pm
  Godfrey, regarding Racak, there seems only two possible charges that one could level against the Serbian government. One is that they failed to adequately investigate events at Racak, and prosecute crimes if evidence once investigated revealed them to have occurred. The other was that crimes at Racak were themselves instigated by the Serbian government.

  The first charge is absurd. Serb officials did not have access to investigate the site, following the events at Racak, since it remained under the control of the KLA. Even if they had had access, there was such poor management of the crime scene that it might well have proved impossible to conduct a serious forensic examination anyway. William Walker and the OSCE obviously didn't make their first priority one of gathering evidence as they should have when they positioned themselves at the scene of the crime. [They already knew who they wanted to be found guilty]. Added to all of this is the time factor.. there simply was not sufficient time to adequately determine what happened at Racak and obtain prosecutions if warranted before bombs started falling.

  The second possible charge (that the serbian authorities gave explicit orders for people to be massacred at Racak) is a charge which certainly should not be levelled against these authorities without evidence, and if no evidence can be produced to substantiate this charge months later at a trial, I think it can be safely concluded that William Walker never had this evidence before launching into accusations and tirades against this same administration.

  In fact Serb authorities behaved very oddly if they did indeed have prior knowledge of the events unfolding at Racak on January 15th 1999. Firstly the decision to invite reporters to observe the events at Racak, and to inform the OSCE of their planned military engagement, was hardly wise in such circumstances. This contrasts strongly with the actions of the KLA just the previous day.

  Kosovo Liberation Army officials say they are warning international verifiers to stay out combat areas in western Kosovo, Yugoslavia.

  Secondly, the decision of the Serbian cabinet to hold their first ever meeting in Kosovo that very day seems strange. Thirdly, the communique resulting from that cabinet meeting is a strange one in light of subsequently discoveries:

  The government, in a statement after the meeting, denounced terrorism as “an evil for all” and said “all perpetrators of terrorist acts must be punished for the crimes they committed.” The statement reiterated the government’s commitment that Kosovo’s problems be solved through political dialogue, and accused ethnic Albanian leaders of fomenting terrorism.

  “Avoidance of a political dialogue on the side of certain Kosovo Albanian representatives who do not wish for a political solution and who obstruct the political process directly incites crimes by terrorist gangs,” said the statement issued following a one-hour Cabinet session.

  Would they seriously have been urging dialogue, and claiming that "terrorism was an evil for all" that "ALL" terrorists must be punished had they been concurrently planning a massacre to occur that very day.

  A final point here is to stress that NATO did not start bombing Serbia because of Racak. They started a war because Serbia refused to bend to ultimatums, and belatedly used Racak as the justification for the war. But they only did this after the bending failed to achieve its desired goals. So logically it is more correct to observe that the US initially used Racak as a means of putting pressure on the Serb administration.

  Two obvious questions here are (1) Why would the Serb government want to knowingly give the US the ability to turn the screws on this government as the US immediately did, and (2) who (unlike the Serbs) was it who profitted from spinning the events at Racak as they were seen to be spun. Normally crimes are committed by those who profit in some way from them.

  The other question typically asked of a crime is who had most opportunity to commit it. It was the KLA who controlled Racak, it was the US who was there with their man, verbal script in hand on the spot. William Walker went on the political record blaming the Serbs without first obtaining approval from his superiors. This is not the action of a seasoned diplomat like William Walker. It seems more likely that he knew what he was going to say, before he knew what he was going to find. Re the numbers game, the Serbs had already announced at least 15 members of the KLA dead at Racak, and this was only one of three battle zones that day in the immediate vicinity of Racak.

  A final point here is that in the events leading up to Racak, it was not the Serbs who were the ones trying to fan the flames of war. The Kosovo Verification Mission reported earlier that same week:

  "Irresponsible actions by the KLA are the main reason for a considerable increase of tension in Kosovo. …The reaction by Yugoslavian authorities to these KLA provocations has been up to this point very restrained." - Kosovo Verification Mission statement Source: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/balkans/bc2j1117.doc
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 9:50 pm
  Re: Tuposkvic's "replacement"... Gillian Higgins is not just a "British lawyer". She is Amici Kay's daughter. She was a legal assistant at the Rwanda Tribunal (Arbour & Del Ponte) for her father here in Tanzania.
  
  Uhuru Nyerere
  Dodoma
  Tanzania

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 9:54 pm
  Gogol, re:

  True, but it is quite comical don't you think to call a Court international when all the key figures are Anglo-Saxon and all defendants Slavs, Serbs to be precise!

  It will only become a good joke if Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and George Bush subsequently finds themselves on trial for war crimes in a UN appointed court in the Hague where all the key figures are Serbs.

  What is good for the goose is surely good for the gander.

  I do wonder though -- Did Judge May prefer that the replacement amici be English, and as such likely to know nothing about the Balkans or have such basic skills as being able to read Serbian documents in their original language (unlike I presume most Serbian lawyers), or was this a choice of necessity because no Serbian lawyer could be found who willing to recognise the legitimacy of the court, even given the significant salaries involved. Either way the choice does not reflect particularly well on the court or its obvious goal of being seen to be a legitimate arbitrator of justice.

  I wonder when someone with the wisdom of Alice is going to observe: You're nothing but a pack of Anglophones.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 10:17 pm
  

  Uhuru Nyerere

  We read, actually I tried to share an article last winter about the other ICT in Rwanda and I got the impression things are far worse there in terms of international justice than in The Hague. Indeed the great powers are also exculpating themselves for the mess they created in Rwanda using Hutus and Tutsis for their diabolic designs.

  So I suppose Gillian Higgins lost her taste for Africa and will join the group in Holland, that nations of traders. . .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 10:38 pm
  Uhuru Nyerere, Are you seriously suggesting, that said "British lawyer" Gillian Higgins is actually "Amici Stephen Kay's daughter", - implying that the two of them will continue together at the ICTY "to the end of the trial"? If so, - could you kindly provide us with or refer us to some documentation, please...
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 11:27 pm
  Mr. Louis-Jensen, Gillian Higgins was well-known in Arusha to be Mr. Kay's daughter. The paucity of documentation to support this is a reflection of her professional lack of experience. However, one may note that she is included among this list of defence counsel at the ICTY under her name "Kay" at the defence counsel website:http://www.adcicty.com/Members.htm Some Milosevic transcripts also reflect her proper name. Other Tanzanian and expatriate UN employees can support the fact that she is Kay's daughter.
  
  Uhuru Nyerere
  Dodoma
  Tanzania

• Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 11:50 pm
  Peter Taylor

  Thanks for the background info on Williams. Tis never too late to know who's coming from what angle :-) . Given Williams' background, he may as well work for NATO directly in the context of his testimony.

  Seems to me that Tapuskovic is interested in presenting facts and info which May doesn't want to hear. That's why May is making it impossible for Tapuskovic to examine the witnesses properly. Witness the Galbraith debacle where all Galbraith could say was "Yes" and "yes" and "Yes" to most of Tapuskovic's questions and facts. If Milosevic's cross examination didn't do enough to dismiss Galbraith's evidence, Tapuskovic's certainly did!

  Now we can't have that sort of thing happening in Mr May's court, can we? What a sycophant May is when it comes to certain witnesses! It makes you sick to watch the ass kissing he does and yet he seems to have such a disdainful attitude for anything Milosevic says. Maybe it's because Milosevic is not an Anglo but a Balkan "butcher"? the differences in May's demeanour alone are sufficient to dismiss him for prejudice and unequal treatment.

  The irony is that this Balkan "butcher" has so far presented himself as a much bigger gentleman and with much greater dignity than May could ever hope to emulate, despite his theoretical pedigree of British gentlemanliness. Maybe it's time May dismissed himself and let a real British gentleman deal with the gentleman from the Balkans! Then we might see some equality in this trial.
  
  David
  Australia

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 5:35 am
  

  Just for some Anglos as David says, Slobodan the name means the lover of freedom while Richard May (NATO) means not very much.

  Other players names have obscure meanings, while Mr. Nice (NATO) is of course a scorpion. Del Ponte was thanks to our old friend Jari, the hyena.

  Nothing beats Slobodan!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 5:59 am
  

  Ladies and gentlemen, we have to protect freedom and the truth! Lets go close session!Aha, that is why the BBC is bored!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 6:00 am
  
  
  G C
  SG

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 6:00 am
  Ian Davis wrote...

  "I wonder when someone with the wisdom of Alice is going to observe: You're nothing but a pack of Anglophones".

  Took the words right out of my mouth, you did, Ian! LOL
  
  Alice
  Down Wonder-Land

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 6:02 am
  
  The poison continues to drip, drip, drip …

  This time courtesy of The Times:

  WELCOME to a new Europe of discrimination, poverty and apartheid.

  Mr Mortished goes on “More commonly known as Gypsies, Roma often live on the margins of society, alongside rubbish dumps in Belgrade …”.

  No mention of Nato/UNMIK/KLA’s Kosovo where those Romanes not murdered have been confined to ghettoes and the majority driven out of Kosovo at gunpoint presumably to the rubbish dumps in Belgrade.

  Here we go again: According to this Times report Serbs are guilty of discrimination and apartheid and - in spite of the incontrovertible facts - the Albanians who now rule Kosovo are not.

  “Even unreconstructed Europhobes accept that in the balance sheet of human rights and wrongs, the record of the European Union is fair.”

  Is that so Mr Mortished: You mean just like your article?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

  Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 6:04 am
  

  
  
  HTML Correction
  Hopefully

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 6:08 am
  Gogol

  The BBC is bored because the other side is coming up with irrelevant, meaningless and utterly desperate evidence that has little to do with Milosevic. They've had their trial by media and the legal process is irrelevant and superfluous.

  Why it might even cast doubt on some of the evidence the media has been feeding the hapless public for so long! And where would that leave the credibility of the freedom loving media? I think they're of the view that the whole thing is best left as it was and there's no need to rock the boat lest it damage so many of the sacred cows. No need to make a public issue of the fact that Reuters is actually controlled by the CIA, is there?
  
  David
  Australia

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 6:12 am
  

  Thanks to globalization and speculation driven free society the Roma people of central Europe are treated as pariahs once again. Nothing new, one may say, but then what about the gitanos of Spain, so much inbeded in the traditional culture why are they now treated despicably?

  Once Baghdad ruled the Peninsula, today Spanish troops will clean the streets of Bagdad with US browns.
  
  G C
  Shangri-La

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 6:33 am
  Peter Taylor

  Many of the EU countries have done a lot of things for their Romany populations... things such gassing, slaughter, extermination, conversion, etc, etc.

  The Romany in some of those countries are not NEXT to rubbish dumps, many of them are UNDER the rubbish dumps.

  So much for Mr Mortished's credibility in missing such trivial detail.

  And for someone in a country which has performed the greatest genocide of all time, the destruction of the Red Indians, and which grew on the back of the African slaves, he really has little to teach anyone.

  Rather, he should look at some of the urban decay and the human misery in his own backyard and rubbish dumps, the richest land in the world, before he takes on the concerns of European countries such as YU which was ravaged by communism and more recently, the globalists' imperialist version of capitalism.

  But the story goes on, the poison drips, bit by bit, subtly reminding us of the racism of the Serbs because they have to be the scapegoats for a US and British foreign policy of neo colonialism. Of course, Milosevic is the principal architect but we won't mention him much in the media so as not to generate too much interest in a trial which is going horribly wrong for "the other side". We don't want the lid blown off before Iran is in the bag, do we?
  
  David
  Australia

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 6:58 am
  

  Once America may have been rich, hard to tell by the sufferings reported by the colons of the Virginia Trade Company, but gluttony has shifted the source of the wealth and with a debt estimated to be in the neighborhood of 5 trillion US dollars one can be sure the wealth of America rests on the slumps of the World. Not a good omen for the future, I say.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 7:06 am
  

  Wether communism ravaged Yugoslavia or had some, not minor degree of success will be hard to know from Western sources. For one thing, the destruction of Yugoslavia by the outside order had to do with it, perhaps more than any oil corridor. A friendly, free and democratic like Iraq may one day be, a la Americaine Balkans was most desirable. Balkans by the way means in Turkish, slippery mountain not a meaningless name.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 7:41 am
  Godfred Louis-Jensen

  I believe I detected quite a lot of rudeness in your post to me for no reason.

  Mr Milosevic refused to have amicus curae appointed. Amicus may benefit us trial watchers in some way but it is not what Mr Milosevic wants. I respect that.

  The court is illegal and it is persecuting Serbs or Slavs so please tell me why should we respect Tapuskovic for making money out of it.

  Your rather stupid conclusion that Tapuskovic work for free doesnt make any sense. He should not give legitimacy to the court by being there in the first place.

  Since you dont know how much money they are all pocketting by being at that farce I suggest you find out.

  Finally I accept your criticism of my view to be that of criticising Milosevic for not recognising this court. You are wrong Mr Milosevic is not.

  Gogol - maybe the embarassment of making money out of the misery of his nation finally pricked his concsience.
  
  R Desmond
  US

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 8:26 am
  Ian Davis wrote...

  (something like that) "the US initially used "Racak" as a means of putting pressure on the Serb administration. NATO did not start bombing because of "Racak", (but) belatedly used (the alleged "massacre") as justification for the war, when...Serbia refused to bend to ultimatums."

  Yes, - very well! Concerning this "belatedness" may I refer to Press Release (99)11, a "Statement to the Press by NATO Secretary General, Dr. Javier Solana" who on 28 January, 1999 on behalf of the NAC was DEMANDING "...that the parties to the conflict in Kosovo cooperate fully with the OSCE...to ensure that Ambassador Walker is able to continue to carry out his responsibilities fully as Head of the KVM...and that the FRY authorities take immediate steps tho bring those reponsible for the massacre at Racak to justice."

  Only two days later on 30 January, 1999 that was followed up by Press Release (99)12, a "Statement by the NAC on Kosovo" (2) in which "NATO reaffirms the DEMANDS...stands ready to act and rules out no option...

  Steps (to avert a humanitarian catastrophe) must include acceptance by both parties of the summons to begin negotiations at Rambouillet by 6 February 1999...and the ending of excessive and disproportionate use of force...

  If these steps are not taken, NATO is ready to take whatever measures are necessary... including...air strikes against targets on FRY territory..."

  I do remember those "NATO Statements" quite well, Ian. At that time the "DEMANDS" really woke me up! Concerned about their being so close to declaration of war, on the following morning I was passing the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the icy Copenhagen harbourfront, asking for a copy in the Danish (which they did not (seem to) have though - "for lack of finance"! That is another story altogether).

  (1) http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-011e.htm (2) http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-012e.htm

  PS: Ian, could you, who is so clearly a distinguished Anglophone, please tell me if Judge May is correct in telling mr. Milosevic, that "Your time is now finished"? (As indeed he did to end the defendant's cross-examination of Ambassador Walker (12 June, 2002. Trial transcripts, Page 6914, Line 18).

  Would it not have been sort of "nice" to say e.g.: "Mr. Milosevic, I regret to inform you, that your time (for cross-examining this particular key witness) has now run out!"

  I mean: Time is "running out", is it not?

  It seems to me, that the "anglophony" transcripts, which apparently at times are making a mess of mr. Milosevic's points put in Serbian (?), may be a separate reason for considering this "trial" to be less than fair?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 8:42 am
  Desmond,

  I certainly never drew the "stupid conclusion that Tapuskovic work for free".

  Neither did I mean to sound rude, - if I did so anyway that must be for my not being (sufficiently) Anglophone.

  I do maintain however, that if we were to critizise mr. Tapuskovic, we should focus not on (the minor question of) the money (probably) made, but on what he has been achieving professionally (as an amici in this case).

  You still need convince me, that you would be capable of doing that, Desmond.

  You are welcome to try, though!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 9:35 am
  

  At first I was so outraged about the composition in terms of nationalities of the ICTY that I was very pleased to see at least one Slav as amici . I understand today Tapuskovic position towards the better and the worse, much better and given the outright hostility of the Court presiding judge Mr. May (NATO) perhaps his position has become untenable. Really his contribution has been rejected, Mr. Milosevic can't possibly support him no matter how crucial unless Tapuskovic had gone in the open denouncing the court. He may do it once out of it. The fact remains, there are no judges from say the Ukraine, Russia, Poland, or other non Southern Slavs nations and that is pretty bad since the basic principle of universal Law remains "you shall be judge by your peers"
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 10:10 am
  Monday June 30, 2003 at 4:24 pm

  Peter, you said:

  (-: Surely you meant 'A Seriously Disturbed Reader'? :-)

  But I'm sure the poster you responded to did really mean what he said: "one lazy arsehole".

  ;-)

  R Desmond:

  Yes, I've been wondering about the Jurist' inattentiveness to this forum. They could just extend the php timeout to 45 secs. or a minute or so, as I've suggested before (in some php implementations it's just a matter of changing one line in php.ini). I figure it's possible that some at Jurist want the forum to die the death, especially as, although I stand to be corrected, there appears to be NO WAY to link to this forum from any other Jurist web-page. Strange, eh?

  Well, it's strange if true, and it certainly was not always the case. If I'm right, that means the only way to this forum is if you had it already bookmarked, or from a Google (jurist +)

  Even then, you might only get the archive, and I can't even see a way of getting from the archive to the live discussion page.

  Rebecca:

  I don't contribute here with absolute clarity and simplicity for the sole benefit of the odd American who has recently had some of the scales fall from their otherwise conjunctivised eyes in mind. As you intimate that you did anyway, if some of the paragraphs and words are too long for you, please feel free to skip posts entirely.

  You have a point though. If I was a teacher of English Comprehension, I would make myself bend over and self-administer stiff corporal punishment on my backside, for the way I allowed some of those paragraphs to just run away with me.

  I am somewhat impressed, however, that you are aware of the Baltic region. Well, at least you know the name. This is even more impressive as I don't think the US has bombed there yet (well, not for more than 50 years, anyway). As typical Americans only seem to learn any World geography when their military bombs it, it seems that you at least are becoming somewhat less typical in this regard.

  The former Yugoslavia, btw, is part of a region called the Balkans.

  So, the folks at Emperor's Clothes choose not to address their dearth of treatment of Israeli-Palestinian issues before the "scales fell from their eyes on this". So be it. People will arrive at their own conclusions on this.

  For those that think even this little mention of such "other matters" isn't appropriate here, well, I still disagree:

  1. No one argued at the time that my (successful) "destruction" (decontruction?) of the FreeRepublic site, in spite of their 'beneficial' position on Milosevic and Yugoslavia, was inappropriate. In fact the whole point of those arguments was that it's critical to be aware of just where (if anywhere) sources (or alleged sources) of information are coming from. No less than that should also apply to Emperor's Clothes.

  In fact, let's face it, the whole tragedy of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the mockery of the Hague proceedings was only possible because so much of the (Western) World's media was definitely coming from somewhere, which was not the same direction from which any light was emanating.

  2. It was pretty much agreed in this forum that Jari Noussainen and others, notably Vera Martinovic, had pretty much destroyed any purported validity, legallity, even-handedness and morality of the ICTY; so in some senses the argument was over. This is evidenced by, among the complaining by some of "distractions" here, the fact that some quite ancient stuff gets regurgitated. I was surprised that someone didn't (re-?)post the following ancient link with all the recent talk of Racak:

  Chris Soda & Predrag Tosic on Racak.

  It's a good link though, unless, of course, someone makes the scales fall from my eyes, and provides incontrovertible proof that Soda and Tosic all along have been members of the ranks of holocaust denying anti-semites.

  I (also) await, as ever, Vera's next installment in what looks like eventually to be an excellent book on the "trial". Or 'NATO Countries Trial', without the irony quotes. Of course, that might be quite a wait, given that she's also a victim of the Jurist php timeout problem.
  
  Dennis Revell
  USA

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 11:21 am
  Dennis Revell,

  I admit to have had no knowledge whatever of the Soda/Tosic (undated?) "Complete analysis of Racak" for which you now repost a "good link".

  But from a very quick perusal I remain unimpressed with their report claiming, say, that:

  "The indictment also refers to the shelling and bombing of the civilians at Racak on Jan 15/99, despite OSCE claims, press reports, the Yugoslav government, and film records to the contrary. Not one civilian was reported killed at Racak by this so-called "indiscriminate" shelling of the Yugoslavs."

  As: No! The ICTY Indictment does not refer to "bombing"! And assuming that Soda/Tosic means "shelling by the (forces of) the Yugoslavs" I wonder where in the ICTY Indictment (or elsewhere?) the shelling of Racak has been described as being "indiscriminate"? And ...etc.

  If you (like so many?) do seriously believe that sort of everything has been said and put usefully together with regard to this crucial incident on the 15 January, 1999 (and on its implications), then tell me please just one thing:

  What did Ambassador Walker, who (during cross-examination on 12 June, 2002) was confirming that "the only report" he had on the 15th was (the report from general Loncar) "that 15 (KLA) guerrillas had been killed in a clash" (1), really expect to find and/or encounter at Racak on the 16 January, 1999?

  What are the implications of his (so far hidden) "preview"? (other than the often repeated nonsense, that "Walker is full of crab" etc. - which going to get neither mr. Milosevic nor the rest of us anywhere, anyway).

  (1) Trial transcripts, Page 6891, Line 10 onwards.
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 11:30 am
  Godfrey, "your time is now up" would be more to be expected than "your time is now finished". "Up" is neutral. Finished suggests "ended", or "terminated" and conveys a sense of "relief" that it is over, possibly coupled with a "delight" that one is able to terminate it.

  Mr. May constantly talks down to Mr. Milosevic. On June 18th at the beginning of Mr. Milosevic's examination of Lidic (sp) Judge May in response to a reasonable question about time launches into a diatribe about how "this is how you waste time, by arguing", and then goes on to berate Mr. Milosevic, as if he were a child, and caution him about his upcoming performance in an examination not even yet conducted. The diatribe was loaded with things like "if you waste time again" and "we will be watching you". The video says this all much better than I, for those willing to review it.

  However, when Mr. Milosevic conducted this examination it was conducted at a fast clip, very capably and professionally.

  I am reminded of the worst type of school teacher, who talks down to children more capable than them, secure in the knowledge that the children will be punished if they protest such treatment.

  I think Judge May's hostility to Mr. Milosevic is that of such a school teacher unable to dominate, control, and break his charge.

  Until age 11, my primary school teacher and headmaster of the school delighted in hitting children with rulers. We as children retaliated by delighting in the sport of trying to break these rulers with out open hands, and the glory of doing so far out weighted the pain it caused. But it was not the breaking rulers that was fun.. it was seeing the amount of irritation this caused our teacher. It wasn't the rulers being broken that annoyed him; that I suspect gave him some satisfaction. It was the fact that his brutality had zero impact on a class of what should have been a collection of small fearful children. None of us feared him or his rulers, but the thing which I think really hurt was that none of us respected him either.

  He took to hitting us with stacked rulers, but they still broke if one stiffened ones hand just as he brought them down.

  I feel sorry for Mr. May.. every thing he says and does gets both recorded on film, and written down in the transcript of the trial, and it is becoming ever more damning. It is already too late for him to create a good "first" impression, and he can't change that. What he should be gravely concerned about however, is the lasting impression that he is carving on what one day will be the only record of his existance.

  Doesn't he understand that the camera is rolling, and that he is history?
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 11:36 am
  Ian, - yes! Thanks.
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 12:11 pm
  Dennis, Please, please, please forgive me for TYPING 'Baltic' when I meant 'Balkan'. Please also believe that I am very well aware of world Geography. It was a mistake on my part and I do hope I may be forgiven.

  As to your rambling on EC once again, I have a problem figuring out just what it is that is annoying you so much. For instance, what is it you disagree with??? You were one of those calling for the removal of the subject of Ramsey Clark as a topic.

  Please try to follow this. Since Ramsey Clark made 'himself' a part of this so called Trial, and continues to do so. >>>So, the folks at Emperor's Clothes choose not to address their dearth of treatment of Israeli-Palestinian issues before the "scales fell from their eyes on this". So be it. People will arrive at their own conclusions on this. <<< (The discussions that were being debated were the ones on Ramsey Clark, NOT the Palestinians. Go back and read them)

  >>For those that think even this little mention of such "other matters" isn't appropriate here, well, I still disagree:<<< ???

  On another point; It would be more polite if ALL poster would remember that Jurist is providing a FREE service. Some of the remarks directed at the Administrators of this site are totally uncalled for, and have the tendency to make their authors look like spoiled brats.
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 12:24 pm
  Since several posters, including myself, have wondered at the wording of the indictments, this may help.

  http://www.un.org/icty/glance/index.htm

  Factual allegations: The second amended indictment, confirmed on 29 October 2001, alleges that, between 1 January 1999 and 20 June 1999, forces of the FRY and Serbia acting at the direction, with the encouragement, or with the support of the accused, executed a campaign of terror and violence directed at Kosovo Albanian civilians.

  It is alleged that the operations targeting the Kosovo Albanians were undertaken with the objective of expelling a substantial portion of the Kosovo Albanian population from Kosovo in an effort to ensure continued Serbian control over the province. The indictment goes on to describe a series of well-planned and coordinated operations undertaken by the forces of the FRY and Serbia.

  Approximately 800,000 Kosovo Albanian civilians were expelled from the province by their forced removal and subsequent looting and destruction of their homes, or by the shelling of villages. Surviving residents were sent to the borders of neighbouring countries. En route, many were killed, abused and had their possessions and identification papers stolen. Furthermore, specific massacres allegedly committed by Serb forces in places such as Dakovica/Gjakove, Suva Reka/Suhareke, Racak/Reçak, Bela Crkva/Bellacerke, Mala Krusa/Krushe e Vogel, Velika Krusa/Krushe e Mahde, Padaliste/Padalishte, Izbica/Izbice, Vucitrn/Vushtrri, Dubrava/Dubrave Prison complex, Meja/Meje and Kacani/Kacanik are listed in the indictment.

  The accused are charged by virtue of their positions, as follows:

  Slobodan Milosevic as President of the FRY, Supreme Commander of the VJ, President of the Supreme Defence Council and pursuant to his de facto authority; Milan Milutinovic as President of Serbia, member of the Supreme Defence Council and pursuant to his de facto authority; Dragoljub Ojdanic as Chief of General Staff of the VJ; Nikola Sainovic as Deputy Prime Minister of the FRY; Vlajko Stojiljkovic as Minister of Internal Affairs of Serbia.

  Charges: The indictment charges Slobodan Milosevic, Milan Milutinovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic, Nikola Sainovic and Vlajko Stojiljkovic on the basis of individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute) and superior criminal responsibility (Article 7(3) thereof) with:one count of violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3 - murder), four counts of crimes against humanity (Article 5 - deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds)

  The Indictment "Croatia"

  Factual allegations: According to the indictment, confirmed on 8 October 2001, Slobodan Milosevic participated in a "joint criminal enterprise" between at least 1 August 1991 and June 1992. The purpose of this enterprise was the forcible removal of the majority of the Croat and other non-Serb population from approximately one-third of the territory of the Republic of Croatia, an area he planned to become part of a new Serb-dominated state. This area included those regions that were referred to by Serb authorities as the "Serbian Autonomous District ("SAO") Krajina", the "SAO Western Slavonia", and the "SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem" (collectively referred to by Serb Authorities after 19 December 1991 as the "Republic of Serbian Krajina ("RSK")) and "Dubrovnik Republic".

  It is alleged that, during the above period, Serb forces, comprised of the Yugoslav People's Army ("JNA") units, local Territorial Defence ("TO") units and TO units from Serbia and Montenegro, local and Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs ("MUP") police units and paramilitary units, attacked and took control of towns, villages and settlements in the territories listed above. After the take-over, the Serb forces, in cooperation with the local Serb authorities, established a regime of persecutions designed to drive the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population from these territories. This regime included the extermination, wilful killing or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons, the deportation or forcible transfer of at least 170,000 Croat and other non-Serb civilians and the arrest and unlawful confinement or imprisonment under inhumane conditions of thousands of Croat and other non-Serb civilians. As a result, virtually the whole of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population were forcibly removed, deported or killed in the "Serbian Autonomous District ("SAO") Krajina", the "SAO Western Slavonia", and the "SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem" regions. Further, public and private property in all the relevant areas was intentionally and wantonly destroyed and plundered, including homes, religious, historical and cultural buildings.

  According to the indictment, during the relevant period, Slobodan Milosevic was President of the Republic of Serbia and as such exercised effective control or substantial influence over the participants of the joint criminal enterprise and, either alone or acting in concert with others, effectively controlled or substantially influenced the actions of the Federal Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia ("SFRY") and later the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("FRY"), the Serbian MUP, the JNA, the Serb-run TO staff in the relevant territories, and the Serb volunteer groups.

  Charges: The indictment charges Slobodan Milosevic on the basis of individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute) and superior criminal responsibility (Article 7(3) thereof) with:nine counts of grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Article 2 thereof - wilful killing; unlawful confinement; torture; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly),

  13 counts of violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3 thereof - murder; torture; cruel treatment; wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education or religion; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects), and

  10 counts of crimes against humanity (Article 5 thereof - persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; extermination; murder; imprisonment; torture; inhumane acts; deportation; inhumane acts (forcible transfers)).

  The Indictment "Bosnia and Herzegovina"

  Factual allegations: Individual Criminal Responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute)

  According to the indictment, from 1987 until late 2000, Slobodan Milosevic was the dominant political figure in Serbia and the SFRY/FRY. It is alleged that Slobodan Milosevic, acted alone and in the joint criminal enterprise in the following ways:

  (a) He exerted control over the elements of the Yugoslav People's Army ("JNA") and the Yugoslav Army ("VJ") which participated in the planning, preparation, facilitation and execution of the forcible removal of the majority of non-Serbs, principally Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, from large areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  (b) He provided financial, logistical and political support to the Bosnian Serb Army ("VRS"). These forces subsequently participated in the execution of the joint criminal enterprise.

  (c) He exercised substantial influence over and assisted the political leadership of the "Republika Srpska" in the planning, preparation, facilitation and execution of the take-over of municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the subsequent forcible removal of the majority of non-Serbs.

  (d) He participated in the planning and preparation of the take-over of municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the subsequent forcible removal of the majority of non-Serbs. He provided the financial, material and logistical support for such a take-over.

  (e) He participated in the formation, financing, supply, support and direction of special forces of the Republic of Serbia Ministry of Internal Affairs ("MUP"). These special forces participated in the execution of the joint criminal enterprise.

  (f) He participated in providing financial, logistical and political support and direction to Serbian irregular forces or paramilitaries. These forces participated in the execution of the joint criminal enterprise.

  (g) He controlled, manipulated or otherwise utilised Serbian state-run media to spread exaggerated and false messages of ethnically based attacks by Bosnian Muslims and Croats against Serbs intended to create an atmosphere of fear and hatred among Serbs living in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina which contributed to the forcible removal of the majority of non-Serbs.

  Superior Criminal Responsibility (Article 7(3) of the Statute)

  The indictment further alleges that Slobodan Milosevic, while holding positions of superior authority, is also responsible for the acts and/or omissions of his subordinates, pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute. A superior is responsible for the criminal acts of his subordinates if he knew or had reason to know that his subordinates were about to commit such acts or had done so, and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or punish the perpetrators.

  According to the indictment the Federal Presidency had effective control over the JNA as its "Commander-in-Chief" and other units under the supervision of the JNA. Generals Veljko Kadijevic and Blagoje Adzic, who directed and supervised the JNA in Bosnia and Herzegovina, were in constant communication and consultation with the accused.

  On 27 April 1992, the Supreme Defence Council was formed. As a member of the Supreme Defence Council and as President of the FRY, Milosevic had de jure and de facto control over the JNA and later the VJ.

  The indictment also alleges that Milosevic exercised control over key figures in the Serbian MUP as well as in the State Security (Drzavna bezbednost, DB). The MUP and the DB directed the actions of the special forces and Serb paramilitary groups operating in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Charges:

  The indictment charges Slobodan Milosevic on the basis of individual criminal responsibility (Article 7(1) of the Statute) and superior criminal responsibility (Article 7(3) thereof) with:

  two counts of genocide and complicity in genocide under Article 4 of the Statute;

  10 counts of crimes against humanity involving persecution, extermination, murder, imprisonment, torture, deportation and inhumane acts (forcible transfers) under Article 5 of the Statute;

  eight counts of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 involving wilful killing, unlawful confinement, torture, wilfully causing great suffering, unlawful deportation or transfer, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property under Article 2 of the Statute;

  nine counts of violations of the laws or customs of war involving inter alia attacks on civilians, unlawful destruction, plunder of property and cruel treatment under Article 3 of the Statute.

  The Proceedings

  Amicus curiae: On 30 August (for the Kosovo case), 30 October (for the Croatia case) and 23 November 2001 (for the Bosnia case), the Trial Chamber issued orders inviting the Registrar to designate counsel to appear before it in the three cases as amicus curiae considering that it is "desirable and in the interests of securing a fair trial", that an amicus curiae be appointed as permitted by Rule 74 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, "not to represent the accused but to assist in the proper determination of the case". The amicus curiae is to assist the Trial Chamber by:

  1) making any submissions properly open to the accused by way of preliminary or other pre-trial motion;

  2) making any submissions or objections to evidence properly open to the accused during the trial proceedings and cross-examining witnesses as appropriate;

  3) drawing to the attention of the Trial Chamber any exculpatory or mitigating evidence; and

  4) acting in any other way which designated counsel considers appropriate in order to secure a fair trial.

  On 6 September, 7 November and 27 November 2001, the Registrar of the Tribunal, Mr. Hans Holthuis, appointed Mr. Steven Kay QC, Mr. Branislav Tapuskovic and Prof. Michail Wladimiroff to act as amici curiae in the three cases. On 10 October 2002, the Trial Chamber instructed the Registrar to revoke the designation of Prof. Michail Wladimiroff as amicus curiae. On 22 November 2002, it designated Mr. Timothy McCormack to act as amicus curiae.

  Joinder: On 1 February 2002, the Appeals Chamber ordered that the three Indictments concerning Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina be tried together in one single trial.

  Trial: The trial commenced on 12 February 2002 with evidence relevant only to the charges relating to Kosovo.The Prosecution concluded its case regarding Kosovo on 11 September 2002. On 26 September 2002, the Prosecution started the presentation of its case regarding Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Trial Chamber III: Judge Richard May, United Kingdom (Presiding) Judge Patrick Robinson, Jamaica Judge O-Gon Kwon, South Korea
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 12:42 pm
  Walter, I certainly do not approve of some of RD's views. (See their issue in 1999 on Milosevic.) As to the educational level of their readers; a great many people, much more intelligent than myself, read this magazine.

  There are many articles that are heartwarming or informative. The article I mentioned was quite informative and should be a warning, regardless of the educational level of the reader. Do you believe that The House of Saud is inviolate?

  Walter, I find myself agreeing with your posts most of the time, and really feel your opinion on this particular article would change if you were to READ it. The article is really quite insightful, despite being aimed at readers at 'grade eight level'.

  I am a bit disappointed that you would trash an article you admit you haven't read. :(
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 12:56 pm
  Regarding Racak: Godfred wrote: "If Judge May resolves (as he did in fact on 12 March, 2003 ...), that "there were some KLA members killed" at Racak on 15 January, 1999 including also Hajrizi Bajrami who is not listed by name in the relevant Schedule A attached, but who (according to the Prosecutor, mr. Nice) "was killed...further down at site number 2" (2) it follows that evidently the incident at Racak did neither take place as described nor for the reasons given in the ICTY Indictment!" I think it is more complicated than that. There are several events that took place, but - and this is the point - not all of them are "relevant". In early June 2002 the former KLA commander for Racak, Shukri Buja, testified in Hague. He admitted, among other things, that the KLA had fairly heavy weaponry. (Another witness evidently told the Court that the KLA only used rifle guns!) So, Nice, May and Co. are quite aware that there was some fighting going on. They know that KLA members died at Racak on Jan. 15, 1999. They are not interested in that though. Their whole focus is on that infamous "gully". During Ranta's testimony, May (following a comment by his crony Nice) dismissed Milosevic's reference to a trial that dealt with the Racak events, since it was related to the death of someone who was found in the village itself.
  
  Mats G
  Germany

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 12:58 pm
  Correction: It should be "hunting rifles", not "rifle guns"!
  
  Mats G
  Germany

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 1:36 pm
  Godfred Louis-Jensen - my mistake for believing you were being rude. I have read a number of your posts and can see that being rude is not your style.

  Although for us it is useful to have Tapuskovic around and Milosevic probably (who knows?) respects him just a little, he has provided legitimacy to this court, one supposes particularly among Serbs. Although he has been a thorn in the side of the prosecution. He has also given credance to the view that the court (or amicus) is able to give a defendant a fair trial. It has enabled supporters of the 'tribunal' to say 'Look how fair we are, Milosevic has himself and an amicus supporting him, two against one. And the amicus himself is a Serb so dont tell me the court is anti Serb'. Presumably Serbs tuning in to the 'trial' respect Tapuskovic and think he would not take part in an anti Serb (or anti Slav) 'tribunal'. Godfred what do you think his presence says?

  His being there as amicus or as a member of the prosecution team does not make much difference. It does on a personal level, but as to the mans integrity... Even if he donated that blood money to the victims of NATO bombing it still would not make it right. Im also certain that he made more money at that 'court' than most Serbs make in 5, 10 years.

  Dennis it is not easy to find this page and I share in the frustration particularly of Vera and from voices in Yugoslavia who do not have the fast connections we in the US are spoilt with.

  Alas I share your view of most Uneducated Americans - particularly those constantly telling others to re-read their posts and admonishing other posters for being child like. Something about pots and kettles methinks.
  
  R Desmond
  US

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 2:39 pm
  Reuters reported this today:

  Responding to a demand of the United Nations (news - web sites) war crimes tribunal Belgrade on Wednesday cleared the use of transcripts from the era of Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites), now on trial in The Hague (news - web sites)-based court.

  The U.N. court last month told Serbia and Montenegro to deliver stenographic recordings of meetings between Milosevic, the ex-Yugoslav and Serbian president, and other senior politicians.

  The country's Supreme Defense Council on Wednesday authorized the court to use recordings of minutes of its meetings while Milosevic was in power.

  COMMENT: These transcripts so far have turned out to be of insignificant importance. They have not been very helpful in linking the accused with anything, but rather doing the opposite.
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 2:47 pm
  Vera mentioned that she had reservations about posting her description of Galbraith's appearance in court because Andy W had already posted a good description. Please, the more reports the better. I remember some time ago Dan B posted a good report and ended with "to be continued". The second part never arrived and I wondered if he decided not to post because others had covered it. I am grateful to all of you who post the goings on at the Hague. When Vera reappears after an absence I literally cheer aloud.
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 3:04 pm
  Hi Nikole, I posted my complete report on Galbraith. I am now writing a report on the Mesic`s advisor who finished on Monday. Vera posted hers as well, as for Andy I don`t remember. Check the arhicves maybe.

  
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 3:35 pm
  Rebecka,

  Although I am not certain as to how many posters have seriously "wondered at the wording of the indictments", may I suggest that you kindly provide us also with a map of the Balkans?

  Desmond,

  Well, - yes! Tapuskovic's presence is a sign, that this world is not perfect. I'll have to think about your question - but surely mr. Milosevic would not be "getting a fair trial" even if Tapuskovic were not present?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 6:55 pm
  Monday June 30 General Agotic, present advisor to the Croatian government and former officer in the Yugoslav air force, testified and lied and lied and lied until his nose and face turned beet red. Everything that he should have known in detail he answered “I don’t know anything about that” but he knew names and numbers of Croatian officers in positions of authority in the JNA and everything that pointed to Croatian crimes was not true or partially true with justification or qualification.

  As a senior air force officer in the JNAF before he joined Croatian forces Agotic claims that he only knew about events from the media. He stated that all orders in the JNA were oral and he was not aware about the unfolding outside threat to the breakup of Yugoslavia.

  He claimed that Croatia was justified in illegal smuggling of arms since they felt threatened by the ‘truth rallies’ in Serbia. These rallies were held by Kosovo Serbs to explain their plight in Kosovo. When Milosevic asked him about Croat extremists such as Glavas and his extremist rallies he responded “I refuse to comment about that”.

  Milosevic asked him about arms smuggling by General Spigelj and Kikos he responded that he only found out about it from the media. When asked about the disappearance of 600 Serbs from Sisak his answer was “I don’t know about that”. This was when May jumped in and croaked “this is propaganda”. When he was asked about disappearance of 100 Serbs from Split and disappearances of Serbs from Gospic and Karlovac he responded “not my area of responsibility” or “I don’t know about that area”.

  Milosevic asked if it was logical for the JNA to collect weapons from all Territorial Defense Forces in every republic to keep them out of the hands of civilians he responded that this favored the Serbs since some Serb officers gave weapons to Serb villages. Milosevic asked what happened to those who were caught. He responded that they were arrested by the MUP. Milosevic forced him to admit that the JNA wanted to preserve Yugoslavia and that he Agotic was sacked as an unreliable officer with a different vision for Yugoslavia.

  After he was sacked Agotic became an officer in the Croat forces and under his command foreigners from Germany, England and the Croat Diaspora fought against the JNA. When Milosevic asked him about atrocities committed by men under his command he gave a standard response “I don’t know anything about that”. He was asked by Milosevic about Croat paramilitary forces at Vukovar and the atrocities committed by them. Milosevic named Paraga, (Bill) Vidic and Lukic all well known to the witness but he responded “I read about it”.

  Milosevic continued with this line of questioning and that is when May jumped in dripping with slime and asked the witness, slime using from his words, “ Do you know any evidence of this as it was put to you by THIIIIIIIIISSSS accused in HIIIIS usual way?” and without waiting for a response this slime bucket turns the question, not that the question should not be asked, and asks “Were there reports of civilians who were casualties in Vukovar?”

  The witness continues to respond to Milosevic with “I have no knowledge of that” and claims that he knew nothing of Croatian army in Bosnia and Herzegovina, how Serb POW at Odjak were used to clear land mines and that there were seventeen prison camps for Serb civilians in Posavina.

  The witness did admit that he was in command of the Croatian Air Force during Operation Storm. When Milosevic asked him about strafing and bombing refugee civilian columns the SOB said “we didn’t do that”. How did you lose a pilot in Bosnia as he was attacking the refugee columns? Chest out, arrogance in his voice that he must have picked up from Mr. May, he responded “There were no Croatian Air Force casualties in Operation Storm.

  Milosevic pressed him and said that Croatian General Bobetko accused you of these atrocities against the refugees. His response was that “Bobetko was not informed and what he said is not true”. He was asked by Milosevic if he knew that he was on the list compiled by Serbian commission of war criminals. He responded that he knew something about it as it was written up in yellow journalism.

  Milosevic said that these accusations about his criminality or lack of must exist in the Croatian archives to which he responded that Croatia is cooperating with The Hague and they are welcome to the archives. Milosevic asked if the Tribunal has requested the information to which Agotic responded “I don’t know”. It seems to me that tribunal is only hunting Serbs.

  Agotic became a babbling idiot when Milosevic produced minutes of a meeting that took place during the planning stage of operation Storm at which Agotich was present. Milosevic quotes Tudjman discussing the ethnic composition of communities in Croatia where Serbs make up over ninety percent of the population. Tudjman is quoted as saying that this will be different after. Milosevic asks if this was true and Agotic stammers, stutters and claims that he is unable to find the document that was in front of him. May orders Milosevic to give his document to Agotic, which Milosevic reluctantly does. Since Milosevic’s notes are on the document he only gives him the first page. To this Agotic responds that his memory was not clear but he was at the meeting. Milosevic reminds Agotic that at this meeting where he was present Tudjman spoke about Croatian borders and Croatian establishment of Herceg Bosna. These minutes showed Agotich to be a liar about his lack of knowledge of Croatia’s involvement in the wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The session ends when the court is unable to produce a translation of a document about which Milosevic started to question Agotic.

  Since I have not observed the trial session for a long time the most interesting aspect for me about Monday was that this Croatian officer if the biggest liar so far. He lied more than the Albanian farmers who understandably feared for their life on return to Kosovo. Agotich knew everything about things he should have known very little but remembered nothing where he should have known everything. The other point of interest was the actions of Mr. May where I can honestly conclude that the only difference between May and a bucket of slime is the bucket.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 7:24 pm
  Rebecka Justice my comments about RD were not intended to demean those who read the Reader’s Digest. I take issue with those who use it as evidence. I read the vocabulary section and the humour and that to me is heartwarming. I cant comment on what the article states about the Saud family but I can certainly comment about the Readers Digest and I am of the opinion that this magazine is leisure reading and it will never tell it as it is nor say:

  “Rise like lions after slumber

  In unvanquishable number!

  Shake your chains to earth, like dew

  Which in sleep had fallen on you---

  Ye are many, they are few!

  Shelley
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 7:33 pm
  Correction it should read “ slime oozing “ in the article on Agotic.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 9:31 pm
  Gogol, I did miss to mention the Srebrenica document (Clinton-Izetbegovic agreement) from the Galbraith testimony, and I believe I simply failed to see this bit, due to my Nes-coffee break. I remember going to the kitchen, mixing this huge mug of my daily caffeine dose on the rocks and when I returned to the TV, everybody in the courtroom were in turmoil over something. But, since I couldn't figure out what was it about, I just didn't mention it. Later on, I've read on the FreeSerbia site (the only source that wrote about it) the following passage in their daily report about the "trial": "Milosevic also exhibited in the courtroom a document which he has received as the exonerating material from the Prosecution, according to the rules of the Tribunal. An unnamed source in this document stated that Alija Izetbegovic, the President of the Presidency of Bosnia & Herzegovina, in the course of his meeting with a group of citizens of Srebrenica in 1993, said that the American President Bill Clinton 'promised him to let Chetniks enter Srebrenica and kill 5,000 Muslim civilians, which will cause an international intervention'. Galbraith said that this is 'unthinkable and utterly absurd, almost ridiculous'. The Prosecutor Jeffrey Nice said that the Prosecution considered there was nothing truthful in this document, but they had been obliged to disclose it to Milosevic according to the rules, although there might be a 'manipulation' in question here." Thanks for pointing out this interesting detail in your posts. I might add that there were similar reports in our press on this issue even back in 1995, not specifically mentioning Clinton, but all agreeing that some kind of agreement had been reached with the Muslims to let go of Srebrenica and that somebody took advantage of that situation to organize some killings (but certainly not 7-8,000) and blame the Serbs.

  As regards the amicus curiae Tapuskovic, the general consensus here within the new regime when he was appointed was that this indeed gave legitimacy to the almost universally despised Tribunal, as he was perceived to be an old-fashioned apolitical citizen who had nothing to do with the former nor the present regime, a respected lawyer with huge clientele. [Yes, he was surely handsomely paid by the ICTY, but, very much like the previously-sacked Dutch amicus Wladimiroff, this was way below the fees he lost due to this engagement.] But, then I saw two of his TV interviews, where he spoke of his idea what his role as an amicus should be (something along the line "we should help the Tribunal see the whole picture") and about the idea of universal justice ("the ICC should regard everybody as equal, therefore to exclude the US citizens would be wrong"). There were no more TV interviews with him.

  In the meantime, he indeed tried to "help the Tribunal see the whole picture", by vigorously cross-examining and demolishing almost every witness mainly with pointing out the gross inconsistencies in their previous written statements vs. the in vivo testimonies or by asking seemingly innocent questions arising from the documents. I'm sure this started to increasingly annoy May, as could be seen from their numerous bitter exchanges.

  I managed to see probably the last one of May-Tapuskovic encounters on Monday, 30 June. It was the end of the testimony of General Imre Agotic, a former JNA Colonel who left his Army to place himself in the service of his Croatian fatherland and its fledgling military. I haven't reported about that particular testimony because it struck me as utterly pitiful, apart from being irrelevant: very much like Galbraith, Agotic spent most of his time justifying the Operation Storm. (To give you the idea how pitiful the ex-YU Colonel and current Croatian General was, check his twisted logic on loyalty to one's profession, Army and country: he stated he began to resent his former superior, the Army Intelligence General Aleksandar Vasiljevic, "a superb professional", after the latter had discovered the infamous arms smuggling affair of the Croatian General Spegelj: "When he had already discovered that one of the Republics was arming itself, he should have grasped the reasons for that and should have influenced the top brass of the Army to take a different attitude towards it." How ridiculous a man could be?!)

  To go back to Tapuskovic: after Milosevic finished cross-examining Agotic (making him look rather silly and stating at one point he was "very pleased with this witness"), Tapuskovic got his 15 minutes and really made May hopping mad. May completely lost control and practically yelled something inexcusable, which revealed to the fullest his true sentiments about the Indictment and the whole "trial": "You're presenting the case for the Defence! You are here as an amicus curiae, a friend of the court, you are not here to defend Serbia!" I couldn't believe my ears. Could it be that indeed Serbia is on trial here, and not Milosevic, as many are firmly convinced?

  And what was it that enraged May so much? What did Tapuskovic say? Nothing unusual, he merely quoted from already disclosed documents, minutes of the Croatian Government's meetings before and after the Operation Storm, attended by Agotic as well, where Tudjman stated that the Storm is to "solve the demographic problem as well" (before) and "there were half a million Serbs there, where are they now!?" (after). Tapuskovic just requested Agotic to confirm that all this had been said as quoted and the witness confirmed. That was all that triggered this outburst from May. Was not May revealing the whole purpose of this "trial", namely to blame Serbia for everything that happened, and not to indict just one individual, Milosevic, as Del Ponte and Nice claimed in their opening statement? Thanks, May, for making that perfectly clear now.

  After this, Tapuskovic politely tried to explain these are the documents already submitted by the Prosecution and he's not introducing any new evidence, just pointing out for the panel the significant issues. May was still fuming and unable to speak, so he let Tapuskovic finish his questioning, but then Kwon took over, exercising more control than May and politely wanted to know "why are the events around the Operation Storm relevant, being outside the time-frame of the Indictment". Interesting! And what about 2/3 of the examination-in-chief dedicated to the Operation Storm with at least two recent witnesses, Galbraith and Agotic? Could it be that these two were allowed to go on about it just because they were justifying the Operation Storm and exculpating the Croats? Tapuskovic calmly tried to explain that the panel is to decide the relevance of all the circumstances that preceded and followed the events from the Indictment. And then, he mentioned something important: apparently, there is a written petition by all of the amici as a group, regarding the general time-frame of events, relevance, history and cause-and-effect in this proceeding. According to Tapuskovic, this written petition contains their opinion that there were civil wars and no such thing as the general plan, that the historical background is necessary to understand that there was justified defence involved etc. etc. Tapuskovic added that it is his personal opinion that the panel must go back at least as the WW2 to understand the rightful fears of the Serbs, which were proved by the Operation Storm, and that the panel would commit "a serious omission" if they neglect these circumstances.

  Call me stupid, but I think what Tapuskovic said first to May and then to Kwon that day has finally sealed his fate and he had been probably "asked to leave". However, I would very much like to be able to read that written petition by amici. If I understood Tapuskovic correctly, they disputed there the whole concept of the "joint criminal enterprise". No wonder May got so nervous.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 10:02 pm
  

  Vera,

  I got more I really asked for. Merci infinement. Now I wish I could send you real Central American café to make your trial sessions more aromatic and tasteful. Nescafe brings memories of hard times in my childhood, steering the potion with few drops of water until it became pasty and adding the hot water at last, it did taste better.

  I have to say May (NATO) seems to be under strain when I expected S. M to show the strain more than anyone. Obviously May's circles are beating him hard and a spineless wimp he his, he must be struggling with reality and desire. Robinson (COLONIAL) must be pretty aware of his position and south Korea's Kwong (OCCUPIED) considering the situation there I better don't venture into any speculation.

  Oh, one thing I hope Tapuskovic will sing once free of his chains. And I mean it, the coffee.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 11:03 pm
  Godfred Louis-Jensen

  Well, haven't you become the nit-picky one.

  I wonder if a less cursory examination of that web-site might have any influence on your opinion of the Racak report there, done in the very early days. Of course, you're free to continue to dismiss it completely on the basis that you might have found an error or two in it; or more likely, methinks, the source of the link (ie: me).

  I hope you're willing to be even-handed, and apply that level of hyper-criticallity and consequent dismissiveness to all other web-sites on the subject, and related subjects; including the Emperor's Clothes web-site. Perhaps I'll start citing FreeRepublic (and EC) more, with precisely that end in mind.

  Walker himself convinced me pretty well concerning Racak, when this disgusting apology for a human being, this disgusting apologist for real massacres in Latin America, disgusting lobbyist for the murderous El Salvador regime, going so far as to tell the US Congress that it would be "unhelpful" to look too deeply into that regime's outrages, declared at Racak, that he had "never seen anything like it". As far as I'm concerned, Racak case pretty much closed.

  Interesting though when Walker denied being a CIA asset when asked by Milosevic. The CIA actually runs special exercises for trainees to try and trick them into revealing that they are CIA assets; something which is a big NO-NO for CIA operatives. Phillip Agee's now somewhat ancient book (Inside the Company: CIA Diary) describes this in detail, as it probably is also elsewhere.

  So, Godfred, go and hunt that book out and read it, if only cursorily, then you'll be able to dismiss that also entirely on the basis of any errors, however small in number, you may find there.

  I always really liked this letter from Prof. Mark Almond of Oxford University, which put the Balkans-Latin America analogy in a very neat nutshell:

  For Nicaragua, read Belarus

  So this is something else for you to pick holes in. Be careful, though, EC likes the letter too.

  Rebecca, you said:

  "As to your rambling on EC once again, I have a problem figuring out just what it is that is annoying you so much. For instance, what is it you disagree with???"

  You really should read other people's posts more carefully, or if you do not, at least don't bother to respond to them, as I suggested above.

  I have made absolutely clear in what ways I disagree with EC.

  and also:

  "You were one of those calling for the removal of the subject of Ramsey Clark as a topic."

  Nope, I never did. Unless I sleep-walked to my computer and made unconscious posts. I think that's more your style, though.

  and:

  "Please try to follow this. Since Ramsey Clark made 'himself' a part of this so called Trial, and continues to do so. >>>So, the folks at Emperor's Clothes choose not to address their dearth of treatment of Israeli-Palestinian issues before the "scales fell from their eyes on this". So be it. People will arrive at their own conclusions on this. <<< (The discussions that were being debated were the ones on Ramsey Clark, NOT the Palestinians. Go back and read them)"

  No, you go back and read them. Clark was not the only subject being discussed. The dearth of articles on the US Empire, hated by EC, and their main minion in the Middle East, prior to Jenin was questioned. With no answer, regrettably.

  and:

  "On another point; It would be more polite if ALL poster would remember that Jurist is providing a FREE service. Some of the remarks directed at the Administrators of this site are totally uncalled for, and have the tendency to make their authors look like spoiled brats."

  What? So it's a spoiled brat who points out the interesting fact that this forum is apparently no longer available as a live link from any other of the Jurist's web-pages? Don't you find that interesting? How would an incognescenti find this page from any other of the Jurist's web-pages?

  Of course, I may be wrong on this. If so, perhaps a Moderator would point out my mistake.

  And we can't comment that, of all people, Vera can only manage to post once a week, when we're all pretty much hanging on her words?
  
  Dennis Revell
  USA

• Wednesday July 02, 2003 at 11:13 pm
  Vera, the events and any crimes committed by any side during Operation Storm aught to be of great relevance to the ICTY.

  The security council resolution clearly states:

  2. Decides hereby to establish an international tribunal for the sole purpose of prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia between 1 January 1991 and a date to be determined by the Security Council upon the restoration of peace and to this end to adopt the Statute of the International Tribunal annexed to the above-mentioned report

  If Judge May refuses to give due weight, attention, and consideration to the events that transpired in Croatia, before, during, and after Operation Storm, or fails to note and/or prosecute crimes that occurred during this period by any and all parties then he is wilfully disregarding the very justification for the creation of the ICTY. It might well lead one to conclude that he (as one of only three presiding Judges for the ICTY) would then be in contempt of the UN security council resolution which created the ICTY.

  Judge May may be correct in claiming that the events around the "Operation Storm" are of no relevance to the Milosevic indictment, but I don't think he can as easily claim that the events that occurred before, during and after Operation Storm, are of no relevance to him or to the ICTY.

  If he is correct in claiming that Operation Storm lies outside the time frame of the indictment, he is indirectly confirming his belief that counter to the impressions of a great many, any "joint criminal enterprise" involving Mr. Milosevic, was not involved in, nor responsible for Operation Storm. This indirectly confirms that Mr. Milosevic can not be considered responsible for starting the war in the Balkans, since war in the Balkans clearly predates the activity of his claimed "joint criminal enterprise".

  I will add that I am personally rather bemused as to why Mr. May would consider Operation Storm of no relevance to the Milosevic trial. This trial is predicated on an endictment that reads in part:

  103. The unlawful deportation and forcible transfer of thousands of Kosovo Albanians from their homes in Kosovo involved well-planned and co-ordinated efforts by the leaders of the FRY and Serbia, and forces of the FRY and Serbia, all acting in concert. Actions similar in nature took place during the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1991 and 1995.

  Did not Operation Storm occur in 1995. Am I to conclude that Judge May is indirectly observing that some parts of the indictment against Milosevic are of no relevance to the indictment. If this is indeed the case, what other parts of the indictment I wonder are likewise of no relevance to the indictment.
  
  Ian Davis
  Wateroo
  Ontario, Canada