MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE
 JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive 

—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.

Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————

  • discussion archive

  • Sunday June 01, 2003 at 10:45 am
    Godfred, Thanks for talking TO me. Your point is well taken. The trouble is, Ramsey Clark neither 'corrected', nor 'counteracted' the two statements,leaving it to the masses to believe as they may.

    A small portion of the 'trial' has been trying to prove Milosevic guilty of Propaganda. I consider the Clark/Lytle exchange to be propaganda of the very worst sort. (Repeat a lie often ehough and they will believe it?)

    As far as Racak is concerned, the French film crew has VIDEO that PROVES the Serbian forces hadn't killed those people. There was a firefight between Serbs and the KLA. Any civilians who got murdered later would have HAD to be victims of the KLA. (The KLA was still in charge of the village of Racak when William Walker showed up the next day and promptly decided that he alone knew what happened???)

    The way things are going in the Hague, it looks like they know they are NEVER going to find a scrap of evidence against Milosevic. What to do? Well, it seems they will continue this 'trial' until long, long, after all possible participants have went to THEIR FINAL Judgement.

    The Hague (read:USA/NATO) Is NOT going to let Milosevic be found innocent, regardless of all the PROOF that he was. IF he were found innocent, the USA/NATO would then, by implication, be guilty of the murder of all the peoples of Yugoslavia during these 'wars'.

    The only way they can keep Milosevic from being found innocent is to keep the 'trial' going indefinately. Unless or until the Media decides that enough is enough, they will get away with it.

    Any reporter worthy of the name should be screaming the "News" of this so called trial. Well, after WWII, people wondered how Hitler got away with HIS lies. Simple, he also had his detractors, BUT, he HAD THE MEDIA. The relative few of us who know the truth just don't have any way to reach the masses that ARE reached by the Media. Now we know how the people of WWII Germany, who KNEW what Hitler was, felt....

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Sunday June 01, 2003 at 12:03 pm
    olaf oudheusden,

    You couldn't produce that documentary for American TV, also? I really believe that the ONLY way to inform the vast majority about what is really going on is with the Media.

    I gave up writing to those who are already getting plenty of E-Mails they just ignore. IMO, it would make more sense to beat them at their own game. Media saturation.

    There are well known Authors and Film Makers, who could really make a difference. At least more of one than writing an E-mail to a Senator or what have you.

    The whole problem is, the majority of the world really does NOT understand what is happening, beyond what they are being fed by the Media. In order to make them understand, it is going to take the Media.

    Look at this Forum. It is a drop in a bucket as far as world population is concerned. EC does a good job of getting people informed and they also have the Video, "Judgement", but that is no where near enough. You have to reach the Majority.

    Too bad someone couldn't get Steven Spielberg,to make a movie about the 'trial', Milosevic, or Arkan.

    Too bad someone couldn't get Peter Matthiessen to write some books about the same subjects.

    An interesting article by Peter Matthiessen, Author of "In the Spirit Of Crazy Horse". LIGHTING THE FUSE Freeing the Iraqi People to Death

    Just those two wouldn't be enough to change the opinion of the majority but would go a whole lot further in doing so than individuals writing their Congressmen......

    Think what 10 such Authors and Film Makers could do....

    I would sure be willing to send E-mails requesting books or films on Milosevic and Arkan, to any such others as anyone on here can come up with.

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 1:17 am
    While it may well be the case that "the fix is in" regarding the Milosevic trial.. any such fix is going to require the compliance and consent of the three judges currently hearing this case.

    These three judges if they decide to rule in a manner not consistent with their opinions of Milosevic, gained from hopefully following the trial as closely as any here, will have to live with that political decision and its implications the rest of their lives.

    Personally I'd rather think the best of each of them, and be disappointed, than pre-judge them.

    To presume that "the fix is in", and that the judges if need be will rule counter to their consciences, is in my opinion to underestimate the power of the human conscience.

    Frankly, by the time this trial ends, I think that the world will have moved on, and any rubber stamp confirming Milosevics guilt (though of what remains cloudy) will be all but irrelevant. The only way that this court can actually make itself relevant is to clarify history the better to defend justice, and to establish future rules of behaviour, as indeed happened during the Nuremburg trials.

    The interesting question is are the three judges up to such a bold challenge.

    Ian Davis
    Waterloo
    Ontario, Canada

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 5:08 am

    Motion Hearing at 3PM tomorrow. Says the ICTY Mr. Milosevic trial schedule, does anyone have a clue about what kind of motion?

    Ian,

    As they say in America, "don't hold your breath"

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Shangri-La

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 7:42 am
    Ian Davis,

    You said it! The judges do deserve our trust and confidence - unless they are proven not to (1).

    Giving a judgement in this case must be difficult. "Human conscience" however is a basic power on their part (as well as on part of the rest of us) and it will eventually be decisive (certainly even for "the Media").

    This trial ends - there is of course no way to keep it going 'indefinitely'.

    With regard to the alleged "massacre" at the village of Racak - which may be the key point - it has already been up to the Prosecution to convince the judges that their version of the event as given in the Indictment were correct (while personally I agree with Vera Martinovic, who noted the other day, that Milosevic is not guilty as charged, - but) I respect, that it will be up to the judges, who as you say are "following the trial as closely as any", and not to "the Media" or any "Ms. Lytle" to pass a judgement.

    (1) I suggest that the judges have unfortunately - by allowing the "joined trial" and by granting this excessive extension of the Prosecutions case in spite of having stated that "no Prosecution case should continue (like that)" - raised a doubt as to whether they will eventually prove to be up to the challenge.

    I feel certain however, that the judges realize that too and will be taking it into account; to quote Presiding Judge May on 10 April, 2002:

    "We also have to bear in mind that at the end of a trial, the Trial Chamber has to give a judgement. The longer the trial goes on, the more difficult that is, and if it stretches into a matter of years, it, of course, becomes more difficult still.

    ...of course it's the duty of the Prosecution to put forward their case, and they must be given reasonable opportunity to do so, and it's not for the Trial Chamber to try and dictate in any arbitrary way how the Prosecution go about proving their case. It's a matter for them to do.

    But nonetheless, we have decided that, in the interests of justice, we must fix a date...(and)...we do not consider it inappropriate to fix a date at this time...with respect, the decision in this case has to be made at this stage. It may well be that the issues will never be plain until the beginning of the Defence case in the particular circumstances of this case.

    With all this in mind, we have decided that the Prosecution should have one year from today to conclude their case. That will give them a total of 14 months in which to finish the case, their case. In the view of the Trial Chamber, no Prosecution case should continue for a period longer than that." (Trial Transcipts, Page 2783-84).

    Excuse me, - I have already been quoting part of this above and maybe should not take up so much space in this "Milosevic Trial Discussion". However I do think, that this statement is important to note, - it is certainly basic for whatever trust and confidence I as a member of the public have in the ICTY and the three judges on "the Milosevic case".

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

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 8:52 am
    I am not sure if these judges deserve the benefit of doubt?. By their action up to now we have observed constant breaches of due process. It is quite foreseeable from the way they have conducted the trial that our best expectations will not materialize. We are seeing McCarthyism all over again, with false indictments, false witnesses and judges serving masters that do not believe in the rule of law. Let’s hope that the moral law within these men will be the deciding factor but I am not holding my breath since they have not given me any reason to think otherwise.

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 10:34 am
    Ian Davis & Godfred Louis-Jensen,

    These so-called "judges" have accepted to work for a tribunal that is illegal.

    They have no right to detain Milosevic, his extradition was illegal, but they continue to detain him anyway, and that limits his access to information. How can one even talk about a fair trial?

    How can one have any confidence in these "judges." These people at the Tribunal are criminals - they have no more of a right to keep people locked up there than I've got to keep people locked up in my basement. How can one trust these criminals, these kidnappers, to render a just verdict, especially which they have no legal authority to render a verdict in the first place?

    Look what happened there today. Look at these 2 secret witnesses who came there today. This B-1455 and this B-1098.

    Both of these secret witnesses claimed to have been survivors mass executions, but neither one clearly identified his would-be executioners.

    So we have a situation at the Hague Tribunal where secret witnesses claim to have been attacked by unknown criminals.

    Why should the identity of these witnesses be a secret? They can't accuse anybody of anything, because they don't know who did anything, so who could they accuse?

    In the case of B-1098 there was no forensic evidence to back-up his claims that there were even any executions at all, no bodies were found. Milosevic pointed that out and May responded by saying we have this witnesses evidence.

    B-1098 claimed that 64 men where placed on a 2 ton truck and taken to a slaughter house to be executed.

    64 men on a 2 ton truck?!?! I would pay money to see 64 men ride on a 2 ton truck.

    Milosevic asked B-1098 how 64 men could fit onto a 2 ton truck, and May got indignant saying, "You can't be saying that he's making this up! These are very serious crimes, it makes no difference what type of truck they were on."

    Actually, Mr. May, it does make a difference, when people lie they will tend to go overboard on the details to prove they are telling the truth, but then they fall victim to their own memory when it fails to recall all of those details - and this is a key detail. The witness described a 2 ton truck with a cover on it. Similar to the truck in this picture, and then said that 64 people were loaded onto it.

    This right here shows that the witness is at least lying about the number of people. I'm sure that 2 ton trucks were common in Bosnia at that time. This witness also did his military service, and so I'm quite sure that he would know a 2 ton truck if he saw one. This detail shows that he just got caught in his lies, because he forgot what he had said previously.

    Based on this lie, how do we know he isn't lying about the executions too? After all there is no forensic evidence of any executions. No bodies have been found, and it is now 11 years after the fact.

    On top of that these witnesses have nothing to do with Milosevic. We don't know who purpetrated the crimes that these witnesses alleged, so we can't know who was commanding the purpetratos of the alleged crimes because we don't know who the Hell they are.

    The prosecutor isn't proving anything except that he's good at to wasting time with useless witnesses. It defies belief that they were given more time.

    Andy Wilcoxson
    Washington, United States

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 11:03 am
    Ian,

    Unfortunately, I believe we have already witnessed what will be the outcome. I don't know how many sessions you are familiar with, (Transcript or Video) but EVERYONE I have read has made it more than clear that this 'court' and these 'judges' are a long way from being fair.

    While it is true that no Trial can go on forever, it seems it can go on long enough that everyone will forget the many slipups by the 'prosecution'.

    Long enough that all the 'witnesses' found to be lieing, all the witnesses for the 'prosecution' that turned out to be for Milosevic in reality, and the assinine 'rulings' by the 'judges' will be long forgotten.

    It doesn't take a Lawyer to know that the 'judges' have been anything but fair thus far. Why would anyone think they will suddenly develop a conscience at 'trial's' end?

    It doesn't take a Lawyer to know that the 'prosecution' has gotten way off base. Why are these 'conscience ridden judges' allowing such idiotic meandering? They cry about time and proceed to allow the 'prosecution' to continue questions that have nothing whatsoever to do with any of the 'charges' against Milosevic.

    How many times have they cut Milosevic off when he was in the process of destroying the lies of a 'witness'? Sounds like "damage control" to me.

    As a child I believed in the goodness of mankind. I believed every person had a conscience. I grew up a very long time ago. :(

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 11:25 am
    As far am I am concerned they can do what they like with 'President' Milosevic as long as he does not come back. By the way in Yugoslavia the former President's do not continue to be called President after they lose elections. It might be matter for discussion if there should have been second round but 'President' Milosevic did not win the elections just like he lost elections in 1996 which he tried to steal. When somebody asks why Serbian people today dont care what happens at the Hague they should now that is the right of every electorate after suffering many years of an awful leader who only brought poverty to Serbian people. People here are expecting us to play a much fairer game with Milosevic than he played with Serbian people. Well its game we not going to play any more. As always Milosevic is in good company at the Hague. He was always master of his destiny and Serb people were always his victims. Hague and Milosevic deserve each other

    Sinisa Radovanovic
    Serbia

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 11:58 am
    Sinisa and others I can imagine after the decade Yugoslavia's seen, people there just want some semblance of peace and prosperity. I hope it comes to you all soon. After reading as much as I can over the past 4 years, I've come to doubt everything written in the Western press concerning Yugoslavia. Their agenda is clear. Yet, through the years, there's been a sizable number of people in Yugoslavia that couldn't stand Milosevic. My question is, WHY? What was Milosevic truly guilty of? (besides standing up to the powers-that-be). Please explain what you mean when you say the "Hague and Milosevic deserve each other". Just trying to get to the dirty-ugly-truth of it all and balance all the pro-Milosevic writings I've read from the anti-war left and right. thanks Joe

    josef crow
    New York
    NY

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 1:52 pm
    To: Sinisa Radovanovic and other Serbs hostile to Milosevic
    Advice: Know your true enemies.

    Apparently you have not followed very carefully the political underpinnings and consequences of the Milosevic trial and other ICTY proceedings. Doesn't it seem likely to you that a Milosevic conviction will be used to give further retrospective justification for the criminal western policies against not only one person but against your whole nation ? Or that a Milosevic conviction on Kosovo will strengthen the hand of Albanian chauvinists and their western patrons who do all they can to achieve the disappearance of the Serb population and historical heritage of Kosovo & Metohija? Or that a Milosevic conviction on Bosnia will strengthen the huge compensation claims of Izetbegovic's Bosnian Muslim chauvinists against Serbia, stigmatize in history not only him but the whole of Serbia as an "aggressor nation", and possibly condemn Bosnian Serbs to continue being second class citizens in a western-controlled & quasi-muslim-dominated Bosnia?

    Don't take my word for the above assertions. Just take a look at articles appearing literally every day in the mainstream media such as the New York Times (read June 1 article by Bosnian Muslim IWPR propagandist Emir Suljagic) or the Washington Times (read the disgusting June 1 article by Ustashe lobby ally Jeffrey Kuhner). Take a look at the supposedly "authoritative" reports of think tanks such as ICG, CSIS or "Carnegie Endowment for Democracy" or at media, such as IWPR and "Coalition for Intl. Justice", dedicated to the diminishing of Serbian (and other small national) sovereignty for the benefit of international capital and the likes of George Soros. Or read the latest speech of Soros himself on Kosovo.

    Your country is being uprooted, demonized and exploited by foreigners and you keep ranting against ... Milosevic! Wake up, buddy, and get to know your true enemies.

    Pythagoras Crotoniatis
    Greece

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 1:58 pm
    Sinisa Radovanovic,

    Is he a war criminal? Yes or no.

    Andy Wilcoxson
    Washington, United States

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 5:10 pm
    Sinisa, Any poverty suffered by the Serbian people was as a direct result of the Sanctions, imposed by the US.

    Would you care to elaborate as to WHY the serbian people "were his victims"?

    Apparently you set a lot of stock in the fact that he lost the elections in 1996??? You had never heard of anyone losing an election before???

    Just a bit of background on Milosevic:

    He was elected President of the Presidency of Serbia for the first time in 1989.

    At the ***first, free, multi-party elections held in Serbia after the 2nd World War, in December 1990 a majority of the citizens of Serbia, directly expressing their will, elected him the first President of the Republic. At multi-party presidential elections carried out in Serbia in December 1992, Slobodan Milosevic scored a sweeping victory and polling majority of votes of the citizens of the Republic of Serbia was elected President of the Republic.

    He was elected President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on July 23, 1997 and remained in office until October 5, 2000.

    WOW! Looks like he overcame the loss from the year before. :)

    While in office President Milosevic dedicated himself to the peaceful resolution of the Kosovo problem. His efforts were deliberately undermined by NATO, who not only armed KLA and al-Qaeda terrorists operating in Kosovo, but also launched an illegal bombing campaign causing a massive humanitarian catastrophe in 1999.

    On April 1, 2001 President Milosevic was arrested and imprisoned by the Serbian Government of the so-called “Democratic Opposition of Serbia,” no formal charges were ever filed against him.

    On June 28, 2001, St. Vitus Day, the holiest day on the Serbian Orthodox calendar, the Government of the Republic of Serbia, in a humiliating display of treason, illegally kidnapped President Milosevic and handed him over to the Hague Tribunal which flagrantly violated not only the Constitutions of Serbia and of Yugoslavia, but also of numerous international statutes regarding the extradition of prisoners.

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Monday June 02, 2003 at 11:53 pm
    Rebecka Justice,

    The sanctions were actually imposed by the UN Security Council. The United States has a large share of the blame, but not all of it.

    If you want my opinion, one of the purposes of the sanctions and the NATO aggression was to bring about a political change in Serbia.

    The attack in Serbia was 2 pronged. There was the physical attack by NATO, and there was the propaganda attack by the "independent" Serbian media.

    The "independent" media's purpose was to brainwash Serbs into thinking that they were living under somesort of dictatorship and that Milosevic was the source of all of their problems. Did Milosevic call of Javier Solana and ask him to start bombing? Did Milosevic ask the UN to impose the sanctions? No he didn't, but this so-called "independent" media blamed him for the consequences of the bombing and the sanctions.

    The "independent" media smeared Milosevic telling lies that he killed Ivan Stambolic, and telling lies that he was stealing money.

    It is open public information that the so-called "independent" media was receiving funds from the U.S. Government.

    If Veran Matic was an American he would be in jail. It's against the law in the United States to operate a radio or TV station with funds from a foreign state, but thats exactly what Veran Matic did in Serbia, he operated B-92 with foreign money. ANEM could't exist without foreign money, for God's sake Richard Holbrooke's wife was the head of ANEM.

    People in Serbia need to consider the source of the information they receive, and then they need to think: is this credible or is this just propaganda?

    Andy Wilcoxson
    Washington, United States

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 1:30 am
    "People in Serbia need to consider the source of the information they receive, and then they need to think: is this credible or is this just propaganda?"

    Let me correct my self. People EVERYWHERE need to do this!

    Andy Wilcoxson
    Washington, United States

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 1:42 am
    Andy, I agree with you 100%,except for the sanctions. I really don't believe they or others like them, all over the world would have ever been imposed without arm twisting by the US.

    I also wish more people in this country would consider the source of our information. I am sure you agree that our mainstream media is just one big propaganda machine.

    I sincerely wish we had someone like Milosevic as our President. ANY of our Presidents.... I wonder if we could get him on the ballot next time?

    Josef, IMO there has never been a 'sizeable' number of people in Serbia who despise Milosevic. More than likely he would have again won the election if not for the 'promised' lifting of sanctions, and the suitcase loads of cash the US trucked in for Kostunica's campaign.

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 1:44 am
    Andy, Sorry! Posted before I read your last comment. :)

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 3:24 am
    Rebecka, it is often claimed in the US that democracies never wage wars on democracies. It is then claimed that prior to the 1999 US initiated war against Serbia, this implies that Serbia could not have been a democracy.

    My understanding is that Serbia was a democracy, and that as you indicate Milosevic was elected to office, and indeed had over a long and successful career as a politician been elected to many offices.

    When I express this opinion, people tell me that I am nuts. Milosevic they say was a dictator, and by that definition any election he might have been involved in had to be 100% rigged.

    While I am more than willing to conceed that he was enthusiastic about remaining in power, to the extent that he quite possibly abused the electoral process, I am of the opinion that the people of Serbia always had the option of voting massively against him and that Serbia being what it was, and Milosevic being no dictator, such a vote would have forced him to step down. Indeed that is what later appeared to happen.

    My knowledge is derived entirely from what I have read. If you or others are more familiar with what the political reality was regarding Milosevic's political role and his uncertain relationship with the Serbian voters during his tenure in political office, I think this is something worth clarifying, in the interests of clearing the public record here.

    It is also claimed by many in the US that it was the war against Serbia, which lead to the subsequent uprising against Milosevic. I am of the opinion that with or without the war, Milosevic would have eventually have been voted out of office, and that if anything the war served to increase rather than decrease support for him, and thus to if anything extend his term in office. I remember a period some time before the war when there was considerable public opposition to him, as I would consider normal in a functional democracy. Can you or others also comment on this issue, since it is used as a belated justification for a war I never believed in.

    Regard the musings about Milosevic becoming your president, I think one has to be born American to become president of the US.

    I think it more to the point to speculate on how Bill Clinton, and/or George Bush would compare should the day come when they find themselves tried by a UN court for their crime of waging a war of aggression first against Serbia and then against Iraq.

    I very much doubt that either would appear as credible or as honourable in the dock as Milosevic. The quality of leaders elected in the US, leaves me thinking that the US electoral system is horribly flawed if with a population 10 times Canada's good leaders remain so hard to find -- not that good leaders are easy to find anywhere.

    Most of your US presidents seem somehow so terribly mediocre, and the rest seem a long way the wrong side of mediocre. I don't think this was always so.. some of your now distant presidents seemed everything one could hope for, and I wonder where it all went wrong, and why?

    One final question. The lack of visible political debate, argument about politics, and open opposition to political leadership in the US leaves me thinking that the US is merely keeping up the pretence that it is a democracy. Is that a fair assessment, given that only something like 38% voted in your last presidential election, and a man as hated as Governor Davis could get re-elected in California, primarily because no one with any credibility chose to oppose him?

    Ian Davis
    Waterloo
    Ontario, Canada

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 5:04 am

    Ian,

    Jolly good. The founding fathers knew what they were doing and little has changed since. To English mercantilism American commercialism followed to end as corporatism. The people? Barely.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Shangri-La

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 7:32 am

    Blair and the BBC’s WMDs - Words of Mass Deception

    Yesterday evening brought the first episode in series two of the BBC drama programme ‘Spooks’. This depicts Serbs, according to the BBC guilty of genocide in the Balkans, committing acts of terror on the British mainland. The lead terrorist was given the name Miroslav Gradic.

    Blair and his hacks at the BBC - the three senior BBC appointments are New Labour placemen - lose no opportunity to justify Blair’s criminal actions against Serbs. For example consider this statement in the programme notes:

    The foreign office consider there to be 'some risk' of British nationals being targeted in terrorism attacks within Serbia itself. So it appears anti-British terrorism cannot be ruled out as a possibility.

    No doubt Blair, his fellow war criminals and those in the BBC who publish his propaganda have a guilty conscience over the death and destruction they inflicted on Serbs but this does not justify such otherwise unfounded nonsense.

    What makes this event all the more poignant is the coincidental abortion of a trial in England for the planned abduction of David Beckham’s wife and children. Florim Gashi, an ethnic Albanian form Kosovo, hatched this plan, which he blamed on others who were arrested and sent for trial. The trial was halted yesterday because it was discovered that Gashi had a history of fraud and convictions for criminal offences. There was also evidence that he had incited others to commit offences.

    The BBC does not make programmes warning the British people of the real threats of people like Gashi, rather than the imaginary threats of a fictitious Gradic, given Kosovan’s links with Islamic terrorists: Nor the damage done to British society by the Kosovan gangs dominating Britain’s sex trade and the associated trafficking in people and drugs.

    Mr Radovanovic: as you well know there is no chance of Milosevic returning to govern Serbia. All political leaders have their opponents and I am sure there is some forum upon which you may vent your probably justified displeasure but it is not appropriate here. Serbs have enough on their plates trying to combat demonisation without your addition to the continuing drip feed of poison as above.

    Befriend the causes of Florim Gashi and his like along with Blair and the BBC but recognise that such a course here will not achieve justice.

    Tonight England, minus Beckham who is injured, play Serbia & Montenegro in Leicester a hotbed of ethnic tensions. It will be interesting to see what effect the WMDs of Blair and the BBC have had on England’s renowned racist hooligans!

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 7:32 am

    The ICDSM Website is going to post regular reports on the "trial". The first, Andy W's "Shot by an Army that Wasn't There" was posted a few hours ago. This feature will always be found just above the links to the articles at the ICDSM Website, www.icdsm.com and .org

    Also, good news! Nico Varkevisser, spokesperson of the ICDSM, was finally able to get in to see President Milosevic. They had an excellent meeting which went one hour over the original plan for three hours. As you know I am not supposed to give out any direct "news" from these meetings but Nico said President M. is in superb spirits and wished to extend his heart-felt gratitude to all who care about the struggle of the much-slandered Serbian people, and who fight for the truth. I would like to convey that gratitude to the people on this list. I for one learn every time I come here.

    -- Jared Israel, ICDSM



    Jared Israel
    USA

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 7:37 am

    For some reason, the hyperlink to the ICDSM Website, posted above, doesn't work. So please just cut and paste www.icdsm.com



    Jared Israel
    USA

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 7:49 am
    If the consciences of the three members of the trial chamber are anything like the consciences of Holbrook, Albright, Clinton, Blair, Cokk, Robertson etc, then the conclusion is already clear. Certainly, their behaviour, apart from the odd instance in the case of Robinson does nothing to indicate ANY attempt to be fair, in fact, JUST THE OPPOSITE, partcularly on May's part.

    Sinisa Radovanovic

    Go back to sleep man, you missed the last 15 years somewhere. Read a little about what has been written in the foreign media about the Serbs, not about Milosevic, and you'll start getting the picture more clearly. This isn't just to do with Milosevic but with you and the rest of the Serbs. The Jasenovac and the NDH holocaust are meant to be buried forever because one of the key players is none other than the Vatican! And the more the Serbs smell bad, the easier it is to discredit their well documented but suppressed claims (suppressed by Tito and the West) about their holocaust and the Vatican role in it, both in WW2 and in the present day.

    Milosevic's conviction will only "legalise" the demonisation of the Serbs and what NATO and the colonialist powers have done to YU, and to YOU. Try a less provincial thinking strategy if you really want to analyse what's happened to you in the last 15 years.

    David
    Australia

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 8:08 am
    Sinisa,

    Regardless of the fact that Milosevic lost election he WAS president and it is a duty of one country to protect its citizens. Even during Stalin, era Britain was able to protect its communist citizens in Russia.

    The point is (and think hard before you answer), are you ready (you and your children) to pay billions of dollars for war reparations, especially knowing what we know now, by reading transcripts of this trial. When we see that Milosevic, contrary to popular belief, did NOT started Yugoslav war. Yet, his guilt shall be used to squeeze you- personally, by establishing a "DANAK" (Turkish for tax pay). Regardless how much this new "democratic" government wants to do what "big daddy" tells it to do, if Serbia ever going to be anything more than a colony (and that is what all Balkan states are becoming - Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia etc) Serbia MUST have and defend its own legal system.

    Dakic Ana
    Serbia

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 8:29 am
    Rebecka Justice, To "believe we have already witnessed what will be the outcome" of this "trial" is indeed unfortunate (June 02, 2003 at 11:03 am). If mr. Milosevic thought that whatever he says would not matter - then why would he care to contribute towards clarification?

    And why would the public care to follow the proceedings?

    I would agree, that even if the performance of the judges were flawless, the "trial" would not be fair (this "Trial Discussion" has contributed towards indicating that much to the public, - even if a summary conclusion still has to be made).

    However, under the procedure followed by the Trial Chamber it must acquit mr. Milosevic on the charges if there is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. At the close of the Prosecution case, "the accused" may file a motion for judgement of acquittal. (at the Pre-Trial Conference held on 9 January 2002 Judge May read out "the form that the trial will take". Trial Transcripts, Pages 284-86 (1)).

    From what I (as a member of the public), have so far gathered from the Prosecution case it may take a truly extraordinary lawyer to exclude that outcome.

    (1) http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020109IT.htm).

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

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 9:09 am
    Godfred

    May is truly an extraordinary lawyer in any event. Imagine if he would have the stomach to deny the Jews the right to place the entire context in its proper historical setting! That's what he constantly denies Milosevic by claiming that the trial chamber is not interested in what was happening or what happened 10, 15 or 50 years ago. Such censoring of the historical background would cause a huge outcry if it were the Jews instead of the Serbs who were involved. It would be tantamount to saying that the Jewish Holocaust were totally irrelevant, as if it effectively NEVER happened! In Germany, he would probably be tried for a breach of German law for effectively denying the Holocaust and its relevance to today, in England he'd at least be a "revisionist" and in the US he'd be a Nazi sympathiser and would never get to star in another Hollywood science fiction spoof like this one at the Hague. It seems the world may not be big enough for more than one Holocaust.

    When it comes to reality, the trio in the trial chamber need to ask themselves the following question: As things stand, which people have suffered the greatest ethnic cleansing and from what regions? The answer is quite evident... Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. So why have they not brought it to the prosecution's notice and asked the prosecution where the indictments are with respect to such "joint criminal enterprises"? It seems to be a glaring omission that there are so limited prosecutions when it comes to the most massive cleansing. Similarly for more grievous crimes against the Serb populations as opposed to crimes against Croats and Muslims. So much for fairness and objectivity!

    Then again, maybe it has to do with the assistance the Croats and Muslims (including Albanians) received from various governments from abroad.

    David
    Australia

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 9:47 am
    For those who haven't actually seen/read Izetbegovic's Islamic Declaration:

    Both English and Serbo-Croat PDF

    Former Milosevic Aide Pleads Guilty - This little freudian slip is a glaring example of how the Western media thinks/works...

    Two other thoughts, shouldn't Milan Panic (that Washington Serb sponsored Serb who became 'elected' PM in the Serbian 'dictatorship') be indicted for war crimes as part of the joint-criminal-enterprise? He may not have actually taken any decisions, but he should be guilty because it is apparently a crime not to stop a war crime if it is in one's power??

    Any news on who's fault it is on the expulstion of 30,000 Serbs from Mostar, or does this fall into legaly allowable revenge a la Kosovo?

    Alexei Gorbulsi
    Bruxelles
    Belgium

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 10:06 am

    It sound as if Mijhailovic was giving testimony today, when the protected witness, a royalist, member of the chetnik movement was asked a definition of the chetnik movement he said it was a movement that since the second world was in existence to fight the communists (!) > I suppose not to offend the prosecutor or the NATO sponsors of this farcical monkeys court, the witness declined to link the chetnik with fighting the Nazi occupiers of Yugoslavia, or maybe aware Yugoslavia was listening to his testimony the witness did not want to make a fool of himself by making such a claim.

    Gogol Charlemagne
    Shangri-La

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 10:14 am
    Why should the Serbian people care about Milosevic when he didnt care about them? It is right of the Serbian people to feel this way. Milosevic is not some poor victim that only existed since Hague began. These latecomers who have only heard of Milosevic since Kosovo now know better than me. OK if it makes you feel good. Milosevic tried to steal the elections in 1996. Nobody argues with this. Milosevic made the deal when he knew game was over. Same thing in elections in 2000. Ian is right that Milosevic wanted to stay in power. Power was a drug to him. He would not have give up power as he showed in two elections. His candidate also lost to Seselj in elections but somehow Seselj did not have enough votes because of Milosevic men and women on electoral commission. As for democracy no we didnt have a working democracy. In democracy elections are not stolen one after other. In democracy state institutions are independent. Judiciary under Milosevic made political decisions, that is important because Milosevic is now 'victim' of his own style of fixed justice. In democracy there is lustration, not one SPS man with 5 jobs. In democracy you dont have to belong to certain political party to be promoted. In democracy you have variery of media, not government mouthpiece with a few 'independent' newspapers and radio station not available in the countryside where education was less and Milosevic was strongest. In democracy there isnt public information law meaning that newspaper that didnt support government were sued until they had no money. Was Milosevic a dictator? A small one who used tactics between East and West. Free media? We had freer media under Tito. State television was joke, you had to watch to see it. All respected journalists left it by 1991 and it was state mouthpiece after that. And to people that say 'I wish we had Milosevic as President'. You are too stupid for words. You do not know what it is to suffer, to not have jobs, to experience biggest economic crisis in history, to have hundreds thousands refugees living 8 people in 1 room. So much sadness. That is the record of our 'President' Milosevic. I would not wish him even on my enemy. So Serbian electorate must not vote on economic policy and jobs? What do people in U.S. vote for? They vote for Bush because they dont like the French or see Europe as rival? No they vote on performs of man as President (and how many war he wins). As President, Milosevic had terrible record. Nobody can deny that. Your ridiculous ideas about demonization also stink. You think the average worker in Serbia thinks 'oh Im demonized what am I to do?' Of course not he thinks 'where am I to get food to feed my family?'. What about a refugee? Most important thing to him is to be able to order bread in Zagreb without somebody pulling face when he says 'hleb' instead of 'kruh'? Of course not he want property rights, his job back, to feel safe in his home. If that is provincial then Im peasant and proud of that. For those who really want to know about Serbia's democracy in English they should read what Serbs were reading at. Take look at demonisation by state owned Politika of Kostunica and Djindjic and many other translated pieces. http://www.cdsp.neu.edu/info/students/marko/yupress.html

    S Radovanovic
    S

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 11:01 am
    Sinisa,

    You showed me my error in only quoting the sanctions as reason for the poverty of Serbia. Thank you.

    Apparently you don't even understand what YOU are writing. "Hundreds of Thousands" of refugees? You are so right. There were 450,000 all in one fell swoop from Croatia.

    Then we have all the Albanians, Turks, Roma, Jews and Serbs escaping from the bombing of Kosovo to another place that was also being bombed. Belgrade.

    That those last peoples felt safer in Belgrade says an awful lot for Milosevic, (And I can find you story after story to peove it happened)from each of the ethnic groups I listed.

    Now find any State in the United States with a comparable population. Make it stand alone and absorb what must certainly be well over a million refugees in about a 10 year period, and I think you will understand WHY Serbia suffers from poverty. It was most certainly not the fault of Milosevic.

    Is 'kruh' the Albanian translation of 'bread'? Your verbiage sure points in that direction.

    What WAS this 'terrible' record of Milosevic? You make so many statements that you provide absolutely NO proof for that one begins to think you are a member of the Hague prosecution team.

    Some of the nice people on here helped me figure out how to separate the text into paragraphs. Maybe you would be so kind as to follow suit because it is far to difficult to answer your contentions in their present format?

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 11:11 am
    Godfred,

    Where did I say it "wouldn't matter"? Of course it matters. No one should allow tyrants to have the final say, regardless of the outcome.

    >However, under the procedure followed by the Trial Chamber it must acquit mr. Milosevic on the charges if there is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. At the close of the Prosecution case, "the accused" may file a motion for judgement of acquittal. (at the Pre-Trial Conference held on 9 January 2002 Judge May read out "the form that the trial will take". Trial Transcripts, Pages 284-86 (1)).>

    'May file' and 'having it recognized' are two entirely different matters. There have been multiple opportunities for the 'judges' to act worthy of that name up until now. They have yet to do so. Why would you even hope they will suddenly come up with a conscience at the end????

    >From what I (as a member of the public), have so far gathered from the Prosecution case it may take a truly extraordinary lawyer to exclude that outcome.

    Or judges that make up their own rules as they go along. Which is more to the point, since the prosecution has never presented anything resembling a 'case' against Milosevic. Any 'Judge' worth the title would have thrown this out long ago.

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 11:20 am
    Great name but you didnt answer one thing I said.

    Do you Miss Justice know anything about economic policy of Serbia in 90's? Didnt think you did. Why dont you try look a little deeper. It was not just sanctions and refugees. It was Capitalism, mismagagement, corruption, jobs for family and party members. Thats democracy. Then take Milosevic as your President. You deserve it. Do you know for example anything about how people lost life savings due to small time crooks being used by government to open banks to steal their savings? Do you know about economic policy consisting of not much more than printing money making hyperinflation. Maybe you dont know about Marko Milosevic stealing millions from both international companies and domestic taxes through tobacco smuggling. Maybe you dont know about his fantasy world in Pozarevac. Maybe you dont know about the TV and Radio stations owned by Marija Milosevic. Maybe you dont know about the jewellery shop that Marko owned in central Belgrade. Maybe you dont know about his expensive disco where gangsters used to be seen. Maybe you just dont want to know.

    No please dont tell me you thought that Zagreb is in Kosovo. What has Kosovo to do with hundreds of thousands of Croatian Serb refugees who want their jobs and lives back?

    S Radovanovic
    S

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 11:29 am
    Ian,

    Yes, I am aware that a person must be born in this country to have hope of becoming President. One can still wish.

    At one point, I thought that no American President could be considered 'bad'. With Clinton and now Bush, I have had to wake up and smell the coffee.

    Unlike you, I now know that we haven't had a man in Office in all our years of being a 'Democracy' that could be termed a 'good' President.

    First, this is NOT a Democracy. Serbia never pretended to be a Democracy either. However, they came closer to Democratic principles than this country ever has.

    If you would like some unvarnished perspective on Presidents, from Washington to Dubya, read some of the American Indian authors.

    Then to top it off, read, "The Pentagon Papers, (5 US Presidents had 'their deeds' published in that one) and anything on any of our 'little' wars all over the world from the victims point of view.

    CAUTION! Not pretty reading. May cause nausea and extreme disenchantment....

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 11:59 am
    Sinisa,

    WHERE did I ever say I thought Zagreb was in Kosovo?

    Why do you consider it Milosevics' fault that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Croatian Refugees have no jobs???????

    Great name but you didnt answer one thing I said>

    That IS my name. Call information in Portland for verification. :) You really should consider that you haven't answered any of the questions I asked, with any proof whatsoever.

    Most of the rest of your last post seems to be taken directly from the archives of Ruder-Finn, so it would be rather pointless to comment.

    Your arguments are reminding me more and more of some of the 'witnesses' from the trial. You don't seem to realize how you are PROVING the case for Milosevics' side.....

    Let us just take the Refugees you are so fond of bringing up.... In no way can the plight of those Refugees be attributed to Milosevic. Even this fantasy trial has not tried to blame Milosevic for them.

    Then there is your enumeration of entitys owned by the Milosevics. You haven't been much of a Student of World Governments have you? If you can find a Leader of almost any country in the world who does not own, at least as much as you attribute to the Milosevics, I will listen. How you take the giant leap to "the reason for the poverty of the Serbs" is ludicrous.

    You know, come to think of it, the American dollar has been devalued once again. I will bet you can find some twisted reasoning to make that Milosevics' fault also.........

    Rebecka Justice
    Portland
    OR

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 12:32 pm
    Rodovanic, you write that As President, Milosevic had a terrible record, and I think this claim is supported by the facts. But I also think it has to be said that Serbia would have gone through hard times no matter who had been your leader. The fall of USSR had profound economic impacts on much of Eastern Europe, and Serbia was one of the poorest states in Yugoslavia. Kosovo was something of a financial drain on Serbia, just as Serbia was a financial drain on richer states in the federation, if I have understood things correctly. The war in Albania also did not help matters any.

    Added to all of this the west had spent easily 40 years, convincing itself that Yugoslavia could not survive the death of Tito, and rather wanted to prove itself correct on this point. Perception is everything and people don't often bet on horses perceived to be lame, even if in reality they have the potential to become winners.

    As a child growing up in England in the 1960's I remember well the school yard joke that by the year 2000 there would be 1 europe and 10 yugoslav republics.

    While Milosevic may have been a terrible leader, I think that is now all but irrelevant. He has demonstrated himself a man of extraordinary mental capability, skill and fortitude in surviving so well such a prodigiously long trial.

    I don't think Milosevic is defending himself on his past leadership, as much as he is defending (and perhaps even defining and documenting) recent history. Milosevic's lasting legacy will not I think be his failed political career.. but an extraordinarily lengthy visual transcript, documenting down through the ages as close an approximation to truth about the 1990's as can be refined from reading between the lines of the various players now involved.

    In this regard at least it seems that Milosevic is the right man, for the right job, at the right time.

    Milosevic is that horse perceived to be lame, who is confounding all prediction. He may not win the race, but if he does not it will because he has placed the system in the awkward position of having to redefine conventional notions of winner and looser. That Milosevic is winning this game of perception, even before he gets to present his own defence is astonishing.

    If anything I envy you your Milosevic. As someone who is English I must confess that I consider Judge May something of an embarrassment, particularly given my natural pride, respect and passion for the concept of "British justice".

    While I do think Judge May departs significantly from the idealistic model of being impartial, neutral, and removed from the burden of prior opinion, I hope I can be seen as charitable when I say that I think his prickly hostility is in large part that of a less than highly competent individual, put in charge of a very demanding process which he is less than sure he can control, or manage, threatened as he is by more competent people on all sides.

    If at the end of the day Judge May's performance leaves anything to be desired, I personally think the blame lies with Tony Blair who assigned an obscure circuit court judge from the midlands, a pivotal role, which would have be a real challenge for the most qualified and competent judge.

    In a strange way it is not Serbia that is on trial here. What is on trial is justice, overseen by a till now very undistinguished British judge. I sincerely hope that Judge May appreciates the full significance of his role, in being pivotal in determining the outcome of this trial. He is representing Britain in what the British long considered to be the one game in which they were without peer. I do hope that Judge May is not one to let his own side down, in the service of political masters or short term political expediency. An own goal in such a game by a British judge would be a permanent disgrace to any who proudly calls themselves British.

    But then, frankly, a British judge trying a case in which Britain was the aggressor, seems to me a very clear and present conflict, quite sufficient to undermine the credibility this court. Judges are supposed to sequester themselves when they have such clear conflicts of interest. Was it not possible in such a case to at least begin with the impression that not only would justice be done but it would be seen to be done.

    Ian Davis
    Waterloo
    Ontario, Canada

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 12:38 pm
    The prosecution continues to be President Milosevic's best friends.......

    extending the Tribunal hearings only serves to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the utter silliness of the War Party's position.

    We should be thankful the ICTY is filled with such third rate hacks. The longer the Milosevic hearings go on, the more the truth will be exposed.

    AP V
    NY
    NY

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 2:27 pm

    Information on providing links to other web sites

    The basic technique:

    <a href = “URL i.e. web address (Not displayed)”> Your reference to it (Displayed in colour and underlined)</a>

    For example: providing a link to a web site explaining HTML:

    <a href = “http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/”> HTML Tutorial</a> creates:

    HTML Tutorial

    If you visit the site see the section ‘Adding links to other pages’

    There is at least one particular problem to note: Text pasted into the Jurist ‘Your comments:’ box may contain quotation marks that the HTML interpreter does not recognise. In order to ensure success you must replace or place quotation marks surrounding the URL (i.e. web address) with those created by the editing facilities available within the Jurist ‘Your comments:’ box.

    Note. In redirecting your computer to another website via the address box it is not necessary to include the preamble: ‘http://’ of the URL address BUT it is necessary always to include this preamble in the link code given above.

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 2:28 pm
    Sinisa Radovanovic

    If you could allocate time please, read throughly and carefully the trial transcripts and cross examination by Mr. Milosevic as regard to economic policy and printing money: - your claim that it was Milosevic's fault, probably will change a bit.

    http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/030411ED.htm

    Pero Peric
    Canada

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 2:36 pm

    Correction

    HTML Tutorial

    I forgot to follow my own instruction: to replace the quotation marks provided by my editor.

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 8:01 pm
    Dear members of the Forum,

    I would dearly love to find some details about these two Serbian officers who pleaded guilty about the “Srebrenica crimes” Is there some factual and material evidence about their crimes?

    This is for the first time that Serbs admitted some role in a “massacre” of Muslims of Srebrenica.

    I personally still do not believe that Serbs executed in cold blood the civilian prisoners in such large numbers. What proof is offered by these two officers?

    Please , anybody who knows details or has access to the court proceedings, let me know.

    D. Jovanovic
    USA

  • Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 11:21 pm
    For some time now I have sent e-mail to friends whose political views I question, particularly when it comes to the Balkans and American foreign policy .Yesterday I had a personal conversation with a lawyer who has told me on many occasions that the practice of law is a big lie. I asked him what he thought about my comments and e-mail on Yugoslavia. He said “Walter of course I agree with you that it was geopolitical events that destroyed Yugoslavia but would you give up your standard of living so that Arabs, Chinese or people from India enjoy the benefits that we have enjoyed in our lifetime and do you want our economy to become like theirs. He continued to say that it is in our interest to turn the oil pipeline from Central Asia Westward to maintain our standard of living. “China wants this oil” he said “and so does India” and as for the Middle East oil he said “imagine if Saudi Arabia and Iraqi oil was not secured and the likes of Osama controlled its price what do you think would happen to your standard of living?”

    I countered with what about international law, colonialism and democracy are we just paying lip service to the ideal of fair play and international justice? I also asked him if he wanted to live in a police state where terrorism was on his mind every time he leaves his home, goes to a movie or a football game. His comment “Walter there are great opportunities for business here” it’s called cocooning or inventing methods and ways to protect one from acts of terrorism. How does one reason with people who practice law and believe in the law of the jungle?

    Ian I don’t agree with several conclusions that you have made in your post Tuesday June 03, 2003 at 12:32 pm. Serbia would not have gone through hard times if it had not been for international blackmail. As many have stated here IMF and the World Bank as well as NATO did their best to make sure that Milosevic’s idea of public property did not survive. It is very clear that the conditioning of the past century, private is best, had to be implemented in the Balkans for the sake of Globalization and a United Europe.

    Ian, you write that Serbia was poorest part of Yugoslavia when in reality this is not correct. Serbia was one of the richest parts of Yugoslavia when Tito took over. Agriculture paid the bills for the Adriatic and modernization of Yugoslavia. Prior to WWII Dalmatian’s main export was immigrants and the only way into the area was by donkey. That is not the case today because that area was built up on the back of the farmers from Slavonia, Banat and Serbia. Yes, Kosovo was a drain because it was poor and illiterate and I might say to no fault of Serbia, and yet it was Serbia that provided transfer payments to their poorer cousins to the South. Croats, on the other hand, said not even a thank you when Dalmatia was developed by the national treasury. Reminds me of our cousins the Albertans here in Canada, when they needed subsidies they gladly took them, when they needed protection marketing boards and quotas on agriculture were OK but when oil prices went through the roof and they became a have province and had to provide subsidies to the fisherman and miner in others parts of the Dominion they claimed UNFAIR. Welcome to the separatist movement in Alberta.

    Yes, Ian , I agree that the West’s attitude was complacent about Yugoslavia. Terrorist acts against Yugoslav interests in the West did not receive the attention that they warranted. Request by Yugoslavia to extradite WWII criminals were ignored and in the process our governments aided and abetted the continued attacks against Yugoslavia because these attacks were seen as anti communist. Welcome to appeasement and acceptance of Jasenovac. I am saying here that both Ustase and Cetniks found protection because of the ant Communist propaganda.

    I am not so sure that Milosevic was a bad leader. It was up to the people of Serbia or Yugoslavia to recognize the quality of his leadership and it was up to them to remove him from power. If he abused his power it was up to his people to remove him. Abuse of political power in Yugoslavia as well as here in British Columbia is an everyday event. At least we can tell who is responsible for political manipulation in Milosevic’s day but what is certain today in BC and today in Yugoslavia we don’t know who is responsible for the political manipulation.

    Ian you claim Milosevic is a lame horse but you fail to explain what made him lame. I would suggest to you that the international community and domestic quislings want him not only lame but gone. You know “Wretches hang so that jury men may dine” and like our NATO friends and people like Mr. Radovanovic that is the bottom dollar. I am OK so to hell with the rest of the world.

    Judge May might be incompetent but what makes him unsuitable to be a judge is that he is arrogant and condescending. He does not understand that Justice is on trial, English justice, the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights and all the laws Englishmen wanted for themselves but for a long time denied them to others in many parts of the world. Once again England wants to win the game that they did not win against Gandhi, Eamon De Valera or Fletcher Christian and in the end history vindicated these men and it will vindicate Milosevic as well

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 2:27 am
    What I find so ennobling about this trial is the way Milosevic is defending not so much himself as his country , its army and other state institutions and its people. As far as he personally is concerned, I'm sure he has known for some time that his goose is cooked. After all, when it is the leader of one small country's actions pitted against those of the Pope, the Media and the G-7 there can be only one outcome, irrespective of the merits. I find it really sad that some Serbs are so blind to what is really going on at the trial and are happy to use it as a stick to beat Milosevic with. He may very well have much to answer for to his people for their plight when he was in power. He may have used dubious means such as smuggling to keep his country going economically during the period of sanctions; whether that is immoral or not is debatable- to paraphrase an Indian saying: ' how much one is a sinner by his acts depends on how empty his stomach is'. If he or his close friends/relatives have enriched themselves illegally in power then he has to be answerable to the Serbian people. However all these have no relation to the purpose of this trial which seeks to confer postfacto justification for the demonisation of Serbs as a people. I just hope that Milosevic can maintain his health and prepare carefully for his rebuttal with the same incisiveness that has marked his crossexamination.

    Seshadri Raghavan
    Navi Mumbai
    India

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 3:49 am
    Poor Sinisa, he - like many Serbs - is totally confused about what is going on. Mr. Raghavan's comment is right on the target. The outcome of SM's trial will be what the history will record as a role of Serbian nation in this unfortunate conflict. With such an image Serb will never be accepted by the rest of world, and they will remain perceived as Richard Hoolbrook famously remarked as "murderous assholes" So Sinisa you are cutting the branch on which you are sitting - Milosevic may have been bad president, but he is tried not for bad presidency but as a war criminal, including Serbs as genocidal nation.

    vesa v.
    france

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 9:27 am
    Poor me I am the only one who does not know what is going on. It means that one man is supposed to represent a whole country? Most of the country rejects that fantasy so fact is he doesnt represent country. Milosevic was not alturist Mr Raghavan giving to the poor, he was stealing from them. Smuggling tobbaco makes big profits. His stomach was never empty.

    Yes Mr Trkla we are glad he's gone but 'I am ok to hell with the rest of the world' sounds like you in Canada living nicely whilst people in Serbia live in poverty. You say you are not sure Milosevic was not a bad leader. But let me take it further. Somebody appears as champion against the world leader and you get lost in that and forget it is really all about the Serbian people. Why dont you ask people who had to live under his government? Please provide evidence of his not being bad leader or is your definition of good leader somebody who wins elections by any way? Actually you say some sensible things in the rest of your message but I am confident that you and most people who think positively of Miloseivc if they lived under him would soon change their mind.

    Ian you said something that is touchy point for Serbs. It is true that Kosovo was far poorest region. It is not true that Serbia alone is poor Republic, it was after Slovenia and Croatia. But if as most Serbs think that Kosovo is in Serbia then we must admit what you say which is that Serbia is / was one of the poorest Republics.

    Ian those skills that Milosevic shows at the Hague are same that he used to keep himself in power. They made me sick then and they make me sick now.

    As much as international blackmail and IMF its very true. Then again it didnt make Yugoslavia any different from any other country on planet earth who are expected to do what US tell them

    S Radovanovic
    S

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 11:04 am
    Sinisi Radovanovicu,

    Elections in 1996 were not presidential but local parliamentary.

    Why does a large portion of the people in Serbia (not Serbs because many throughout the World do care) shrug off the Hague I do not have an answer to. Perhaps it is the same reason why most now don't care what happens to their own country. Montenegro, Kosovo, Vojvodina, "Sandzak", there is a common mood of apathy and the people will tolerate anything, including another dictatorial regime which is proving itself even more authoritarian than the previous.

    Why should the Serbian people care about Milosevic's trial in the Hague you ask? You are right, we shouldn't, that's our usual method, we just forget about problems until they can no longer be ignored. We didn't care about Kosovo up to 1998 (some even until 1999), we didn't care about the Krajina before 1990, about Bosnia before 1991. We didn't care about Montenegro before 1997. When the question of war reparations demanded by the Croats and Muslims (and why not NATO too, they bombed us for our own good, right?) arises, then the people of Serbia will be even poorer and will moan, alas, it will be too late then just as so many times before...

    And to answer your questions, yes Milosevic stole elections, yes he did employ authoritarian methods of rule but where in the indictment do you see that as a charge? I only see alleged master plans, expressions like 'genocide', 'Greater Serbia' and 'ethnic cleansing'. A guilty verdict for Milosevic will not bring you any satisfaction because he will never be convicted for what you feel he did to you as he is not charged with corruption, authoritarianism and election fraud.

    I will not go into the details of power but you say at one point 'no we didn't have a working democracy'. As if we do have one now? Do you know of anyone who can give you the exact number of seats held by the ruling mobsters in the Parliament? How many is it this week, 89, 73 or 113 out of 250? A bonus question would be how many for each little party. The fact of the matter was that Milosevic was authoritarian but he lost power through an electoral means via elections that he did not need to schedule (that early) and that he didn't even need to win (president of Yugoslavia was ceremonial, the legislative power being im the Parliament). Thus, he lost power the moment there was somebody who actually was more popular than him.

    As far as all those things you write about a lack of democracy (belonging to the ruling party, state media, media laws) that can just as much apply to the current situation in Serbia. When you claim that the state media was freer under Tito I would only ask you for your age, how old were you in 1980?

    Igor Jaramaz
    Canada

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 11:13 am
    "As long as he does not come back (to Serbia)," mr. Radovanovic were suggesting, "they can do what they like with Milosevic (June 02, 2003 at 11:25 am).

    That remark does give an entirely new dimension to the question of "fair trial" (which is not at all concerned with "who deserves" who").

    But tell me: Who are "they"?

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

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 11:32 am
    Sinisa, you got me wrong. I never meant Milosevic ever had an empty stomach-few leaders ever go hungry, barring a Gandhi every century or two. I was referring to Serbia as a whole and its sanction busting efforts in getting oil and other essential materials into the country to keep civil society going and its armed forces battle ready. Whether or nor you like it, greatness has been thrust on Milosevic and so far he is showing himself capable of carrying the burden.

    Seshadri Raghavan
    India

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 1:05 pm

    ‘Don’t confuse me with the facts I know I’m right’

    Today: An Elderly Serb couple was found murdered in their home in Obilic along with their murdered son. The house was torched and their car stolen.

    Two days ago: A hand grenade attack on a Church in Urosevac guarded by Greek KFOR troops injured five.

    A few days ago: An attack by Albanian extremists on members of Spanish KFOR guarding Gorioc Monastery near Istok was clearly meant to show that those who protect Orthodox shrines are hardly safe themselves.

    Last week: A Serb teacher died in a hail of bullets cycling near his home. A ninety-year-old Serb was severely beaten in his home whist his wife was secured and gagged. A Serb in his forties escaped an abduction attempt while tending his fields.

    Last month: an 80-year-old Serb woman was severely beaten in her home and warned to leave. There were other attacks details of which are not to hand but may be viewed here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/66713: Select ‘Messages’

    While all this is going on Guardian journalists in Britain accuse the Serbs of Genocide in Kosovo although the evidence, legal rulings and the ICTY have discounted this. They also claim that everything is now peaceful in Serbia’s province of Kosovo with no ethnically based murders this year.

    The BBC shows programmes about genocidal Serbs making terror attacks on the UK.

    As I understand it Milosevic fought to prevent a rule of terror in Serbia’s province of Kosovo. He was challenged by Blair and his fellow war criminals, who supported the Islamic terrorist invasion of Serbia’s province of Kosovo and when it failed delivered an ultimatum at Rambouillet: ‘The Dictator, the Butcher of Belgrade’ consulted the Serb people who backed him 95% in a referendum to make a stand against a Nato invasion.

    Unbelievably some in Serbia - who thereby claim to know what is going on - insist the problems caused by the recently ended sanctions, this continuing reign of terror, including the problems of hundreds of thousands of refugees, is all the fault of Milosevic who has been incarcerated in the Hague for most of the past two years.

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 1:34 pm
    Sesjadri reason why Milosevic is in the Hague is because of his poor performace in domestic and international politics. He was mediocre leader who only quality was to hold onto power. In realpolitik that may be worth admiring but as victim of that realpolitik it stinks. A man is not great to do what comes naturally to him. A great man shows ability to change, to admit he is wrong. He never said sorry to the Serbian people for robbing them or for not achieving his objectives if he ever really had any objective apart from to stay in power. He never admitted anything apart from to say that there may have been excess in some places that he of course knew nothing about.

    They are the biased court and the man who was in charge of a biased court system. They deserve each other. Some could even say poetic justice. Thats to say nothing that all along Milosevic was CIA man who found himself stuck between pleasing his master and keeping his seat as President. But it is better to pretend he is a great man no?

    Igor you are right actually I pretend that seeing him jailed will make me feel better but in my heart it wont. It would be much better to see him tried in Serbia but then the new king DOS would only close court to the public and reach some kind of deal like Bane Ivkovic former Milosevic loyalist has done with DOS.

    In 80's I was in twentys. But you surprise me. Will you say that state media was more free during Milosevic. You dont really believe that do you? Under both leaders there were times when censorship was more relaxed but on whole under Tito there was more free media. Sorry to say that is probably true today as well.

    Mr Taylor which of Mr Milosevic's 'policies' helped the situation in Kosovo for Serbs and or Albanians?

    S Radovanovic
    S

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 4:37 pm
    To: S. Radovanovic
    Re: Systematic Crime in Kosovo

    Serbs and peaceful loyalist Albanians alike have been for decades victims of crimes such as those listed above by P. Taylor. Milosevic had temporarily managed (by legal and security measures) to limit the crimes and the ethnic cleansing of the Kosovo Serbian population, until the KLA terrorists/criminals persuaded US / NATO to do the job for them. It is hard to believe that you, a Serb, fail to show any indignation against the perpetrators of these crimes and all you do is blame ... Milosevic. If many Serbs share your blind, obsessive hatred for one man, the complete eradication of Serbian population and history from Kosovo & Metohija will be easy.

    Pythagoras Crotoniatis
    Greece

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 4:45 pm
    Walter, I did not intend to suggest that Milosevic was a lame horse, but rather to suggest that people don't bet on horses they perceive to be lame.

    I can't claim to know how good or bad a leader Milosevic was not being Serb or ever having visited Serbia. Such things are subjective.. was Trudeau a good leader or a bad leader.. if he was a good leader why was he forced out of office.. if he was a bad leader, why was he not forced out of office sooner. Either way I think it is Serbs who have to tell me about Milosevic as a leader, not I them, and what they say has to be taken in the context of their own political biases.

    When in office my distant impression of Milosevic was that he was a mediocre leader, who was wronged when compared in the one breath with Saddam and Hitler.. forced into a war not of his own choosing by illegal ultimatums that no Serbian president could reasonably have been expected to comply with. At a distance he didn't appear to be someone who had accomplished much either for good or for ill ... but he did appear to be someone who had shown more self control than perhaps alternative leaders might in creating at least the appearance of some distance between "war in the Balkans" and "peace in Serbia". What became rather obvious though was that there was a disconnect between who Milosevic was a president of Serbia, and the person it was who was being described as "Butcher of the Balkans".

    It was not till the trial which for the Kosovo section I followed daily that I grasped that Milosevic was anything but mediocre. His performance has been extraordinary. Intelligent leaders are by definition not mediocre ones.

    Ian Davis
    Waterloo
    Ontario, Canada

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 5:08 pm
    On the question of the legality of the court, I would add the important observation that under well established and emminently justified international law, heads of State are immune from prosecution, and that there will be no end of heads of States being tried for petty reasons by other nations, if we depart from that principle.

    Kidnapping people for alleged crimes committed while Head of State and then subjecting them to illegal trials, brings the entire concept of diplomatic immunity into disrepute. Without such diplomatic immunity there would be anarchy between states.

    If the British house of Lords could rule that Pinoche was immune from prosecution for the horrendous crimes he is alleged to have committed while Chilean head of state, it makes no sense to have a lengthy trial which has become an ever more prolonged fishing exercise, trying to find some charge which can be pinned on Milosevic, there by justifying the need to try him.

    There seems parallels between wanting to find Milosevic guilty of something that justifies his trial, and wanting to find evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which might justify an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    As a good friend used to caution: Wants don't get.

    Ian Davis
    Waterloo
    Ontario, Canada

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 6:02 pm

    Mr Radovanovic: Milosevic was surely faced with Hobson’s choice over Kosovo: literally take it or leave it. He made the only reasonable choice open to him: namely to attempt to protect the minority populations and loyal Kosovars from a movement, which eventually resorted to terror tactics aided by Nato, to Albanianise a sovereign province of Serbia. The alternative was always going to be the hellhole called Kosova you now see. That he failed in this task was due to unwarranted interference by western powers such as Blair’s Britain. Milosevic was surely entitled to expect that the western powers would live up to their readily mouthed exhortations that acts of terror would never be tolerated let alone supported by the likes of Blair. Especially terror as practised by the Mujahedin.

    Blair would never allow Irish nationalists to take over Britain’s sovereign province of Northern Ireland although the indigenous population had more justification and fewer rights than the Albanians in Kosovo when the recent troubles began. At the start of their recent struggle for civil rights more than 3,000 homes in Belfast were burned down by British paramilitaries and later, when marching for the right to vote which the Albanians already had, 14 were shot dead like dogs in the street by the British army. Blair would never allow the indigenous people of the island of Ireland to set up a separate state within Northern Ireland by implementing the Gaelic language and flying the tricolour from public buildings.

    Surely the relevant question now is how Blair and his fellow war criminals’ 'policies' have helped the situation in Serbia’s province of Kosovo for Serbs and or Albanians? As we can all see the situation is pretty bloody awful with no prospect of solution in the foreseeable future. That’s what comes of Blair’s hypocrisy, of his abandoning the principles he observes in Britain by supporting terror in Serbia.

    Peter Taylor
    Herts/UK

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 9:35 pm
    Mr. Radovanovic the fact that I live well in Canada should not dictate the way I see poverty and injustice in my own country or in yours. Would you want that I go back and eat nettle ‘zara’ or acorns ‘zira’ ili ‘zeluda’ you think that would give me a clear picture about the injustice committed against you and the other Yugoslavs. Finding enough acorns and nettle was a full time job, Mr. Radovanovic, and I had no opportunity to examine why I was not eating lamb on the spit. You seem to say that “living nicely whilst people in Serbia live in poverty” my interpretation of justice is somehow flawed. I think sir that you took for granted what you had and did not protect it and now you are blaming the man (Milosevic) who wanted to protect it.

    In most cases, I think it is the people who live well, that see the injustice committed against those less fortunate. It is also true, I think, that people who have experienced the rule of law and due process in their own society, even if at times it might be flawed, are first to see the injustice of this so called trial.

    Why it is that Mr. Taylor can see the injustice in Ireland and draw a parallel with ‘Kosova’. He knows that seventeen bullets fired into Bernadette Devlin some years ago while she was having breakfast with her children is as despicable as what he describes is taking place on the daily basis in Kosovo. Is Mr. Taylor supporting Devlin’s political position and is he supporting what Milosevic’s is supposedly done? I don’t think so. What I think he is supporting is international law for Mr. Milosevic, the Serbs, the Albanians and even Mr. Blair. He does not want to see a double standard nor does he judge injustice by his economic position in society. This comes from living in a society that strives to live according to the rule of law.

    I think enough said on this topic since Ian and Peter have said it very well..

    Walter Trkla
    Kamloops BC
    Canada

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 11:24 pm

    To Sinisa:

    A croatian friend of mine in 1980: I love Serbian people for their culture and their unique humour but I don't like them for their politcs and their militancy - they have started a few wars. I didn't argue.

    In 1985 he told me: I like Serbs for their humour. Everything else about them is so strange. I didn't argue.

    In summer 1987 when Milosevic was still widely uknown the same guy told me this: Being a civilezed man I don't want to speak of them. I didn't persist.

    Reading your posts makes me sick.

    I would kindly ask you to tell us who don't live in Serbia what a typical Serbian fascist thinks of Milosevic and this "trial".

    Thank you for the answer.

    Ivko Rig
    Italy

  • Wednesday June 04, 2003 at 11:53 pm
    S Radovanovic,

    This man who you accuse of stealing from the people has no money. Can you explain to us how he stole all of these things? What method did he use to steal? How do you know that he was stealing?

    Why don't you tell everybody here, since you say that he stole from the people, where all of the stolen money went? Where is it now? Because I can tell you that he certainly dosen't have any money now.

    The propaganda in Serbia was that Milosevic was stealing from the people, and the propaganda in the West was that he was committing genocide - both of these propaganda campaigns come from the same source. The same foreign propaganda apparatus that was accusing Serbia of genocide is at the same time funding the "independent" media in Serbia.

    I believe that both propaganda campaigns are false because the people who parrot the line that Milosevic is a thief, or that Milosevic is a butcher always do so by making empty accusations and they never provide any research to bear out their accusations. All they can do is make emotional appeals which is the classic tactic of propagandist.

    Andy Wilcoxson
    Washington, United States