 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
- Thursday July 24, 2003 at 12:31 am
Milan,We are very future centric creatures but the only thing of real value to any of us is the past. I went sailing today with my son. I'm not a good sailor while he is and we capsized 4 times in a single race. Being repeatedly thrown across the boat is no fun and I ended up battered and bruised. Why did I do it.. because it gave me a glorious memories which I will always remember.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of our existance. We exist not to enjoy an unspecified and indeterminate glorious future, but to carve into an eternal past a record of who we were, what we did or did not do, and what we believed in. That past can never be altered or erased.
I think Mr. Milosevic understands this. He is not seeking to defending himself from some future consequence, because if he were he would as you say have realised by now that all his efforts were probably futile and thrown in the towel. What Mr. Milosevic is doing and doing very effectively is revealing that the past as fabricated by the west is about as reliable a source of evidence as are some of the witness statements prepared by the OTP.
What is it that brings each of us here if not an understanding that the past does matter. And if something matters does that not imply that it is important.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 12:43 am
VeraGiven the evidence that the OTP is falsifying witness statements, this brings into yet further disrepute the concept of written witness statements that may or may not have been written by witnesses, whose identity may or may not be known, and who may or may not be required to appear to defend and be cross examined about that statement.
Frankly, most witnesses would never grasp that their statement had been radically altered if it was not for their active involvement in the proceedings of the court. If I provide a statement and some years later the court attributed a mysteriously altered statement to an equally mysterious C137 would I be following the trial that day? Even if were why would I presume that it was my statement which was being discussed. Even if I grasped that it was my statement had been horribly distorted in ways which I had never intended what could I do about it. In court I could at least make this plain.. out of it all I can do would be to whistle at the wind.
The British outlawed the star chamber some hundreds of years ago precisely because secret trials lead to injustice. I wonder if Judge May has heard of the star chamber.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 12:50 am
The excessive "liberties" that the OTP took with B-83's witness statement make it even more unacceptable that the witness statements of B-1576 and B-1010 should be admitted under rule 92-bis without cross-examination.No statement eminating from the OTP should be admitted unless the person who gave the statement appears for cross-examination.
The OTP masterfully demonstrated yesterday that it can not be trusted to accurately compile witness statements.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 12:55 am
William Prynne's crime which resulted in him being sentenced to be disbarred and deprived of his university degrees; to stand twice in the pillory, and to have one ear cut off each time; to be fined 5,000 pounds; and to be perpetually imprisoned, without books, pen, ink, or paper. . . .Basically that he annoyed men more powerful than him.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 1:15 am
From Vera's report July 23"Here she [Judith Armatta] 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'."
If this is really a serious analysis, the court should be charging all these witnesses who "rolled over" with perjury. Would they dare? Oh if only this trial had 10 percent of the attention awarded the OJ Simpson trial! All those hours and reams of press debating the glove!!!
Nikole J
Canada - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 1:42 am
Vera:I would like to commend you and thank you for the wonderful work you are doing following this trial. You manage to pick out the most important points, which all too often are inundated in Nice's and May's inane questions and "procedural" issues, and you manage to tell all in a hilarious manner that is most appropriate for a farce and a parade of this kind.
P M
USA - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 5:24 am
Witness B083 denied the statement provided by the other side. He's not the first nor, probably, the last to do so.When is Mr May, the fine jurisprudent that he is, going to ask the other side for an explanation about how they manage to produce such garbage AND feed it to the court thereby WASTING valuable time!
Maybe there should be an inquiry into the manipulations engaged in by the other side? Most serious judges or, more correctly, most GENUINE judges, would would have thrown the statement out together with Mr Not-so-Nice, or at least asked a FEW QUESTIONS about such goings on.
Ian Davis...
A series of great posts from you recently! Hats off to you mate.
David
Australia - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 5:36 am
Goodness! The budding Mrs Historian expert is getting a REAL history lesson.Maybe she'll also learn that one cannot "conquer" one's own home as she's tried to suggest in describing Serbian "nationalism"! One can only LIBERATE one's home from an intruder or unwanted occupier.
Whatever happened to academic integrity or is it too measured by the amount of cash one is provided with to provide "evidence"?
David
Australia - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 6:41 am
The had to find this "expert", eevery body knows the US universities are controlled not by academic standards but by political expediency standards.
Vuk Karadjic, the linguits I mean is brought into question to blame Serbia and President Slobodan Milosevic for what exactly?
Frank
Your new audio and video technological arrangement deos not work. Or maybe it works only on close sessions?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 6:48 am
Isn't that OTP OTT?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 7:09 am
GogolVuk Karadzic is a Serb, hence he must be to blame for something. Then again, maybe he's a distant cousin of Radovan's. The other side wants to hang a Karadzic in any event. So maybe they're hedging their bets. Most of us Westerners wouldn't know the difference, would we? LOL :-)
Maybe he's to blame for Frank's new system not working too! Assuming that too is not Slobo's fault in the first place! LOL :-)
David
Australia - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 7:13 am
Vera & AndyWhen is the article on witness #83 going to be published on the (usual) websites ?
ASAP, I hope
AP V
NY
NY - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 8:15 am
AP V,I have already published both articles pertaining to B-83 on my website, www.slobodan-milosevic.org
See the trial synopsis for July 23.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 9:26 am
What a f...n' shame ! -This discussion board is for "members only" since January this year..... - one can not get onto IT from anywhere on the web, - You can't get on this board even from the JURIST website..... - Only those who were smart enough to bookmark it a while ago can enjoy the privilege........-wonder if the moderator has any feasable exlanation....
- You guys are doing a terific job exposing all the scum too bad that it seems like everything is done to keep it in a small circle and the EVIL dressed in baners and sceamin humanitaria slogan keeps marching on......
vytas abrutis
phila
PA usa - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 9:58 am
- What a f''''ng shame that the only discussion board Re The Trial of The Century is for "members only",,,,,- Since January there is no way to get on this board from anywhere on the web..... - one can't get on this board even from the JURIST website...... - Only those who were smart enough to bookmark it a while back can still enjoy the privilege...- wonder if the webmaster has any feasible explanation......
-You guys are doing a terrific job exposing all the scum.... too bad - it seems like everything is done to keep it in this small circle and the EVIL dressed in banners and screamin slogans keeps marching on......
vytas abrutis
phila
PA usa - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 12:05 pm
DID THE ICTY PROSECUTOR REALLY SAY THAT?vytas abrutis,
I just about may know what you are talking about, - and since I am a complete fool with matters such as "getting on any board from anywhere on the web", but somehow manage to get on this particular JURIST board anyway, I'd like to ask you:
Could you kindly advice/suggest how a suitable improvement could realistcally be made (since you are absolutely right in that it is "too bad" if this discussion is kept, enclosed in a circle, - whether it be small or not that small.
May we have a (concrete) proposal?
Thanks! There may be room for improvements also on aspects other than that of "accessibility"? Some kind of "indexing" might be helpful, - as the "Milosevic trial discussion" now has a "total size" probably comparable to the "trial transcripts", - which are themselves somehow like "haystacks" in which you may find the "needle" only if you know, where it is...(I sometimes wake up at night asking myself: Did mr. Nice, the ICTY Prosecutor, REALLY say that?)
Not nice at all...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 12:16 pm
MAYI - once again - 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 - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 12:17 pm
"I refuse to be a member of a club which accepts me as member" Groucho Marx
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 12:33 pm
Gogol,...keep in mind that your humor is not always understood!
Vytas Abrutis,
...Kindly let´s have a concrete proposal!
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 12:56 pm
Godfred!-....sounds like You have loads of spare time..... and some sence of humor.... - I have a proposal just for You : - Go Fishing!......
.....'cause i'm going to FISH ONTARIO for the next 10 days or so.....- i'm leaving in about 2 hours - sorry i can't wait for You to get Your stuff together but i am taking 2 witnesses with me in case that Big one gets away......
vytas abrutis
phila
PA usa - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 1:09 pm
Dear Ian , that´s exactly the problem , HYSTORY . the current superpower has no history and they are creating their own at the expenses of nations that have thousands of years of existence on the face of this earth and this,according to the ongoing situation in countrys in which " we protect the best of our interests" is the common rule . you mention a sailing experience , I myself am a tuna fisherman who has sailed allmost every ocean chasing this magnificent fish , so maybe this makes me a common mortal with naive questions in a hypocritical world . and remember , "when the going gets tough , the tough go fishing"
Milan Prika
Panama
Rep. of Panama - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 1:58 pm
Vytas is taking "2 witnesses" with him fishing, he says...So, - what´s mr. Nice going to do at the ICTY "trial" tomorrow, - without witnesses?
That Big one may indeed get away...
...loads of spare time? I haven´t had time to "go fishing" for years, young man! But your very suggestion may be an indication, even "proof" of something I´ve been suspecting for a long time: Americans haven´t the faintest idea of what is going on in Europe (or just outside their own fishing grounds for that matter).
Serbia? Afghanistan? Iraq?
For heavens sake let´s have that "concrete proposal" - or shut up all of you!
Sense of humor, - me?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 2:07 pm
MilanWow, no history? The US constitution was/is based on all men having God given rights. Now that goes a long way back. We also believe in those rights for men worldwide including Afghans and Iraqis.. It has guided us through WWI, II, the cold war, and now in taking on the ME axis. On balance it has been comendable history.
In 200+ years, the US has made more history than the ME did in 1400 yrs and counting. How can you compare having thousands of years existence , standing still with what was gained in the western world, and then the USA?
J, P
USA,Wis - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 3:44 pm
JP. you are right about God given rights , the problem is that those rights don´t apply the same way to everybody and they are left to the interpretation of the ones that think they are above God . 1/. Over 100 treaty with the indians , honored or respected one? 2/. Stole half of Mexican territory . 3/. invasion of Cuba , P. Rico and the Philp. islands . To name a few , God given rights ? sure you're creating a history but have you asked yourselves , what kind ? . "the ones with glass roofs are not supposed to play with stones"
Milan Prika
Panama
Rep of Panama - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 4:38 pm
Milan, please do not allow your fellow fisherman to catch all the Blue Fin Tuna in the sea. This is quite easily the most remarkable fish in the ocean and its loss to future generations would be a grave one indeed. It is the easily the fastest fish reaching astonishing speeds of something like 50+ mph through water. It is a warm blooded fish, whose blood is super heated. It drowns if it stops swimming. While it might offend you I feel we have it all wrong when we think the most important thing about Tuna is its taste, and that its rightful place is in a can.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 4:54 pm
Sleep well my friend , I don't fish mighty blue just YELLOW FINN , BIG EYE AND SKIPJACK , and I am for porpoise conservation
Milan Prika
Panama
Rep. of Panama - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 4:58 pm
There is something fishy in the United States...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 5:31 pm
Open letter to President Saddam Hussein, IRAQMr. President,
Following the release of information intended to assure your citizens and the world at large, that Uday and Qusay Hussein, your sons - and maybe also a grandson of yours - are now dead, I send you my sincere condolences.
At the same time I take the opportunity to deplore any Danish participation in the vicious armed assault on Iraq, and in the occupation of your country.
I shall be looking forward to some future proof that even mr. Bush, mr. Cheney and mr. Rumsfeld are somehow alive and real, not mere reflections from the Hades.
faithfully yours
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 6:50 pm
"There is something fishy in the United States..."(chuckle) Good one, Godfred, from several perspectives!
In today's B92's reporting of the testimony of B083 (sic), they gave the defence only as "Milosevic's cross-examination held behind closed doors.".
Like to let you know, Godfred, that the content and nature of your posts are greatly appreciated.
BTW, do other participants on this discussion board think it would be a good idea to start a new topic on the CBC forums related to the trial now that a small wedge has been applied via the Canadian Peacekeepers report?
M Donne
Canada - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 7:24 pm
www.slobodan-milosevic.org seems to be down!
Dan B
Canada - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 7:42 pm
"I may not agree with your ideas , but I will defend your right to expose them" . Was it Rousseau who said it ?
Milan Prika
Panama
Rep. of Panama - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 8:48 pm
Milan Prika,Well, - Voltaire, I believe (1).
Rousseau (2) was his younger contemporary though, - and since both of these gentlemen died in the year 1778, having lived in Paris on an off, they just may have had a little chat about it, I suppose?
Bartleby.com (3) provides the following citation:
The Columbia World of Quotations. 1996.
NUMBER: 63040
QUOTATION: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
ATTRIBUTION: Voltaire [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778), French philosopher, author.
See also: Classroomtools (4).
(1) http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95nov/voltaire.html
(2) http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rousseau.htm
(3) (http://www.bartleby.com/66/40/63040.html)
(4) http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 9:14 pm
Godfred , tks. for your clarification , what a beautiful world could've been if words like these would've been followed . Insted "drop some ordenance" a.k. bomb the shit out of them ,225 years later wise words by Ford , Nixon , Reagan , Bush (el viejo) , Clinton , Bush (el ?) are the going thing by modern world humanists
Milan Prika
Panama
Rep. of Panama - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 9:32 pm
KEJSERENS NYE KLÆDER AND "THESE PEOPLE OVER THERE"Dear M. Donne,...likewise! But Thanks!
Now, while searching for confirmation "on Voltaire", I accidentally came across the below citation (1), - which while putting Milan Prika's question in "perspective" may also have something distinct to tell us about the current situation: U.S. versus "the rest of the World"?
Now read on:
Dear Idiot,
You contradict yourself when you say you dont support Bush, but you support our troops. Why dont you explain yourself to the 700,000 people that lost their lives to the poisons that Saddam dropped on his own people? You know you probably are not old enough to remember Vietnam, let allone WW2. Saddam is Hitler (no. 2, these people over there would no more than to like to see us all (U.S.A.) dead. This is why we have to take this Hitler out. So for you people out there that like your freedom but dont like how its done, them take your whiney ass out of thios country.
So Piss off too all you protesters!
Posted by Tom at April 4, 2003 09:34 PM (and surely this is not exactly Voltaire).
Well, well, - since the above is indeed a bit rough, may I take this opportunity to providing a link to what I consider to be sweet (2), - and a truly integral part of my background as a Dane.
Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of "The Emperor’s New Clothes" (Kejserens Nye Klæder) is often referred to, even quoted - I sometimes wonder whoever read the original Danish, rather complex version? You see, there is no way Peter Taylor could be the little child (et lille barn), - but the father (faderen), yes indeed. Or maybe a grandfather?
“Men han har jo ikke noget på,” sagde et lille barn.
“Herregud, hør den uskyldiges røst,” sagde faderen;
HCA! And the two crooks of course: Bush and Blair, - whoever else?
(1) http://www.itzmejessy.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3494
(2) http://hjem.get2net.dk/chenero/hca/hcaev009_da.html
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 11:39 pm
Audrey Budding (testified 23/24 July) is a skinny, bespectacled youthful PhD with expressive gesticulation. She knows lots of historical facts. Her clothes and hairdo are unusually interesting for an American. She apparently speaks/reads Serbian.And that's where the plus side stops. Because, her historical knowledge is fragmentary and incomplete, so she often misses the big picture and is unaware of important events and sources. She used to be a diplomatic official at the American Embassy in Belgrade in the '80s, so she is obviously more of a politician then a historian. She penned a report commissioned by the OTP on the Serbian nationalism in the 20th century, which seems to be a rewrite of her own, more balanced PhD thesis on the Serbian intellectuals and the national question, only with the added twist to make the Serbs look bad, so she supplied a political trial with a politicised remake of her own work.
Though, I have to give her the credit of being much more subtle than the previous Prosecution's "expert", Riedlmayer, who was simply ridiculous. Dr Audrey was seldom obvious and crude in her conclusions, except sometimes, when Milosevic cornered her with facts and questions, and she turned stubborn. For example, when she disagreed with the data by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum about some 600,000 victims of the Ustasa concentration camp Jasenovac, claiming the number is 100,000 and explaining that anyway 'nobody knows exactly how many Serbs died in NDH, in each village and each house' [Nezavisna Drzava Hrvatska = Independent State of Croatia, Ustase-led Nazi puppet invention during WW2, comprising today's Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina]. Although she admitted this was clearly a genocide, she was suspicious about the number, she couldn't be bothered to believe those pedantic Jews and certainly not the Yugoslav sources, because she was unable to personally peek into each village and house.
Another example where she was crude and stubborn was when she refused to accept the fact that the Albanian Fascistic movement, the notorious collaborationists Balli Combetar or balisti, were indeed Fascists. The fact that they were installed by Mussolini to rule Kosovo while it was given over to Albania during the WW2, butchered thousands of Serbs, and then continued armed fighting years after the war officially ended, all that was to Audrey 'a rebellion that started after this region of Drenica was incorporated in the Yugoslav state, which caused the revolt of the Albanians, who didn't want to join the Partisans in the final push against the Germans in 1944 because they were afraid to leave their houses, and so this rebellion was quashed and probably few thousands were killed, some in battles, some executed'. Young scholar with agenda stubbornly persisted that 'to describe balisti as Albanian Fascists is not correct, because they did not support the Fascistic form of the state', Milosevic got impatient and curtly asked: "And what did they support? Did they support Italian Fascists?" Audrey mumbled that well, of course, they supported the creation of the Greater Albania. Milosevic snapped: "Not only supported the idea, but militarily supported the Fascists." Audrey mumbled even more, in fadeout, that she's not familiar with it, with each military action, that there were different groups… Some historian and expert!
There were some more gaffes in her paper, like when she wrote that the Ustasa émigrés were a marginal group (Milosevic wanted to know how come they got to run a country for 4 years if they were so marginal).
Also, she found it problematic to define the nascent YU as a solution for the Serbs, with the maxim 'all Serbs in one state'. When Milosevic said that YU was not a solution only for the Serbs, but also for others, that it could be equally said 'all Croats/Slovenes in one state', Audrey proudly begged to disagree, 'because there were significant Croatian and Slovenian minorities left in Italy and Austria', but when Milosevic reminded her that also a significant portion of the Serbs were left in Hungary and Romania, so the maxim still applied for the bulk of all nations, Audrey didn't have anything to say. A historian who argues an issue not knowing what the next related historical fact might be used against him is not a very competent historian.
Almost all other conclusions in her report were less obviously biased, only ever so slightly leaned towards prejudice and one would have to carefully read both her thesis and her OTP report to pinpoint the distortions, although the general impression of a different slant is palpable even from those paragraphs that were read in the courtroom.
Milosevic quoted her PhD thesis where she explained how it was impossible for the Serbs to accept the confederate YU and its breaking along the borders of its republics because they were so dispersed; the same issue in her report for the OTP got the subtle addition that the Serbs failed to pay much attention to their ties with other nations within the republics in which they lived outside of Serbia. Milosevic quipped: "Well, do you seriously believe that the ties of the Serbs in Croatia with the Croats, these ties that include the genocide that you've already explained, are so much stronger and more important than the ties with other Serbs?!" Audrey got pretty confused after that, starting to babble about life being not only one's nation, but a house in which one lives… To that one can argue that one can indeed live in a house if it still stands and if one is still alive.
Another major problem with Audrey's paper is the extremely shallow and selective pool of sources that she used, some of the works completely debunked as political pamphlets (e.g. "Kosovo - A Brief History' by Noel Malcolm), yet she quoted from such articles and books, disregarding or not being aware of the existence of other well known authors and works that Milosevic listed. She was often reduced to answering 'I'm not familiar with this particular work' or 'I do not know about these particular sources' or 'I haven't read all the transcripts, only from the first meeting' or 'No, I haven't seen these diplomatic documents'. Milosevic and his aides have done their homework and at times Dr Audrey was indeed receiving a thorough lesson in history.
The young doctor was selective not only in her sources, but also in the historical events which she did or did not include in her paper. Thus, she did quote a public speech by the soon-to-be Yugoslav King Alexander, who said that Serbia must be strong so that Yugoslavia could be strong too. She explained that as an example of 'Serbian nationalism', but she failed to quote and explain, or even to mention at all the crucial document of that time, the Corfu Declaration on the creation of Yugoslavia. She explained her omissions with the necessity to keep her report concise. Strangely enough, only the relevant and balanced things got chopped off.
The learned panel of judges found themselves in an absurd situation: here they were, admitting into evidence the Prosecution's exhibit going way back into the 15th century, and discussing this despised history issues which they always pronounced as irrelevant and of which they knew nothing and frankly didn't care to know. But, this is what you get when the Prosecution's case so heavily depends on the silly notion that all this is one and the same 'joint criminal enterprise' to create the Greater Serbia, the plan which goes centuries back, so even King Alexander, Vuk Karadzic, Garasanin and other great ghosts must be evoked to take their punishment for their participation in this Nice-Del Ponte co-production in CinemaScope.
History is a tough discipline, demands a broad knowledge and it was at times hard for me to follow all these expert nuances, because I certainly haven't read all those books that were mentioned. But, at least I was able to follow the basic logic of the discussion and arguments. May was probably dozing or doing crosswords, because he proved time and again unable to follow or understand the point of a certain line of questioning. Once Milosevic asked Dr Budding why did she write that Vuk Karadzic could be attributed with authorship of the idea of defining a nation by its language, when there is a whole line of other linguists, historians and philosophers (of which he quoted some) who had stated the same, much earlier, and Karadzic had merely embraced that idea? May interrupted by saying: "I do not know what is the purpose of this list of names?" Milosevic professorially reprimanded him: "Mr May, you have not been listening to the previous question", and he patiently repeated the whole question and said that 'the list you're preventing me from reading are the people who originally created the idea, among them someone whom you might be familiar with, a German philosopher Fichte'. So, it was not only Audrey given a free history lesson, but May too.
The time was again the main problem, May not wanting to allow the extension of the cross-examination. Milosevic said twice: "These time restrictions I really regard as violence." And, at one point he mockingly pointed at the courtroom wall clock and told May: "Anyway, the press has been already writing that the central issue here is time, and nothing much else."
As I said, Dr Budding was subtle in her intentional bias, perhaps overly subtle, so the point the Prosecution wanted to make with this witness hasn't come across all that clearly. It only left a faint anti-Serb aftertaste, a few hints and insinuations, an admission that yes, no nation of these parts is blameless, but the Serbs were somehow the main culprits.
The time allotted for this witness, both for the examination-in-chief and for the cross-examination, was all to short. And even that short time was interrupted by inane interventions from Nice and stupid questions from May. Milosevic told May at one point (when the latter tried to dismiss one issue as irrelevant): "I don't believe that you should learn the whole Serbian history in half an hour, but since you mainly deal here with altering history, I consider this particular issue to be relevant."
What I find appalling is that the "trial" aimed at rewriting history was dealing in history in such a superficial and brief manner. But, the reason lies precisely in that: when you want to do a quick and crude rewrite, you don't dwell too much on the serious science.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia - Thursday July 24, 2003 at 11:41 pm
Serb's in Kosovo stand accused by the US of using excessive force in their war with the KLA. So an article about American use of questionable force is of some relevance.This time they really poured the prep fire on, with sustained machine-gun fire topped by a total of 10 TOW missiles fired at near point-blank range.
Is there any reported incident of Serb forces using comparable force in Kosovo?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/943255.asp
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario - Friday July 25, 2003 at 1:47 am
Peter,RE. your July 23, 2003 at 8:50 am:
I've been trying to see whether there is "something in it for Mr Rasmussen" - sending 2,000 Danish soldiers to Iraq to be targeted instead of the Anglo/US invaders.
I need to tell you though, that they're about 400 strong only. Which would make our Prime Minister rather less "raving bonkers", isn't it?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
Denmark - Friday July 25, 2003 at 4:14 am
When it comes to the Serbian Holocaust, there seems to be no problem diminishing the number killed. When it comes to the Jewish Holocaust, one gets arrested for even daring to question the number of those killed. I guess anything under 6 million doesn't count maybe? 600,000 is only 10 percent, isn't it, Miss Budding?Apart from that, if someone supports a fascist state, they might just be reasonably said to be fascist, right Miss Budding? So maybe you should review your characterisation of the Ballists in Kosovo.
As for the Ustasha being only marginal... They played a marginal role in ruling NDH? I don't think so. Go back to school and learn some elementary logic Miss Budding! Anybody who is in control of a country like the Ustasha were, clearly cannot be MARGINAL. At the very least, maybe CENTRAL!?
BTW: JP WIS USA...
I'm afraid Miss Budding is giving you a close race when it comes to deduction. You do very well except when it comes to Bush and Co. LOL !
David
Australia - Friday July 25, 2003 at 4:28 am
BTW JPAre there any US presidents this century who DIDN'T blow someone else's country to smithereens? Or at least maybe in the last 50 years?
David
Australia - Friday July 25, 2003 at 7:11 am
Blair’s International BrigadeGodfred: Once again you are quite right to correct me.
As described by one military official, the administrations of Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have assembled two divisions of 8,000 to 10,000 soldiers. A division commanded by the British has four or five member countries, while a Polish division has seven or eight members so far. The Poles will contribute 2,000 soldiers underwritten by other countries, said embassy spokesman Artur Michalski.
The administration is seeking a large commitment of forces from India and another from Pakistan. But officials were rebuffed when they suggested alternatives to Denmark that would mean a deployment of 1,500 or 5,000 troops. The Danes offered 380 soldiers, motivated by the limits of the force and the cost involved. One Danish official said they did the math "and saw this would go beyond what defense had." By Peter Slevin. Washington Post Staff Writer. Sunday, June 22, 2003
Godfred I was nearly persuaded by your argument that Rasmussen was only 400/2000 raving bonkers then I came across this article:
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Danish security forces in Iraq, struggling with temperatures of around 50 degrees Celsius (122 F), are prepared for the worst -- even a blizzard.
The almost 400 soldiers from the chilly Nordic climes are equipped with snow shovels, brooms and a lawnmower as they work to restore law and order in the war-torn country.
I rest my case.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Friday July 25, 2003 at 9:43 am
Thank you, Peter, - and aren't you helpful?May I suggest that there just could be absolutely NOTHING wrong with military "brooms" and "lawnmovers" anywhere (except maybe in Greenland, for which place these were probably meant anyway).
And we are NOT talking about "snow shovels" exactly, but SNOW PLOUGHS, - or SAND PLOWS really (as I was told, when raising this question in Danish media, - prudently in the Danish, he, he).
I shall return to this question IN DUE COURSE - give me a break, please to carlafy the situation, will you? Somehow it's got to do with ICTY, yes, I do swear and the NATO war on Serbia - but it is a long shot! I may need witnesses, secret witnesses and lots of them - probably bis-92 procedures, whatever, - the lot.
Could I have another 100 days for this case? Another 100 "trial" days for the defense of mr. Rasmussen, our Prime Minister (who is currently having holidays in France), - please?
Yes, - I do know: NO defense case should last any longer than that! I know! Neither should for that matter the Prime Minister's holidays, particularly not when our allies are having shoot-outs in Iraqi territory jointly occupied.
Just imagine, Peter, if we - the Danes - had taken on this Mosul thing employing snow and/or sand ploughs (plows) in lieu of TOW missiles?
What did you say?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Friday July 25, 2003 at 10:32 am
DavidYes I can. W re Afghanistan and Iraq.
Afghanistan was in smithereens when we got there and we concentrated on bunkers and caves.
Iraq was all precision bombing designed to minimize civilian casualties. Nothing like the intentional mayhem of the Nazis on Belgrade, London etc or NATO's bombing of Serbia with the intent of creating hardship and rebellion.
I don't recall president Eisenhower doing any smithereening or Hoover for that matter.
There's an article out that Australia will be the 51st US state. If you haven't seen it, I could dig it up.
Vera's observations on the 'tribunal' are 'gems'. When I watch Milosevic I get the impression he looks fit and fresher than the sleepy eyed OTP and is is playing them like a badly wornout fiddle.
J, P
USA,Wis - Friday July 25, 2003 at 12:50 pm
JP Afganistan was in smithereens when you got there. It was your US backed Mudjahadeen that made sure it was.Precision bombing in Iraq - right like the one that hit the market? Its a pity your man in the middle east that you used to propogate war against Iran as revenge for being thrown out, Saddam, turns out to have gone wild. Now he is enemy number two. But what about your most important operative who went wild Bin Laden. How many proxies, CIA recruited leaders does the US have that ended up being butchers of one kind or another and all of a sudden the US doesnt like them anymore? Your assertion that the US isnt to blame for the bombing of Yugoslavia is a complete joke. What is the difference between so called precision bombing by American pilots over Yugoslavia and precision bombing by American pilots over Iraq? Allow me to answer - absolutely none.
Londons bombing of Serbia? London could never order the rest of NATO to bomb Serbia on its own. That is what the Americans did. The British are to be chastised for being lackeys. But you probably like it that way. They are not the worlds superpower the US is.
Try taking some responsiblity for your countries actions instead of just defending it all the time or occasionally admitting a tiny portion of blame so you can bash the Democrats. I dont necessarily believe any citizen should be held responsible for the policies of their governments unless they support government policy. For some reason you move the goalposts to suit your nation. You should defend the principle not the nation. Especially when your nation thinks nothing of imposing its imperialism upon the rest of the world.
Dean Saunders
Wales - Friday July 25, 2003 at 1:50 pm
JP Hoover showed his 'rugged individualism' by beating up on his own people. Some twenty thousand strong homeless WWI veterans, their wives and children came to Washington to petition the government for aid and their encampment was attacked by the army led by the great American heroes Gen. Douglas Macarthur, Maj. Dwight Eisenhower and his aide George Patton. Four companies of infantry, a machinegun squadron and six tanks attacked the homeless people killing two veterans, a baby and partially blinding an eight year old boy. The encampment was burned and no one questioned the proportionality of force.Dwight Eisenhower, on the other hand, overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 because it nationalized its oil industry, overthrew democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 in the name of United Fruit, sent so called advisors to Vietnam to keep Vietnam’s rubber, rice and resources in western hands, he sent thousands of marines into Lebanon to prop up American interests and protect oil supplies thus the “Eisenhower doctrine” was born. This doctrine became a precedent for future America expeditions to any area of the Middle East. Eisenhower gave orders to the CIA to train anti-Castro Cubans who wanted to restore the old Cuba or the ‘whorehouse” of the Western world to the Mafia and the American Fruit, ITT and mining companies.
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Friday July 25, 2003 at 3:14 pm
Poor Australia...
Anna P
California - Friday July 25, 2003 at 3:15 pm
How can a person be proud of this kind of "history" and walk like a full feathered peacock
MIilan Prika
Rep. of Panama - Friday July 25, 2003 at 3:30 pm
I think google implicates Eisenhower as a warmonger.I am inclined to think Jimmy Carter the exception to the rule.
President Carter committed himself to the safe return of the hostages while protecting America's interests and prestige. He pursued a policy of restraint that put a higher value on the lives of the hostages than on American retaliatory power or protecting his own political future.
The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter's actions brought freedom for the hostages with America's honor preserved.
The truth of the matter is that Americans don't vote for presidents they view as weak, and any president who doesn't fit the mold of a gunslinger is viewed as weak.
Jimmy Carter knew this so did put a higher value on his own conduct than on protecting his political future.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Friday July 25, 2003 at 4:10 pm
On the subject of propaganda this article is revealing.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Friday July 25, 2003 at 6:24 pm
Ian, Carter was a populist peanut farmer who protected the multinational rape of the world. He appointed the “steely eyed” one of the smartest Cold War “son of a bitch” Polish Prussian intellectual Berzezinski as his national security advisor. Through surrogates they maintained in power some o the most wile dictatorships (Philippines, Iran, Nicaragua, Indonesia) around the world for the benefit of the multinationals About “three hundred US corporations including the seven largest banks” (Zinn) who earned over 40% of their profit outside of American borders had Carter in their pocket.. Carter talked peace but made war by supplying weapons and sending in the CIA where ever American interests came into question. The Junta in El Salvador received weapons as did Marcos in the Philippines, plus cash 5.7 million for the junta and 300 million for Marcos. Carter was defeated because of the Iran Hostage Crisis not because he was a champion of the common man.
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Friday July 25, 2003 at 6:35 pm
Annan set to sack del Ponte?Del Ponte has come under fire for the Rwandan court's slow pace in bringing to justice those accused of major roles ...
Same problem at the ICTY over the KLA leadeship but this incompetence is neglected. On Nato's orders?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Friday July 25, 2003 at 7:20 pm
Walter, I think you misunderstand the point. Carter didn't decide to bomb Iran as the means of solving the hostage situation. Most other US presidents would have declared war on Iran under similar circumstances. You're comparing Carter to the ideal.. I am comparing him to other presidents.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Friday July 25, 2003 at 9:14 pm
Whatever the case, the record of the US political establishment and the US presidents is one of military involvement throughout the globe. Contrast this with Milosevic and his fighting insurgents in Kosovo, in his OWN country!When one does an easily made comparison, one can readily see that the ICTY indictment is not based on reality and genuine desire for humanitarian justice. Add the Israeli excursions OUTSIDE of Israel, and one can see that some people can "defend" their own interests anywhere in the world and zillions of kms from their home whereas others cannot defend their own interest IN their own home.
If we had had ICTY like processes for others, I might even buy the current proceedings against Milosevic, flawed as they are on the basis of the procedures and the tennuous "evidence" presented against him.
As things stand, I cannot accept the US right to protect its so called "interests" by staging or being involved in so many armed conflicts this century. If W were at all genuine, he would pull the US support for the ICTY and close it down yesterday!
But he's not doing that, is he JP, even though he KNOWS the facts as well as you do! The question is: "Why not, JP?"
David
Australia - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 12:48 am
The fact that the prosecution has called so many "experts" from Harvard, including librarians like Riedlmayer and recent doctorates like Budding, demonstrates that they are getting orders from someone in America. There is nothing superior about Harvard relative to quite a few other universities in the US, not to mention more venerable names in Europe. Which also leads us to question how much of the US Balkan policy depended on the administrations and how much is being run by other forces.
P M
USA - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 12:56 am
Second point:The fact that Audrey Budding has been called to discuss general Serbian history, dating to before the WWII period is further evidence of the perfidy of the prosecution. It demonstrates three things:
1.) Serbia is on trial, NOT Milosevic.
2.) Someone in the US in particular (as betrayed by the large number of Harvard "experts" called) is pushing a revision of modern and even ancient Balkan history. A harbinger of things to come - revisions of official truth on topics such as wider European history, Middle Eastern history, etc.
3.) They have no case. Had they had ANYTHING, they would have called several killer witnesses, inciders and victims primarily, presented written documentation proving the commissioning, support, or even merely implicit approval of crimes perpetrated, and wrapped up their case within a few months. As it is, they have nothing, which is why they have inundated the judges and defense ("the accused") with forged documents and craploads of other irrelevant material, in the hope that the astonishing quantity of low-grade trashy "evidence" will compensate for a faltering case.
P M
USA - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 1:20 am
The transcripts but not the video of Beyond Iraq and a hard place are now available. This is essentially a history lesson, dressed up as satire. But it is quite humourous.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 10:29 am
IanIts' not history, its' junk it won't fly. Its' not humourous because there's not an iota truth in it. Unreadable. You'd have to tie me in a chair to watch the video.
Q1 What is channel 4?
Q2 Why is 'Vera' referred to?
Q3 Why not stick to the script and write one circa 2002-2003, Brussels.I'll go back and give it a closer look, but IMO, if you tryed showing it in an Iraqi classroom, you'd get booted out on your ear.
J, P
USA,Wis - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 3:02 pm
Is Annan set to sack del Ponte? (Peter Taylor, Friday July 25, 2003 at 6:35 pm)A: NO - of course not?
Q: Then why would Reuters bother to tell us about Carla meeting U.S./Kofi Annan on Monday 28 July, 2003 in New York?
A: Follow Peters link, - then think for yourselves...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 3:54 pm
The US/UN butler has recieved orders from his master to leave whatsoever del ponte with just one case so she can devote herself to build a more credible bunch of lies , due that her capacity to handle 2 cases at the same time is somehow handicaped and besides true genocide , 1000000 dead ¿ WHO CARES , we have to nail Milosevic to the cross
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 4:19 pm
This service crashed, which I reported. It has now been restored to a functional state. Some posts, including my response J.P. got lost in the shuffle.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 5:23 pm
One story . . .
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 5:25 pm
. . .and another.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 7:34 pm
Carla del Ponte still falling down on the jobThe killings in Klecka have been linked to Thaci, who now heads the Democratic party of Kosovo. The Belgrade media made great play of the discovery in August 1998 of what it claimed were 22 Serbian bodies in a lime kiln in Klecka.
From a recent reprint of a Sunday Times Report 3 September 2002.
We’ve had the fabricated Racak massacre rammed down our throats by Blair, his partners in crime and a compliant media but three real massacres by the KLA which predate Racak are still being ignored by Blair, del Ponte and the mass media: Namely Klecka, Glodjane and Orahovac in which more than 100 civilians were abducted, tortured and murdered in the most horrendous fashion.
Here’s another gem from the OTP regarding the KLA’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo’s minority populations which also seems to have escaped the immaculate Phony Tony’s notice :
"We're not seeing genocide at the moment, but severe human rights violations. There is no evidence that any group wants to annihilate the Serbs rather than just force them out," said an official.
“Just force them out”: So that makes it OK? Doesn’t del Ponte know that Blair’s justification for the destruction of Serbia was that the Serbs were allegedly “Just forcing them out”: the “them” being the ethnic Albanians. That is until he changed his mind when the alliance began to wobble and decided that Nato’s credibility was a more important reason for his passionate belief.
And what of “severe human rights violations” in many cases murder and at least a thousand of them. Why then are the KLA leaders not being examined in The Hague?
Phony Tony is very good at conveniently changing his passionate convictions. In spite of the two Dodgy Dossiers his passionate belief in the ‘real and present danger’ presented by Saddam Hussein has now become - in the face of undeniable evidence that there never was any ‘real and present danger’ - a passionate belief in the need for the regime change of a once favoured but now evil dictator: But don’t worry Dr Mugabe, Charles Taylor, Kim Il Jong … before he gets round to you he’ll have found some other passionate belief to justify his procrastination.
Life must be so easy for those who hold a passionate belief that they can never be wrong, who look the other way when there’s something they’d rather not see, and have in tow a willing flock of craven MPs and media hacks.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 7:50 pm
hablar de la destruccion de Yugoslavia, cuando fue la misma EUROPA, que tanto alaba la que por su INDECISION y TERROR A COMPROMETERSE (a tener Bolas) dejo que esta guerra intestina durara 10 años- y NO PERMITIO a los USA a intervenir. Fue a ULTIMA HORA, cuando los EUROPEOS estaban ahogados, que LLAMARON A los USA y los USA termino esta guerra fraticida en 1 SEMANA. Pero estos mismos EUROPEOS dejaran que los yugoslavos se entremataran por 10 años con mas de 300,000 MUERTOS !! (los EUROPEOS no permitieron a los USA intervenir todos estos años porque era un problema de EUROPA !!)
Jenny XOXO
Ecuador - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 8:04 pm
Dear Milan & Friends : I might not agree with you all but for the sake of freedom of speech, this is my point of view. G"d saves the USA! Next time, my note for you all , will be in English, the language of FREEDOM !fro Yogoslavia , Israel , Liberia , Panama, Kuwait, Iraq and so many more
Jenny XOXO
Ecuador - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 8:20 pm
No fue la indecision de Europa la que propicio la destruccion de Yugoeslavia , fue ALEMANIA la que alimento la desintegracion con el apoyo del Vaticano , para nadie es un secreto que Alemania siempre anhelo la costa adriatica y la forma mas sencilla para lograr ese sueño era revivir odios superados y pasados sangrientos , hechos que mucha gente lamenta y que solo generaciones venideras podran dar vuelta para bien de todos los pueblos que algun dia fueron ejemplo de convivencia y lideres de un proyecto hermoso que fue el de los paises no alineados
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 8:27 pm
Si , pero aquello fue en los años 40, la guerra cruenta ,estallo mucho despues del derrocamiento de los Nazis , amor ,,,, recuerda esta guerra entre hermanos, espantosa la acabaron los Gringos , te guste o no , hace menos de 10 años ! y Milosevick es solo el pobre chivo expiatorio que morira , antes que cualquier tribunal en el planeta lo pueda llegar a juzgar
Jenny xoxo
Ecuador - Saturday July 26, 2003 at 10:19 pm
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SECRETARY GENERALUN Secretary-General Kofi Annan may wish to replace Carla Del Ponte at the Rwanda Tribunal, - yet keep the Suisse woman as Chief Prosecutor for the ICTY?
Somehow that move was hailed in Kigali as "very good news for Rwanda!"
If Annan's goal however is to make both courts work "more efficiently", relieving Carla from the strains of shuttling between Rwanda and the Netherlands may hardly be enough, though.
It certainly is too late anyway for the ICTY to rescue the Prosecutions case against the former FRY President, Slobodan Milosevic.
This being so, mr. Annan might consider using his good office to enforce the long deserved release of mr. Milosevic. With respect to the efficiency of the ICTY trial proceedings it might even prove to be a promising move to entrust mr. Milosevic, whose aquired skills in cross-examination was enviously acknowledged even by mr. Nice the other day, with all rôles at the court, - including those of prosecutors, judges and amici curiae - excluding but that of "the accused".
You might wish toleave that to NATO, mr. Secretary General (and to Hashim Thaqi and his gang, I'd say).
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3162068
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M AR K - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 2:57 pm
Scribbled on the U.N. wall, complete with arrow pointing towards Washington:AQUI VIVE EL PRESIDENTE,
EL QUE MANDA VIVE ENFRENTE!
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 3:08 pm
syllabus from one of Audry Budding's courses.........http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~ss98ej/syllabus/
AP V
NY
NY - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 3:24 pm
OPEN LETTER as sent:TO THE U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL KOFI ANNAN Esq.
July 27, 2003
Dear Sir,
Re.: The ICTY "trial" against former FRY President, Slobodan Milosevic
You may wish to replace mrs. Carla Del Ponte at the Rwanda Tribunal, - yet keep the Suisse woman as Chief Prosecutor for the ICTY?
Somehow that move was hailed in Kigali as "very good news for Rwanda!"
If your goal however is to make both courts work "more efficiently", relieving Carla from the strains of shuttling between Rwanda and the Netherlands may hardly be enough, though.
It certainly is too late anyway for the ICTY to rescue the Prosecutions case against the former FRY President, Slobodan Milosevic.
This being so, you might consider using your good office to enforce the long deserved release of mr. Milosevic. With respect to the efficiency of the ICTY trial proceedings it might even prove to be a promising move to entrust mr. Milosevic, whose aquired skills in cross-examination was enviously acknowledged even by mr. Nice the other day, with all rôles at the court, - including those of prosecutors, judges and amici curiae - excluding but that of "the accused".
You might wish to leave that to NATO, mr. Secretary General (and to Hashim Thaqi and his gang, I'd say).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M AR K
Posted to the JURIST Milosevic Trial Discussion on Saturday July 26, 2003 at 10:19 pm.
c.c. the Danish Prime Minister, mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen (by e-mail).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 4:01 pm
Audrey Budding's seminar on breakup of Yugoslavia.http://icg.harvard.edu/~fs43t/First_Meeting/
AP V
NY
NY - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 4:12 pm
What Audery's is teaching the kids at Harvard - freshman seminar on Breakup of Yugoslavia........readings from such experts as Venton Surroi, Sudetic, etc. etchttp://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:2ELOBsTdEsgJ:icg.harvard.edu/~fs43t/syllabus/+Audrey+Budding+Milosevic&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
It is pretty clear that the OTP asked Budding to come to the Milosevic hearings merely as form of payback. Note that Budding gets a free European flight plus 'appropriate' hourly fees. One suspects that the ICTY ended up funding a nice European Holiday for Budding and her family
AP V
NY
NY - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 5:05 pm
AP, I don't see references to the authors you cite in Dr. Budding's material. Could you provide those of us who are not familiar with texts outlining Balkan history a summary and evaluation of the relative merits of the texts you cite, and the texts Dr. Budding teaches from.You might also indicate if you think the texts you summarise worth reading.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 5:55 pm
Ian,forgive me for suggesting that by thus indulging in "Balkan history" one may be sidestepping the real issue?
Could the question of fairness for mr. Milosevic in any way depend on details of "history"?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 9:04 pm
The question of fairness in any trial hinges on the details of history. The trial is unfair unless its ruling is predicated on a correct understanding of the details of history.My interest is in whether Dr. Budding is capable of providing the court with a correct understanding of history. That I hoped could be determined by any educated observer by examining what it is she teaches, and what her sources are.
I'm interested in determining whether the prosecution is making a fair effort to call as "expert witnesses" expert witnesses, or alternatively making a fair effort to avoid doing precisely this.
Unfortunately, in the context of the various books mentioned, I am at a disadvantage, never having read any of them.
Even if the history is of no relevance to the events being considered it can still be relevant to the trial. If a witness lies or distorts irrelevant history and is shown to have done so all the testimony of that witness is discredited on the principle False in one thing - false in all.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Sunday July 27, 2003 at 9:05 pm
Correction
Why are we not just using a newsgroup?
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 9:05 pm
- Sunday July 27, 2003 at 9:06 pm
Proportional forceNo one at the ICTY I hope is condemning Milosevic for fighting terrorists: The charge being levelled is that he allowed disproportionate force.
In a single set of incidents today thugs in Blair’s coalition forces smashed up a house in Baghdad, assaulted those inside and shot dead five innocent civilians including a man and his wife.
But this kind of behaviour has been going on for several weeks accounting for hundreds of innocent Iraqi casualties. A particularly ghastly incident being the 13 protestors shot dead and 75 injured in Falluja
The security forces of Milosevic never did anything worse than this under provocation more extreme than that faced by Anglo/US forces. British and American civilians are not being abducted, tortured and murdered as they were in the Serbian sovereign province of Kosovo by the KLA.
Also Serbian security forces never deliberately murdered 14-year-old boys and displayed pictures of their victims. Anglo/US forces display the same barbarity as the Islamic terrorists they claim they are fighting. The gibbet ceased to be used in 19th Century England.
Blair passionately believes that Milosevic used disproportionate force in Kosovo: Blair passionately believes coalition forces are doing “the right thing” in Iraq. Blair passionately believes it was evil of Milosevic to allow the shelling of KLA positions in Kosovo: Blair passionately believes it was “the right thing to do” to drop cluster bombs from a height of three miles over civilian areas in Kosovo.
Contradictions imply nonsense thus Blair’s passionately held convictions, if there is any truth in them at all, are simply nonsense.
And the same goes for his corrupt, truthless, biased show trial of Milosevic.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 9:20 pm
"Lucrecia" Del Ponte in her desperation to build a case and justify the unjustifiable will use any means it doesn't matter what or who , she is so frustrated that she's run out of ideas and worst Mr.M. ignores her pathetic efforts , showing the world her inability to make a half ass credible case(sometimes I wonder if deep in her wild dreams she's got fantasies for Mr.M.)
Milan Prika
Rep. of Panama - Sunday July 27, 2003 at 10:02 pm
The Grand InquisitorHer critics claim that Del Ponte is a great media operator, with good political antennae, but a poor track record in securing concrete results. There are accounts of cases started in a high gear but petering out for want of solid evidence, with consequent scandals and clamour for her head.
All this was known at the start of the trial. What else in new?
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada