 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
- Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 12:06 am
I think that Republicans wishing to promote their cause by leveraging comparisons with Bill Clinton's reign need to carefully consider:1) Do multiple wrongs make a right?
2) Isn't it really damning with the faintest of praise to compare anyone to Bill Clinton?
3) If Bill Clinton could pursuade every member of NATO except Greece and Poland to join him in a very illegal war against Serbia, while George Bush armed with a better case could pursuade only the UK government to go along for the ride, and generate a storm of world wide protest in the process, with more than 1,000,000 people marching in London alone, what does that say about George Bush's powers of persuasion, or fitness for the US presidency.
4)Does the republican party have anyone capable of actually being presidential, or better yet a statesman capable of taking their place on the world stage, who might consider running in 2004?
5) Do the democrats?
I find it a bit depressing that the US seems incapable of finding one candidate among a population of 300,000,000 people who is capable of doing the nation more good than harm.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 12:18 am
Well, I think after taking on a 'rouge' court for 1 1/2 yrs, he'll want to apply the cop de grace.As I remember, Rush mentioned no specific numbers. I checked out Rush's web site but I'm not a 24/7 subscriber, so I can't access the archives. If things gets hotter, I just may have to subscribe. Is anyone signed up?
J, P
USA,Wis - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 12:36 am
IAN
Clinton couldn't get the UN to sign on. But in the Balkans, everyone got a piece of the pie, except Russia and Serbia.In Afghanistan/Iraq and what's to come, there are long term benifits, short term it's nothing but a difficult struggle, with all the brutal unwaranted critisism to boot.
Luckily, in a world of 4+ billion, we have W in the driver seat setting the course.
What course would you propose?
J, P
USA,Wis - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 4:48 am
In the case of Bliar and Bush, I'd suggest a course of mutual self destruction. But then again, I may be a little too optimistic.
David
Australia - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 6:32 am
Re: Dr Kelly, a Ministry of Defense consultant on biological weapons and former UN arms inspector in Iraq whose body was found with slit wrists outside of London...Was Dr Kelly maybe related to Allende (Chile), seeing as how both men seem to have had a serious predisposition to "suicide" when they were out of step with the masters of the universe.
One wonders what Milosevic's chances are in the light of such shennanigans!
David
Australia - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 6:45 am
Testimony of B-127 He is a Bosnian Muslim (declaring as Yugoslav) that was an officer in Serbian Bosnian Army (whose leader is Mladic) and who got 4 promotions (he said by default) by year 1999. Can somebody remind me, what is the name of that Jew that was promoted by default as an officer of SS? Key word genocide.
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 9:08 am
Right Peter, - my mistake (as mr. Nice would say, wouldn`t he?).I am quite satisfied, that the question you asked by your posting on (July 18, 2003 at 7:50 pm) was:
‘Why has Milosevic been singled out?’
(And admittedly, by asking for "carlafication" (as opposed to "clarification") I was indeed joking. Bad joke maybe, - my mistake again).
Peter, - I entered this web-debate impressed by a clear cut argument of yours (which has long since gone into the Archives). It was not merely that I agreed with you, but you reinforced my position in this matter of "NATO's war on Serbia", and I do owe you a lot... kind regards,
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 10:13 am
Why has Milosevic been singled out for indictment?Would maybe Dean Saunders, who entered the dicussion on Monday July 21, 2003 at 8:35 am "in the absence of serious current discussion of the trial" like to assume Carla's rôle, playing the devils advocate on this one?
By the way: Doesn't mr. Saunders recognize, say, the dicussion on Hashim Thaci's confession (as raised by Peter Taylor) as "serious"?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenjagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 10:36 am
The so-called “Trial” of Slobodan Milosevic resumed again today after a four day weekend.A secret witness code named “B-127” testified for most of the day. B-127 is a Muslim and a former member of the JNA who stayed on and joined the VRS, after the JNA withdrew from Bosnia-Herzegovina in May of 1992.
The prosecution was trying to use B-127’s testimony as part of its pathetic attempt to “prove” their absurd claim that the VJ and the VRS were the same army, and not 2 different armies.
The “damning testimony” came fast and furious when B-127 claimed that the VJ and the VRS shared information with each other. Oh, parish the thought that 2 friendly states would share information with each other! That has got to be the most sinister conspiracy in the history of the world, or so you would think if you were the “prosecutor” at the Hague Tribunal.
The truth is that it is completely normal for states that are on friendly terms with one another to share information. An example of that is making headlines right now. George W. Bush made what was apparently a false claim in his State of the Union speech, on the basis of British intelligence.
B-127 said that the information sharing went so far that the VJ could access VRS radar data and the VRS could access VJ radar data. In North America the USA and Canada have the same agreement - it’s called NORAD.
If one uses the logic employed by the Hague Tribunal one could theorize that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was really a Canadian endeavor, and therefore the actions of the USA are really Canada’s responsibility. After all Canada and the USA cooperate with each other, they share intelligence data, they share radar data - in fact, in my home state of Washington the Canadian Armed forces conduct joint training operations together with the U.S. Army at Ft. Lewis.
Just like Slobodan Milosevic secretly controlled the government and army of Republika Srpska - Canadian PM, Jean Chretien is secretly controlling the U.S. Government and the American armed forces. If you understand the logic of the Hague Tribunal, or if you smoke enough crack that ytpe of thinking will make perfect sense to you.
Another thing that was seen as sinister (by the prosecutor) was the fact that the government of Yugoslavia paid the former soldiers of the JNA, through the 30th Personnel Center, the social insurance, health benefits, salaries, old-age pensions, etc… which they had legally accrued under Yugoslav law.
Imagine those scheming Serbs - paying people the money that they owed them. If that doesn’t point to a “joint criminal enterprise” then I don’t know what does. They even paid B-127, who is a Muslim, through that same 30th Personnel Center.
The 30th Personnel Center was purely an administrative body that was in charge of paying legally accrued social benefits to the former soldiers of the JNA. The 30th Personnel Center issued no orders of any kind. It had one office, consisting of one room, and it operated for a full 6 years after the war ended, and so it had absolutely nothing at all to do with the war.
The prosecution’s allegation that the VJ and the VRS were the same army fell to pieces when Slobodan Milosevic asked B-127 some very direct questions.
President Milosevic asked if B-127 knew of any orders that the VJ had issued to the VRS, and B-127 didn’t know about any.
President Milosevic asked if B-127 had ever seen any units of the VJ operating in Bosnia, and again B-127 hadn’t.
B-127 tried to save the prosecution’s case by saying that people from Serbia were forced to join the VRS. President Milosevic then asked for an example of this, but B-127 failed to come up with even a single example.
President Milosevic further destroyed the prosecution’s case when he asked - if the VJ and the VRS were the same army (as the prosecutor claims), then why didn’t the VRS engage Albanian terrorists in Kosovo, or mobilize to defend Yugoslavia during the NATO aggression?
After B-127 withdrew another secret witness code named B-83 came and testified for about 10 minutes.
Then the so-called “judges” decided that written statements from 2 secret witnesses, B-1576 and B-1010, could be admitted as evidence under rule 92-bis without any cross-examination. In fact these secret witnesses, if they even exist, don’t even have to appear in front of the tribunal at all. For all we know these “witnesses” could simply be figments of Carla del Ponte’s imagination.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 11:39 am
I heard a rumor, or is it a rumour, only one in any case, that the US Government concerned about saving dollars has decided to invite the ICTY, Carla and her troupe, May (always in December) and his troika to move to sunny Guantanamo where the need for witness protection and close door sessions are not necessary. Carla worries about her hair saloon, can her coiffeur also come?
"Surely sweetie" -- Ashcroft approves!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 12:05 pm
For all I know not even “secret witnesses” admitted as evidence under rule 92-bis could be figments of Carla del Ponte’s imagination.Surely she got that idea from somewhere else?
Why was Milosevic singled out for indictment? Well, - in the twilight of ICTY´s faultering "evidence" and the recent, similar U.S. experience with Iraq I would rephrase the question:
Why did NATO (in search of an excuse for its aggression against the FRY/Serbia) choose to demonize Milosevic?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 12:19 pm
For all I know not even “secret witnesses” admitted as evidence under rule 92-bis could be figments of Carla del Ponte’s imagination.Why not? The OTP could say that you were B-1010 and that you wrote the witness statement, but you'd never know it because your identity as a witness would be a secret.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 12:36 pm
Andy, Canada runs an exchange program with US soldiers, and some of those Canadian soldiers currently on exchange with US forces participated in the war against Iraq. There may well also have been Canadians in the US military, having elected to serve in the US. Canada also has a policy of exchanging information at all levels with their US counter parts. Worse than this we speak the same language, share the same history, and even use the same currency.. both use dollars and cents don't we? Further damning evidence is that the United Empire Loyalists left the US for Canada, much more recently than the Serbs who fled Turkish domination, and subsequently choose to settle in the Krajina.Applying the testimony of B-127 am I to conclude that the Canadian and US armies are one and the same, and that the world got it all wrong when they thought that it was the US who was bombing Iraq. I hadn't grasped that George Bush was just a front for a Canadian Joint Criminal Enterprise. But in the ICTY world, that much must be obvious to everyone.
Pity our poor Canadian Prime Minister if the ICJY ever persuades our Ontario Premier to kidnap him, send him off to the Hague contrary to our laws, and then abandon him for years, while a court forever lengthens his trial.
The prosecution must be hoping that if they can drag this trial on long enough, Milosevic will not out live the trial, and the entire trial can be conveniently forgotten.
But I do wish that if the prosecution had nothing constructive to present to the world, they'd "declare" and let Mr. Milosevic have a turn at bat.
Ian Davis
Wateroo
Ontario, Canada - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 12:58 pm
Perhaps the ICTY should have secret Judges. That way the Judges wouldn't have to worry about their conduct being above reproach, and if anyone got bored with the job, someone else could take over. Each of them could spell the others.If the ICTY had secret judges, and the funding ran out to pay them, one could easily continue the trial without them.
On the other hand if the secret judges lasted the course, and then went on to make the wrong rulings, it would be simple to rewrite history.
The "Princess Bride" explains the value of having replacable "Dread Pirate Roberts".
Were Russian show trials ever quite this bad, with secret witnesses, and secret statements, and only the courts word that the witness exists, the witness statement exists, that the one was the product of the other, and doubt even here as to which it was which produced the other.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 1:28 pm
Andy, you got me! Indeed "the OTP could say that "I" was B-1010 and that "I" wrote the witness statement," - but would that not be way beyond Carla's imagination, considering?Maybe secret witness B-1576 is Gogol Charlemagbe, - what do I (we) know about him after all? (July 20, 2003 at 9:39 pm)
Anyway, - I do see your point, and (secretly) I applaud Ian's follow up (as does Gogol, I am sure).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 1:30 pm
Ho Ho Mr Louis Jensen you are a cad! It would be a stretch to be able to get me to play Carla's role. Why dont you try it? You like Carla prefer to misquote so at least you will have something in common.To spell it out to you (as if you didnt know already) serious discussion of the events in the courtroom like from Andy above is not the same. Dont try to insinuate that I dont think the discussion about Thaci is serious or at least attempt to be a little more clever about it.
So no thanks I wont hand you the cane after you tried to get me to impersonate somebody with their trousers down.
Dont try and pick on the new boy again! You have been warned. And I know this message smacks of public school education)
Dean Saunders
UK - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 1:35 pm
If history is worth anything, US ambassador to Moscow Joseph Davies explainned in his "Mission to Moscow" he was convinced the Soviet show trials of the late 30's were genuine and the defendant guilty; in all fairness to Carla she is not Vyshinsky.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 3:02 pm
Right Dean Saunders,play it in whichever way you want, but still:
Why did "NATO" choose to demonize Milosevic - instead of picking some other, more credible excuse for its aggression against the FRY/Serbia?
Not a bad question, is it?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 5:20 pm
Godfred Louis-JensenFor detailed answer please refer to "Yugoslavia - Avoidable War" that goes in detail in why Milosevic and Serbs were picked up as devils. As for short version is that Serbs and Serbian immigration have not been prepared for this war (this explains bad PR campaign). Serbs do not have basking of the Catholic Church and Arab oil. On average, Serbs did nothing to lobby congressmen and MP. While Serbs were put to sleep by notion of Yugoslavia, Croatians, Muslims and Albanians were lobbying. Good for them - they did their homework. However, they also did us a favor. All this reminded Serbian people of whom they really are. The battle is not over yet.
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 6:09 pm
Dakic Ana,no, - the battle is not yet over!
I suppose in hindsight you could always have done more and better than you actually did (the Danish history is rich in that kind of experiences, - rather "parallel" to Serbian history in fact).
I still wonder, however, why NATO did not do THEIR homework any better?
NATO has now lost the ICTY "trial" against mr. Milosevic (and Serbia)as far as "Kosovo" is concerned, - I am convinced about that; and the "trial" concerning Croatia/B-H, although "interesting" from a historians point of view and even useful in some respects, is without significance (and a loser for ICTY as well).
If I were NATO boss or U.S. President I would have secured a better "excuse" for my criminal conduct. Were these guys (Clinton, Solana...) and dolls (Albright...) just foolish?
Thank you for your answer anyway. Hail to the Serbian people - and indeed to mr. Milosevic.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 6:14 pm
QUOTE" 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. "END QUOTE
I think that this is rather surprising, but it comes at a time when it is used to score political points. Better now, that never?
Dan B
Canada - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 6:15 pm
This comes from Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania-Congressman
Dan B
Canada - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 6:19 pm
Godfred, The why of it all is well explained in:Seeing Yugoslavia Through a Dark Glass
The German's backed Slovenia and later the creation of the Croatian state. By the time the US came on board Germany was supporting the state of Croatia while Russia sympathies lay with the Serbs.
Thus it was natural for the US to also support the Croatian government during Operation Storm. As a consequence they vilified the Serbs there, and it thus was natural when they moved on to Bosnia to continue to believe and treat the Serbs as the enemy.
The US didn't choose to demonize Milosevic either during the war in Bosnia, or Croatia. The sense back then was that Milosevic was someone the US could work with. The Dayton accord validated that idea. It has to be understood that many Serbs saw the Dayton accord as a "sell out" by Milosevic, and consider him to this day to be a traitor for having signed it.
The why is I think a less interesting question than the when. If you read the fine print OSCE reports were not demonizing the Serbs, acknowledging that most violations of the cease fire were provoked by the KLA and that the Serbs were cooperating fully with them in implementing the agreed upon ceasefire.
I would hazard a guess that the serious demonising followed the appointment of William Walker to head the OSCE. As a seasoned career diplomat you can be certain that William Walker knew who he was supposed to demonize before he began demonising anyone.
Conduct an experiment: Use gogol and find hits for Butcher of the Balkans.
In 1992 Time named Milosevic Butcher of the Balkans. In 1993 the US was considered the Butcher of the Balkans in Greece. Work on the indictment began January 1999. Very few references to Milosevic as Butcher of the Balkans preceed this date.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 7:59 pm
“Keep a diary, honey, and one day it will keep you”Advice from Mae West
It seems that things are gradually moving in the right direction. Recent posts refer to Congressman Weldon’s attack on Clinton over the bombing of Serbia and to Canadian military personnel that are prepared to give evidence of atrocities against the Serbs.
In its bust up with New Labour the BBC may have reached a ‘tipping point’. Now may be the time to write to senior personnel and demand to know why they are not reporting the trial: why they are not reporting the four years of horror in Kosovo following Nato’s occupation: why they continue to demonise the Serbs with such shockingly biased programmes as the three parter on Milosevic in January of this year trailed by an even worse programme on 10 of December 2002. Why they have not reported and do not report the atrocities of the KLA. Why they engage and allow Rubin to repeat his false accusations of Genocide in Kosovo.
Letters from foreign countries may be especially helpful. Demand that the BBC set the record straight by re-examining the propaganda campaign it relayed on Blair’s behalf in early 1999. Especially the massive lies of Death Camps, Rape Camps and the false reports of tens of thousands murdered by Milosevic.
Richard Sambrook is Director of BBC News.
Back to Mae West: Monday’s Telegraph contained an extraordinary expose of the relationship between Blair and his Head of Communications, Alastair Campbell, who keeps a diary which he refers to as his “pension”.
The Leader author Robert Harris has this to say:
Mr Campbell exercises an extraordinary psychological dominance over the Prime Minister. It seems he can get away with anything. He has called him “a prat” in front of one witness, has told him to “get a f****** move on” when he believes a meeting has gone on too long and instructed him to drop what he is doing and concentrate on something else “because it can’t f****** wait”…
The bottom line according to Harris is that Blair dare not sack Campbell because of the diary: “An aggrieved former director of communications with a one-million word journal for sale is not a pretty prospect”.
All of this dispels the myth of a strong and principled world leader and reveals the cringing sycophant stirring US military might to his purpose.
(-: The situation brings to mind an aphorism learnt in my youth: “The hand that spanks the captain rules the ship”. I am no longer certain of the exact wording :-)
PS: Godfred: thanks for recognising that the only parallel I drew was between the situations faced by Milosevic and Sharon and not between their individual responses to those situations, be they criminal or otherwise.
Carry on the good work: In turn I admire your own zeal especially that in tracking down the truth about Racak and Thaci’s part in the murder of policemen. I also respect your demand for sources of important comments.
However you were a teeny-weeny OTT about the reports of brutality in Iraq. You did have two commentators several thousand miles apart making, simultaneously, similar comments and the British news sources are not difficult to check.
Perhaps you were troubled like Horatio and Marcellus upon seeing the ghost of Hamlet’s father and lashing out at it: “ Tis here.” “Tis gone.
We do it wrong, being so majestical,
To offer it the show of violence,
For it is as the air, invulnerable,
And our vain blows malicious mockery.”From the play ‘Hamlet: Prince of Denmark’ by William Shakespeare.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 7:59 pm
Diana Johnstone states, that "there was no stopping the tendency to judge the Balkans (Serbia - glj)...by analogy with Hitler Germany...which enabled analysis to be rapidly abandoned in favor of moral certitude and righteous indignation.No stopping? I still wonder - there was plenty of evidence (also and in fact primarily from Nazi Germany!) that "certitude and indignation" does not see you through, that "demonization" does not pay off in the longer run.
Are we complete fools?
In the meantime: Thanks, Ian - also for the "hits" (you may owe "gogol" an apology though - for (mis)using him in finding them. Gogol in turn still owes me details of "reports in the Arab press"...)
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 8:09 pm
Dan B. from Canada,The sad part about the speech Mr. Curt Weldon the representative from Pennsylvania is that it is a political partisan speech.
It is made only to protect Bush from the demise about Uranium lies.
Why didn’t anyone recognize the lies of Clinton then?
It is a sad state of this great nation that politicians who run the country only see their very narrow interests and do not care about honesty, morality and justice.
D. Jovanovic
USA - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 8:52 pm
Godfred writes,
Gogol in turn still owes me details of "reports in the Arab press"...)
Are you serious? If you're I have to tell you seem to be a little arrogant on your demand. But perhaps it is that you find my claim about the Arab press denouncing US, forgive me, coalition forces committing brutalities and summary executions unfounded and unbelievable. Maybe so and I am sure the Western media is not ready yet to tell you about it, not yet.
Lets look at today's killings of the two sons of Sadam in a critical way and so that your imagination does not goes to hot just don't call it murder!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 9:20 pm
D. Jovanovic..Take what comfort you may from Burke.
The sad state you describe will continue as long as good people fail to get elected.
If there be no hope of either the republicans or the democrats fielding good people you've got a serious problem, because the republicans and democrats know full well that two's company but three is a crowd.
They have been very careful to praise democracy abroad but equally careful not to promote or sanction it at home.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Tuesday July 22, 2003 at 10:11 pm
Question. If mr.Milosevic is find guilty of any of the charges , can this mean that his sign on the Dayton agreement could be invalidated and the status of B&H will go back to "O" and all hell can become brake loose again , has anybody considered the legal implications of this guaranteed situation
Milan Prika
Panama
Rep. of Panama - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 1:33 am
Serbian Constitution 1995- Basic provisions
- Freedoms
- Economic and social order
- Rights and duties
- Republic Agencies
- Territorial organisations
- Guarantees
- Relationship
- Conclusion
If you have trouble following these links go to:
http://www.serbia-info.com/facts/constitution[_[0-9]]1.html
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 2:18 am
Comments on the posted constitution:Article 4 stipulates that any change to the boundaries of Serbia must be agreed by the entire population; not merely by the KLA.
Article 6 makes it clear that Kosovo is part of the territory of Serbia.
Article 8 defends minority language rights.
Article 13 makes it clear that all peoples in Serbia enjoy equal rights.
Article 17 make it clear that movement into/out of Serbia is not to be restricted.
Article 25 suggests that if Mr. Milosevic is found guilty Serbia would be liable for any property/non-property damage incurred by the behaviour of him as an elected official.
Article 41 provides for freedom of religion.
Article 46 provides for freedom of the press. (cf. Article 48)
Article 47 specifically states that a citizen of Serbia may not be deprived of his citizenship, exiled or extradited. [So Mr. Milosevic's extradition was unconstitutional].
Article 50 provides for asylum.
Article 51 is the specific reason why Mr. Milosevic could not sign the Rambouillet ultimatum. Doing so would have made him a traitor and a criminal, and would have led to his immediate impeachment.
No one has the right to acknowledge or sign an act of capitulation, or accept or recognize the occupation of the Republic of Serbia, or any part thereof.
Treason against the Republic of Serbia is a crime against the people and shall be punished as a serious criminal offence.
Contrast this to Appendix B of the Rambouillet ultimatum.
8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations.
9. NATO shall be exempt from duties, taxes, and other charges and inspections and custom regulations including providing inventories or other routine customs documentation, for personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, supplies, and provisions entering, exiting, or transiting the territory of the FRY in support of the Operation.
10. The authorities in the FRY shall facilitate, on a priority basis and with all appropriate means, all movement of personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, or supplies, through or in the airspace, ports, airports, or roads used. No charges may be assessed against NATO for air navigation, landing, or takeoff of aircraft, whether government-owned or chartered. Similarly, no duties, dues, tolls or charges may be assessed against NATO ships, whether government-owned or chartered, for the mere entry and exit of ports. Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft used in support of the Operation shall not be subject to licensing or registration requirements, nor commercial insurance.
11. NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use.
Article 72 states [in part] The Republic of Serbia shall maintain relations with the Serbs living outside the Republic of Serbia in order to preserve their national and cultural-historical identity.
Article 88 provides for a impeachment of a President who violates the constitution, but has an interesting twist. If the national assembly votes to impeach it is the public whose vote decides if it is the President who must step down, or the national assembly that must dissolve.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 4:19 am
Service notice
In the coming days the PC's which encode the audio and video from the Milosevic trial and all other trials before the ICTY for the Internet and Bard/FreeSerbia's archives will be replaced.
Tribunal Live's oldest machines are over five years old now; a donation of 15 decommissioned PC's half that age allows us to upgrade.
Should you encounter any problems in the coming days, then please send an email to frankti@xs4all.nl
Since this morning Court I English audio comes from the first refurbished system.
Frank Tiggelaar
Tribunal Live/Uzivo
Amsterdam/Hague
Frank Tiggelaar
Holland - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 4:26 am
Frank
The system works fine. The close session announcement looks very clear. Top job!!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 5:16 am
The tip of the iceberg and from the Western MEDIA
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 6:21 am
Gogol, I have followed the link but it got me nowhere. Can you display article?
Dakic Ana
Serbic - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 6:34 am
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House, attacked by critics for a now-retracted line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union address, has gotten some surprising support from former President Bill Clinton."I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,'" Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.
"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. You can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now."
COMMENT: Now question is is Clinton afraid of making Balkans debate issue(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania-Congressman). Did sh... really hit the fen?
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 7:05 am
Gogol, sadly I do find your claim about U.S. "coalition" forces "committing brutalities and summary executions" entirely believable (incl. today's killings of the two sons of Sadam), - I just would like to see the foundations.Why indeed would that demand be "arrogant"? As an architect should I build on sand?
In fact you were envisaging that Walter "read the whole letter, to reassure me" (July 20, 2003 at 9:39 pm). Well, Walter didn't read any letter, - so I was never sure. Did I miss something?
I may be "a teeny-weeny OTT" (?)about these "reports of brutality in Iraq", - if Peter Taylor says so (July 22, 2003 at 7:59 pm). However, as a citizen of Denmark, which country (or people, really) the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has single-handedly turned into an active member of that aggressive "coalition" against Iraq, and already accostumed to shooting "gooks" (although not yet on a U.S. scale), I shall only be happy to present my government - and Anders Fogh Rasmussen in particular - with your claims.
And other claims as well. But I do need evidence, - genuine reports!
It will not do with - well, comments, - not even if from several commentators thousand miles apart. Comments are valuable as a lead, I do appreaciate that and the sources may not be difficult to check, - however I have not (yet?) been able to find any "reports in the Arab press", to which you were referring - and which I am indeed still seriously seeking (from you?).
More in general about this "Milosevic Trial Discussion": I do remember - and do try to head - Andy Wilcoxson's advice that in (order to save) this Forum we discuss "Palestine" (and similarly related matters like "Iraq"? Bush and Bliar? Clinton etc.?) only BY REFERENCE. I think that advice is worth taking, - even if it is not always possible to strictly adhere.
In questioning whether mr. Milosevic is "getting a fair trial" the JURIST Forum has accomplished a lot, "we" have a genuine record - there is no doubt about that (Walter Trkla and yourself have a considerable share in the honours (still due?). In a sense "we" may have more than we shall ever need, - if we had no more than that, then Peter Taylor's lead to "Hashim Thaqi's confession" would do all on its own (July 03, 2003 at 6.45 pm).
But we still need to "samle trådene", - or: To open wide that "door" to clarity, to truth as suggested by mr. Milosevic: "Just like you have a big door revolving on a small hinge, this (evidence) shows that the whole ("Kosovo") scene has been rigged..." (ref. my posting: July 21, 2003 at 4:22 am).
The only advantage mr. Milosevic has (in this "trial" situation), is that the former FRY President is "telling the truth". In the context it is our duty to relay that "truth" (and "nothing but the truth", I'd say). Another contributor among the many of very considerable merit, Dennis Rewell was absolutely right in suggesting, that just "relying on the persistence of this Jurist forum, and the odd interested historian just passing by to pick it up (is) an incredibly unreliable way of establishing an historical record." (Answer to Peter Taylor: July 08, 2003 at 3:49 am).
Whatever happened to Dennis Rewell, by the way?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 8:07 am
“Dark actors playing games” The late Dr KellyDakic Ana: I was able to access the Reuters’ report referenced by Gogol.
Here are the first few lines:
BAGHDAD (Reuters 23 July 2003) - Iraqis detained by U.S. troops have complained of torture and degrading treatment, Amnesty International said Wednesday. There were also reports of troops shooting detainees, the London-based human rights watchdog said in a report based on interviews with former prisoners of the Americans across Iraq.
The report goes on to detail indiscriminate killings, other acts of torture and inhumane treatment contravening the Geneva Convention plus international human rights law. There are also many reports of damage and destruction of property and the confiscation of goods and large sums of money. These are the very same acts in Kosovo, no less, for which Milosevic is on trial.
Why is Milosevic being singled out? If these acts against terror are justified in Iraq why are they not justified in Serbia? At least these acts were carried out against Islamic terrorists on Serbian sovereign territory whereas the Anglo/US forces are an illegitimate invading and occupying power in Iraq.
Do not misunderstand me. Whenever thousands of civilians are killed and injured in actions by security forces the heads of state and terrorist leaders must be called to account along with those directly involved. This includes Milosevic as well as Blair, Clinton, Thaci, Blair, Bush …
But this must be in a properly constituted, independent international court not this illegitimate, truthless, biased joke known as the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia: It gives kangaroo courts a bad name. Its only purpose is to cover the bare asses of Blair and Clinton: to hide their barefaced cheeks.
Allow me to play the child in the story of The Emperor’s New clothes once again. The truth is staring you all in the face and I don’t blame you for not wanting to look - but you must. It’s not a pretty sight.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 8:50 am
GodfredOTT is a TLA for Over The Top.
TLA is an acronym for Three Letter Acronym.
Your Prime Minister must be stark raving bonkers. Sending 2,000 Danish soldiers to Iraq to be targeted instead of the Anglo/US invaders while the Anglo/US oil barons run off with the cheap oil! Is there something in it for Mr Rasmussen?
Dennis Revell is a sporadic contributor. He pops in from time to time. But his contributions are always welcome: apposite, lively and amusing.
Sadly much missed are the contributions from Jari Nousiainen.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 8:52 am
Peter said “…Whenever thousands of civilians are killed and injured in actions by security forces the heads of state and terrorist leaders must be called to account along with those directly involved. This includes Milosevic as well as Blair, Clinton, Thaci, Blair, Bush … Peter I agree. As a Serbian, I do want any criminal judged and sentenced, including people mentioned above. Justice is universal. You can not turn a blind eye to crime because you do not like victim. Example, person kills person responsible for his child death. Is he of the hook or he has to face trial? Also, you can not trial person if the crime is not committed. Example: should Milosevic be responsible for Serbian idiot that tortured and killed people (I can not recall his name it was few months ago in the trial). Milosevic said (and submitted documentation) that individual in question has been charged for that crime in Serbian court. What else can a legal system and president of one country do? How can that crime become a crime of joint criminal enterprise? I guess I have a problem with selective justice and that is why I try to document and publish crimes committed against Serbian people.
Dakic Ana
Serbia - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 10:19 am
NEWLY SURFACED VIDEOS SHOWING ATROCITIES AGAINST BOSNIAN SERBSThe videos are showing and proudly commenting on training camps as well as bodies of dead Serb civilians in Bosnia. They were used in the web site of radical British Muslim Abu Hamza in order to recruit jihadists, as exposed by a web sting and now reported in the London Times. The videos can be accessed here.
Andy Wilcoxson, Jared Israel and other influential forum participants are strongly encouraged to spread the news. The videos should reach a wider audience as well as the ICTY investigators and courtrooms.
Pythagoras Crotoniatis
Greece - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 10:24 am
Godfred,
I have to say I am surprised you want to use me as source, a documented source to influence the Danish PM. I feel honored being part of such high endeavor.
But now that Amnesty International is warming up to the obvious I suggest you quote them until I get you genuine Arab sources translated or in Western acceptable norms, since as you know anything a little Levantine has a serious lack of credibility in the Anglo-European world. Just be patient and keep in mind that your humor is not always understood.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 11:23 am
Today at the Hague tribunal a secret witness testified under the pseudonym of “B-83.” The majority of B-83’s testimony was given in private session.B-83 was apparently an official in the Serbian government who had something to do with financial matters. It wasn’t clear because of the excessive use of private sessions. I’m not even sure what the gist of his testimony was supposed to be since so much of it was given in private session.
B-83 did, however, say some interesting things in open session. B-83 accused the prosecution of putting falsehoods into his witness statement, and twisting his words. B-83 also said that the prosecution did not give him adequate time to review his statement.
For example the prosecution made up a story about the Serbian Police organizing car thefts and inserted this into the witness statement, even though the witness said that this story wasn’t true. The prosecution also made up a bunch of malarkey about “black budgets” which the witness also denied. In fact, according to the witness, there were errors of fact in almost every single paragraph of the witness statement that the prosecutor prepared for him.
While President Milosevic was questioning B-83 about the numerous false claims that the prosecution had inserted into his witness statement the so-called “judge” May cut him off and accused him of “wasting time on irrelevant matters.”
This is amazing even for the Hague Tribunal. Here we have a witness who had perjurus statements put into his mouth, against his will, by the prosecutor and the judge doesn’t see any problem with that. If this was a real court, with a real judge, a mistrial would be declared, and the prosecutor would face criminal prosecution himself.
After B-83 finished, the prosecution called a so-called “expert” witness, one Audrey Budding, a historian from Harvard who wrote a paper on “Serb nationalism.”
Mrs. Budding proved her self to be an apologist for the Albanian Fascists of the 2nd World War.
Mrs. Budding denied that the Ballistas were fascists, and even had the nerve to claim that the Ballistas were the victims of the Chetniks and the Partisans.
If you don’t know what a Ballista is see:
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/thompson/rootsof.htm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 11:31 am
PythagorasGreat find. Massive post. Indeed if I were young enough to describe it so I would say "Wicked".
Now lets all bombard the BBC - out of favour with Phony Tony - and demand that they set the record straight.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 12:24 pm
A DRAFT INDICTMENT (to be amended)The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, pursuant to his/her authority under the Statute of the Court, charges:
GEORG W. BUSH
ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR
ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN
with CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF WAR as set forth below:
Beginning on or about 1991 and continuing until the date of this indictment, forces of the U.S.-led coalition of the willing, acting at the direction, with the encouragement, or with the support of the President of the Unites States of America and others have murdered thousands of Iraqi civilians. These killings have occurred in a widespread or systematic manner throughout Iraq and have resulted in the deaths of numerous men, women, and children. Included among the incidents of mass killings is the following:
a. On or about 21 July 2003, in the early morning hours, a large villa in the town of Mosul (in northern Iraq) was attacked by forces of the U.S.-led coalition. After shelling it with grenade launchers the ground forces of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division and Special Operations Forces later in the morning entered the ground floor of the villa quelling any resistance they encountered. Occupants who resisted the efforts of the coalition forces to go in there and apprehend them were barricaded at the second floor of the building, but were shot and killed in a staged operation that ended with the firing of almost a dozen TOW missiles. Altogether, the forces of the U.S.-led coalition killed approximately 4 Iraqis in and around Mosul. (Those persons killed who are known by name are set forth in Schedule A, which is attached as an appendix to this indictment.)
(Signed by) Prosecutor
(Dated in) The Hague, The Netherlands
Schedule A:
Persons Known by Name, Age and Sex, Killed at Mosul, 21 July 200
Uday Hussein, 39, male
Qusay Hussein, 37, male
Body maybe that of a teenage son of Qusay Hussein, ?, male
Unidentified body appearing to be that of a bodyguard, ?, male
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 1:15 pm
Godfred, in war military forces have always endevoured to apply the greater force against armed individuals who actively resist them. It is standing the very notion of war on its head to suggest otherwise.In Iraq US forces faced such resistance in Mosel, and in Kosovo Serb forces faced such resistance from the KLA.
I am sure that had Serb forces been given a tip that senior KLA officers were holed up at a house in Kosovo, they would have responded as the US did in Iraq.
The crime that George Bush should be tried for is the crime of initiating a war of aggression, despite the US having signed the charter of the United Nations which revokes the right of states to wage such wars.
The Tribunal now turns to the consideration of the Crimes against Peace charged in the Indictment. Count One of the Indictment charges the defendants with conspiring or having a common plan to commit crimes against peace. Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other States. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual responsibility of the defendants.
The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States alone, but affect the whole world.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
Rerards the planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other States: Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, name just a few such states.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 1:49 pm
Ian is suggesting that in Kosovo FRY/Serbian forces "would have responded as the U.S. forces did in (Mosul in) Iraq (on 22 July 2003)".I do not know about that. If so, however, - would "those responsible" then not have been indicted?
Trying Bush and others for "aggression", does not rule out the possibility of trying him/them for murder (or other crimes indeed), does it?
Why should he/they (not) be singled out...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 4:15 pm
Godfred, I must admit that it is possible that Serb forces would have been more eager to arrest than kill senior KLA figures. Serb authorities (and indeed most other nations) appear to have a better grasp than the US of the importance of their state having due regard for the law, and its own constitution.The crime of murder is a lesser crime than that of starting a war of aggression. If a death occurs in a war, those who started the war are responsible for that death.
The crime is one of starting a war knowing with high probability that such a war may result in murder, rape, genocide, refugees, etc.
It is like shouting fire in a crowded theatre. You don't know that anyone will get killed, but if they are, it was your shouting fire that caused their death.
When George Bush was reported to declare war on Iraq, and then pump his fist in the air and say "it feels good", he immediately because liable for all of the suffering that followed.
The responsibility for the dead, the maimed and those left behind to weep be they American or Iraqi is entirely his. He is no less responsible than I would be if I got into a car drunk, and killed 20 school kids.
If his actions lead to WWIII he will be as responsible for this as Hitler was for starting WWII. Who knows where wars lead. As a rule evil beginnings lead to evil ends.
This is all probably now long forgotten, but after WWII the survivors said (as only such survivors could) "NEVER AGAIN". They set up an institution to outlaw future wars.
They saw the root cause of war as being (1) Interference in the internal affairs of other nations (2) aggression against other nations and (3) attempts to change political borders.
They forbid future interference and armed aggression and declared the national borders existing at that time as inviolate.
They were right, and those who wish to draft new rules about when it is right to initiate wars of aggression are wrong. Weaken any of the foundations on which the UN was built and war become more likely. Any who are genuinely concerned for humanity, should be opposed to anything that increases the risk of war, because war is the ultimate expression of mans inhumanity to man.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 5:00 pm
Ian, - I sort of wish I said that!
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagendd
D E N M A R K - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 6:19 pm
Today's first witness, B-083, demonstrated again the flimsiness of the Prosecution's case and the desperation of the OTP. Why flimsiness? Because, in the absence of anything stronger, the Prosecutors sought to prove that Serbia provided financial aid to the Serbs on the other side of the Drina. But that is a common knowledge, an undisputed fact and certainly not a war crime. And why desperation? They manipulated heavily the testimony of B-083, fabricating his several previously given written statements, tricking him into signing the English version without him fully understanding it and trying to hide that by keeping his entire testimony in the private session. Only the last 10 minutes of the cross-examination were held in the open session, but it was enough to reveal the whole scam. B-083 thus joined those Prosecution witnesses whom they regretted they have ever summoned: having received only few days ago at The Hague the Serbian version of "his" statements, B-083 corrected in his handwriting practically each and every paragraph, striking them out and adding in the margins his explanations which invalidated the statements in toto.B-083, introduced only vaguely as an officer in the Ministry of Defence of Serbia in 1991, started his testimony yesterday, but it lasted only 10 minutes before the proceedings were adjourned for the day and it was in the open session. The only thing Nice covered then was the claim that the Government of Serbia deliberated in one of its sessions in November 1991 the aid for the Serbs in Croatia, and the amount mentioned was in the neighbourhood of DEM 92 mil.
Today B-083 finished his examination-in-chief, but it was completely in camera, the total 45 minutes of it. Therefore the public was unable to follow the explanation re those alleged millions.
Back in the open session, we saw that the examination-in-chief was over and that amicus curiae Stephen Kay was arguing with May over the allotment of time for the cross-examination and the constant changing in the order of witnesses. Each time May spoke, he managed to muddle the issues, "explaining" that indeed the Accused has to be granted a certain amount of time, but he is not to waste it on arguments and quarrels with the witness. Kay tried to point out this is a technical matter and the main thing is that Nice 'moves like an express train', covering a large number of important issues extremely briefly and superficially, which in turn radically shortens the allotment of time for the Accused and makes it impossible for him to cover those issues at all. He also noticed that it is Nice who leads the most important witnesses, like Kucan was, who was processed in only 1 day. Therefore, the time spent for the examination-in-chief could not be the standard by which the allotted time for the cross-examination is to be measured. Apparently, the OTP produces a weekly list of witnesses complete with the time planned for each examination-in-chief, and since the general rule has been to allot approximately the same time for the cross-examination, the Accused can plan his questioning accordingly. But then Nice comes up, drastically cutting the actual time of his questioning of a witness to, say, half an hour instead of the planned two hours, simply by being superficial and thereby setting the low time standard. And, he constantly reshuffles the witnesses, hampering the preparation of the Defence.
Nice tried to prevent the judges from allotting too much time to this cross-examination, by appealing to the Chamber to 'exert pressure on the amici and the Accused' (I failed to understand what kind of pressure and in relation to what - perhaps to make them shut up). Nice also half-complained and half-flattered: "I have to note that in a short time the Accused has developed enviable skills of cross-examination." What he meant by that was probably that the Accused was now so much better at it that he could wrap it up in much less time.
The troika in the scarlet robes put their heads together, murmuring for two minutes among themselves and then May pronounced: "An hour and fifteen minutes." Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat or a generous nobleman tossing coins to a beggar: 15 minutes longer than Nice had for the examination-in-chief.
So, not only we haven't seen what the witness had to say and how rich were the issues he covered, we also couldn't judge whether an hour and fifteen would be reasonably long enough to cross-examine.
But, that was not all. Milosevic first tried to verify with May that the issue of the place of employment of this witness was not for the private session. May answered he also believed this had been mentioned in the open session. But the moment Milosevic started to mouth his first question, something to the effect of "You have been working…", Nice jumped up, saying: "I believe this could infringe the security measures." May seconded: "Yes, I think it might. We go to the private session." And nearly all of the cross-examination, more than one hour of it, was closed to the public!
When the session again became open, there were Milosevic and the witness at the end of the careful demolition of the written statements by the latter and of the Prosecution's credibility.
Milosevic said that there was virtually not a single paragraph in these statements that had not been corrected in writing by the witness. B-083 confirmed: "That's right." He explained there were so many mistakes and even some totally unrelated, irrelevant and invented stuff, that he believed it was unfair that Milosevic is to be charged with these things or the Tribunal's time wasted thus. He used the words "silly" and "preposterous" when describing these passages from "his" statements. He spoke directly to Milosevic: "I apologise to you", and he requested these issues to be disregarded. He said he had made a mistake by being insufficiently cautious and signing this without having read it or having received it in Serbian.
Milosevic quoted several quite outrageous passages from one of these statements, allegedly in direct speech by the witness: "I'll give you another example of illegal fundraising - the Police had been involved in car theft." He said to the witness: "Here you have added in your handwriting: 'Not correct'." B-083 confirmed this, saying he also wrote that it should be explained to the Accused, along with an apology, the circumstances of this statement: B-083 only got the Serbian version 5 days ago. Apparently, the OTP Investigator Gerald Sexton had tricked the witness into signing the English version years ago, saying he'll be able to 'explain everything at The Hague', but then B-083 found out that practically everything had been invented or too liberally interpreted, but as if the witness had been quoted verbatim complete with the inverted commas ("I'll give you another example…"). The witness now stated that, if he only had a chance to write his statement with his own hand, "we would not be having 1 minute of this discussion'.
Here's another gem: Milosevic said that one of the statements contained the claim by the witness about our state budget, which had 'one secret segment, called a black fund'. B-083 simply said there's no way he could have said that.
Judging by some other examples from the OTP's work of fiction that Milosevic quoted, B-083 spoke to the Investigator quite broadly and openly about the situation in the Ministry of Defence, where internal squabbles and embezzlements were rife (and for which, as Milosevic pointed out, 2 Ministers had been arrested at that time), and cunning Mr Sexton took it all and gave it a nice spin, necessary for the Indictment. B-083 had clearly misunderstood what it meant to give a statement for the court, presuming it meant one should open up one's heart and spill out every large and tiny office happening, giving the Investigator a free hand to weave a story out of it, not even bothering to read what the nice, understanding gentleman wrote in his name. Now he was understandably angry at being bamboozled. He continued to complain about some of his former misbehaving office colleagues even to Milosevic, saying that some of those who did it were still holding their high positions today "and you and me are sitting here". Milosevic drove the point home: "What possible connection all these things could have with what's going on here?" The witness answered: "None whatsoever."
Gradually, B-083 and Milosevic began to discuss those events in almost friendly manner, chatting and not bothering to keep the pause between questions and answers, like in a normal conversation. Milosevic would quote another invented passage and they would together marvel at how brazen the OTP had been, the witness repeating 'I have never said something like that'. He even volunteered in his explanation of one particular instance that he had 'never went there to inspect', forcing Nice to interject: "I do not know whether the witness is aware he's in the open session?" May also interrupted the cosy chat once, warning both not to overlap, reminding witness he is here to testify and Milosevic is here to cross-examine, and not to have a conversation. Milosevic was quite pleased with himself for exposing once more the sleazy modus operandi of the OTP and disrupting so successfully this show trial, that he calmly answered to May he was quite pleased to have the opportunity to chat with this man, whom he has never met before.
Milosevic and the witness even tried to establish the method of creating certain passages of the statements by the OTP. The problem was, as many times before with those written statements, that there were no questions to which these statements were answering, only the unbroken, spun story. B-083 was guessing what the original questions by the Investigator must've been: probably the Investigator asked, for instance, what would be the regular chain of command in the government for any given issue. He got a detailed answer about the whole structure with the President of the Republic at the top of the pyramid. Then he retold this explanation as if it had been an answer to a specific accusation against Milosevic. B-083 even used the ship metaphor, describing the subordination, but he was not answering the question of whether the captain organized the piracy. It was as if the Investigator had asked: Who runs the ship? and got the answer: The captain, who has officers under him. Then, the Investigator spun the question this way: Who organized the piracy using this ship? , and coupled it with the original question: The captain, who has officers under him.)
It was obvious that both Milosevic and B-083 were displeased when May announced that there were only 5 minutes left, so they quickly tried to cover several more inventions (Milosevic quoting them and asking whether they were correct, the witness answering: "Not a chance. Please, disregard this.") They parted almost friends, I'm sure.
Tapuskovic got his 2 minutes, and he used them to clarify the only issue from the testimony mentioned by the witness in the open session - those millions of Deutsche Marks requested/planned/given by Serbia to the Serbs in Croatia. He wanted to make a distinction between the sums requested and planned and those actually paid. B-083 confirmed that he personally handled some of these payments, but these were all amounts in dinars, it was aid and hardly the amount stated. Tapuskovic was pleased: "I have no further questions."
Nice had a chance for a redirect, but guess what? The public couldn't see it, again. He said: "We have a couple of additional questions, but they're for a private session." And the screen went blank.
Please, try to read the article 'Dealing With the "Hostile" Insider Witnesses' by Judith Armatta of the CIJ, dated 15 July (http://www.cij.org). Here she explained the fact that several insiders so far (notably Radomir Markovic, Captain Dragan, Zoran Lilic and B-1775) allegedly changed their testimony due to the mesmerizing effect of Milosevic on them. She compared him with an 'alpha dog', in front of which a poor witness simply 'rolled over like a cur'. She applied her cottage psychology/astrology/ESP skills, claiming that a witness stood no chance, because 'Milosevic's aura was too strong for him'.
I would suggest much simpler explanations: these people did not volunteer to testify for the Prosecution, they had been summoned or/and threatened into it with possible indictments against themselves. And then the following happened: for instance, Captain Dragan had NOT changed his testimony nor succumbed to a powerful aura, but had been bamboozled by the OTP in the same manner as today's witness B-083. Their original written statements had been liberally invented, suggestively worded and devoid of questions by the Investigator and they were tricked into signing. Not having seen the examination-in-chief of B-083, I can only suppose that it had been pretty much like that one of Captain Dragan: Prosecutor Nice rushing, skipping and sliding through the invented statement 'like an express train', sometimes not making sense at all, leaving the witness to stare in disbelief and to simply say 'yes' to whatever construction proffered. Too bad there was this damned cross-examination and the possibility to demonstrate that the testimony was not at all what the witness has signed, meant or wanted to say.
The second witness today, who is to continue tomorrow, is an expert on history from Harvard (the font of knowledge for the ICTY), who testifies about the Serbian nationalism in 20th century as she had penned it in her report commissioned by the OTP. The very definition of an expert must've been wildly stretched after the ICTY set up shop.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 6:42 pm
Ian, agreeing that for a variety of reasons "Serb forces" (VJ and/or Serbian police) in Kosovo would have tended to arrest people rather than to merely kill them (as did the U.S. forces in Mosul yesterday!), I had a second look at the ICTY Prosecutor, mr. Nice´s short-hand representation of the Racak incident (Trial transcripts, pages 161-162).Mr. Nice in his initial speech was briefly suggesting that:
"...verifiers documented a number of killings of Kosovo Albanians, the most famous or notorious being Racak...What happened there in Racak in the municipality of Stimlje was that it was shelled and the fleeing villagers were shot. Twenty-five men found in a building were moved to a nearby hill and shot. Forty, in total, were killed."
Hm, - in a few words quite contrary to the evidence provided by the verifiers (including Canadian general Maisonneuve, who was heading the KVM surveillance in situ) Mr. Nice was turning the already dramatic (and obviously flawed!) account given in the Indictment into a bloodbath, - as if the "Serb forces" merely ruined the village and murdered everybody straight away.
Is mr. Nice just doing his job as best he can, - depicting the Serbs as if they were U.S. troops in My Lai during the Vietnam war?
(Perhaps the ICTY should have not only secret Judges as you were suggesting, Ian, but also secret Prosecutors, - who wouldn't have to worry about their conduct being above reproach...).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 7:42 pm
Dear sirs . We all know that no matter what the world says or how weak is the evidence against Mr. Milosevic he is a pre-condemned person , he has to be put away in any form and doesn't matter the means , those that are trying so hard to do so they too have families and if they don't have any priciples their descendents will bear in their consciences the burden of been relatives of those "honorable members" that are accomplices of this fifth world whore house tribunal
Milan Prika
Panama
Rep. of Panama - Wednesday July 23, 2003 at 8:44 pm
Vera Martinovic,what an impressive (and funny!) account of "the Belgrade - Krajina link".
You may have noted that B92/Beta was boiling the testimony down to that "a prosecution witness, referred to only as B083, told the trial (on 23 July 2003) that in 1991 and 1992 he had seen two senior Croatian Serb leaders in the Ministry of Defence building in Belgrade, where he worked...
Since mr. Milosevic never met the man before, presumeably the then President of Serbia didn't visit the building himself? Or what?
Tricky Prosecutions case, isn't it?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K