MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Thursday June 05, 2003 at 12:23 am
  Ivko, my understanding is that those who were more nationalistic than Milosevic thought Milosevic weak.

  For example Kostinica said of Milosevic [quoting very roughly from now distant memory]:

  "He was weak when he should have been strong (Dayton) and strong when he should have been weak (Ramboullet)."

  Can you explain why you put "Serbian fascists", Milosevic and this "trial" in one sentence. What is the significance of prefixing the word fascist to Serbian.. was not the leader of Croatia who bragged about finishing off Yugoslavia saying roughly "my task is done" (perhaps Mesic?) an ardent and conspicuous fascist. Did not Izabegovic have roots and beliefs breed during his youth as a member of the fascist movement.

  Did you intent to write Serbian, Croatian, Muslim, German, American, Canadian etc. fascists and just get lazy; did you intend to create the notion that Serbs were a nation of fascists in which case would you as a Quebecer say the same of me living in Ontario; or did you intend to suggest that Milosevic was one fascist among many and it would be interesting to know if therefore the others thought he had done well or badly.

  I personally have a very great antipathy to fascists, quite sufficient to make me believe you close to being one for speaking of an entire nation in the collective, very much in the manner of one who wishes to be clear that there are them, and then there are us. The one thing that all fascists can agree on is that it is always the them who belong in the concentration camps, and who deserve to be treated as less than human, because it was them who are the cause of all the troubles in the world.

  I am sure that civilized Germans thought it quite logical not to want to speak about or to Jews. They too were known for their humour (chutzpa/inat) and they too were considered in the context of Everything about them is so strange. When you say that you didn't argue with your croatian friend, was this because you thought your friend correct, or because you were afraid of offending this croat.

  Have a care.. if you talk long enough like a fascist, or spent to much time listening to their views you risk becoming one, and then think how sorry you will be.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Thursday June 05, 2003 at 1:50 am
  

  Ian,

  I believe there is no nation without its own fascists.

  I didn't say "Serbian fascists", I said "a typical Serbian fascist", and wanted to know what such a person thinks of Milosovic. I didn't want to put any significance to the combination of the words I used and. It's quite clear to me what fascists in the west think of Milosevic. I think I made it clear eventhough in a compressed language. But I have no idea what Serbian fascists think and I would like to know.

  If I thought Milosevic was a fascist I wouldn't put inverted commas to "trial", most probably.

  You say "I personally have a very great antipathy to fascists, quite sufficient to make me believe you close to being one for speaking of an entire nation in the collective". Do you mean that it is sufficiant to make you beleive I am a "close to a fascist" just from having antipathy to me, or my post? I don't know if I am one to tell you the truth. But I do know that in my world there are no camps, not even tourist ones. And I do divide people into two groups: US and THEM. THEM are half of this world's human population living on a dolar or less I day which makes me having US for inhumane. Does that make me a fascist?

  I didn't argue with my friend because I didn't think there was any sense in doing so. For your information, I think Serbs are the same as Canadians or Jews for that matter. Most of them will pass by without my noticing them, but with some I will get drunk and with some I will make love and with some I will have fun and...

  Thank you for the advice in the last passage of your post addressed to me. I won't take it. I will always listen to and never argue with them. Instead I rebuke them fatherly now and then.

  To finish with a piece of my advice to you: read more carefully buddy.

  FREE SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
  
  Ivko Rig
  Italy

• Thursday June 05, 2003 at 9:52 am
  OBILIC, Serbia and Montenegro (Reuters) - A family of three Serbs were murdered in a Kosovo town overnight in the worst single attack against the small Serb minority in over two years, United Nations (news - web sites) police said Wednesday.

  The province's U.N. administrator said the killings were clearly aimed at stopping reconciliation between Serbs and the ethnic Albanian majority.

  "This is a triple murder, a deliberate killing," U.N. police spokesman Derek Chappell told Reuters. It was the heaviest toll in ethnic violence since 11 Serbs were killed in a bomb attack on a bus in February 2001.

  The bodies of an elderly man, his wife and son were found after firemen were called out in the middle of the night to a blaze in the town of Obilic, not far from the capital, Pristina.

  "The people were attacked as they were lying in bed in the middle of the night. These people died as a result of a brutal beating, not a fire," Chappell said.

  U.N. police sources added that the victims bore extensive injuries inflicted by a sharp object.

  U.N. administrator for Kosovo Michael Steiner, visiting the scene, called the attack a "heinous act and perfidious crime which was directed against multi-ethnicity in Kosovo."

  Kosovo has been an international protectorate since NATO (news - web sites) bombing drove out Serb forces in 1999 to end Serbian repression of Albanians. Most Serbs fled the province fearing reprisals and there has been sporadic violence against those who remain.

  Attacks were commonplace in the aftermath of the 1999 war but had become much rarer as the U.N., a NATO-led peace force and local leaders combined to demand an end to the violence. "This is a barbarous act and we strongly demand that those who committed it be brought to justice as soon as possible," Kosovo's Albanian Prime Minister Bajram Rexhepi said.

  "Just at the moment when we were preparing for the return of 20 Serbian families to Obilic, a cruel act has taken place before this very important day for Kosovo."

  Steiner and Rexhepi tried to enter the partly destroyed house but were prevented by an angry crowd of Serbs, including relatives of the victims.

  Chappell said police and firemen had found the bodies of the husband, 80, the wife, 78, and their son, 53. "They are all Kosovo Serbs," he said.

  Rada Trajkovic of the Kosovo Serb Return Coalition identified them as Slobodan and Radmila Stolic and their son Ljubinko. Local residents said Albanians in Obilic had demanded several times that the family sell their house.

  
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Thursday June 05, 2003 at 10:13 am
  Ivko, thanks for clarifying you post. My apologies for misunderstanding it, and as a consequence you.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Thursday June 05, 2003 at 12:13 pm
  Sinisa, You really need to post SOME PROOF of your alegations. You keep saying that Milosevic STOLE elections. You know that is not true. EVERY Election Milosevic took part in was monitored by Independent Monitors and pronounced FAIR and LEGAL.

  On the other hand, TITO never allowed, even ONE election in his long tenure, monitored or not.

  Lest I come off sounding like a Communist basher as regards my opinion of Tito, let me assure you that I believe that a great deal of the "Empire Building" carried out by the US, has USED communism as the bogey-man.

  The 'rights' of ALL the populace under Milosevic was so much more inclusive than they are under "Democracy", that I have to wonder why anyone in their right mind would feel that that "Democracy" was the best alternative available.

  Perhaps you have forgotten some of the stories coming out of Kosovo just after the bombing ended.

  Drug dealing, all but quashed under Milosevic, became the Industry of Choice, right out in the open.

  Want a car? Go to Kosovo, where all of the stolen cars from Europe had made their way and were causing horrendous accidents due to a flagrant disregard for any type of Traffic control.

  Lose a sister, daughter, niece, etc.? Look in Kosovo. Under NATO it has become the undisputed 'sex-slave' Capital of the world. There were stories about girls, (age 15 and up) kidnapped from Ukraine, etc, and routed to Kosovo. Probably still going on.

  Now, ALL of the above have quadrupled since NATO took over, not to mention the "ethnic cleansing of Minorities which we SHOULD have learned from the 'trial' if not before, was NOT a problem under Milosevic, unless you were a KLA Terrorist.

  Tell me Sinisa, how is it that Milosevic could control all of the above vices so well using the powers of such a poverty stricken State, yet NATO, with all the backing of the affluent West, has allowed all of these crimes to flourish and continue to mount way, way, past any previous norms?

  You also say that Milosevic was in with the CIA. They didn't get him convinced to withstand the assault of NATO? Even Iraq, less Poverty stricken due to their oil reserves could not hold out so long as Belgrade did.

  Sinisa, if you truly live in the area, you are ignoring the most important part of the story in your defense of Tito and demonization of Milosevic. Tito had made Serbia subservient to Kosovo. Milosevic found this ludicrous. Why do YOU think the population of Kosovo should have had the power to vote on what went on in Serbia?

  Not to be rude but you don't seem to be very well aquainted with what was really going on in the area at any time, up to and including, the present.

  Maybe it would help if you read Milosevics' REAL speech from Kosovo Field that was so distorted by the West with the help of Ruder-Finn. As one Journalist commented before the bombing, "Too bad the Serbs couldn't afford to hire a PR Firm." They wouldn't have even had to 'make up stories'. Too bad you believed all the lies......
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Thursday June 05, 2003 at 12:32 pm
  S Radovanovic

  in your view who is/was a more corrupt politician ?

  Milosevic
  Blair
  Clinton
  Bush
  Schroeder
  Holbrooke
  Gen. Clark
  Djindic

  is your premise that out of all of these individuals, Milosevic was/is the most corrupt and therefore the most deserving of being thrown before the Hague Tribunal ?
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Thursday June 05, 2003 at 2:08 pm
  AP V. Please add Albright and the heads of state for Bosnia and Croatia [during Milosevics tenure] to that list of choices. The leaders of the KLA also deserve to be considered as honory candidates, since they can't reasonably aspire to statehood without also accepting the responsibilities of statehood.

  I think it interesting to ponder how Mr. May would treat the various other candidates that you invite comparison to. Do you think that Mr. May would treat Blair, Clinton, Bush, etc. with the same lack of courtesy, bordering on open contempt that he routinely demonstrates in his interactions with Mr. Milosevic. Or do you think that in the case (at least of the English speakers)he would be as patient and as supportive of them if they were they thrown before the Hague Tribunal as he typically is with Mr. Knight. Put simply do you think he would spend most of his time shouting at them while appearing to ignore what they are saying or pandering to them attentive to their every word.

  Thank you for not mentioning Canadian politicians.. the sooner it is forgotten that Canada put its mouth where its money obviously was, rather than where its principles lay the better as far as I am concerned.

  I suspect that the leader who approved Canada's involvement in the war against Serbia, had learned an important lesson by the time he was invited to do it all over again in Iraq.

  Having belatedly discovered that using war to achieve regime change was a bad idea, and asking where will such ideas end, I think it can be inferred that the same holds true for demands to unilaterally change international recognised borders.

  As I remember it the sole justificationz for the war against Serbia were that (a) we wanted to occupy all of Serbia as the US is now doing in Iraq (b) we didn't want to make management of Kosovo an issue for which the UN was ultimately responsible as the US is now likewise insisting in Iraq and (c) we wanted to allow Kosova's the right to unilateral redraw international borders three years hence, something which the US (or perhaps only Turkey, Iran and Syria) is adamantly opposed to in Iraq.

  Given the total computed cost of war measured in pain, destruction, and corruption, where I ask is the motivating profit to be found that justified our war against Serbia.

  Also worth pondering is the following question: If the US is (perhaps with good cause) concerned about shites in Iraq aligning themselves with Iran, making an already bad problem in the middle east worse, why was this same US not at all concerned about Albanians in Serbia, aligning themselves with Albania, a country which arguable should have been of more concern to Europe than Iran has ever been to the Middle East. It has the history of being the most secretive and repressive communist state in Europe (readily comparable to North Korea, followed by a prolonged period of anarchy, readily comparable to the wild west at its very worst).

  Am I to conclude that the concerns of Iran, Syria, and Turkey regarding the creation of Kurdistan were ones worth respecting, while the concerns of Italy, Greece, Serbia, and Macedonia about the creation of greater Albania were not.

  Finally a question which ties all this together. Do Serbs owe Milosevic a vote of thanks for thwarting US ambitions to do unto Serbia as they are now doing unto to Iraq. Or is it a real pity that Milosevic didn't agree to the terms offered him at Rambouillet?
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Thursday June 05, 2003 at 8:49 pm
  To Sinisa Radovanovic: your notion of 'poetic justice' being dispensed to Milosevic by the ICTY for his alleged electoral frauds and his children's possessions just show how little you know about the concept of justice (or the poetry, for that matter). Be careful what you describe as a poetic justice. According to you, Milosevic is guilty of something, so it's only fair that he ends up in The Hague, accused/convicted of something entirely different. This is a dangerous notion. That way, even the NATO bombing that caused thousands of deaths and enormous destruction could be explained as poetically just, because, well, people here supported Milosevic by predominantly voting for him for years and we didn't immediately hanged him publicly when we have been threatened by bombing. Therefore, we were guilty of something and were 'poetically' bombed as a consequence. Hell, we were most probably guilty of many other things, individually and/or collectively, so your poetic justice has been dispensed anyway! Are you enjoying your deserved punishment?

  Justice that we are discussing here regards legality, and the ICTY process lacks it. Justice would have been dispensed if the trial for the alleged Milosevic's frauds and corruption had been conducted locally, which didn't happen. If the 'international community' had wanted poetry, they wouldn't have organized this absurd and costly 'trial'. They would simply leave Milosevic to sink into obscurity after he's been outvoted (with a little help from our 'friends'). If they had wanted justice, the indictment would have not been full of preposterous political accusations. This trial was supposedly intended as an exercise in international law, due process, impartiality. Poetic justice is a term describing something unruly and non-institutional, out of ordinary and personal, which finally settles the score after the real justice has failed. Poetic justice more closely describes the Djindjic assassination than the Milosevic trial. A trial should be something institutional and impersonal, it should be justice and not poetic justice. If you yourself happen to be on trial for, say, killing a pedestrian while speeding, I only hope justice would be dispensed to you, and not some ill-defined poetic justice for all your other possible wrongdoings and sins, real or imaginary.

  I understand it is tough to be impartial when your political opponent is in the dock - you're bound to gloat. It's a bitch that you are left with only Milosevic to defend, but that's the situation. It's a fault of the 'international community' and their silly indictment that he's been raised to this position of a symbol. You may refuse to defend him, but that way you refuse the chance to protest the unjust and non-poetic collective punishment that has been handed to us all and the stigma and damage that will stick with us after the guilty verdict. But, some poetic justice will emerge from this 'trial' after all: the defendant's political mistakes will be forgotten and only his defence will be remembered. And as the indictment is all-encompassing, so is his defence - he actually is not defending himself, because it is not him who stands accused. Read the indictment.

  One more thing: 'under Tito there was more free media', you said. Please! Name one paper who could print anything critical about Tito or the system 'under Tito'. I don't remember a single one, because there was not a single one. 'Under Milosevic' there were at least 10 in Belgrade alone which spouted venom on him and his family daily, funded by Soros and the like. You're right, though, about the situation with the media being worse today.

  Re the comparison with the present situation and the alleged electoral frauds 'under Milosevic', those interested might check the site http://www.oscewatch.org. This is BRITISH HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP, which approached me in mid April, after reading what I wrote here in JURIST and wanting to talk to me during their visit to Belgrade. I was reluctant at first, their name suggesting this being just another dubious NGO, but then I've checked their site and also read what some of their members, namely Catherine Stone and John Laughland, wrote at www.antiwar.com, Spectator and The Mail on Sunday, so I decided to talk to them after all. This group is something else: independent lawyers and journalists trying to report objectively. They explained to me how the noble Helsinki name and intention was actually hijacked by Soros and his cronies for their own NGO enterprises called Helsinki Watch, Human Rights Watch, Open Society Fund etc. etc. and how these are all bitter enemies of BHHRG. Later on, as a result of that visit and their talking to many relevant people here, including Kostunica (I was the least relevant, obviously), they posted the 9-part report on their site titled 'The Kirov Murder Revisited? Zoran Djindjic Assassination and Serbia's Political Elite'. You'll see they give links to JURIST site in their report at one point. Those of you who want to understand more on the alleged election frauds attributed to Milosevic, go to the BHHRG home-page, then to the flag SERBIA, and you'll find the Archive Reports there.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday June 05, 2003 at 8:55 pm
  Weapons of mass destruction.

  http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html
  
  Ian Davis
  Wateroo
  Ontario, Canada

• Friday June 06, 2003 at 5:24 am
  

  I am not sure the comparison with Kirov ( and Bukharin ) are well undestood in these latitudes.

  Never-the-less I like and support what you Vera write in that regard.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Friday June 06, 2003 at 5:32 am
  

  Never enough, until nothing is left!

  Guantanamo is obviously a concentration camp, soon will have a series of expeditious trials and scaffolds. In continental USA shopping will continue.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Friday June 06, 2003 at 7:16 am
  

  To Vera and others,

  In the case you’ve missed it …

  Why Bombs Don’t Make Democracies

  By John Laughland

  ... There has been much hand-wringing over the widespread looting in Iraq following the Anglo-American invasion. Evidence that the looting was permitted, and perhaps even encouraged, by coalition troops has not quelled the party line that this is a transitional stage and that reconstruction is proceeding apace. But could the creation of chaos be a deliberate and even lasting policy? Recent events in Serbia, the last country to have democracy imposed on it by force, indicate that the lawlessness and anarchy that now terrorize the civilian population of Iraq are not a regrettable transitory stage in the onward march towards the New World Order. They are instead the very essence of that order. ...

  
  
  D(usom) S(arajlija)
  USA

• Friday June 06, 2003 at 3:45 pm
  
  Spinners and on taking the ‘p’: Sinners

  The Googly and the Chinaman

  The quickie started by bowling a maiden over then the spinner was brought on immediately. He began by releasing a Chinaman. The opener cut hard into the covers and the Chinaman bounced off silly point’s head into the third man’s hands. Howzat? So the opener was out although he had only just come in and now had to go back in because he was out.

  Changing arms the spinner next delivered a Googly. The Number Three tickled the ball between the spinner’s short square leg and his fine leg set deep. The Googly finished up with a fairly square long leg running round.

  Meanwhile the Number Three overbalanced and raising his left leg to clear the stumps as he spun around knocked his bails off as he failed to get his leg over. Howzat? Two for none as thy say in Oz. Cricket is a peculiar game.

  The description above covers the opening eight balls of a cricket match. To those who have never had contact with cricket I imagine it is totally incomprehensible if not bewildering and maybe even vulgar. It is not so for those familiar with cricket and its terms who could check the accuracy of the description against a video recording.

  You need to know that a ‘Googly’ is a right-arm wrist spinner’s reverse spin ball and a ‘Chinaman’ is the name of a left-arm wrist spinners normal spin ball. While it is highly unlikely that a bowler would change arms it is not unheard of. Most of the rest of the unfamiliar terms are fielding positions or batting order. Why ‘silly’? Would you stand within three yards of a batsman thrashing a rock hard ball at more than 100 mph?

  Sinners: taking the ‘p’

  New Labour has brought spinning to a new level so removed from events that one is inclined to believe that they are taking the ‘p’ and spinning would be more aptly described as sinning. In contrast to the esoteric terms of cricket the words are plain and clear but spoken with forked tongue.

  The Blairs, the leaders of this so-called socialist party, enjoy a joint income in excess of 50 times that of a basic pensioner couple in the UK. They recently bought properties worth more than £500,000 partly for their son in the city of his university. The son has enjoyed a privileged education although New Labour’s pledge is equal opportunities for all?

  The social democrat deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, answers journalists’ questions with rude signs and throws the occasional punch at disgruntled voters. He runs two gas guzzling Jaguar cars while exhorting others to walk. He also owns four homes. His principle function seems to be to go around stating: ‘Tony Blair doesn’t tell lies’ which we know from statements during Blair’s attack on the Serbs is itself a lie.

  It seems that all political systems are endemically corrupt. Denis Healey, an elder statesman of the Labour party and former chancellor, has called for Blair’s resignation over the latest fiasco. The dodgy dossier, part plagiarised and part fabricated, plus Blair’s hysterical warning that Iraq could attack British bases in Cyprus within 45 minutes were all inventions to drive a reluctant British nation to yet another illegal war.

  Blair, the catalyst, was central to the illegal attacks on Serbia and Iraq. If Blair has opposed these attacks it is likely that neither Clinton nor Bush would have dared to go it alone. So what were Blair’s reasons? On this you can be sure he will not tell us the truth.

  Blair is responsible for death, injury and devastation on a massive scale in wars which were not approved by the Security Council and upon countries that posed no threat to Britain yet he is not being asked to answer for his crimes before any court.

  It’s just not cricket.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday June 06, 2003 at 3:50 pm
  I think that many of us have quoted and misquoted Hewart’s famous principle dealing with judicial behaviour “that justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” This dictum must be repeated often in the case of Mr. May breach of duty and judicial standards.

  What Mr. May does must be proper and appear to be proper. First of all, it is important that Mr. May is dispensing justice, but I don’t see it, therefore, in my mind the appearance of justice does not exist.

  Mr. May by his manner suggests partiality. His brusque manner with Milosevic and courteous manner with Ashdown, for example, shows a disposition for prejudgement. His arrogance and intemperate manner forces me, even if I have prejudged this case, to ask, how can Milosevic expect to get justice from a man such as this. This kind of impropriety tells me that this man who is appointed (not elected) to administer the Law is doing it by not obeying the law.

  I have always felt that the Law must treat citizens equally, be they Bill Clinton, Slobadon, Milosevic, or Dracula. My respect for the Law and for Mr. May in this trial has been affected by what I have observed in the behaviour of Mr. May.

  The appointment of Mr. May as a judge is in question since he is associated with those who appointed him. Firstly, he is a citizen of a NATO country whose conduct is very important in the outcome of this trial, and secondly, he is a former colleague of Mr. Blair, the man whose aggression caused the death and destruction of Milosevic’s homeland. The perception of justice for all Serbs is “khadia te tuzi, khadia ti sudi.” Imam charges you and judges you at the same time.

  To see this trial as impartial, the judge must show a complete political severance with his community and country. In Mr. May’s case, this is not possible; therefore he should have refused his appointment, because this alone imputes partiality.

  Mr. May should be disqualified because:

  He had a pecuniary interest in the litigants (NATO) nations.

  He had a personal relationship with Mr. Blair and the Labour Party (according to one of Peter’s posts).

  Mr. May’s conduct reflects bias regarding his demeanour to Milosevic as well as his perceived bias in the outcome of the matter litigated.

  Trial conduct (process) should lead to disqualification.

  This trial, if in fact it was necessary, did not need the likes of Mr. May since there is no necessity for Mr. May to sit on this bench. In English law, any small interest will disqualify a judge from sitting. His personal interest in the proceedings, since he is an English and Blair’e associate is seen by me to be bias and by English law he is expected to disqualify himself. Another English judge may well be bias and support Milosevic, therefore, every effort should be made to find a judge that represents the spirit of the law.

  The conduct of this trial should disqualify Mr. May. He has extended the duration of this trial and since trial duration must be reasonable and not altered at the whim of Mr. May he is not acting in the interest of justice. Mr. May’s acceptance of hearsay evidence, exclusion of the public from some proceedings, permitting documents as evidence when the accused has no chance to cross examine the author, placing time limits on cross examination and a litany of other abuses should disqualify this man, not only from this trial but also from any other trail in the future.

  Mr. May has allowed the prosecution to extend the trial after the fact and Mr. May like the prosecution was acting in bad faith because he refused to rule against this motion. Prosecution must present its case within the time requested at the start of the trial and they should be admonished for running the trial by exhaustion rather than by evidence. In criminal cases when new evidence is found after the trial the accused can be brought back for trial on the new evidence.

  As I have stated before courtesy flows from the judge. The judge’s conduct determines the conduct of others and the judge should not expect courtesy when he offers none. By bullying Milosevic, May must realize that Milosevic does not have the option to be anything but courteous since he is in a cage and this advocate of justice, Mr. May can and has made his life hell and can make it even more a hell. In all of this Milosevic has shown us that he is a ‘reasonable man’ while Mr. May is anything but reasonable.

  Mr. May in my estimation has failed in other ways, most importantly, in how he allows the prosecution to argue their case in the media while at the same time he has silenced Mr. Milosevic. This is a fundamental breach on his part since prosecution’s trial by media, should be ruled in contempt. Countless breaches and prejudicial statements have been made by the prosecution and disseminated by NATO media hacks. Therefore the public perception of Serbia and Milosevic is a self fulfilling prophecy and May’s decision in the end will be anticlimactic because public opinion has created the impression that justice has seen to be done.

  This court in the first place was not established legally and since the first rule in the administration of justice requires that every case be tried by a legal tribunal this trial is illegal from the outset.

  Secondly, the Tribunal must be free from bias against any party. Furthermore, the evidence must be gathered by the rule of law and due process and since this is not the case here how can this trial be fair? It is evident that usurpation of this court has taken place by parties with vested interests in its outcome. These parties are NATO nations that must have a guilty verdict to absolve them of guilt. In my view both justice and the vision of justice is well camouflaged even in the minds of some Serbs who think with their bellies rather than with their heads.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday June 06, 2003 at 7:41 pm
  

  Down with interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations!

  Down with Imperialism and Militarism

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Friday June 06, 2003 at 9:37 pm
  Gogol,

  I believe you wanted to say:

  Down with the small pieces of human shit interfering in the internal affairs of the bastards!

  DESTINY'S IRONY: sooner or later we'll be merciless towards ...

  Or in christian terms: Slobodan Milosevic is not free but he is saved; what do we do with Mr May and the likes?

  I meant it seriously when I said I was not sure I was not a fascist.

  When I said FREE SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC I meant: FREE SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC TO SAVE MR MAY

  or, to be precise,

  FREE MR MAY TO SAVE SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

  I hope Sinisa is still with us.

  LONG LIVE POETIC JUSTICE
  
  Ivko Rig
  Italy

• Friday June 06, 2003 at 10:06 pm
  

  Yugoslavia will became another myth in the West like: In her 1974 memoir, "Sanya: My Life with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn" (Bobbs-Merrill), she wrote that she was "perplexed" that the West had accepted "The Gulag Archipelago" as "the solemn, ultimate truth," saying its significance had been "overestimated and wrongly appraised."
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday June 07, 2003 at 3:28 pm
  
  Blair’s latest Ultimatum to the Serbs

  While Serbs are illegally denied protection as agreed in resolution 1244 and thus murdered in their beds by the KLA or their associates this is what Blair’s man in Belgrade has to say:

  The conditions for Serbia and Montenegro's accession to NATO's Partnership For Peace Program are withdrawal of charges against the member countries of NATO for the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 and consistent cooperation with the Hague tribunal, the British ambassador in Belgrade Charles Crawford and NATO official George Katsirdakis advised on 5 June 2003 in a joint statement.

  Blair insists that the Serbs will make no progress in Europe’s institutions until they absolve him for his war crimes.

  Such a threat is against all the principles of justice. Crimes cannot be expunged by the stroke of the pen of the leader of a puppet Serbian government under this duress.

  In contrast Blair demands that the Serbs send to the ICTY those Serbs indicted by the court: usually on bogus charges. He makes no demand that KLA Leaders must be sent to The Hague for their manifest and ongoing crimes.

  Note: Charles Crawford acts only on instructions from the British government which is lead by Blair. There is no limit to the depth of depravity of this man.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday June 07, 2003 at 6:19 pm
  

  And yet Great Britain is so democratic !

  And in America there is so much freedom!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday June 07, 2003 at 7:08 pm
  
  As the third of Nato’s Pro-Consuls in four years, Herr Steiner, cuts and runs the mayhem continues:

  PRISTINA, Serbia and Montenegro, June 7 (AFP) - At least four people were injured in an explosion early Saturday in Kosovo's capital Pristina, two of them seriously, a UN official told AFP.

  Until the leaders of the KLA terror campaign, begun in earnest 1998, are hauled before the ICTY as promised frequently and dishonestly by del Ponte over the past four years this mayhem will continue.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday June 07, 2003 at 7:53 pm
  

  What about just returning Kosovo to Serbia?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday June 07, 2003 at 8:57 pm
  Peter Taylor

  The ICJ suit by Yugoslavia against the NATO war making states is undoubtbly wending its way slowly but most surely through the ICJ system.

  And it is good to see that the War Makers are very unhappy that the suit continues. This suggests that the War Makers are concerned.

  and concerned they should be.......for close reading of the Judges preliminary verdicts indicate that Blair, Clinton, and the rest have a high liklihood of being found guilty of the highest war crime.......starting a war of aggression

  anyone interested should spend a few hours at the ICJ website
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Saturday June 07, 2003 at 10:02 pm
  Gogol,

  More than one million people rallied in the centre of London in opposition to the US/UK initiated war of aggression against Iraq. I think in fairness one has to acknowledge that the British are at least trying to be democratic.

  Re Kosovo, it never ceased to be part of Serbia, so I don't see how it can be returned.

  AP V.. I could find it but a citation for the ICJ website, and in particular any pivotal articles there, would be useful.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Sunday June 08, 2003 at 11:56 am
  Serbia / Montenegro, NATO & European integration

  In reference to Peter Taylor's post on the statements of the UK Ambassador in Belgrade, Serbia / Montenegro has no interest in joining PfP / NATO (as Srdja Trifkovic persuasively argues). Its natural politicoeconomic interests lie with continental Europe, Greece and, most importantly in the long run, Russia. S/M should take advantage of the emerging rift between continental Europe and the US. It should now take cautious steps to approach Europe, while extracting European guarantees for its sovereignty (explicitly including Kosovo) vis-a-vis the US and its Balkan clients (especially Kosovo secessionists). Blair's threats and blackmailing are largely hollow because S/M participation in European institutions depends mostly on Germany's and France's policies, not on those of the UK, which has first to decide on its own role in Europe.
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Sunday June 08, 2003 at 8:55 pm
  My letter to NYTimes:

  Sir,

  In an article by Peter Green: “Forgive, Pope Says, but Croats Find It Hard” takes a stand which is very one-sided and also truncated in time.

  I do not know to what purpose New York Time promulgates these one sided views. Certainly such policy does not serve the purpose of stabilization of Balkan situation and may lead to a prolong animosity and perhaps future arms conflict.

  The writer does not mention with a single word a much larger atrocity committed by Croatian Ustashe during WWII. Then a true genocide has been committed on the Serbs of a magnitude equal only to the holocaust committed on the Jews by the Germans. The fact that the Serbs and Croats managed to live in peace in Tito’s Yugoslavia attest to the fact that most Serbs indeed forgave the Croats even without any Pope’s admonition.

  By pointing out only the Serb crimes in this last conflict you in your paper advocate a very one-sided view of history in the Balkans which will just exacerbate continued animosity between Serbs and Croats.

  Sincerely yours,

  Drasko Jovanovic

  Senior Physicist, Emeritus, Fermilab

  Visiting professor UIUC , retired
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA