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

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 2:38 am
  CIA TAKES (ALL OF) THE BLAME...

  ...for a line in U.S. President George Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union address alleging that Iraq was "trying to buy uranium in Africa."

  Said Bush: "The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa...Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

  "It should never have been included in the speech," CIA Director George Tenet said Friday, - months after the illegal war of attack and the occupation of Iraq.

  story

  Then how about U.S. President Bill Clinton's March 19, 1999 address announcing NATO's determination to launch air strikes against the F. R. of Yugoslavia?

  Said Clinton: "We should remember what happened in the village of Racak back in January -- innocent men, women and children taken from their homes to a gully, forced to kneel in the dirt, sprayed with gunfire -- not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were."

  Considering the treacherous rôle of "ambassador" William Walker, infamous Head of OSCE's Kosovo Verification Mission, I just wonder when CIA TAKES THE BLAME?

  http://www.fair.org/press-releases/racak-update.html
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 3:07 am
  Vera, - thanks! It is quite clear what to search for with regard to Hashim Thaqi (and others), - starting with that fine analysis of the testimony of protected witness K6, which Peter did - kindly escorted I believe by gracious goddesses of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome (on Thursday July 03, 2003 at 6:45 pm).

  Under cross-examination witness K6 has been confirming that "every killing of policemen" was considered a successful operation for which KLA members were given 5.000 German marks and that especially towards the end of 1998 such operations were coordinated and organised by Hashim Thaqi (and four others, which the witness mentioned by name).

  Peter on Saturday July 05, 2003 (at 11:07 am) confirmed having read "a report that Hashim Thaqi had boasted of his involvement in the murder of policemen", suggesting that if this "report of Thaqi’s boast" can be tracked down we have a confession, - and hence evidence that a Court could not ignore...

  Unable so far to locate what triggered his memory, Peter has been asking if anyone here know "the source of the report that Hasim Thaqi boasted of murdering policemen"?

  I am attempting to follow up on this: At Andrej Tisma's PERSONAL website (http://aaart.tripod.com/personal.htm) I've found an article dated March 7th, 2000 and stating that "Hashim Thaqi RECENTLY told FOREIGN REPORTERS how KLA committed crimes..."

  So, it may be sometime between August 1999 and February 2000 incl. Hence the plead for help in identifying the place and date of Hashim Thaqi's meeting with (which?) foreign reporters...

  Just a minute matter: The Investigating Judge of the District Court of Pristina, whom the KLA prevented from investigating Racak in January 1999, was Mrs Danica Marinkovic (and not Maksimovic, I believe).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 8:13 am
  Well Vera although you are careful to avoid to committ yourself on the question of whether SPS and JUL stole or not. It is we or the majority of people who live in Serbia who think that politicians job is to take as much as he can. Or do you disagree? Is it normal to be stolen from? Should we be quiet about it because it does not suit our anti Hague position? No we should not. Really you should think about that.

  No hiding behind local election result of SPS changes that. So 'Sasa would argue that Marko's son was a thief' et. Whats matter Vera dont you have an opinion yourself? So say it, you think that Milosevic didnt steal? Say that his son legitametely got all that business. You wont because you dont believe it do you? Its hard to be part of 'we' isnt it? But go on, become 'I' and deny the allegation then I will drop the we. I promise. Otherwise it is also your duty to inform us of that. That is if balance means something to you.

  Gogol - the first round elections were counted. Go back to check. Milosevic lost the first round. What you saw on your TV were election papers that people that stormed the parliament said were fraud voting papers marked for Milosevic. Papers could have been planted so I dont say they were evidence of fraud by Milosevic.

  It wasnt OTPOR that stormed the parliament. It was a mix, hooligans, gang members, workers, farmers et. Serbian people are not so stupid to be propoganded just because OTPOR was funded by CIA. People had enough - we had enough. OTPOR was probably 1 percent of that crowd.

  Yes extradition of Milosevic was against the law.

  Ivko Rig what has being man or woman to do with anything? I dont know how to answer which Yugoslavia I am from because it doesnt exist any more. Trial is important in some way but sometimes boring. Forgive me but these questions are not interesting to anybody.

  Ian no really I understand. What you said I completely agree with. I have big problems with the Hague tribunal and want some kind of justice also. You do not need convince me at all. It is the other issues that some of us (we again) disagree. That is why this subject keeps going on. Some people dont like to think that man whose right they support in Hague might be dishonest. I say to them whether he is thief or not he should get fair trial. Its not a problem.
  
  sasa kapor
  yug

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 10:03 am
  

  Sasa,

  Give me a break. The results of r first round of the elections were not counted, at least not in a regular, legal and fair manner. At least one party refused to participate in the counting, then the commission stopped for several days leaving the ballots open to any manipulation.

  If the dislike and "People had enough - we had enough" why was this not reflected in the election results?

  The Americans congratulated themselves not only in Washington but also in Budapest, and the otpor leaders and other recipients of their 36,000 000 US dollars were given awards in Budapest by the US ambassador for their job well done!

  You and your "we" can be proud of it!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 10:09 am
  Sasa, Let the one without a sin cast the first stone.

  I agree with Vera. As a Serbian, I am sick and tired when individuals are using phrases "US" and "THEM". That approach smells so much on communism that we experienced. If (when) SPS and Radical win election who is going to be us and who them?
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 12:51 pm
  So, - may "we" (you and I) conclude that for Milosevic to "get a fair trial" is "not a problem"? (Sasa, 8:13 am).

  Hardly! Sasa just "thinks", that "some people" don't like to think "that (the) man whose right(s) they support in Hague might be dishonest".

  Allright then - just tell those people truly "whether he is thief or not," Sasa. As it is not just Ian Davis (July 11, 2003 at 10:55 pm) but "we", who do not defend (or "support") Mr. Milosevic so much as oppose (international) injustice, please give "us" (or Ian + "us") a break until you convince anybody that the fact(?) that "the majority of people who live in Serbia think that politicians job is to take as much as he can" has got something significant to do with the ICTY "trial" against Milosevic at the Hague.

  Vera is right of course in that "you may express your opinion as anybody else here" in this "Milosevic Trial Discussion"; quite likely a lot of us whether Serbian or not do care for your assessment of the "domestic situation" (and that of other Serbian's as well). I do, in any case; but may I suggest that you attempt to distinguish charges of "Crimes against Humanity" and "War Crimes", issues concerning the U.S./NATO war on the FRY in 1999 (which gave rise to the socalled Indictment in the first place) from that of (possible) theft and crookery of some Rade Markovic, - and that you handle either issue separately (unless of course where they are necessarily to be linked).

  I do wonder whether in fact you'd really like to see the performance, the entire record of Mr. Milosevic as a President of the (former) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia being assessed by a Criminal Tribunal at The Hague (rather than by a court in Serbia)?

  I suggest that is in fact unfair to all parties involved, - including the "international community", which should not be bothered with deciding what the people in Serbia ought to handle themselves.

  The accusations against Mr. Milosevic (and "others", - in some ways indeed against the entire Serbian nation) concern "Deportation", "Murder" and "Persecution on Political, Racial and Religious Grounds" were serving NATO as the excuse for its war attack in 1999, - an aggression I believe that most of "us" now realize should be seen in the light also of subsequent U.S. aggression elsewhere (rather than in the light of whether, say, this or that Markovic is a "crook", as you are suggesting).

  It is important for all of us to establish, whether the ICTY accusations are in any way justified. This main issue is not just for the people of Serbia, but crucial for all of us (as in fact Mr. Milosevic was suggesting in his opening statement on 14 Februar, 2002).

  Excuse me for finally returning once again to that very concrete question about former KLA leader Hashim Thaqi, who "boasted of his involvement in the murder of policemen (ref.: Saturday July 05, 2003 at 11:07 am).

  It is suggested, that the ICTY has the facts of the(se) crimes committed by the KLA in Kosovo up to the NATO aggression, and the court also has evidence provided by the Belgrade authorities. To this may be added the evidence now in ICTY’s own records e.g. by the protected prosecution witness, K6 (on Monday, 10 June 2002). If the report of Thaqi’s "boasting" of murder of policemen can be found we also have a confession, - hence the court could not ignore this evidence.

  For a variety of reasons (mostly bad ones) "we" may be uncertain whether the KLA leadership will ever be indicted for the murders they committed in Kosovo. However if this report, (which Peter Taylor is certain of having read), can be tracked down then that would certainly contribute towards some fairness in "this farce at The Hague".

  How do "we" get to know the source of the report that Hashim Thaqi boasted of murdering policemen in Kosovo - on or about the time of the incident at Racak?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 1:42 pm
  Godfrey.. You say [The aggression against Serbia] should now be seen in the light of subsequent US aggression.

  I think you have this backwards. What should be seen is that the aggression against Serbia was illegal on many grounds, deliberately violated the UN and NATO charter, thus setting a precident and by doing so made similar illegal acts easier to commit in the future.

  It is not that the acts against Serbia can only in hindsight be seen to be part of a pattern.

  When a government/population or both think it is sometimes right to act outside of the rule of law they support "vigilante justice", and become directly or indirectly responsible for the resulting lynchings.

  The question I would ask those who support "vigilante justice" is just what did you expect to be the consequences. Did you really think a world in which governments shoot first and ask questions later, was going to be a world in which human rights were better protected. Did you think a world in which you aided and encouraged terrorists would be a safer world.

  NATO clearly understood that what it was doing was illegal. It had its own lawyers admit this in struggling to provide legal justification for the war against Kosovo.

  NATO.. and the war for Independence in Kosovo.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 4:43 pm
  I JUST MAY...

  have it "backwards" of course as you are suggesting, Ian. However I do not think so, - in any case I believe that I roughly agree with what you are saying.

  But this Lieutenant Colonel (of yours?), Michael E. Smith hasn't got it rrrright at all, - neither his "Conclusions", nor basic facts (is that guy from the Canadian Army - like Maissonneuve of the KVM)?

  Writes your Army Lawyer struggling to provide "legal justification" for the war against Serbia over Kosovo (page 2, I believe):

  (1) "In May 1998...the presence of the KLA and the violent attacks on Serbian police gave Milosevic the justification he needed for the ensuing vicious attacks on Albanian Kosovars."

  (and)

  (2) "In the summer of 1998 Milosevic repeated history and used the Yugoslav Army and the Interior Ministry to force over 800.000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo into Albania, the FYROM and Montenegro..."

  What "history"? Nope, Sir, - I'm afraid that Milosevic did nothing of the sort: The "ethnic Albanians" never left Kosovo (in any numbers) until AFTER the start of the NATO air attack, - the first major waves of "refugees" or "deportees"(?) being sighted I think on March 26th, 1999.

  And tell me why mr. Milosevic - a sensible man and then President of the FRY - would have "needed to make vicious attacks" on Kosovars, who were (his) Serbian citizens anyway?

  What nonsense! Admittedly I didn't read all of mr. Smith's learned report, but I've noted that in the "Conclusion" he is suggesting, that "Kosovo was the only autonomous province out of Yugoslavia that did not win independence at the break up in 1991". Sic! Which other "provinces" then "won independence" - and from whom indeed, Colonel Smith?

  What nonsense!

  Going back to your kind suggestion that I have it "backwards", let me just agree in "that the aggression against Serbia (or the FRY in 1999)...deliberately violated the UN and NATO Charter(s), thus setting a precedent and by doing so made similar...acts (of aggression) easier...in the future."

  "Easier" also in the sense of being more readily acceptable by the general public (let me briefly tell you, that in response to my "open letter" to Pauline H. Baker (July 10, 2003 at 3:32 pm) I had a brief answer from this President of the Washington-based Fun for Peace, concerning her public statement as quoted in the Los Angles Times (or was it just a remark on the position that she takes personally?), on Liberia's President Taylor as "the Milosevic of West Africa": Is that not reminiscent of how Milosevic in turn was being presented to US as "the Hitler of the Balkans", making aggression against "him" easier...

  "to be seen to be part of a pattern."
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 6:54 pm
  Imagine the pronoun "we" be replaced with "I", as Vera was suggesting:

  As for the expectations of those supporting "vigilante justice", one may find it somewhat reassuring that in strife-torn Liberia today President Bush "would be active, and the definition of that will be made known when we understand all the parameters."

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

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 9:17 pm
  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944977/posts?page=8

  Posting comments requested on the above!

  
  
  J, P
  USA.Wis

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 10:06 pm
  

  Sasa, I am reall grateful to you. I knew you would eventually answer to my questions. Thank you once again.

  Sasa I think some people here on this forum are doing a great thing. A thing of the utmost importance to all of us, even to those who do not even know it exists (I mean this forum). I believe you will agree with me that revealing the truth about recent history is sine qua non of our hoping for the better future. And truth is tricky sometimes. But here comes you. In my opinion your posts are the most revealing of that concealed truth. There are two problems I have with them. One is I spend hours reading them, and I have work to do. Another is I become over analytical; and people who know me well say I am at my worst when I get such. I deeply respect my friends.

  I really do not have much time to write but somehow I feel I have to answer to the passage in which you tried to answer to my questions.

  You say, "... what has being man or woman to do with anything?" I completely agree with you. I do not want you to think I am a chauvinist pig. But there is something. It was just for the thought that crossed me when I was reading one of your posts and after having felt a touch of, not really grounded, bitterness coming out of it. And now I do have to explain the background for that thought of mine. During the war(s) in the Balkans I was reading western press. They said there were a lot of rapes done there by Serbs. Reports of millions of them. I was not naive that much not to know that those numbers were exaggarated but still I did get numbed by the numbers and thought "They must be doing it to Serbian women too", and nobody even mentioned it which pissed me off even more. Not knowing it made us unable to give them some assistance in overcoming the trauma. Now whenever I meet a woman from the warring parties I have this bloody thought haunting me. Whenever I meet I Serb I have an even bloodier thought, "Is this man a rapist?". The only difference I see in this context between a man and a woman.

  Oh Sasa

  Quelle connerie la guere

  You say, "I dont know how to answer which Yugoslavia I am from because it does not exist any more." Why do you say then you are from Yugoslavia? An old memory of mine just for you. I heard an influential Yugoslavian politician say the following in the parliament of one of the rupublics before there was a single battle (he has a glass of wine in his hand and waits to propose to the camera) "Yugoslavia is a dead corpse". He went on with some claptrap about a thousand year waiting to become a nation (nation meaning here a people with their own independent state). Do you not think you may be hurting the feelings of those. And I do not believe you do because you say similar things about Milosevic as that man had been doing well before he drank to the death of Yugoslavia which does not necessarilys make you friends but ... confuses me. And it was only a part of my question. What I really would like to hear from you is how you see the possibility of restoring or new making of Yugoslavia.

  You say, "Trial is important in some way but sometimes boring." Yes, I partly agree with you, they (NATO people) are doing it professionally. They want us to be as bored as to forget about it. And they use the same tactics as you: "Let's repeat over and over again that the man is a thief; we do not expect people to believe it but enough is done if it is too much of work for them to prove the oposite. Sooner or later they will get bored by it and will go to the mall with their loved ones to do some shopping instead of following it".

  Now, not clear to me why you think it is important?

  You say, "Forgive me but these questions are not interesting to anybody." What should I forgive you? For other people not being interested in my questions? For your reminding me of the FACT? Sorry, cannot make any sense out of this, but would like to comment:

  Oh, yes, Sasa, psychologist are. ;-)
  
  ivko rig
  it

• Saturday July 12, 2003 at 11:31 pm
  Lieutenant Colonel Michael E. Smith isn't working for us if by that you mean Canada. He was providing legal advice to the US military, justifying the war against Serbia and thus clearly not an unbiased source.

  I don't agree with all he wrote, but I do note that in a number of places he gives considerable ground trying to defending his claim that the war against Serbia was legal, and by doing so provides strong documentary evidence from the historical record demonstrating its illegality.

  For example he notes that in June 1998, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned NATO that it must obtain a Security Council mandate prior to any military intervention in Kosovo. On 26 March 1999, Russia, China and Namibia urging NATO to stop its use of force. It notes that the General Counsel for the US department of defense in a speech acknowledged that no traditional legal justification appeared to support the use of force. It says that accompanying UN resolution 1199 declaring the situation in Kosovo a threat to peace and security in the region, both Russia and China attached legally valid declaratory statements qualifying their vote spelling out that the resolution should not be interpreted as authorizing the use of force. It observes there was no single justification for NATO's use of force in Yugoslavia upon which everyone [NATO] could agree. It doesn't mince words about the KLA being a terrorist organisation.

  Or consider this:

  A plain reading of the Chairman's [of the joint chief of staff] comments reveals a specific intent to assist the KLA in their war against the Yugoslav Army. There was no mention of humanitarian intervention. It appears the intent was indeed "to empower the KLA to create more fighting".

  On 2 June 199, the Washington Post revealed that the KLA and NATO were in fact partners in the war. Dropping all previous pretexts, NATO warplanes provided coordinated air support to a massive KLA offensive called Operation Arrow. The decisive battle of the war occurred on 7 June 1999 on Mount Pastrik. The KLA had been fighting its way down Mount Pastrik for several days, attempting to establish a new supply line. Serbian forces massed on the Kosovo side of the mountain, successfully stalled the KLA assault. THe KLA called in the Serbian positions to NATO, and US B-52 and B-1 bombers delivered the decisive blow.

  [Mount Pastrik is on the border with Albania, and the above action thus aided an invasion of Serbia by alien forces located in Albania.]

  I could say more but I will limit my use of band width. I'll end with this observation. The ICJ and the ICTY represent the UN, not NATO, and NATO remains in contempt of the UN security council, and the UN secretary general, and the UN charter, for waging a war against Serbia in definance of clear and specific UN instruction.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 12:22 am
  Godfrey, many Albanians did leave Kosovo before the war and seek political asylum elsewhere. They might have done this to avoid repression at home, or merely in the hope of translating poverty and fear of war at home into a better life abroad.

  June 1996: There are also believed to be 120,000 Kosovo Albanians in Germany-- mostly failed asylum-seekers. On May 16, the Serbian government agreed to take them back into the reconstituted Republic of Yugoslavia--Serbia and Montenegro. Germany said it will not pay Yugoslavia to expedite the Kosovo Albanians return.

  The irony is that most of Europe refused Kosovo Albanians asylum on the grounds that the conditions in Kosovo did not warrant it.

  Consider this internal German Intelligence Report:

  "Even in Kosovo an explicit political persecution linked to Albanian ethnicity is not verifiable. The East of Kosovo is still not involved in armed conflict. Public life in cities like Pristina, Urosevac, Gnjilan, etc. has, in the entire conflict period, continued on a relatively normal basis. The actions of the security forces (were) not directed against the Kosovo-Albanians as an ethnically defined group, but against the military opponent and its actual or alleged supporters."

  http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/german/Germany.html
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 12:28 am
  

  From the New York Times, Friday, July 11, 2003

  "Milosevice Prosecutors Garner New Evidence"
  ......< >......
  "men accused of a massacre outside the Croatian town ot Vukovar in 1991 are finally arriving for trial. And, just on July 2, prosecutors learned that Serbia -- after stalling for more than a year -- had approved ahnding over a large cache of classified documents that might prove vital in the trial of Mr. Milosevic.

  If unexpurgated, this reported cache of some 6,000 pages will provide prosecutors with full transcripts of the meetings of Serbia's Supreme Defense Council from 1991 to 2000 -- covering the crucial years of war in Croatia, Bosnia and then Kosovo. Mr. Milosevic himself usually chaired those meetings."

  ......< >......
  "The tale of their (Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic) transfer to the Hague, as told by Ms Del Ponte, offers an intriguing look behind the scenes. Serbian officials "called us for help," she said, some time after the arrest of both men in March, because they lacked sufficient evidence to indict the two men at home for links to organized crime. Yet the officals were reluctant to release them.

  "They told us, 'We cannot keep these two persons in detention, so if you can come out with your indictments and arrest warreants, it would be great for us,' Ms. Del Ponte recounted recently at a briefing. Although her own office was doing its own investigateions, she said, they were far from comlete. So Ms. Del Ponte said, "I called my staff to accelerate the work."'

  Regarding the 6000 documents -- I would love to know the contents of ten years of government meetings in Washington, France, Paris .... I wonder if I'd find anything incriminating about anything at all???

  Regarding Ms. Del Ponte compassionate aid to the current Serbian government, my heart melts. There is the rule of law in action -- 'we can't pin anything on them so please drum something up quickly so we can ship them off to you.'

  
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 1:51 am
  Nikole, Tony Blair is quite capable of incriminating himself publically.

  He now wants the right to wage war any where, any time. Blair seeks new powers to attack rogue states. Welcome to the new world order Nikole.

  Sensible effective laws designed to outlaw future wars of aggression which have served us well for half a century, are now (if Tony Blair has his way) to be replaced by proposals which will encourage and justify wars of aggression by anyone against anyone.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 11:51 am
  Backlash for Hague Tribunal: Documents favour Defense

  The pressure was enormous. The Hague prosecutor wanted the Belgrade authorities to hand over various document. The court 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 had authorized the court to use recordings of minutes of its meetings while Milosevic was in power.

  It took the authorities a few days to deliver the documents and once they arrived they were sitting on the table, waiting to be used to convict the accused. In connection with these documents, the former Yugoslav President Zoran Lilic, who had not finished his earlier testimony, was called to testify. One recalls Lilic’s earlier testimony in which he stated (in reference to Srebrenica): "I know that he was personally very upset and angry (about the massacre) and I think that he was very sincere in his behavior and conduct. I am quite sure that...he could not have issued an order of that," Lilic said. He went on to say: “His reaction was very strong and he considered that this kind of behavior and conduct would worsen our position with respect to the Dayton conference." Fast-forward to day 214 of the Milosevic Trial. Mr. Nice made his entrance to the court with new documents: the documents from Serbia. Milosevic entered the court immediately launching an attack at Mr. Nice.

  “Very well, Mr. Lilic, let us go over these documents, first, the conversation on 1.August. 1995 with Zoran Lilic, Momcilo Perisic and Slobodan Milosevic.

  Milosevic managed to show through the Lilic that he, Milosevic, was the peacemaker, and always proposed peace even calling himself and his associates “madmen for peace”. The accused showed that he could not so easily control Karadzic and Mladic. A small part of the testimony focused on Jacques Chirac and his deal with Milosevic/Mladic.

  In the transcripts that the prosecution presented, Milosevic is shown as deeply concerned about the Dayton peace accords and the success of it. He says “they have to find these soldiers, dead or alive, they have to find them. Let them find them…” This quote stems from a tape that was not played in The Hague, but rather the transcript was presented. It is from a “western intelligence” service. The quotes and references Milosevic read out clearly showed that there was a great deal of tension between the Karadzic and the Belgrade authorities: Milutunovic and Milosevic phone: “Karadzic wants to release the pilots in exchange for a better standing for Repub. Of Srpksa.” Milosevic says: “I cannot believe that the would do such a stupid thing. We are madmen for peace. Call him and ask if he said anything like that, tell

  them to deny it and who says such a thing, we no longer have anything in common. It is not ok to blackmail others with people, and we will not blackmail people with hostages/people.” “Do you remember that Mr. Lilic?” asked Milosevic “Yes, I do. I am very well-informed on this subject,” was the answer.

  Then the day became rather humorous, as Milosevic himself, laughed at the ridiculousness of one of the documents.

  “Please turn to page 039, it refers to a phenomenon, which can be found in these transcripts. I would like to ask Mr. Nice to release and play the tape. The alleged conversation was between Mira Markovic (11.12.1995)and a secretary of Radovan Karadzic.

  “Mr. May this is only a small drop of the lies in the ocean. I would like to prove that this is not true. She never talked to this secretary and imagine (laughing), I would never want to disturb President Milosevic (heavy laughter). Imagine, we have been married and she refers to me as President Milosevic. I want the tape to be played so that Mr. Lilic can say his part. This is proof that you are presenting false documents, and this should be here in this court at least better than the yellow press, or a line above that press.”

  “Look again, the whole transcript. It is not the word that this is a secret document, but rather that she would even communicate with Radovan Karadzic’s secretary.” Lilic agreed with Milsoevic, even stating that it is “impossible” and that he was “very surprised” but Milosevic pressed further “Is this even possible, it’s nonsense. Is that clear?”.

  “I would like the tape to be played. It is shameful for this to even be submitted here.” Milosevic added.

  Mr. Nice asked the court to be able to reexamine the witness again, but Milosevic objected, calling it the “second half-time”. Milosevic stated once again that he had received the documents last night and that he wanted to question the witness on each one of the. Nice countered that the prosecution will not use all the documents as evidence, and surprisingly Mr. May intervened and heavily criticized Mr. Nice, stating that the ‘accused’ is right. Milosevic answered: “Thank you Mr. May, I am pleasantly surprised.”

  A rather significant part, the media did not cover. One official states that the Dayton borders can be expanded only through war and Milosevic angrily conunters, “NO, No, these borders will be fine.” As it turns out, Milosevic was right. The borders were moved without war.

  Once again, a witness, which the prosecution forced to testify, turned the tables against them. Websites such as CIJ call Lilic malleable, but one could clearly say that he would not be 'malleable' if he had testified to Milosevic's guilt. It is funny to see organizations for international justice taking sides, when one's guilt should be determined at the end (we all know that this trial is political). The media also forgot to mention that it was under the CROSS-EXAMINATION that Lilic revealed the Chirac link.

  Milosevic asked, “Do you know that Chirac called me in Dayton a number of times to insist I see that the pilots were found?” Lilic answered, “Yes. He even stated the French would put an ultimatum on the agreement.”

  Two secret witnesses testified after this. Their testimony was rather insignificant. Then protected witness B - 1171 stated before the Hague tribunal that he had not seen Veselin Sljivancanin, indicted Colonel of Yugoslav Armed Forces, in Ovcara in autumn of 1991.

  Richard Holbrook , former US Ambassador to UN and negotiator on Kosovo before NATO aggression on Yugoslavia in 1999, believes that Kosovo should be granted independence and should become a member of the UN. "That is the only solution that would bring permanent peace to the region, Holbrook said in an interview for Pristina's KOHA DITORE." "The Kosovo status should be resolved in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Four years have passed since the end of armed conflicts. Kosovo has developed its independent character with the aid of international community and now is the time for the second phase," Holbrook said. He explained that the UN Security Council would not determine the status of Kosovo, but only ratify it. "The final status of Kosovo should be the result of negotiations between Pristina and Belgrade with the assistance of USA, EU and UN," Holbrook said, adding that Russia was interested in taking part in resolving the issue.

  An analytical view of the last testimony will confirm that the prosecution’s case is rather weak. Several of their key witnesses, such as Lilic, Markovic etc. have turned out to be defense witnesses. Meanwhile, a delegation from Slobodan Milosevic's Socialist Party plans to visit the former president next week in his prison cell at the U.N. war crimes tribunal in the Netherlands, a party official said Saturday. The SPS will seek permission from The Hague tribunal to visit other Serb prisoners, including former Yugoslav army colonel Veselin Sljivancanin and former chief of secret service Jovica Stanisic. It was not immediately clear whether The Hague court would allow those visits. Several Serbian former top officials allied with Milosevic are also standing trial at the U.N. court. Reading major papers, there seems to be an urgent, very urgent desire and need to link Milosevic to Srebrenica. Another link that does not exist, to report the findings of a Dutch study.
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 12:34 pm
  Dan an accurate report of the events of the morning of July 9th, 2003.

  A request to all. Please add dates when events occurred when reporting events here. This is vital, and all to often ignored. People wishing to review the trial proceedings relating to comments posted here, and this is VERY hard if not impossible to do, if one has no idea of even what date the material posted pertains to.

  It is vitally important that the general public, either now, or years later when reviewing the comments written here, have the means and the ability to easily validate and verify the truths being reported here.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 1:55 pm
  Regarding Ms. Del Ponte compassionate aid to the current Serbian government, my heart melts. There is the rule of law in action -- 'we can't pin anything on them so please drum something up quickly so we can ship them off to you.'

  These Hague thugs are obviously so arrogant that they think all of their readers will display the same media-inculcated prejudices of "Serbs = bad" and "accused Serbs = war criminals" they nurture. Hence, anyone caught by DOS out of political reasons, if he is associated with the former regime in any way, must be guilty by default, and charges can be 'found' after the arrest.

  I have a theory that Seselj knew about the Djindjic killing, and that is partly the reason why he went to the Hague. He probably knew that he would end up in the Hague anyway, or, if tried in Serbia, his sentence and prison conditions would be far worse than what the Hague offers.

  This is proved by the resort prison in Sweden our pal Biljana will be 'incarcerated', for probably just 8 years. Also, Zdravko Mucic, the Croat responsible for the detention, beating, murder, rape, and torture of Serb inmates in Celebici was just released early.
  
  P M
  USA

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 4:20 pm
  Ian Davis, with all respect:

  In order to illustrate that NATO "understood" that its armed aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in 1999 was indeed illegal, you provide me with a reference to an article by Lieutenant Colonel Michael E. Smith, an "Operational Law Attorney" from some "Office of the Judge Advocate General", all of this admittedly unknown to me (July 12, 2003 at 1:42 pm).

  Thank you, Ian - but I do maintain my early suggestion that the (very learned?) Operational Law Attorney's article is utter nonsense - not just "biased" stuff from someone hired "to justify the war against Serbia", but really stupid crap wrapped in "scientific" clothes!

  The subject (title) of the article being "NATO, the Kosovo Liberation Army, and the War for an Independent Kosovo: Unlawful Aggression or Legitimate Exercise of Self-Determination?", this Lieutenant Colonel sets out to examine "the KLA and its relationship with NATO" during the socalled "Operation Allied Force", NATO's air war on the FRY that is (from 24 March to 10 June 1999). Apparently open for the possibility that NATO "may have violated traditional understandings of the UN Charter and committed unlawful aggression against the FRY", the Lieutenant Colonel finally draws the (vague) "Conclusion", that "egregarious Yugoslav violations of international law gave NATO sufficient legal grounds for using (armed) force to assist the KLA in its fight for an independent Kosovo."

  Sic! The Lieutenant Colonel claims one such "egregarious violation" to be that "In the summer of 1998 Milosevic...used the Yugoslav Army and the Interior Ministry to force over 800.000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo into Albania, the FYROM and Montenegro...",

  an allegation that I was right away calling "nonsense", noting that the first major waves of "refugees" from the Serbian province of Kosovo were not crossing the borders to Albania and the FYROM until days AFTER the beginning of the NATO air war on March 24th! (July 12, 2003 at 4:43 pm).

  To use your own terms from a previous posting of yours: While it may have been attracted by shouting of birds, these flew out only after having spotted the cat.

  The "deportation" of the Kosovars was an effect of the NATO attack (and the FRY counter attack against the KLA) and it cannot possibly be construed to become its "justification" (however "tortured and disingeneous")!

  Ian, the learned Lieutenant Colonel (and the "U.S. military" or whatever he was trying to please?) is utterly wrong! You do not support his "legal" crap at all by pointing to the (wellknown!) fact, that "many Albanians did leave Kosovo before the war" etc.

  While that is certainly true of course, it did not amount to "over 800.000" being forced to leave Kosovo "in the summer of 1998".

  The Lieutenant Colonel is offering nonsense on a crucial point!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 7:32 pm
  I agree that much of his article is questionable, or just plain wrong. I wouldn't have expected it to be otherwise. But I think it necessary to read not only things one agrees with but also things one does not agree with, if one wants to understand history clearly.

  Earlier you wrote: The "ethnic Albanians" never left Kosovo (in any numbers) until AFTER the start of the NATO air attack, - the first major waves of "refugees" or "deportees"(?) being sighted I think on March 26th, 1999.

  This is what I questioned. I think if you search the web you will find this claim as expressed to be false. There were significant numbers of Kosovo Albanians seeking asylum in the period prior to the war, and this was a subtext to Europes serious concern about Kosovo.

  However, I would agree than I have seen no evidence suggesting that Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo were evicted from Kosovo by the State prior to the war, or persecuted by Serbia following their application for asylum being rejected and them being returned to Serbia.

  As demonstrated in the trial on July 10th 2003, muslims in Serbia had passports and no one in Serbia denied them the right to enter and leave Serbia as they wished.

  By the way, apologies for mispelling your name. I will try to be more careful in future.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 9:23 pm
  To Godfred: Yes, the Investigating Judge is Danica Marinkovic; I checked the article again and it was a misprint (in the subtitle it was Marinkovic, in the article body it was Maksimovic, and I picked the wrong version).

  Here's the swift survey of the last 12 witnesses, 5 of which with numbers instead of names, with blurred faces and distorted voices, and 1 not even that (he was numberless and it was just announced that his whole testimony will be given in a private session).

  B-1244, a Bosnian Serb civil official during the war, first confirmed that 30 Frenki Simatovic's men [Commander of the Serbian Special Police unit] participated in the military takeover of his town (being asked about it by the Prosecutor Groome in a highly suggestive and confusing manner]. Then, when Milosevic asked about these men in detail, he clarified that they were in fact members of the Serbian Radical Party who arrived in the municipality as volunteers with no link to Simatovic or to the State Security Department of the Police of Serbia whatsoever.

  C-006 seemed totally unreliable, claiming to be a Croat who was first arrested by the local Serbs and then forced to become a member of their Territorial Defence in Vukovar. As a shanghaied soldier, he was somehow at liberty to be miraculously present at all the key moments and places during these two critical days, seeing all important players in action at least three times a day, listening to their conversations, coming and going not once but twice to Ovcara Farm, doing nothing, just pottering about. He also claimed to have seen Major Sljivancanin in person at Ovcara, the bold thing never claimed by anybody so far. He even said hello to the Major, but the latter failed to reply. To boot, he gave his testimony in English. Yet, with all his alleged hovering presence (like a Victorian novelist, he was able even to read minds of his characters), his testimony boiled to already well-known general things that could be told by anybody watching TV at that time.

  Witness XY, testifying in a private session, probably gave crucial relevant evidence based on his personal gut feeling on how Milosevic was a thief too much in love with his overweight wife with a bad hairdo.

  Vlado Vukovic, former Croatian policeman who fought against the JNA [Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija=Yugoslav National Army] in Krajina, became POW and was exchanged later on, claimed that the JNA was in fact attacking this defenceless Croatian village with no reason at all. I repeat, he was captured while attacking the JNA facility near the said village, together with the rest of Croatian policemen and irregulars.

  C-1230 testified how he was the only one who survived execution by the JNA soldiers in Krajina. Problem is, in his previous 3 written statements given to the OTP he never mentioned JNA soldiers, only some local Serb irregulars. Perhaps his memory got better after several years.

  Andreas Riedlemayer, a Harvard expert for the Islamic architecture, was again commissioned by the OTP (after his testimony about Kosovo) to talk about the destruction of not only the Islamic, but also the Catholic monuments in Bosnia (as an expert on the Islamic architecture, of course, and not on destruction nor on Catholicism). He was not tasked with researching the destruction of the Catholic monuments destroyed by the Muslims, nor the destruction of the Muslim monuments destroyed by the Catholics - only the destruction of the Muslim and Catholic monuments destroyed by the Serbs. Although not an expert on arms and explosives (by his own admission), he somehow knew how and under what circumstances all those monuments were destroyed. And although he never investigated the destruction inflicted upon the Serb monuments, he somehow knew it was not substantial. And, he claimed that the fact he wrote a letter to Clinton at the time, demanding the UN arms embargo against Bosnian Muslims should cease to be respected by the US, does not affect his professional objectivity in the least.

  Zoran Lilic, former YU President, was summoned again, one month after his previous appearance, to testify about some important documents recently received by the OTP from our authorities, namely the transcripts of the meetings of the Supreme Defence Council, as well as some intercepted highly confidential phone calls. It turned out to be an anticlimax: the Council transcripts merely demonstrated that Milosevic had even less influence, let alone direct authority over Bosnian Serbs, who opposed him bitterly at every meeting. The intercepts (most probably made by the Croatian Security Services) were useless due to the poor technical quality, so their written transcripts had been used instead. Nevertheless, they were completely uninteresting, except one: a phone call between Lilic and General Perisic (the YU Army Chief of Staff), where Lilic said it had been agreed that a written guarantee would be provided to General Mladic to assure him he will not be delivered to the ICTY, in exchange for the return of two captured French pilots [downed by the Bosnian Serbs while their Mirage fighter participated in the NATO bombing of the Serb positions near Pale]. The juicy detail was when Lilic said to Perisic he should explain to Mladic when negotiating the release of the pilots that both French President Jacques Chirac and Milosevic agreed to give that same guarantee [in order not to spoil the upcoming signing of the Dayton Accords in Paris]. Another interesting intercept (or, alleged intercept, since there was no tape at all, just the transcript) was the one in which Milosevic's wife spoke to the Chef de Cabinet of Karadzic about those French pilots. The alleged conversation contains no damning details at all, it could only give a general impression of Milosevic's wife being influential and meddling into her husband's business. The problem was that in this transcript Mrs Mira called her interlocutor "Rajko" and referred to her husband as "President Milosevic". Milosevic claimed his wife never knew any of these people, let alone on a first-name basis, and expressed surprise that she should refer to him as "President Milosevic", after spending the whole life with him. He expressed his concern that the evidence might be forged. He said he would love to hear the tape of this conversation be played in the courtroom. Nice couldn't produce any tape. Nice withdrew this particular piece of "evidence".

  Edin Pasic, former translator for Arabic and Turkish in the ex-YU federal bodies and the current Ambassador of Bosnia & Herzegovina to Kuwait, stated that, while passing the corridors of the Presidential palace on his way to his task of interpreting the telephone conversation between Moamer el Gheddafi of Libya and YU President Dobrica Cosic in 1992, he saw men in mudded uniforms who were talking of the killings and throat-cutting they've done in Bosnia. He must've passing those clean corridors real slow to be able to hear all the colourful details by those mudded fighters. He also said that the Belgrade mosque in Knez Mihailova street, which he attended regularly, was attacked by a hand grenade. When Milosevic pointed out that the mosque (repaired and guarded by the police after that) was not in that street, and when Tapuskovic showed some interest in how come a Communist like Mr Pasic was attending a mosque at all, Mr Pasic explained that the mosque must've been somewhere in the general vicinity of the park (the man had lived in Belgrade for 16 years, mind you), and that he was not a Communist, but merely a member of the League of Communists. He expressed his disdain for the Belgrade Mufti [the head of the Muslim community], who was regularly seeing Milosevic, or, as the witness put it "flirted with Milosevic". He also said that the Muslims in Belgrade lived under terror, feeling as if wearing yellow sleeve-bands, and that the ethnic cleansing had in fact started from Belgrade, strengthening such a claim with his own horrifying experience: President Cosic allegedly offered him to be his adviser for Islamic countries, but he proudly refused, not wanting to become a puppet to Milosevic, which Cosic already was (the hapless Cosic allegedly admitted as much in desperate whispers to his interpreter/wannabe adviser, who fell down on his knees, begging Cosic to protect the Bosnian Muslims). After that, Pasic felt as if he had been followed and his apartment entered. The terror was such that full 4 years later Pasic calmly left with his whole family to Hungary, and thence to Egypt, regularly using his passport to do so. Milosevic didn't appreciate the kneeling melodrama in the Presidential cabinet, reminded the witness that Cosic was alive and could testify that nothing similar had happened and voiced his disgust that such a story came from the witness in the worst of taste. May said the bad taste is unimportant, only the sterling quality of the evidence this witness is providing. Mr Pasic had to say something damning about the Colonel Sljivancanin, too: apparently, during an official reception, the Colonel's face literally lit up when Milosevic entered the room.

  Safet Avdic, a Muslim from Foca who had been a POW in a Bosnian Serb detention facility and who was subsequently exchanged, described his prison days, complaining that he has lost a lot of weight there. Oddly enough, he has never been maltreated, but he heard that some other POWs had.

  Jusuf Taranin was another Muslim from the same municipality, who described how 7 Muslims were killed by a bunch of irregulars in a warehouse that used to belong to the JNA (that must've been the reason the Prosecution summoned this particular witness - the JNA had been somehow mentioned in his testimony). He also stated that 10 days before the clashes began, the JNA came and distributed guns to local Serbs. When Milosevic asked whether this could have been local Territorial Defence guys who came and distributed guns, the reliable witness said: "I don't know, could be."

  B-1120 was in the same detention facility in Foca like Safet Avdic, and he also claimed that the local Muslims were unarmed when attacked by the vicious Serbs, and that they never fired at all towards the Serb positions. He had trouble answering how come the battle for Foca lasted for full 8 days, then.

  C-1171 was a member of the ZNG [Zbor Narodne Garde= Croatian National Guard Corps] in Vukovar, who saw the end was near and with hundreds of other zenge came to Vukovar Hospital, pretending to be wounded or a staff member, to be able to come out of the town in a humanitarian convoy. Along with the others, he was arrested and taken to Ovcara Farm. He managed to jump out of the truck, but was caught again. Strangely enough, he was not executed as could have been expected from the Serbs on a killing spree, but was shipped to the Belgrade Military Prison, where he had not been maltreated and where it was established he was a suspect war criminal (a member of the ZNG explosives unit, who demolished private Serb property in Vukovar, killing civilians). He was subsequently exchanged. His damning testimony re the Ovcara case was that he, unlike the omnipresent earlier witness C-006, never saw Colonel Sljivancanin at the Ovcara Farm at all. He did see some uniformed men there who had parts of the JNA uniforms on plus fur hats and various insignia, so sometimes he referred to them as the JNA soldiers and sometimes as the local irregulars. When directly asked by Milosevic whether he could confirm these people were the JNA soldiers, the witness said he didn't know and playfully added that Milosevic should answer that instead. Witty, but not evidence. There was an interesting moment when Milosevic produced and tendered into evidence the original Vukovar Hospital register [taken away by the JNA after they took over the Hospital], showing that only 45 wounded persons in all (both civilians and military) had been admitted during the fiercest final battle between 2 and 18 November 1991, a far cry from that horrifying picture that the Hospital Director Dr Bosanac had painted of overcrowded facility with hundreds and hundreds of wounded.

  The problem with legal procedure is that it needs some relevant and hard evidence to build up the case against the defendant. So far, it was as described above, or even worse. May I suggest to May & Co. to explain their final sentence by the damning testimony of that secret witness XY?
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 9:27 pm
  Ian, - I am very comfortable with you calling me "Godfrey", - that's merely the English version of my Danish name (you(r) people got it from "us" some time ago anyway, you know. Yes, you are welcome...).

  You are absolutely right of course that to understand one needs "to read...also things one does not agree with" (I read mr. Prosecutor Nice's witness "examinations" for that very reason). But the timing of the "exodus" of approx. 800.000 Kosovo Albanians is NOT for discussion, - it is a simple fact! This was happening in 1999 - after the start of NATO's "air war" in late March! I remember the Danish daily POLITIKEN on 26 March 1999 running this headline:

  "Flygninge strømmer ud af Kosovo" (Refugees pouring out of Kosovo).

  POLITIKEN would hardly have turned that into a headline then if it happened (also?) in 1998 (as our Lieutenant Colonel "erroneously" states). You may not have the POLITIKEN, - but pick up ANY paper from those dramatic days! (I also remember THE TIMES on 24 March 1999: "NATO pounds the Serbs" - above a paper-wide photo of a B-52 or whatever.

  Anyway, - there were a large number of "internally displaced" people in Kosovo already in 1998, - in consequence of the civil war. This is bad enough, of course - but a different matter. It did not at all amount to "deportation" or Crime against Humanity.

  IF IN FACT "In the summer of 1998 Milosevic (had) used the Yugoslav Army and the Interior Ministry to force over 800.000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo into Albania, the FYROM and Montenegro...", - then a lot of "us" (incl. in Denmark) would have been in favor of armed intervention, isn't it? That's why the Lieutenant Colonel says, what he says - adding that "In June 1998 however, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned NATO that it must obtain a Security Council mandate prior to any military intervention in Kosovo". These two sentences are intricately linked by our "Operational Law Attorney" to create the impression that the UN was being entirely unreasonable.

  Anyway, - my turn to "limit the use of band width". I'll end agreeing with your observation, that "The ICC and the ICTY represent the UN, not NATO, etc."

  Maybe one day we'll give Gogol a hint on that small detail, right?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Sunday July 13, 2003 at 10:37 pm
  To Ian: a very sensible request from you, to add dates when reporting events. So, the a.m. 12 witnesses testified between 30 June and 11 July 2003.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 7:47 am
  WAS HASHIM THAQI IN FACT BOASTING OF KILLING POLICEMEN?

  In response to requests for concrete evidence that Hashim Thaqi "boasted of killing policemen" (in Kosovo, as suggested in this forum by Peter Taylor on July 5), Vera Martinovic on July 11 (at 10:24 pm) was quoting from the news agency FONET on 3 July, stressing that the Interpol arrest warrants on the basis of which the former KLA leader was recently arrested in Hungary were issued on the basis of his conviction on two separate trials in absentia back in 1993.

  In spite of Vera's efforts, for which I am grateful anyway, I (or should I say "we"?) am/are still somewhat, if not entirely in the dark as to when, where, to whom and indeed why this notorious thug, former KLA leader Hashim Thaqi - who is currently having meetings with former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, the EU Godfather of NATO aggression - was "boasting" of - admitting to - killing policemen in Kosovo.

  As Peter Taylor says, the facts of these killings (also around the time of the NATO aggression and the preceeding incident at Racak in 1999!) are there, the evidence is abundant - and significantly reinforced by the testimony of protected witness K6 in the Hague (ref. the analysis which Peter did on Thursday July 03, 2003 at 6:45 pm).

  But what about "the confession of Hashim Thaqi"? May I once more appeal to this forum, as well as to the gracious goddesses of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome - for a lead? Or would I absolutely need to contact the Devil himself in matters concerning the KLA leader?

  PS: In pursuit of the truth I also refer you to the posting by Dennis Revell on Wednesday July 09, 2003 at 3:49 am - before this question and the underlying questions of the justification for the NATO armed attack on Serbia in 1999 is being submerged into the JURIST discussion archives (or hidden below loads of international law nonsense as provided by, say, the (U.S. Air Force?) Office of the Judge Advocate General (ref. my posting on July 13, 2003 at 4:20 pm).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 7:53 am
  

  A message I saw today:

  "Dear friends, We really and urgently need your support. That's why we repeat our appeal. Please do whatever you can - donate, encourage others, organize your own campaign. Please distribute our appeal widely. The defense of President Milosevic and even his daily cross-examinations are in danger. Only your donations can help him to further fight injustice and help the truth come out. The NATO "court" and its Belgrade agents should not be allowed to stop the truth!"

  --Vladimir Krsljanin,

  --SLOBODA/Freedom Association

  TO MAKE DONATIONS,

  SLOBODA, Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro,
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 8:57 am
  While searching Google I found the attached news item, in which Richard Goldstone says [in 1996] that he has no evidence to indict President Milosevic for war crimes in Bosnia or Croatia.

  Could President Milosevic use this in his defence? Could he not argue that all the "evidence" complied by the Tribunal prior to 1996 is not sufficient to convict him of anything (for that is what Goldstone said), and that the Tribunal should only consider "evidence" that came into its hands after 1996?

  This would certainly make the defence case easier and shorter.

  The following news item can be found at: http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/bosnet/96-01-08_1.bos.html#06

  NO CHARGES AGAINST SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

  The Hague, Jan 7, 1996 (Press TWRA)

  In the interviews for French paper "Le Soir" and Belgium "La Croix", Richard Goldstone, the main prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for crimes in ex-Yugoslavia said about the charges against Milosevic:

  "I never speak about a person who is not brought charges against. I cannot speak with you neither about Milosevic nor anybody else. All I can say is that we bring charges against those we have the evidence and only if we are certain they are enough. If we have not indicted a person, the conclusion is that the evidence is lacking.(...) Provide me with the proof of Serbian president's blame. So far, waging war, supplying with arms, manpower and ammunition has not been a war crime. We will accuse any person whose involvement in war crime can be proved. I guarantee you. I kindly ask anyone who has the evidence against Milosevic to inform us. The Tribunal does not search for those who are responsible of war but those who committed a crime. Yet, it is important to indict the leaders. So we have already indicted Karadzic and Mladic. It is important for the victims."
  
  Michael Thomas
  London
  UK

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 10:07 am
  WERE THE LOAD OF NONSENSE OF "THE ARMY LAWYER" (1)

  as printed in February 2001, and specifically the incredible allegation of the author, Lieutenant Colonel Michael E. Smith, that "in the summer of 1998 Milosevic (forced) over 800.000 ethnic Albanians (across the Serbian borders) into Albania, the FYROM and Montenegro...", ever halted?

  Maybe halted even by JURIST?

  Could maybe JURIST now help in providing an authoritative answer to Michael Thomas' reasonable question on the relevance and possible use of the fact, that in 1996 Judge Richard Goldstone, once the Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY, was not aware of any evidence against mr. Milosevic (July 14, 2003 at 8:57 am)?

  With regard to the appeals as forwarded by Dan B (2) from the SLOBODA/Freedom Association for fund raising actions and donations, may I refer to my posting (Tuesday July 08, 2003 at 3:44 pm) in which it was suggested, that "there would be no need for the ICTY to press charges against "the others" once Mr. Milosevic is aquitted" - and thus it would seem logical to finance (also) the former President's defence from munitions provided for defendants Milutinovic, Ojdanic og Sainovic (since "the truth need be told only once")?

  BTW: What about a serious financial contribution from "THE ARMY LAWYER"?

  (1) Ian Davis in his posting on July 12, 2003 at 1:42 pm gave a link to the article "NATO, the Kosovo Liberation Army, and the War for an Independent Kosovo: Unlawful Aggression or Legitimate Exercise of Self-Determination".

  (2) SLOBODA/Freedom Association may be contacted for further clarification on the address provided by Dan B above (July 14, 2003 at 7:53 am) as well as by:

  Telephone: +381 63 8862301

  Fax: +381 11 630 549

  E-mail: slobodavk@yubc.net
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 12:24 pm
  Godfred Louis-Jensen

  I do not understand the uproar over Uranium except that it was a lie.

  Acquisition of several hundred tons of Uranium is by no means a signal for any imminent danger. From the raw Uranium to the specially enriched U235, bomb material is a road of years of technological struggles.

  Remember, it took our nation, three years and huge installations of Oak Ridge, to get the amount of isotopicaly separated U235 just enough for one bomb.

  To label a purchase of Uranium a signal of imminent danger is just unrealistic if not downright deceiving
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 1:00 pm
  D. Jovanovic,

  Neither do I understand - except of course that the uproar over Uranium was "a lie". Maybe President Bush will explain everything to you, - once even he "understands all the parameters"?

  However, - to make "what happened in the village of Racak" on 15 January 1999 the basis for NATO's war of attack against the FRY (as did mr. Bush's predecessor as U.S. President) is certainly not just "deceiving" but downright criminal.

  The rash allegations by CIA-man William Walker, curiously made Head of OSCE´s Kosovo Verification Mission, should "never have been included in the speech" of mr. Clinton.

  That was the point I was trying to make by my posting (July 12, 2003 at 2:38 am)
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 1:03 pm
  Ms. Martinovic,

  Just to clear the information:

  The Moslem Mosc, “the dzamija” was ( is still ) in Jevremova street. Three blocks from my former house in 7July ( Kralja Petra) 91.

  Everybody who lived in Belgrad knows where it is!
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 3:24 pm
  

  Nancy Paterson: The lawyer, who completed the round in rural New York state, was the chief strategist and co-author of the indictment. In March 1999, the tribunal's chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour, told the Kosovo team the time had come to indict Milosevic - and fast. 'We knew we were working under a tight time restriction. Between that meeting and the publication of the indictment was 52 days,' Paterson said. Finally, the moment came. 'The pressure of time was acute. Judge Arbour had set the tone and everybody felt it. It was a hard decision, but we decided this was not going to prolong or shorten the war; we had the case, we had the evidence, the satellite photos and the witnesses.'

  'There was a lot of pressure. Some people thought it a bad idea to issue the indictment while the war was on, that it was in some way going to prolong the war.'

  Finally, the moment came. 'The pressure of time was acute. Judge Arbour had set the tone and everybody felt it. It was a hard decision, but we decided this was not going to prolong or shorten the war; we had the case, we had the evidence, the satellite photos and the witnesses.'

  A rather old article, but she would be great to be called as a defense witness and to question the motives of the trial. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/milosevic/story/0,10639,517981,00.html
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 3:45 pm
  ``The U.S.-engineered deportation of Milosevic is a crime against the people of Yugoslavia.``JURIST Contributing Editor Marjorie Cohn is an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, where she teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, and International Human Rights Law.
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 3:50 pm
  I did some back-reading. Can anyone explain why Milosevic`s lawyers did not appeal the decision of the court in the neatherlands (referring to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights ruling), which stated:

  "he withdrew his appeal to the Court of Appeal and in so doing also deprived himself of the possibility of lodging a subsequent appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court...In these circumstances the Court concludes that the case must be rejected in its entirety for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention."
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 4:00 pm
  Re Thaqi:

  During a trial of 15 Kosovo Albanians, the Pristina-based district court sentenced Thaqi in absentia on July 11, 1997. Thaqi was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison. Others were sentenced to jail terms between 15 and 20 years. Warrants were issued against the accused. The court charged them with terrorist acts near Glogovac, in 1993, when three Serbian policemen were killed, and an attack on an official vehicle in Kosovska Mitrovica. The Yugoslav police believe that Thaqi is one of the leaders of Albanian drug dealers, which, according to the Belgrade authorities' claims and findings by several European police departments, funds the KLA's armament.

  http://www.gsoa.ch/zivil/kosov@/kosov@_nato/199906/19990603.1.html

  http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/88/t88-2.htm
  http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/98/t98-3.htm
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 4:13 pm
  Extracted from United Kingdom House of Commons, Foreign Affairs Fourth Report:

  20. Despite his record of repression, Milosevic succeeded in maintaining good relations with Western diplomats partly because, as Dr Jones Parry told us, "there have been times when Milosevic has been a convenience for the West when he was instrumental in getting key accords signed [e.g., Dayton] and in some of the implementation afterwards."[30] Milosevic has also proved to be a skilful interlocutor. Mr Donnelly said that Milosevic had the manner "of a communist apparatchik but with a veneer of Del Boy on top of it which makes him immensely plausible. He can make what are absolutely outrageous statements but he puts them over with a degree of plausibility which I think helps to explain why over a period of ten years he has seen a succession of visiting statesmen of very high seniority and experience and has managed to survive all of that and to prolong his position and to leave in many people's minds a doubt, until relatively recently, as to whether he was the problem or whether he was part of the solution."[31] 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."[32] This may be contrasted with the UN Secretary General's recent Srebrenica Report, which stated that "the international community tried to reach a negotiated settlement with an unscrupulous and murderous regime" and "Through error, misjudgement and an inability to recognise the scope of the evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to save the people of Srebrenica from the Serb campaign of mass murder." That report confirms that the international community at large treated Milosevic as "part of the solution not part of the problem."[33]

  http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/28/2807.htm#a2

  This report provides as a source for the KLA attack on police near Glogovac in 1993 this book. Does anyone know if this book connects this attack with Thaqi's involvement in it?
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 7:14 pm
  Vera

  thks for the report. nice professional tone
  
  ap v
  ny
  ny

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 8:07 pm
  

  "The war has used up words; they have weakened, they have deteriorated like motor car tires; they have, like millions of other things, been more over-strained and knocked about and voided than in all the long ages before, and we are now confronted with a depreciation of all our terms, or, otherwise speaking, with a loss of expression through an increase of limpness, that may well make us wonder what ghosts will be left to walk."

  Henry James, 1915
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 8:10 pm
  

  "Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene behind the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates."

  "A Farewell to Arms" by Hemingway
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 9:02 pm
  Mr.Godfred Louis-Jensen,

  I agree with you, 100%.

  Not only is Clinton a criminal, but so is his wife. In her book she states the SHE urged Bill to start bombing the Serbs.

  Hilary is uniquely unscrupulous. She claims that she "forgave" Clinton his filandering. But that eas known fact to her from years before. She was only saving his skin and public image, with an ambitious eye on her own future political career.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 11:01 pm
  http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest is a resource for interested in historical articles about the Balkans. For example, I found an interview with Seselj given in 1993, a clear indicatation that Milosevic was at that time seeking peace in the Balkans.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 11:06 pm
  Index of Issues is a good place to begin.

  This site annoyingly hides the full URL of selected pages. To determine the URL for citing, right click on page of interest and select properties. This works in IE6.0.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Monday July 14, 2003 at 11:22 pm
  Re Bill Clinton, Milosevic and their differing responses to the Vance-Owen plan see To Bomb or not to Bomb from April 26, 1993, by David Binder, for the New York Times.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 12:43 am
  Written in 1992.

  Other warnings of Milosevic should also have been taken literally, for instance the one about the danger of Serbian nationalism. "Serbian communists and the Serbian people have never been soft on their nationalists. They never avoided condemnation - either criminal, political, or moral... Today Serbian nationalism is not only intolerance and hatred towards other nations, but a snake in the breast of the Serbian people who throughout their history have inclined towards unification with all the southern Slav peoples, and whose most progressive force was their working class which was the bearer of the spirit of brotherhood and unity, solidarity and equality with all the nations and peoples on the territory of Yugoslavia before, during and after the war" (the Second World War: editor). "Apart from this, Serbian nationalists would cause the most damage to the Serbian people with what they offer: intolerance and suspicion in others which would bring about practical isolation. Economically, politically, socially, culturally, so that it lives alone, and its own free small nation of Serbs can no more live alone than any other larger nation in this world where nations and people are more and more bound together and more and more dependent on each other." These were the prophetic words of Slobodan Milosevic at the closing of the Eighth Session, exactly five years ago [1987]. The man was completely right; if he were to say something similar today - and this is not impossible because we live in times when anything is possible - would he have the same success he had after the Eighth Session.

  http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/52/t52-6.htm
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 6:02 am
  

  Free Media in Serbia?

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 6:07 am
  

  During the rule of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, media in Serbia were sharply divided between pro-regime and independent papers.

  The situation has improved since his ouster in October 2000, but media activists complain of lack of legislation setting rules for behaviour of both journalists and politicians.

  Divided? Good, a good sign of freedom! And what? They want legislation setting rules for behaviour of politicians!!!!!

  Please send a copy to Washington (c/c London) when you have it!!!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 6:12 am
  

  Modern democratic media is not divided, it says the same thing, the same lie over and over again. Shameless Milosevices era media with two opinions!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 7:54 am
  "During the rule of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, media in Serbia were sharply divided between pro-regime and independent papers. "

  Gee whiz! Slobo must have been one hell of a dictator! Imagine! What next? Independent media in a dictatorship? So much for the spin in our independent, pro democracy media!
  
  David
  Australia

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 8:45 am
  Absorbed by the question of whether mr. Milosevic is getting a fair trial by U.S./NATO which freely maintains, that "in the summer of 1998 Milosevic forced over 800.000 ethnic Albanians from Kosovo into Albania..." (1), I was searching the VREME News Digest Agency (NDA), as indeed suggested by Ian Davis (July 14, 2003 at 11:01 pm), finding some 1038 matches for "Slobodan Milosevic", 25 matches for "KLA", 5 for "William Walker", 1 for "KVM", as well as 0 (none) for "Hashim", - "Hashim Thaqi"!

  What does that tell you, - "guys"?

  Then on Monday July 14, 2003 at 3:50 pm Dan B urges "anyone (to) explain why Milosevic`s lawyers did not appeal the decision of the court in...etc."

  I thought we already established (with Jared Israel et Al.) that mr. Milosevic does not have "lawyers" (in this case, the ICTY Prosecution's Case)? But could you kindly repeat the question anyway?

  And what was this about "Nancy Paterson...who completed the round in rural New York..."? Maybe Nancy is too buzy completing "rounds" to bother about the "motives of the (Milosevic) trial"? (July 14, 2003 at 3:24 pm).

  (1) THE ARMY LAWYER, February 2001 (Ian Davis: July 12, 2003 at 1:42 pm).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 9:15 am
  Godfred, Why did Milosevic not appeal the decision. This means, and we all agree that he does not have lawyers before the tribunal.

  "Milosevic had made an official complaint against the Netherlands that his transfer to the United Nations' war crimes court in The Hague last year was illegal and violated his human rights. But the human rights court in Strasbourg said on Wednesday he had not exhausted the legal avenues of appeal available to him in the Netherlands.``

  I have read the court ruling and to me it seems that the court wanted Milosevic to go to the Dutch Supreme Court before coming to the EU court.

  "In so far as the complaints had been made at the domestic level, the applicant had not availed himself of the opportunities offered by Netherlands law to challenge the ruling complained of. He had withdrawn an appeal against the judgment of 31 August 2001 which he had lodged with the Court of Appeal. In so doing he had also deprived himself of the possibility of a subsequent appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court." (http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-headlines/markup/msg00293.html)

  Was there any reason given why the appeal was withdrawn?
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 10:48 am
  Godfred, the articles I cite cover 1991-1997. During this period the KLA was not very significant. Consider the statistics given in http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Serb_News25.htm. There were 20 times more attacks by the KLA in 1998 than 1997. That was the same year plans for the air campaign against Serbia began to take shape. Why the mind-boggling increase in attacks. Milosevic said during the Kosovo section of the trial that it was because outside powers wished for an escalation in such violent attacks by the KLA, and thus encouraged it. He claimed that they were concerned about peace initiatives being undertaken by Serbia, at a conference (if I remember correctly) in Turkey.

  Or did I misunderstand your point about searches at the site I cited.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 11:06 am
  REDUX
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 11:13 am
  

  Caught in a Lie-July 15

  The trial continued today in The Hague. Stepan Kljuic, who is the former member of the Bosnian Presidency, stated that Milosevic had offered him to annex a part of Bosnia and attach it to Croatia. Mr. Kljuic is a Croatian who was disliked by the Croatian government, but the Bosnian government of Alija Izetbegovic welcomed him under the door of `multiculturalism`. Mr. Kljuic describes himself in one interview in 1990 as:

  “I am a Bosnian Croat, a Catholic and an Anticommunist.” At that time, poor Kljuic did not know that Mr. Tudjman does not surround himself with such people, but rather those that hate Bosnia. During the war, he proved that politics is not his strong side; he stayed consistent with ‘defending’ Bosnia. In The Hague, during earlier testimony, he stated that the main responsibility for the deaths of Bosnian Croats lies with Franjo Tudjman.

  The former politician claimed under the examination in chief that Milosevic had told Tudjman that he could have ‘Cazinska Krajina’. According to this witness, Milosevic tried to attract the Bosnian Moslems to say in Yugoslavia. This witness claimed that the worst fighters were those of Seselj and Arkan. He also stated that the Yugoslav Amry had started to position itself around Sarajevo around 1991 (late 1991). During cross-examination, Milosevic negated that he ever talked with Tudjman about the partition of Bosnia, but Kljuic stayed with his story.

  “How was I able to give him Cazinska Krajina?” asked Milosevic. The witness was able to confirm that Mujahedeen fighters were in Bosnia and that the Bosnian Moslems politicians had already established a secret organization for independence. In another major revelation, Milosevic asked the witness if he knew of any camps for Serbs. The witness said ‘No’, and then came the attack

  “I have here transcripts of a meeting of Alija Izetbegovic with several other high raking officials who say that there are camps and that people in those camps are ‘legally not guilty’ and you are also present at that meeting. This document is from the prosecution.” Another point that Milsoevic was able to make, was that the witness had signed a paper, which called to a halt of the ‘islamization’ of the Bosnian Army. Milosevic asked him did you sign this as well; the witness could do nothing more than just say “Yes”. Swhen Izetbegovic resigned in 2001 Stjepan Kljuic, head of the B&H Republican Party restrained himself from comment on the subject. It also should not be forgotten that the State Commission on War Crimes, is headed by Croat Stjepan Kljuic.

  Strangely, in 1999 Mr. Stjepan Kljuic was also in the Hague as a prosecution witness. The prosecutor who questioned him at that time was Mr. Nice. During his testimony, Nice made him read out a speech by Tudjman: “Therefore, Bosnia-Hercegovina should not be treated as something given by God and something that will survive. It should not be forgotten how harmful a survival of Bosnia could be…. percent. You can rest assured that, if Bosnia-Hercegovina becomes an independent country, the number of Croats will fall further to horrific proportions in ten years time. Muslims count on demographic expansion because of their high birth rate and immigration of 500,000 of Muslims from Turkey etc." Tudjman goes on to say, "Therefore, the survival of Bosnia-Hercegovina as an independent state would harm the Croatian nation and prevent the creation of a territorially normal Croat state. That would establish preconditions for the disappearance of Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Besides, today there is no united Bosnia-Hercegovina."

  Prosecutor Nice: That Tudman's remark that Croatia cannot exist in its present form and shape, is that something he said only once or has he repeated that on several occasions?

  Kljuic: This was the first occasion when he stated that so clearly.

  Back to the original testimony. Under the examination in chief, the witness claimed that the biggest and worst crime of Bosnia was in Karadjordjevo. At the end of 1991 Tudjman judged that Kljuic had ceased to be obedient and would not go along with what he and allegedly Milosevic had agreed at Karadjordjevo: the partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the territorial expansion of Croatia to the frontiers of the 1939 Banovina. So a campaign of denunciation was launched from western Herzegovina against the man who had previously been Tudjman's protégé as president of HDZBIh, and Vlado Santic, Iko Stanic and Ignjac Kostroman were sent to Sarajevo to destroy Kljuic's standing in the capital, while emissaries travelled the length and breadth of the country spreading the news among the Croat population of how Stjepan Kljuic had become a traitor to the Croat people.

  Overall, his testimony was interesting as he was caught in the lie about the camps. He signed a document against his own government and finally he had to admit that Mujahedeen fighters were in Bosnia.
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 11:25 am
  Reference for above: See transcripts of Milosevic trial. Friday, March 15, 2002. Starting page 2398 line 4.

  Correction the conference was in Crete, but had Turkish participation.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 11:44 am
  Godfred, further re Kosovo refugees:

  Q. Do you remember the major step that was made towards the normalisation of relations between Yugoslavia and Albania when Fatos Nano, the then-Prime Minister of Albania and I, before the TV cameras, said that we are starting normalisation, the opening of borders, that we will abolish visas, that we will develop trade and tourism, etcetera, etcetera. Do you remember that? That was carried by all televisions.

  It's not only that I remember that but I was one of the people who commented on the development of relations between Yugoslavia and Albania in your newspaper Politika.

  And do you remember, then, that Fatos Nano then stated that the relations with Kosovo were an internal affair of Yugoslavia?

  Yes, but who is denying that, Mr. Milosevic?

  The point I'm making to you is that throughout that year [1998], until the summit held in Crete, there was a general climate of optimism and also a truly peaceful resolution of all questions in Kosovo and Metohija and in the region, including our relations with Albania. Is that right or not?

  That is precisely what I said, that there was a political climate and that there was a political agreement that would make it possible to avoid a war, and that is compatible with my claim.

  Consider: What sense is there in claims that Serbia was deporting Albanians from Kosovo, given their desire to negotiate an open border with Albania, without need for visas, etc.

  Page 5062.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 1:00 pm
  To all participants . All you people are doing a great job on investigating and examination all the facts , reasons and justifications for the indictment of Mr. Milosevic as the person that has to take all the blame for all the mess that has been created by the US and it´s patetic Nato kiss....s . we all know that history will take care of this put on show and Milosevic will be acquitted on all charges no matter how hard the aggressors try to prepare the world to accept that Mr. Milosevic is a vicious , cruel butcher and genocidal maniac . Milosevic has been condemned to death long time ago and it is a real shame and embarassment for the ICTY that a dead man without a regular defense is proving to the whole world the illegality , biased and partialyzed tribunal , judges and prosecutors of this pantomime of a trial . At the end his sacrifice in the incoming years will exempt the Serb nation of any guilt , which by the way will not be the case with the new Attilas
  
  Milan Prika
  Panama
  Rep of Panama

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 4:07 pm
  Vera

  Andreas Riedlemayer is NOT' a Harvard expert for the Islamic architecture'. He is a librarian

  At some point the war party elevated his status as a librarian to that of 'expert'.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 5:01 pm
  Regarding Racak, how come the earlier massacre described below never received similar attention.

  Using the dead:

  http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/1998/nda364.htm See also Places of execution:

  http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/1998/nda362.htm
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 9:05 pm
  I have had some hilarious correspondence with Michael Sells himself (you know, a Bridge Betrayed - Genocide in Bosnia, blablabla). It's funny, in a way, to be conversing with such a thug. He really plays up his allegedly Serbian origins.

  Yes, Riedlmayer is just a librarian at Harvard and is neither an expert in Islam nor in Roman Catholicism or any other religion or its art. In other words, an excellent author of trashy and hysterical website on religious "genocide" (which is nonsense, since genocide is killing, not mosque or church demolition), and a superb witness for the Hague.
  
  P M
  USA

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 9:49 pm
  Hashim Thaci/Thaqi/Tachi interview et al.

  See also Hashim Tachi's confession.

  Not what was requested but close.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 10:06 pm
  I am doing this because you are my people.

  Anybody who knows as much of what was going on in the Balkans as three weeks of following this forum can give them, knows that this "trial" is a politically motivated one. There are some politicos who created a court of their own creation to persecute ( I believe there are enough reasons to understand persecution as the synomim to "the other side") people in a very dirty war, especially dirty for the propaganda, without denying that there are some real war criminals in The Hague. So there are two different levels: on the one level the creation of the court with noble intentions, or better put, a court which justifies its own existence with noble reasons we all accept and on the other level the trials which it is having. If we accept this as true then only on the latter is the question "Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?" reasonable; legally speaking, that question should be asked in connection with anybody else being or having been tried in the Hague. In other words, we question the fairness of a court that has been created by politicos , and by doing so we partly accept legallity of that "court". Of course, reaviling the truth about the "fairness" of the "trials" in The Hague is necessery for unerstanding the political motives which created that "court", and which deny the legallity (legallity=in accordance with the effective lows), which we had to accept hypothetically of the said, separated from the question of noble reasons .

  This forum have covered both these levels splendedly. Even more, it adressed another essential problem which is the legitimacy(legitimacy=supported by the majority) of the $court€. "Is this "court" legitimate?". Here we speak about internetional law and the majority should be defined in terms of the world majority. In a democratic world it would mean the majority of the world population in which case I do not think it is legitimate. But we live in a world in which the western world, or civilization, represents at least two thirds of the votes in the international "democratic" institutions. Different political ideologies will treat this in accordance with their ideologies. Roughly we can divide them in two groups: those who will think that it should be fought and changed and those who think it should be accepted as reallity and do things to change it without figthing. I will call the first group "leftist" and the second "centrist" (the rightists being excluded because I believe they are not really interested in international law, which is probably changing by globalization). I know this division is a simplification; well, I like simple.

  You tell me which group I belong to when I tell you what I think should be dane in the case of Milosevic to help the law wins.

  The man has been demonised which gained the legitimacy in the "world community" for this "trial". Idealise him "to bring people to this forum" to see that they are supporting the legitimacy of an illigal (=not lawful) political game. Now that people are realiziing that the politicos who started it all are liars it should not be difficult as it would have been only a year ago. And ironically enough, this "trial" has given a lot of materials to idealise the man. He is a devoted husband and father, for example. Instead of accepting the discussion whether he was influanced by his wife not even mentioning the content of that influence.

  Think twice before you label me as a cynic.
  
  ivko rig
  it

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 10:52 pm
  

  Mr. Jovanovic,

  You mentioned Hillary and bombing of Yugoslavia. If you missed this old interview by Michael Savage (1999), click here.
  
  D S
  USA

• Tuesday July 15, 2003 at 11:48 pm
  Ivko,

  Whenever an injustice is done, law is the looser. It doesn't matter who commits the injustice, when or why. It remains an injustice. And one cannot subtract from an injustice.

  Every injustice makes subsequent injustice more likely. This is why defending justice is of such importance. We can't build a just future, on injustice.

  No matter the outcome of this trial, a huge injustice has been done Mr. Milosevic, if this trial is inherently unjust, or unwarranted. Mr. Milosevic has been denied his freedom, and most basic human rights for some years now.

  Notwithstanding that, it is my forlorn hope that all involved in the progression of this trial, if that it be, remember that it is not only Mr. Milosevic who is being judged here, but also international justice itself.

  It is my hope that no matter how many times law is the looser (and it has been the looser many many times in the last few years) justice will eventually triumph over injustice.

  If even lawyers and judges prefer injustice to justice, what hope is there for humanity. Little enough I am afraid, but still more than none.

  Milosevic indictment
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada