 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.
Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————
- discussion archive
- Sunday July 20, 2003 at 7:04 am
Walter,
Go ahead, just make sure my mistakes (syntax and spelling) don't get in. Thanks.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 11:59 am
Of the topic...In September 1915 Major Gavrilovic told his soldiers:"...our regiment has been sacrificed for the honor of Belgrade and the homeland. Therefore, you need not worry about your lives, as they do not exist anymore. And thus, forward, to glory...!"
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 12:02 pm
Aleksa Santic WE KNOW OUR FATE We know our fate and what to expect from life,Yet, our hearts will not freeze in fear!
Oxen are forced the yoke to bear,
God gave freedom to all men alike.
Our strength is like a mountain river's sway,
No one will ever stop it's flow!
How to face death these people know,
If free to stay there is no other way.
We know our path, the path of God-the-son,
And mighty like a mountain river's flow.
We will go even over the sharpest stones,
Ready to climb the Golgotha all the way.
And even if you take our only lives away,
Our graves will stay to fight you on!
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 12:54 pm
html Correction?
Nikole J
Canada - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 4:33 pm
test test
a d
s - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 4:54 pm
Why is Milosevic on trial? (July 19, 2003 at 8:25 pm).Peter: I do full well see, that you are not joking, - and I am not going to remind you (but merely to note, that neither were I. May I return to this later...).
Aren't you lucky to have poetry like Thomas Gray's - aren't we lucky to be able to read such poetry as written in English...
Isn't it (on the other hand) just bloody awful that a speech like that spun by mr. Bliar to the U.S. Congress the other day is (mis)using the same vocabulary...
And more to the point maybe: Isn't it a dubious arrangement with this ICTY "trial" basically run in the English - often leaving those of us, who know not the Serbian language to merely guess, what mr. Milosevic is precisely stating (on any one occasion).
Even more concretely: Could any of the Serb or Serbian participants give the exact translation of that expression:
"just like you have a big door revolving on a small hinge..."
which "the accused" was using when on 12 June last year during his croos-examination of KVM-Head William Walker it became crystal clear, that "the whole scene (at the village of Racak) has been rigged..."?
I do believe that I get the idea,(although as an architect I know, that a "revolving door" does not have "a hinge", - no door has less than two hinges anyway). I saw the remark as poetic, - albeit to the point.
Did mr. Milosevic employ some Serb proverb?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 5:43 pm
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH -- (House of Representatives - July 16, 2003)The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey). The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 40 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I sat in my office last night and listened to Member after Member on the other side rail about President Bush and whether or not we could trust him in the Iraqi situation. I have listened to my colleagues tonight. Enough is enough. Mr. Speaker, this is just outrageous.
So what I have done is I have got a whole file here, and I am going to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about their President for the previous 8 years, and I am going to cite articles and claims and I am going to cite the justification for the invasion of Yugoslavia as outlined by President Clinton.
Where were these voices, where were these petitions, where were these outcries when President Clinton told us about the Balkans mass deaths to justify NATO's invasion into the Balkans? The Clinton administration claimed that ethnic cleansing had killed hundreds of thousands of people, and I will include the articles from the papers in the Congressional Record.
The Clinton administration was later criticized, and I have newspaper articles here to back it up by the press for grossly exaggerating the number of victims of ethnic cleansing, the mass graves. President Clinton told us we would find 100,000 people that were murdered and that was his justification for using NATO for the only time ever to invade a non-NATO country in order to justify a war against Slobodan Milosevic where U.S. citizens, where U.S. troops, and where innocent Serbs were killed. That is the first example.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/948169/posts?page=56
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 5:46 pm
cont...``As a result of false and misleading news reports, Americans were led to believe tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians were killed by the Serbs and buried in mass graves. Many are still under that impression.
``According to U.N. investigators who have been scouring the area since the bombing stopped, the total number of ethnic Albanians killed by the Serbs is closer to 2,000, far fewer than the number of civilians killed by NATO bombers.''
Let me repeat that statement again, Mr. Speaker. Listen to this, please, quoted from the Contra Costa Times, March 4, 2000: ``According to U.N. investigators who scoured the area since the bombing stopped, the total number of ethnic Albanians killed by the Serbs is closer to 2,000, far fewer than the total number of civilians killed by NATO bombers.''
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 7:18 pm
DakicAlbanians were mostly murdered by the KLA. The recent trial and conviction of KLA deputy commander Remi and his entire command staff established that point.
AP V
NY
NY - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 8:26 pm
Did Walter Trkla seriously "use" Gogols's post (Saturday July 19, 2003 at 8:40 pm) in "a letter to the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun"?I mean: What could possibly be "the significance" of telling these Vancouver folks of "words spoken by US Army men on ABC TV" and "reports appearing in the Arab press", - if the letter carries no documentation?
Who "did not see the men wearing any swastikas"? Who were in fact "seeing" what?
Isn't Gogol's posting mere rumours?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 8:33 pm
AP I agree, but I found interesting that somebody in US congress finally called Clinton bluff.
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 8:33 pm
test
d a
s- Sunday July 20, 2003 at 9:39 pm
Godfred,
Rumors? TV network news: ABC, date: Friday July 18, time 6:30 PM EST, "anchor"man: Peter Jennings.
The reference to the swastika is too obvious for you to miss, but what do I know about you after all.
Maybe Walter will read the whole letter, to reassure you since I am more than reassured about Walter.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Sunday July 20, 2003 at 9:40 pm
Gogol C
SG- Sunday July 20, 2003 at 9:46 pm
Peter wrote:
While cheap oil begins to flow steadily westward at a gathering pace I was appalled today at scenes of brutality by the occupying forces in Iraq: Men with bloodied heads trussed up like suckling pigs bundled upside down into military vehicles: Elderly men being manhandled and threatened at gunpoint: Threats of destruction of property if answers weren’t forthcoming.
Obviously the same TV images were shown in Britain. Not quite mere rumors.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Monday July 21, 2003 at 12:37 am
Dakic, while I think on balance that the war against Iraq was a mistake, and am glad that Canada choose to sit that war out, I am firmly of the opinion that there was far more justification for the war against Iraq than for the war against Serbia.Firstly Saddam Hussein is/was a genuinely brutal character, in quite a different league from Milosevic.
Secondly, the US had been bombing Iraq for 10 years, imposing sanctions etc. and there was at least a hope that far from the invasion of Iraq being the start of an ugly war, it might be the end of an ugly past.
Thirdly the claim that Iraq continued to represent a threat to its neighbours, was at least not at odds with the historical record.
Fourthly, the action was not one officially conducted under NATO, and thus not a violation of NATO's founding charter.
People who to this day think me mad for my firm opposition to NATO's war on Serbia, have no problem finding fault with the war on Iraq.
People just love to believe any rubbish if it is nicely packaged as government propoganda. Look at Iraq.. the propoganda there had the power to convince probably in excess of 150,000,000 people (more than 50% of Americans) that Saddam Hussein was going to be able to make nuclear weapons from yellow cake powder; that Iraq had been behind the attack on the WTC; that Saddam Hussein was somehow responsible for an Al-Quaeda agent being in the independent Kurdish controlled sector; etc. etc.
People are now screaming about it all being lies.. but I think it is they who should take the blame. They were the ones who elected to be taken in by the propoganda, and believe lies. They did so because it was easier to believe lies told them by others than to use their own brains, and do their own research.
Everyone knows that truth is the first casualty of war, but very very few seem to be at all capable of applying that knowledge when there is a war on.
To misquote Monty Python, "but when you tell people this they just don't believe you".
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 4:22 am
Godfred Louis-Jensen you seem to miss the "the significance" in many meaningful posts. Peter’s and Gogol’s posts were crystal clear to me and yet you find them lacking logic. What do you find illogical in when Peter wrote “Both men were heads of state at the time of their being considered for indictment. Both men were responsible for forces combating Islamic insurgencies. Milosevic was indicted and Sharon was not” Logical to me and yet you said to Peter “Kindly clarify your point”. Like Peter “I presume you are joking”And Gogol wrote “These words were spoken by US Army men on ABC TV: "We will come back to this village with tanks, burn your fields, crush your houses . . ." and " . . . we will keep punishing this village you until the shooting stops" meanwhile hands and feet were tied together and men carried like animals.” I must admit that I did not see this segment but I saw other segments that sent shivers up my spine. It was Gogol’s next statement that made a connection with my consciousness when he wrote “I did not see the men wearing any swastikas, but it is already in their heart and in the silent journalist not denouncing these crimes.”
. Godfred than you write “Who "did not see the men wearing any swastikas"? One does not need to see the swastika; one only needs to look at historical evidence of indiscriminate killing in Grenada, Panama and the Persian Gulf to see the swastika at work. When government officials like Condoleezza Rice tell the media to play ball they play ball. Do you need to see the swastikas? When White House spokesman Ari Fleischer spews propaganda and silences the other side, like Milosevic has been silenced, do you need to see the swastikas?
Hitler was on American radio every day until Pearl Harbor after that he became evil incarnate. Stalin and Hitler changed places in American Media when WWII started. During WWII Stalin became everyone’s favorite Uncle Joe and after Germany was smashed America needed to reinvent USSR as the new enemy. When USSR fell a new enemy was invented. America’s industrial military complex is like a firefighter who is a pyromaniac. Godfred Louis-Jensen if the American government spent as much time being a democracy as it does in disguising what it is it would not need to preach its virtues. The virtues would be self evident just like the swastika was evident even though it was not there.
Godfred Louis-Jensen asks “What could possibly be "the significance" of telling these Vancouver folks” of "words spoken by US Army men on ABC TV?” The majority would have missed the point just as you have but making one person question the Condoleezza’s Rice and Ari Fleischer’s of the world there will be one less Nazi around.
Walter Trkla
kamloops BC
Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 7:44 am
Peter’s and Gogol’s posts were "crystal clear to Walter Trkla" and yet I find them curiously lacking, not in "logic", but (in the case of Gogol´s posting on "words spoken by US Army men on ABC TV" and "reports appearing in the Arab press"): Lacking in substance as well as reference, - lacking in elementary documentation.On my provocation Gogol gives a TV-date and an "anchor"man, none less than Peter Jennings, - and that is something, I suppose? However I newer watch TV myself (whether ABC or "Danish" TV) - I would not dream of watching crab and yet I have constantly shivers sent up my spine as far as the U.S. is concerned (and now also as far as the Danish gvt. is concerned, regrettably. Headed by a bunch of fools "we" participate in the occupation of Iraq too, these days shooting our own selection of "gooks"...).
Walter admits "that he did not (even) see the segment", - yet he was using Gogol's reaction in a letter to the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun, - aiming so it seems more on challenging the credibility of these media than on providing folks in Vancouver with muchneeded information?
Rumors? Walter, - may we have a copy of the "whole letter" that you wrote? May we have your confirmation, if or when indeed it appears in the Vancouver media? And what about the "reports in the Arab press" anyway? What precisely were you referring to, Gogol?
Look: I remember Lieutenant Calley and the faith of folks in the Vietnamese village of My Lai. I know a great deal more of the U.S. than what I learned from that - kindly do not lecture me on Swasticas and Hitler (as a Dane I used to be his neighbour and I do know that horror story quite well, too). But on its own the tale of Calley was enough to convince me never to trust the U.S. government (any more that the KKK).
I never will, - and nothing I have learned from the war against Iraq (and the preceeding war on Serbia) has made me reconsider a bit.
"They will come back to this and to that village..." - yes, I do realize that. Doesn't (some) folks in Vancouver realize as well?
I'll answer Peter separately, - it is a different matter. However in the meantime I applaud Ian Davis's posting adressed to Dakic Ana in Serbia but relevant for all of us (July 21, 2003 at 12:37 am):
"People are now screaming about it all being lies.. but...(they) elected to be taken in by the propaganda...because it was easier to believe lies...than to use their own brains, and do their own research."
Yes, Ian! May I second that?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Monday July 21, 2003 at 7:56 am
Croatian atrocities being forgotten: Cdn. officers Last Updated Mon, 21 Jul 2003 7:33:48OTTAWA - Canadian officers say they are frustrated by inaction over a 1995 ethnic cleansing operation by Croatians against Serbs - one in which the Croats may have had western help.
They documented numerous atrocities during Operation Storm, which was a four-day campaign by the Croats to recover land held in central and southern Croatia for four years by Serbian militias.
However, not one person has been arrested and brought before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
More than 200,000 Serbs were expelled, and thousands were killed.
"Just amazing. You can see the holes in the back of the head," said Capt. Gerry Carron, showing pictures he took to document the killings.
"We found people in wells," he said. "There was an old lady we found head-first in a well. Why did they do that?" Some top military officers said the expertise required to plan and execute Operation Storm meant it couldn't have been done by the Croats alone. Croatia's American consultant
Fingers have been pointed at Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI), a U.S. consulting company based in Alexandria, Virginia. The company's Web site points to an article in which the Croatian government praised the job MPRI has done for it - although MPRI has denied involvement in Operation Storm. "I don't think it was the Croats themselves that did that," said Maj.-Gen. Alain Fourand, who commanded UN forces in the area of Operation Storm, adding he suspected it was MPRI. Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, who will be going to Afghanistan to command Canadian troops, also said he doubts the Croats themselves pulled off Operation Storm. "That was done by people who really knew what they were doing," he said, adding he didn't think the Croats had the expertise. Croatia was getting assistance in other ways. Argentina supplied artillery used in Operation Storm - despite a UN ban and even though their own soldiers were working there as peacekeepers.
Looking back, Carron said peacekeepers may have made things worse by disarming the Serbs while the Croats re-armed.
Canadian officers say the involvement of the West could explain the foot-dragging on prosecution, although the tribunal said the case is largely circumstantial.
The Canadians also believe the Croatian commander of Operation Storm is being protected by supporters in Croatia's government, and that not enough diplomatic pressure is being exerted.
Dan B
Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 8:35 am
In the absence of serious current discussion of the trial I have decided to play devils advocate.Ian your view on Iraq vs a vis Serbia / Yugoslavia is inconsistent as Im sure you have been told before.
Number 2 in your arguments is that Iraq was under sanctions and unofficial war (my words) for the last ten years. So was Yugoslavia. It is my understanding that due to sanctions and war in the former Yugoslavia people are in a dire economic situation. Some people would probably argue in Yugoslavia that they wanted their ugly past to end too. Is that reason enough for foreign intervention in Yugoslavia or Iraq?
For the third point the historical record is also debateable. Certainly Croatia and Bosnia for obvious reasons would say that Serbia posed a threat to it. But more importantly is the comparison we can draw with Kuwait. It is my understanding that Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq. It isnt dissimilar to the way that Serbs in Serbia might feel about their brothers in todays Bosnia is it?
The fourth point about NATO's rules is a very weak one. How many rules of international law has the US broken by their illegitamate take over of a foreign country?
Dean Saunders
UK- Monday July 21, 2003 at 10:25 am
Dean, neither the US nor the UK had been dropping bombs on Serbia for 10 years as a consequence of an ended war that never ended.Serbia was not at war with either Croatia or Bosnia. Many serbs were involved in a civil war there but these two facts should not be confused.
Finally you must understand that the US has as much respect for international law, as the mafia does for domestic law. I (and I presume the rest of the civilized world) takes it as a given that the US will break international law when ever it chooses. That is its right because with few exceptions agreeing to comply with international law is a voluntary decision, and the US has consistently refused to do so, arguing that the US constitution allows no law to be above US law.
My concern here is that the US dragged NATO into a criminal enterprise. In doing so it made criminals of Canada, Spain, Denmark, UK, France, Germany, Italy etc. etc. effectively destroyed NATO, and gravely undermined the UN. This is not a weak point at all. It is the strongest reason why Canada, Spain, Denmark, UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc. should not have been engaged in a joint criminal exercise with the US. It made criminals of us all.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 10:45 am
By: John Pomfret, Washington Post Foreign Service,The Washington Post, February 16, 1994SREBRENICA, Bosnia: Nasir Oric's war trophies don't line the wall of his comfortable apartment-- one of the few with electricity in this besieged Muslim enclave stuck in theforbidding mountains of eastern Bosnia. They're on a videocassette tape: burned Serb houses and headless Serb men, their bodies crumpled in a pathetic heap.
"We had to use cold weapons that night," Oric explains as scenes of dead men sliced by knives roll over his 21-inch Sony. "This is the house of a Serb named Ratso," he offers as the camera cuts to a burned-out ruin. "He killed two of my men, so we torched it. Tough luck."
Reclining on an overstuffed couch, clothed head to toe in camouflage fatigues, a U.S. Army patch proudly displayed over his heart, Oric gives the impression of a lion in his den. For sure, the Muslim commander is the toughest guy in this town, which the U.N. Security Council has declared a protected "safe area."
Dakic Ana
Serbia- Monday July 21, 2003 at 10:48 am
Representatives of the Bosniac community gathered in Sarajevo on 28 and 29 September to vote on the peace package. A delegation of Bosniacs from Srebrenica was transported to Sarajevo by UNPROFOR helicopter to participate in the debate. Prior to the meeting, the delegation met in private with President Izetbegoviç, who told them that there were Serb proposals to exchange Srebrenica and ðepa for territories around Sarajevo. The delegation opposed the idea, and the subject was not discussed further. Some surviving members of the Srebrenica delegation have stated that President Izetbegoviç also told them he had learned that a NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was possible, but could only occur if the Serbs were to break into Srebrenica, killing at least 5,000 of its people. President Izetbegoviç has flatly denied making such a statement. Following this private meeting, the Bosniac Assembly met in full session, voting not to accept the Invincible package as it stood, and calling for further talks and the return of all territories taken by force.http://www.xs4all.nl/~adampost/Archive/SR/sr_005.htm
Dakic Ana
Serbia- Monday July 21, 2003 at 11:07 am
In fairness to the US it is worth observing that:9. Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands and Portugal have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in their respective declarations, deposited by Belgium on 17 June 1958, by Canada on 10 May 1994, by the Netherlands on 1 August 1956 and by Portugal on 19 December 1955. As no reservation directly relevant to the present issues has been included in the declarations of the four States mentioned above, it might be argued that the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction is justified under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute in the cases of the Applications addressed to those four States. Literally interpreted, the declaration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (assuming that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is indeed a party to the Statute of the Court and that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's declaration was legitimately registered) may be claimed as being valid in relation to other States which have made a similar declaration.
16. In my view, it would be extremely odd to have a situation where the Court apparently has prima facie jurisdiction only for those States (Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands and Portugal) that have simply failed to include in their declarations an exclusion clause protecting their interests, while Spain and the United Kingdom are, because of their exclusion clauses, released from the Court's jurisdiction in the present cases (which in fact cover exactly the same subject). I accordingly consider, in the light my finding in paragraph 9 above as to Yugoslavia's lack of good faith, that the Applications instituting proceedings against these four States also (namely, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands and Portugal) should likewise be found inadmissible.
It is also a remarkable fact that, with the exception of the United Kingdom, no permanent member of the Security Council has, at the present time, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. In fact, in October 1985, on the occasion of the loss of its case against Nicaragua (at the jurisdictional phase), the United States proceeded to withdraw the acceptance which it had maintained ever since the Court was set up in 1946. Earlier, France had withdrawn its acceptance, just after being brought before the Court by Australia/New Zealand in connection with its nuclear tests in the atmosphere in the South Pacific in 1973.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 11:07 am
Just to back Ana up, Here is another link:http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports/UNsrebrenicareport.htm
It would be interesting to get there members of the delegation to testify at the 'trial': "Some surviving members of the Srebrenica delegation have stated that President Izetbegoviç also told them he had learned that a NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was possible..."
Dan B
Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 12:02 pm
Evan Dyer, on CBC TV news this morning, reported that the Canadian soldiers who witnessed the ethnic cleansing of Serbs by the Croatians want to testify at the Hague Tribunal (bless their hearts).It would seem there are cracks appearing in the dam.
Imagine the fees Milosevic would be able to realize as a defence lawyer after he is acquitted.
M Donne
Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 1:13 pm
Ian Your first point is very specific of course its true but it was my understanding that your argument above included the sanctions and part of the humanitarian argument for getting rid of a tyrant. In my opinion one either supports the 'removal' of tyrants or does not. In this case most people know that Saddam was as you say in a different league to Milosevic. Yugoslavia also was under sanctions for a long time. I would appreciate it if you could address these points. For what its worth the points you listed in your earlier post that I did not mention I agree with.As you affirm Serbia was not at war but Serbia never existed in this period as a state, Yugoslavia was at war - Serbia as part of Yugoslavia was at war as default as all the nations were. (Unless we accept the illegal declarations of independence of Bosnia and Croatia which I dont). It was a civil war. It is probably a little more accurate to call this war a war of peoples rather than one between nations in any case. Each ethnic group was at war Having said this it is also my understanding that each ethnic group would make local alliances in order to achieve their objective as is 'normal' in war.
The United States / NATO forces bombed the Bosnian Serbs on more than one occasion but did not declare war against them. The United States also supplied two sides in the Yugoslav civil war in its undeclared war against basically Serbs. It helped train soldiers to throw Serbs out of their homes in Croatia to put it nicely.
I well understand that the US has no respect for international law. What made you think that NATO with US as senior partner ever would? Do you really have higher standards for an unelected transnational military organisation than for an elected soverign nation state? No matter how bright its citizens may be.
I would disagree to an extent on your last point. We as citizens of western countries should not take all of the blame blame for what happens in our countries especially if we opposed it at the time. To blame are the military industrial complex, our governments (which incidentally I didnt vote for in the UK) and the media. A combination of businessmen and politicians. However I feel a personal sense of responsibility and think that people who opposed injustice should make their voices heard. What we are witnessing in the UK now are the reprecussions. Remember the majority in the UK did not support the war against Iraq and quite right too.
Dean Saunders
UK- Monday July 21, 2003 at 1:24 pm
IANMy concern here is that the US dragged NATO into a criminal enterprise
IMO, the EU did the dragging , and is the primary instigator of the Balkan fiasco and is the primary supporter of the ICC and it's arm, the ICYU that's attempting to justify it all. They pushed and aided Slovenia and Croatia illegally leaving the YU.
Next termoil in Bosnia resulted, bringing in the UN. The UN didn't have the 'fire power' to control the 'forces' of the Muslims, Croatians and Serbian protectors. Britain's PM, M Thacher then started a screaming campaign for Nato/US involvement. Peacemaker Milosevic was demonized by the medias and made the scape goat.
A scandal cornered, egotistical Clinton, his disfuntional cabinet, and his enabling Democratc party abliged. They 'settled' it by taking sides, the wrong side.
J, P
USA,Wis- Monday July 21, 2003 at 1:41 pm
Dean, yes initially the conflict in Yugoslavia was an internal one. But I don't think NATO became involved prior to the break up of Yugoslavia. NATO's conflict v.v. Kosovo was not with Yugoslavia. It was with F.R.Y. (aka Serbia and Montenegro).NATO was formed with the specific understanding that it was a strictly defensive military alliance. What makes yout think Europe would have signed on with the US being the senior partner on terms other than this?
Re my last point, those who are not mislead by propaganda are obviously not to be blamed because some/most are.
And yes, the UK went to war counter to the clearly demonstrated opposition of the population of what was supposed to be a democracy.
J.P. Yes, the EU did do considerable dragging, particularly Germany. But it was definitely the US that dragged NATO into Kosovo. Did Canada even have any representatives at Rambouillet?
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 2:08 pm
Dear sirs . I will very much appreciate if anybody can make me understand why the opinion of the majority of any chosen country and I an talking million of people is never taken into consideration , like if they can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground in any matter or situation , and politicians have the divine rigth to decide against their wills . Or is it that the minds are so alienated with the government manipulated media that people find out the truth only when everything is been conssumated and the faith , life and future of nations have been destroyed . Big changes in human history were triggered because of the arrogance and scorn of the empires and is about time that our voices start to be heard .
Milan Prika
Panama
Rep of Panama- Monday July 21, 2003 at 2:21 pm
Amen Milane!
Dakic Ana
Serbia- Monday July 21, 2003 at 2:44 pm
Yes Peter: If x=y and z=y, then (it follows that) z=x - isn´t that somehow the point you are making in your postings (on July 18 and 19, 2003)?Or: If indeed the ICTY Prosecutor had any evidence that mr. Milosevic was connected to war crimes in Kosovo and had mr. Milosevic been openly admitting his guilt (as has the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who ordered the assasination of Salah Shehada by an air raid, dropping a 1-tons bomb killing reportedly 15 civilians incl. 9 children and wounding more than 100 in central Gaza in July last year (1), - subsequently hailing his action as a "great success"), then indeed he should be indicted - although preferably not by "a false tribunal" of some "other side", but by a Court of Justice.
I trust that we agree on this? And if Ariel Sharon were indeed brought to justice, - if even on that single count concerning the murder of Salah Shehada (the facts of which are recognized), then most certainly the Israeli prime minister would be convicted as a war criminal!
In this particular case however, it is not that x=y. Indeed both men were heads of state at the time of their being considered for indictment, - but this is where any parallel stops: It was decided that Mr. Milosevic be indicted, although there was (and still is) no evidence against the former president - and Ariel Sharon was not indicted, although his guilt is evident and he openly was hailing his crime (2).
Both of these decisions were wrong - albeit for different reasons. Hence my objection to your postings (which otherwise I admire for zeal and clarity).
PS: How could I possibly be joking? Even after this embarrassingly prolonged "prosecution case" at The Hague I see no evidence at all against mr. Milosevic. Neither does mrs. Carla del Ponte - I trust that much to be the very cause for the case to be - however hopelessly - drawn out.
With regard to "Kosovo", which the original Indictment against mr. Milosevic "and others" was adressing, we have been experiencing how that crucial incident at the village of Racak came out as rigged, - the statement by the American "ambassador", KVM-head William Walker being altogether false (and quite stupid, I think).
Hence..."just like you have a big door revolving on small hinges", the truly admirable efforts of mr. Milosevic has opened up for the truth to be seen by anyone who cares...
(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,762246,00.html
(2) Even the U.S., normally Israel's staunchest ally, called Sharons missile strike "heavy handed", while the British government was calling the attack "unacceptable and counterproductive".
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Monday July 21, 2003 at 2:57 pm
Rush, on 'talk radio' 7/21/03 , 15,000,000 listeners, just did a comparison of Kosovo versus Iraq. All indirectly positive for Milosevic. Upshot was that there is serious doubt that there were ligitimate reasons for attacking Serbia. That Milosevic posed no threat, there was no genicide, and it was all based on lies.
J, P
USA,Wis- Monday July 21, 2003 at 4:02 pm
Milan, Neither do I understand "why the opinion of the majority of any chosen country...is NEVER taken into consideration" (2:08 pm).However may I briefly provide a few facts from my native country of Denmark - once considered to be kind of a "democracy":
In January this year a domestic opinion poll was showing that but 4 (four) percent of us were "in favor" of Danish participation in a war against Iraq, lacking a UN mandate.
During the NATO war on Serbia (or: the FRY) in 1999 a poll was depicting Denmark as next only to Croatia in our illformed hailing of this illegal, unfounded (and immensely stupid!) armed attack.
Have we, the people, come to our senses then? Well, - the politicians have not relinquished their rigth to decide against our will anyway, as you say, whether "divine" or other...
But read my lips: Bush will be deprived of a second term, Bliar will lose his post as British prime minister - and in our little Denmark mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen is a dead man already!
Never say never...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Monday July 21, 2003 at 5:12 pm
JP,Wish I'd heard Rush say those things. On the rare occasions that I have listned to him, he seemed to take the opposite view -- or, rather, an uninformed, unquestioning view that was merely parroting the Clinton propaganda. Can you tell us, not verbatim, but in your own words, what he specifically said. The fact that he has such a large audience is important. Thanks.
Anna P
California- Monday July 21, 2003 at 5:18 pm
MAYI relay the following:
IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS FOR DONATION MONEY TRANSFERS
Dear friends,
Please, find bellow the information and SWIFT-Codes necessary to transfer money in different currencies to the German ICDSM bank account, which at the moment is the most efficient banking mechanism to put your donations on the disposal of Sloboda for the defense of Slobodan Milosevic.
To make your donation by an international money transfer, just provide your local bank with the instructions valid for your currency.
Sincerely,
Vladimir Krsljanin, SLOBODA/Freedom Association
1. Payment in EUR from inside EU
Just use the IBAN (International Banking Account Number) DE 5150 8900 0001 0201 3409 for further credit to account of Mr. Peter Betscher, favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG, SWIFT-Code: DAVODE55
2. Payment in USD
Payment via Bank of New York, NY (SWIFT: IRVTUS3N) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no. 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher
3. Payment in GBP
Payment via Lloyds Bank PLC, London (SWIFT: LOYDGB2L) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher
4. Payment in SEK
Payment via Svenska Handelsbanken, Stockholm (SWIFT: HANDSESS) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher
5. Payment in DKK
Payment via Danske Bank, Copenhagen (SWIFT: DABADKKK) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher
6. Payment in CHF
Payment via Berner Kantonalbank, Bern (SWIFT: KBBECH22) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher
7. Payment in AUD
Payment via ANZ Bank, Melbourne (SWIFT: ANZBAU3M) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no.: 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher
8. Payment in CAD
Payment via Bank of Montreal, Montreal (SWIFT: BOFMCAM2) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no. 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher
9. Payment from Poland and Russia
It is recommended to pay in EUR or USD using the following instructions:
Payment in EUR
Just use the IBAN (International Banking Account Number) DE 5150 8900 0001 0201 3409 for further credit to account of Mr. Peter Betscher, favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG, SWIFT Code: DAVODE55
Payment in USD
Payment via Bank of New York, NY (SWIFT: IRVTUS3N) favor of: Volksbank Darmstadt eG (SWIFT: DAVODE55) for further credit to account no. 102013409 of Mr. Peter Betscher
For further questions, please contact Volksbank:
Anja Folkerts
Tel.: +49-6157-980-230, Fax: +49-6157-980-262
Volksbank Darmstadt eG
Hügelstr. 8 - 20, 64218 Darmstadt/Germany
SWIFT: DAVO DE 55
BLZ: 50890000
Bankverbindung:
LZB Darmstadt (BLZ) 508 900 00
USt.-Nr. 007 220 01153
USt.-ID-Nr. DE 111 609 637
Or Mr. Peter Betscher, who is in charge of the ICDSM account in Germany:
e-mail: Peter_betscher@freenet.de
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Monday July 21, 2003 at 8:00 pm
I heard Rush say "there was no ethnic cleansing", "there was no genocide" in referring to NATO's attack on Serbia. I interpreted his remarks as meaning that no WMD in Iraq is no different from no Mass Graves in Kosovo -- that Clinton lied just as much as Bush.I just read the following from "The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Individual Societies" by Richard Heinberg: The Balkans: This is not a resource-rich region, but one essential to the transfer of energy resources from Central Asia to Europe. It is also the site of Camp Bondsteel, the larges 'from-scratch' foreign US military base constructed since the Vietnam War. Located in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo on farmland seized by US forces in 1999, Camp Bondsteel lies close to the Brown and Root Services, a Houston-based contractor that is part of the Halliburton Corporation..."
I guess this would explain why Rush didn't criticize Clinton's approach to Kosovo until the Bush administration was cornered by exposure of its lies re Iraq.
Being that there was no ethnic cleansing and no genocide in Kosovo, how are they now going to explain the 'revenge killings' and ethnic cleansing of minorities?
M Donne
Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 8:18 pm
I've been meaning to post this for awhile -- a quote by shakespeare who always gives resonance to eternal truths:"Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war." Hamlet
M Donne
Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 8:54 pm
IanThanks for posting the link.
The ICJ opinions are a indeed a rich font of material. Given the current anti-imperialist climate developing throughout the world, one can be certain when the case is finally heard by the Judges........NATO aggressor states will be found guilty.
Ian is correct that we should all spend some time at the ICJ website carefully examing the Yugoslav case.
AP V
NY
NY- Monday July 21, 2003 at 9:26 pm
As I remember it the main issues re the ICJ finding against the request by Serbia for the UN to order a halt to the bombing where:1. The court ruled that the entire war was to be judged as if it spanned only its first day, at which time FRY did not recognise the authority of the ICJ and thus could not seek redress from it.
2. F.R.Y was not a member of the UN because despite continuing to pay dues, and attend meetings, and fulfill its duties to the UN, because it had been ordered to reapply for membership under a new name.
3. It would be unreasonable to find against nations that did pledge to uphold international law, such as Canada, while concurrently finding that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try Spain and the US.
4. FRY acted in bad faith in deciding to recognise the court, only after it had need of the court.
Re (1) at least one dissenting judge pointed to clear counter evidence suggesting that the court could not lump an entire war into a crime that legally occurred prior to FRY recognising the legitimacy of the ICJ.
Re (2) the claim is absurd. At no point was FRY advised that it was no longer a member of the UN. Being asked to apply for a new UN membership under a different name, is not the same as being disenfranchised.
Re (3) Canada committed to abide by international law, and to be tried by the ICJ if it violated international law. It was not the courts job to excuse our behaviour if we committed international crimes, but ours to avoid it.
Re (4) at least one dissenting judge asked what the point was of FRY agreeing to be bound by the ICJ if the ICJ was to then turn around and respond that despite this obvious concession, FRY remained outside of the courts protection.
Frankly, that a UN appointed court should effectively sanction a continuation of an illegal war of aggression which never had the backing of the UN security council, and which was condemned by both Russia and China, brought the UN into disrepute.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 9:45 pm
GodfredYou ask if The Principle of Transitivity is the basis for the “point” you claim I made to which you object.
I did not consciously consider the mathematical expression of the relationships I described but now that you have raised the issue we have to note that not all human relationships are transitive. There are also intransitive relationships and non-transitive relationships.
Therefore it does not always follow that if a relation holds between a first person and a second, and between the second and a third then it must hold between the first and the third.
I do not understand how you form your equations from my statements especially as there exists a particular difference of note in the fact that Milosevic’s forces were operating on sovereign territory whereas Sharon’s forces are an occupying power in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
When combating insurgencies, especially those involving Islamic terror, there are inevitably a number of civilian casualties. For examples witness the hundreds killed in the occupied territories of the Palestinians, Afghanistan and Iraq. This is so because the counter-terror forces become trigger happy and vengeful, depending on discipline, in the face of attacks and atrocities carried out by the terrorists. Also in the case of Israel, as in Kosovo, irregular militia take it upon themselves to retaliate.
Put simply, in other words, the question I asked was: ‘Why has Milosevic been singled out?’
Even mass murderer Saddam Hussein was offered immunity from prosecution by Holy Tony: Though Blair now - in the embarrassing absence of WMD’s - seeks to justify his war because of the “300,000 victims” of such weapons provided by the West. Weapons the West encouraged Saddam to use in this slaughter - or at least stood idly by - in buddy-buddy days.
I am at a loss to understand how my comments allow you to conclude that I draw a parallel or equivalence between the actions of Sharon and those of Milosevic?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Monday July 21, 2003 at 10:11 pm
Oh, I recall a little more of Rush's remarks re Clinton/Kosovo. He said that Clinton had gained support for the bombing by citing 'humanitarian' reasons. Rush was trying to parallel Bush's invasion of Iraq on similar grounds, i.e., liberation from oppression. Rush also said that that was the only reason given by Clinton because there was no terrorism, no al queda(sp?), and no threat to the US or anyone else outside of Yugoslavia. Here, I believe, he was trying to say that Bush had many more reasons, and much more pressing imperatives for attacking Iraq than Clinton had for bombing Serbia/Kosovo. As far as his saying there were no terrorists in Kosovo goes, here he is again siding with the Clinton line, and keeping things safe for Cheney's corporate connections.This is from the right-wing. I believe there has been a much more insidious message re Milosevic coming from some talk shows of the left, leaning on the 'humanitarian' aspect of the bombings. Humanitarian bombing -- hmmmm, let me think about that.
M Donne
Canada- Monday July 21, 2003 at 10:35 pm
M DonneI listened to it twice, and no doubt, Rush did say our excuse boiled down to 'humanitarian' reasons. He finnishes by saying that, in Iraq the reasons were 'genuine' while in Kosovo they were not, they were based on lies. Mass graves in Iraq were immediately found while in Kosovo they were not.
Judge May is going to run into a 'buzz saw' if Milosevic doesn't spend Christmas in Belgrad with his family. Even Del Ponte admits the case hasen't been made yet. IMO opinion that meeans Judge May is left holding the bag.
J, P
USA,Wis- Monday July 21, 2003 at 11:59 pm
J,PDo you remember Rush reiterating the body count figures, i.e., I think I also remember him saying that Clinton at first espoused 100,000, then it was downsized to 10,000, but the final UN figures came out at 2,000.
Do you mean 'home for Christmas' as a permanent end to the trial, or just as a break between prosecution & defence?
M Donne
Canada - Sunday July 20, 2003 at 9:39 pm