 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
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
- Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 12:00 am
I think many of you will find this Reuters headline surprising:Ex-Yugoslav President Backs Milosevic
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - A former Yugoslav president testified Tuesday that Slobodan Milosevic could not have ordered the mass slaughter at Srebrenica, Europe's worst massacre since World War II. In a potentially serious setback for prosecutors, Zoran Lilic told the court he believed Milosevic had no role in ordering the deaths of at least 7,500 Muslims near Srebrenica during the Bosnian war in 1995. U.N. prosecutors have charged Milosevic with genocide for the killings. "I am sure he could not have issued an order of that kind," Lilic said at the U.N. war crimes court at The Hague. "I am quite certain the president didn't ... have influence on a decision of that kind." Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice asked the former premier if Milosevic had had a broader strategy for unifying Serbs into one state, to which Lilic replied:
"The slogan 'All Serbs in a Single State' has been used for years...the former Yugoslavia was the only such state and all efforts were focused on preserving it". "Control is a strong word", he certainly had a "big influence", but not enough to prevent the Republic of Srpska leadership from refusing to ratify several peace plans.
Reuters and B92 reports
Dan B
Canada - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 12:53 am
"The slogan 'All Serbs in a Single State' has been used for years...the former Yugoslavia was the only such state and all efforts were focused on preserving it". "The prosecution has repeatedly ignored Milosevic's responses to this statement - that in Yugoslavia, the great majority of south Slavs (with the exception of Bulgarians) could live in one state. Of course, this was of the greatest importance to Serbs, since they lived in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, and even Slovenia, Macedonia, and Montenegro, and had been victims of genocide in WWII. Unity was perceived as conferring protection from future manipulation and abuse by imperialist powers and genocide.
But, the Croats lived in one state. The Muslims lived in one state. The Macedonian Slavs and Montenegrins all lived in one state. The Slovenes (with the exception of a small minority in Austria) all lived in one state. Yugoslavia, in effect, reversed the previous policy of divide-and-conquer instituted by the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians, and Nazis. It had a real future. Granted, its multiethnic structure placed it in a delicate equilibrium, and in the absence of dictatorship, only a Swiss model would be viable, but it, unlike the fractured Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and Montenegro, had a future. Slovenia's future was secured due to its ethnic purity, a result of historical circumstances, whereas Croatia's ethnic unrest was effected by expulsion and mass murder.
Personally, I expect Lilic to be yet another witness for the defense. These "insider" witnesses, even if they are political rivals (if they are decent, that is, unlike the DOS gang) are proving to be Milosevic's key to unravelling the "independent shafts of light that converge to give the whole picture" trash forged by the prosecution.
P M
USA - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 12:57 am
``All (the) witnesses will provide differing shafts of light...but it is unlikely there will be an individual who will be able to tell the whole truth about this man.''``Each will be able to provide a small view of the accused. It is the composition of those views that in due course will establish the guilt of this man.''
-Geoffrey Nice, Office of the Persecutor
P M
USA - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 1:11 am
Robert Hessen,To say that "Israel sided with the Serbs" is indeed too strong of a statement, because public statements made by the then Israeli Prime Minsiter, Ehud Barak refute that claim.
Barak had nothing but the highest praise for Clinton and Blair for their criminal aggression on Yugoslavia.
"I think that the Kosovo crisis and the way it was led by President Clinton and Tony Blair provide us with an excellent example of how free world leadership should act on the global arena - namely put a clear line beyond which when a regional despot crosses it, the free world can and will be translated into an effective operation that will put any despot at bay. I believe that it is important for the backyard of Europe and the Balkans, but it is maybe more important as a signal for any potential future despot anywhere around the world about what expects him if he will try to defy the will of the leading democracies of the free world." - Ehud Barak - July 1999 in London
All of this being said there is room for speculation that Israel, or certain people in Israel, may have covertly provided some aid to the Bosnian Serbs. (i.e., cliaims by Bosnian Muslims that unexploded mortar shells had Hebrew writing on them, and statements made by Arkan which indicated some covert Israeli support, at least for the SDG).
My position is that I support the Israeli people in their struggle, just like I support the Serb people. However, I don't trust the Government of Israel any more than I trust the Government of Serbia.
Look at the position that Israel is in. Without American aid Israel would be wiped off the map. Israel is dependant upon America for its very exsistance. The United States has control over the Government of Israel just like it has control over the government of Serbia.
Its sad, but I think its true. The U.S. Government has Israel by the balls. Therefore, the Government of Israel isn't a horse that you would want to hitch your wagon to.
But that dosen't mean that the struggle of the Israeli people isn't a just struggle.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 1:27 am
Netanyahu invited Kosovo Albanians to dinner, in sympathy with their "common plight of suffering."Yuck.
P M
USA - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 5:16 am
If you aren't watching the cross-examination of Zoran Lilic - you should be.http://www.domovina.net/Icty/eng/room1v.ram
The prosecutor has got to be kicking himself in the ass for bringing Lilic to testify.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 5:28 am
Well, regarding Israel and Serbia it's a trifle complex.
1) Israel's attitude towards the NATO bombing in 1999, at least its initial attitude, infuriated the US government. You can read about that at Israel-Serbia articleAs you will see, the article states that the Yugoslav Ambassador considered the Israeli government attitude to be pro-Serb, hence Francisco's point. As you may also note, the U.S. responded to what was perceived as Israel's soft-on-the-Serbs rebellion by dispatching Albright to smack Israel in the face regarding its settlement policies. This is an *empire*, remember, and empire's punish disobedient serfs.
2)After the bombing, when the U.S. and European states were creating a wall of lying TV transmitters around Serbia and locking Yugoslavia out of the European communications satellite(s), Israel gave Yugoslavia space in its communications satellite. Again the US reacted with fury, and, as I recall (I've misplaced the news report) the Israelis then said they were just letting the Serbs "practice" and it was just a temporary thing, or some such lame excuse.The point is, *nobody* else in the world, Russia included, let the Serbs use their satellite. So, how do we describe the Israeli attitude? And remember - they did this although Yugoslavia was officially pro-PLO...
According to the Dutch government report on the fighting in Bosnia, the Israelis provided arms to the Bosnian Serbs. You can read about that with documentation at *Article with info on Israel's role in Bosnia*
Also let it be noted: the so-called right wing Jews (as defined by not wanting a Palestinian terrorist state) are much more favorable to Yugoslavia than the so-called Left (i.e., those who favor a PLO state.)It was the so-called Left that attacked Sharon for being soft on the Serbs.
Regarding Max Sinclair's comments/query - hi Max! - about the LM trial, there are two articles on TENC, both by me; the second refutes the first. The first views the LM-Deichmann combo as heroes. The second argues that they *had* been heroes, but they let the bad guys win at the trial. You can read the first article at *The tears of the mighty*
and the second article at *Tragic error: Did LM sink the ship at their libel trial?*If I remember correctly, both articles include the judge's concluding remarks.
Jared Israel
USA - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 5:36 am
Ooops! I made an error in the link to the article discussing US anger because the Israeli government was too pro-Serb at the outset of the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The correct link is http://www.jewishsf.com/bk990416/1ctrouble.shtml and hopefully *this* hyperlink will work Israel-Serbia article
Jared Israel
US - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 5:57 am
Oops again. The article cited above as *Israel-Serbia* does *not* say the Yugoslav ambassador considered the Israeli attitude pro-Serb. I was thinking of my comment about a March 29, 1999 NY Times article. The article states:
"Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon has also limited himself to a general denunciation, avoiding expressions of support for the NATO air strikes. He said that Israel takes "a grave view of the terrible acts there, especially against innocent civilians" and he urged an immediate resumption of negotiations. His remarks were welcomed by the Yugoslav Ambassador as an expression of *neutrality.*"{my empahsis}
Concerning the above, at the time I wrote: "Clinton will correctly interpret this 'expression of neutrality' as being pro-Serb."
Jared Israel
USA - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 6:58 am
Also please write about cases of President enriching his family. Does Bush's daughter own TV station or theme park or something? What about Blair son? Did he build the biggest disco in Europe (that is what they told anyway)?Examples
1) President Clinton and his Wife.........despite never having earned more than $35,000 per year prior to becoming President, Clinton's wife became a multi-millionaire through a series of 'incredible' speculative investments in which she preformed such magic as turning $10,000 into $100,000 in the course of a few weeks. While President, supposedly earning $200,000 per year, Clinton was able to buy a $2 million house. Chelsa Clinton "negotiated" a job offer from McKinsey when she graduated University for almost 2 times the salary her peers get.
2) George Bush the Lesser (current President).......became part owner of a $60 million baseball team, his sole contribution being the President's son. He also made a few million when his oil company went backrupt, again his sole contribution to the failed oil company was that he was the son of a influential politcian. The Bush family feeds a network of cronies billions in business (Haliburton ring a bell ?).
3) Blair........is another one of those who has always had a trifling salary, yet is able to live the life of a wealthy country gentlemen with a large country estate. His Aga stove alone costs more than $15,000.
What is striking when one examines the 'corruption' of Blair, Bush, and the rest is simply how blatant it is. The sums are in the billions.
These people take for granted influence peddling, graft, and kickbacks as a way of life. They don't even hide it.
President Milosevic and his family have been examined by DOS and the War Party. The most egregious case of corruption found is when his wife helped secure a apartment for their housekeeper. Mind you, the housekeeper still had to pay the going rate for the apartment. The corruption in this case was getting the housekeeper's application a early review.
Horrors of horrors !!!!!!!!!!!
AP V
NY
NY - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 7:07 am
Notes for Posters who wish to include bold, italicised and underlined text:Bold: Place the following group of three characters before the text you wish to make bold: <b>
Italicised: Place the following group of three characters before the text you wish to italicise: <i>
Underlined: Place the following group of three characters before the text you wish to underline: <u>
One very important point: With the exception of the paragraph (<p>) and newline (<br>) codes - where it is not needed - it is important to place a so-called End Tag at the end of the text you wish to modify in order to terminate bold, italicised, and underlined text: Use in order </b> </i> and </u>
If a previous poster has failed to terminate bold, italicised or underlined text (recognised by the effect on hir name and address) post an appropriate End Tag before posting your text to prevent your own text from being affected. In this case it is wise to use a series of three End Tags to account for possible multiple errors. In very rare cases you will need many more.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 7:09 am
HTML Correction
Hopefully - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 9:12 am
践onourable DeceptionsClare Short痴 oxymoronic statement yesterday, paraphrased above, upon the conduct of The Right Honourable Tony Blair over Iraq might equally be applied to his conduct over Serbia: With which Clare Short whole heartedly agreed.
With so much blatant contradiction and self-delusion rife in our political masters I wonder that they get away with it.
Massive lies about murder and rape in Kosovo were fed to the British public to engage their support for the illegal bombing of Serbia: Dodgy Dossiers about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq also conned the British public into supporting another illegal war.
How can DELIBERATE LIES leading to illegal wars causing death and injury to tens of thousands be considered honourable?
Nothing Milosevic has done is worse than this.
Graft and corruption is indeed not unique to Milosevic痴 Serbia: consider Britain痴 political progress:
Feudal Robber Barons
Dark Satanic Mill/Mine Owners
Modern Political Leaders
The more things change the more they stay the same. Barons and Mill owners were the political leaders of their day in Britain.
What other 践onourable Deceptions are yet to be revealed I wonder.
But hey: not to worry. Now that Blair and his chums have stolen a chunk of Serbia to provide a base from which to guarantee a secure corridor for Caspian Sea oil: And stolen all of Iraq so we have an alternative supply of cheap oil for decades to come: Everything in the garden痴 rosy.
(-: The Robber Barons would be proud of Blair. Why should he not be handsomely rewarded for his 践onourable Deceptions? :-)
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 11:07 am
I would like to draw everybody's attention to the testimony of Zoran Lilic.The testimony of President Lilic is the most important testimony that the Milosevic "trial" has seen.
President Lilic was in the Supreme Defense Counsil together with Milosevic, he was the President of the FR Yugoslavia, the speaker of the parliament, and the Deputy Prime Minister.
Nobody is in a position to know better than Lilic what sorts of policies Milosevic had, and what sorts of orders he gave.
President Lilic has been destroying the prosecution's case. It is no wonder that "Judge" May is in such a hurry to get rid of him.
A massive number of documents have been introduced, by the prosecution, through Lilic and Slobodan Milosevic quite rightly wants to go through each document carefully with the witness, but the witness has been doing so much damage to the prosecution's case that the Tribunal wants to get rid of him in a hurry. Therefore "Judge" May won't give President Milosevic adequate time to cross-examine the witness.
It was obvious, even before the cross-examination started that the so-called "Trial Chamber" was shitting bricks. "Judge" May was obviously upset that the prosecution had taken such a horrible ass-kicking from it's own witness. Before Milosevic ever even said one word to the witness "Judge" May told him to stop arguing with the witness. It was comical.
Once Lilic concludes his evidence tomorrow I will post a full report about his remarks on my website, but I would encourage everybody to either watch the video or read the transcript of his testimony. You will learn a lot.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 1:13 pm
I致e never taken much interest in the Croatia/Bosnia section of this trial for the following reasons. Can someone please explain?Milosevic was the President of Serbia until July 1997 when he became the President of a reduced Yugoslavia comprising only Serbia and Montenegro. Thus I do not understand how Milosevic can be charged with crimes in regions over which he had no command responsibility: that is for events in Yugoslavia while its constituent states included Croatia and Bosnia. Lilic, today痴 witness, was a President of Yugoslavia during that time but he has not been so charged?
The indictments for events in Croatia and Bosnia were tacked on to the indictments for events in Kosovo seemingly as an afterthought.
Milosevic was praised, at least by some, for his part in the peace negotiations for Croatia and Bosnia. So why did it take four years to decide that he was not a peacemaker but a war criminal?
Was this because some Serbs helped their kin in these regions. If so why aren稚 the Leaders of England, Germany and the USA on trial for helping the Croats and Bosnian Muslims and for the atrocities which these groups committed?
I understand that Serb paramilitary groups operated in these regions but this is not the responsibility of Milosevic. Paramilitary groups operate in Northern Ireland but Blair is not indicted for the crimes they commit - even though there is evidence that these paramilitaries have received help in murdering Nationalists from the British army and police?
Was Croatia and Bosnia tacked on at a late stage simply because the charge of Genocide in Kosovo had to be dropped because of lack of evidence?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 1:31 pm
Peter, I think the problem is that the west thinks of Serbs as a collective while ignoring the geographical boundaries between Serbs. It makes no sense to me either, but yes it is as if Blair was to be considered personally responsible for ongoing conflicts in Northern Ireland.I've taken very little interest in the Croatia/Bosnia stage of this trial since I considered it largely irrelevant to the prosecutions case for the reasons you give. In addition the dutch conducted a lengthy assessment of Srebenica [since it occurred under their watch] and have already concluded that no evidence existed linking Milosevic to the massacre there.
This is the very first US news article I have seen publishing something positive about the Milosevic trial. Perhaps the tide is finally turning.
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=D03D0D42-DDE1-41C8-96DE399172CF7359
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 1:52 pm
Peter, yes.. the UN supreme court in Pristina had earlier ruled that there had been no genocide in Kosovo, and heads of State are immune from all but the most serious charges -- genocide being one of the few exceptions.So it seems likely that the entire Bosnia/Croatia segment of this trial exists to justify the indictment, and the indictment is as it is to justify this trial.
Serbia largely avoided getting actively involved in the Bosnia Croatia war. Yes it provided intelligence and assistance, but then so did many other nations.
Milosevic had every reason to defend Serb interests in Bosnia and Croatia. It is the responsibility of a federal government to defend the interests of minorities, just as it would be the responsibility of the Canadian federal government to defend the interest of minorities (such as the Anglophones and native peoples) in Quebec, should Quebec decide to unilaterally separate from Canada. It was to Milosevic's credit that he assisted in negotiating a settlement to those wars known as the Dayton Accord.
It is as if Canada was to be blamed for the on going conflict between the US and Iraq. While politically we stayed out of that war, even going so far as to say it was wrong, the border between Canada and the US is largely irrelevant, we speak the same language as the US, and share the same ancestors so if we negotiate a peace between the US and Iraq we must be guilty of being part of the conspiracy that secretly urged the US to go to war against Iraq.
Ian Davis
Wateroo
Ontario, Canada - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 1:59 pm
Gogol,
You wrote: "...any one having any remote or alledged connection with Hitler is doomed. Palestinian children included. Is that it?"
No. Obviously, that is not it.
The point is that Arafat has stated proudly that his hero is the Mufti. The Mufti is a genocidal fascist who led Hitler's Final Solution. (all of this is documented in my piece on the Palestinian movement).
What does this show? That even the so-called 'moderates' among Palestinian leaders are genocidal fascists whose goal is to murder every last living Jew. And what follows from that is that a Palestinian state run by such genocidal fascists, right next to Israel, is something that no one has a right to demand that the Israelis allow. It is very simple, really.
What about the Palestinian children? Palestinian children are growing up in a living hell in which they are taught, from a very early age, that it is their sacred duty to hate Jews and to blow themselves up killing them as soon as they are old enough to ruin their lives. What is happening to Palestinian children is a crime of unimaginable proportions. Quite a few Palestinian children are, in fact, doomed. But what dooms them is the hateful ideology of the adults - the Palestinian leaders - around them. These adults bombard them with messages of hate at school, on TV, at rallies, etc. Are you suggesting that the proper way to help these poor Palestinian children is to give more power to the fascists who are already ruining their lives? Is that how you would help Palestinian children?
Seriously, I would like a clarification of your position. Is this what you propose as an expression of your alleged compassion for Palestinian children?
Francisco Gil-White
Pennsylvania - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 2:37 pm
All children are the same to me. That is my clarification.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 3:05 pm
Gogol,
You say: "All children are the same to me. That is my clarification."
Let's see. All children are the same too you? In other words, Palestinian children are as worthy of protection as Albanian children, right?
From your posts on this discussion I have gathered that you are a supporter of Milosevic. If so, you must recognize that the KLA is run by murderous fascists, and since you support Milosevic I would hazard that you are opposed to the current state of affairs in Kosovo, where the KLA gangsters are the "law".
One very good reason to oppose the current state of affairs, where the KLA runs Kosovo, is compassion for Albanian children, because these Albanian chidlren are being brought up in a world of hate and violence, where those who make the decisions are fascist gangsters who preach hatred and murder with a heritage going back to participation in Nazi mass murders during World War II.
Am I correct that this is your position with respect to Albanian children and the KLA?
And if I am correct, then I would expect you to reason in similar fashion about the PLO and the Palestinian children. We should oppose the lives of Palestinian children being run by fascist gangsters who preach hatred and murder and whose heritage goes back to participation in Nazi mass murders during World War II. Since you say that all children are the same to you, you must care equally about Palestinian children in the West Bank as you do about Albanian children in Kosovo.
No?
And if not, could you please explain why you do not express the same compassion for Palestinian children as you do for Albanian chidren.
Francisco Gil-White
Pennsylvania - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 3:51 pm
On the subject of palestinian children -- they were doomed first by Israels decision not to allow Palestinian families to return to their homes following the 1948 war, and by the betrayal of defenseless Palestinians women and children left behind when palestinian men were deported to Tunis from Lebanon.The US guaranteed the safety of those defenseless people left behind in Beruit, and it was on the basis of that guarantee that the palestinian militia agreed to the terms of their deportation. They thought that their women and children would be protected by the US.
The subsequent massacre of these individuals by Christian phalange with the tacit support, assistance and involvement of Israel, will live on in the memory of palestinians for generations.
It is absurd to suggest that such things be forgotten in a mere 20 years. If it is war crimes we are discussing, how come the palestinian people have yet to see those guilty of the crimes committed at Sabra and Shatila brought to justice.
Belgium was to initiate prosecution but its star witnesses kept getting killed. No smoke with out fire they say.
Ian Davis
Wateroo
Ontario, Canada - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 3:55 pm
Yes, I care about all children equally because in case you might not noticed children are innocent to the crimes committed by their ancestors, or is it in Israel any different? and I have to point out that the friends of Israel, NATO, the USA are running Kosovo as the Israelis are running and occupying the West Bank of Jordan and on and off other areas of Palestine.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 6:15 pm
More cracks in the dam.http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec15.html
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 6:32 pm
Yes Ian there are many reasons to be paranoid, and if you live long enough you will see how right you were to be so paranoid!
For amid the present furore over the no-show of Iraqi WMDs, let us remember that in Kosovo our humanitarian Prime Minister dragged this country into an illegal, US-sponsored war on grounds which later proved to be fraudulent. In 2003 Tony?s Big Whopper was that Saddam?s WMDs ?could be activated within 45 minutes?. In 1999 it was that Slobodan Milosevic?s Yugoslavia was ?set on a Hitler-style genocide equivalent to the extermination of the Jews during World War Two?.
A Hitler here, a Hitler there, what a popular boogeyman he is!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 9:26 pm
IanThe VOA story is the worst sort of propaganda for while it starts out telling us what Illic said in the first paragraph it then spends the next 7 repeating lies about the Liberation of Srebrenica from Naser Oric and his execution squads.
Don't be fooled when the War Party backpedels its spin
AP V
NY
NY- Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 11:24 pm
Regarding Ian's comments about supposed Israeli responsiblity for the problems of Arab children living in the West Bank and Gaza:
1) In 1948 it was the Arab leaders who a) launched the war - and boasted that they launched the war - against what became Israel. Since they launched this war, which *they* called a war of extermination, they are guilty of the greratest war crime, meaning they are responsible for all that followed. Moreover, as I have read on Arab websites, most of the Arabs who left the war zone left because Arab leaders ordered them to leave, so they could more easily eliminate all Jewish residents. The Arabs *took no prisoners*. But then, they were killing Jews, so no matter.
2) After the fighting ended, Israel made vigorous calls for these Arabs to return. They supported a UN resolution allowing them to return. This stands in marked contrast to the Arab states' attitude towards the about 1 million Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, driven out during and after this period. (A point nobody ever talks about.) These Jewish refugees were *never* urged by the Arab states to return.
3) The Arab states opposed the UN resolution permitting return at that time because they wanted to re-invade Israel and finish the job. Moreover, they wanted to keep the Arab refugees discontent and visible because they wanted to use them a) as canon fodder and b) as proof of suffering, to win synmpathy abroad. *That is why they have, with exception of Jordan, never permitted Arab refugees from this area to become citizens, even though *other* newly resident Arabs are routinely given this right. Given all that has transpired, it would be lunacy for Israel to welcome them back since for 50 years their children have been indoctrinated in the Final Solution.
4) By the way, regarding the famous massacre in Lebanon, I always assumed that Sharon was guilty as charged. But according to the Guardian, which is quite anti-Sharon, the lawyers in charge of the Belgium case against Sharon use as the *sole* evidence of his guilt the following: that prior to the massacre, he went to the leader of the Phalange and pleaded with him to do something about his men who, said Sharon, were behaving brutally. A few weeks after this, the leader of the Phalange was assassinated and his men attacked the Palestinians. The evidence, according to the Belgiums, of Sharon's "guilt" was that, having worried about the behavior of the Phalange, he should have taken steps to prevent a slaughter. This is very different from my previous impression of the "charges" against Sharon, and quite different from the glib statatments routinely made concerning this matter.
We have posted another article in our series investigating Ramsey Clark. The more we dig, the worse he looks.Ramsey Clark: Championing Nazi Butchers
Jared Israel
USA- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 12:25 am
JaredYour reporting on Palestine is nothing but tired cliches. I could try again to point out why but you ignore the content of what I say and resort to intellectual terrorism of the worst kind. And yes, it's McCarthyim. Guilt by association. The whole nine yards.
You've said repeatedly that I'm a Holocaust denier, where in fact I never ever claimed there was no Holocaust. Go back and read what I wrote. There is nothing that denies anything other than your ridiculous, libelous accusations.
Jared, you act like you're either: 1)completely irrational when it comes to Palestine, in which case discussion is pointless. Or 2) You're bought like Chomsky, AI, HRW, blah blah blah.
Is the Arab leadership as evil as the Zionists? Sure. Absolutely. No leader on either side wants true peace. Politically, it gets them nowhere. Common Palestinians don't even like Arafat. Common Israelis would be willing to trade land for peace. The rest of this discussion is academic.
Politicians will do what they've always done. I don't necessarily blame them for that. That's the nature of the beast and nobody expects it to be pretty. But Journalists are supposed to be employed in a noble profession. Supposed to care. To be objective, fair, honest. And to apply this noble standard to all issues and situations.
So where are our noble heros today?
As astutely pointed out by AP V, the VOA story wasn't intended to be journalism - to enlighten us, inform us, connect the dots. Was meant to lie and deceive. It starts by giving us a piece of the truth, gains our credibility, then gives us a bold faced lie. You think they're on the side of truth and justice until you feel the knife sliding and twisting between your scapuli.
We expect that from VOA but not from real journalists. And so we're stupid, and it's always the journalists on the left that surprise us with their inconsistencies. But it's getting so that nothing surprised me any more.
This is my last post for awhile. Sorry to be a pain. Jared, you've been outted.
Remember, just when you think you can trust a journalist....
"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)
josef crow
New York
NY- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 1:20 am
Jared, I fully agree with point (1) but two wrongs don't make a right. The fact is a lot of entirely innocent civilians fled a war zone never dreaming that they would be refused the right to return to their own homes. This refusal to allow them to return home following the end of the 1948 war set the stage for what is now history.(2) I wasn't alive in 1948 so would like some evidence of the vigorous calls for displaced Arabs to return. As I understood things their homes had been occupied by others in their absence -- were they to return home to their own homes or merely start live again somewhere else?
(3) Perfectly correct. One might add that Israel has attempted to offer financial redress to those who lost property years ago at what they claim is a fair market rate. According to Robert Fisk very few displaced Palestinians have accepted the cash, because it would involve visibly negotiating with the enemy.
(4) Given his years of living in Lebanon, Robert Fisk be accused of having a personal bias, but his book "Pity the Nation" is a must read for those interested in the events relating to Israel's 1982 war in Lebanon. He leaves the reader with the impression that the reported massacres at Sabra and Shantila were only the tip of the visible iceberg, and that Israel was much more involved as puppet master behind the scenes than was initially grasped, even by him.
Personally I think a detailed examination of the events now 20 years old remain in order. We need to know what wrongs were done, by whom were they done, and why they were done.
Israel should show more regard for the importance of its own reputation. Israel needs to distance itself from its past in Lebanon, and that isn't going to happen as long as it pretends it has no past that needs to be explained.
Blowing up star witnesses in car bombs, also needs some explaining.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/hobeiqa.htm
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 5:26 am
Once again, the Bush Administration shows its commitment to truth, justice and fair play: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-War-Crimes-US.html.
Robert Hessen
Seattle
Washington- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 7:53 am
Well, Peter - the (mis?)calculation behind tacking "Bosnia" and Croatia" to the Indictment against Milosevic et al. concerning "Kosovo" (and running the "trial" in reverse order of sequence) may well be that thus even a Peter Taylor might not be able to sustain an interest in the outcome?Such a trick is obviously unfair, not only to "the accused", but to anybody else with but a fraction of the common sense exhibited by yourself (in a series of postings forming in fact a spine in this (rather too complex) "trial discussion").
But to mrs. Carla del Ponte amending the Indictment may have seemed her only chance to "win". The very core of the Prosecutions case is notoriously nonsense (vitterligt v蚶!), reflecting the fact that the NATO war on the FRY over Kosovo in 1999 was a criminal act on part of Western leadership (as stated in, say, "the Complaint" by Ramsey Clark).
In my opinion this "trial discussion" has long since (and more than once) been exhibiting the Hague "trial" as basically nonsense, not least thanks to your postings. It seems to me though that the focus of your always clear and often brilliant argument is mainly on a (legitimate) attack on action taken by your own government and mr. Blair in particular (rather than a defense for actions by mr. Milosevic et al.).
That is fair enough - mr. Milosevic is clearly able to defend himself! And in this sense your postings would undoubtedly be very relevant also for the coming trial against US/NATO, - which mrs. Carla del Ponte is certainly doing her very best in preventing.
PS: My own "interest" in this "trial" is likewise based on opposition to (Danish participation in) the air war against the FRY and the occupation of Kosovo, which I always resented (but for which I nevertheless share a certain responsibility as a Danish citizen and as member of the (albeit deceived) public).
That illustrates I think also why I always regarded "Racak" as the crucial question (on which in spite of the efforts of Le Monde, Francisco Gil-White and others we are still (hopelessly?) in the dark!) - and why like yourself I致e never taken (much) interest in the Croatia/Bosnia section of this trial (I simply do not feel (as) responsible for that).
I am not necessarily "a supporter of Milosevic" (to use an unhappy phrase from Francisco Gil-White). In trying to support the relevant truth however I admit to being more impressed with the efforts of mr. Milosevic in that respect than with the blatant lies of my own government, the U.S. government or your mr. Blair in particular).
PPS: Although I basically agree with Andy Wilcoxson and others in that this trial discussion should not be allowed to spread unnecessarily, I nevertheless did appreaciate your information on "Nelson痴 navy using 叢owder monkeys to carry gunpowder to the gun crews". That may be the secret behind his beating us at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801 (a criminal attack for which the British government has not yet been tried, by the way! Maybe one day we could tack this part to an Indictment against NATO?)
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 10:08 am
熱ilosevic has the truth on his side
Junge Welt, June 18, 2003
http://www.jungewelt.de/beilage/index.php?b_id=12
Cathrin Schtz spoke to former US attorney general Mr. Ramsy Clark about his support for former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, who is indicted at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague
Mr. Clark, when former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was being extradited to The Hague in June 2000, you rushed to Belgrade to try to stop this from happening. As a political activist, what were your arguments for supporting Mr. Milosevic? <[>First you have to go back 10 years, long before his illegal extradition to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Yugoslavia was a country that the United States and the great powers of Europe intended to destroy. Mr. Milosevic was its president and led its heroic defense.
website has full interview
Dan B
Canada- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 12:00 pm
Josef Crow,Since we may not be hearing from you for a while please tell me why you were suggesting that "they (meaning the Prosecution) have (only) one witness" to the incident at Racak (Tuesday June 17, 2003 at 12:30 pm).
Including the infamous William Walker and the Canadian general Maisonneuve (whom I have been referring to above) the Prosecution has in fact been lining up a series of witnesses, such as mr. Shukri Buja (who was giving names of several of his fellow KLA-fighters killed in the incident, but not (necessarily) included in the Schedule A).
Four years later the problem is not a lack of "evidence", but the lack of a clear and comprehensive picture. In his opening speech the Prosecutor stated, that what happened there in Racak "was that...the fleeing villagers were shot. Twenty five men found in a building were moved to a nearby hill and shot. Forty, in total were killed" (Transcripts, page 162).
However the evidence so far does not seem to confirm that this was indeed the case...
The true picture is not at all presented yet, much less analyzed (although Gil-White made some kind of attempt in that piece of his recently published on Emperor's Clothes).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 5:24 pm
Dear GodfredThank you for your kind comments.
As you rightly perceive I still burn with anger at Blair痴 践onourable Deceptions over Kosovo. Milosevic may or may not be guilty of war crimes but this unjust trial will not determine the case even though it will certainly convict him. Blair most certainly is guilty of war crimes but will never face a court.
(-: Nice idea about the British aggression at Copenhagen in 1801. However I regret that any attempt to successfully indict the British Government for this is bound to fail. Nelson was signalled by his Commander Sir Hyde Parker not to continue the action. Being advised of the signal by his junior officers Nelson deliberately put a telescope to his blind eye with his one remaining hand and was thus 爽nable to confirm the signal. The best you can hope for is a posthumous court marshal of Admiral Lord Nelson. Even the ICTY could not work this one :-)
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 7:27 pm
I suppose Jared Israel is entitled to write his hysterical screeds about Ramsey Clark-one of the few prominent figures in the United States consistently to voice opposition to U.S. imperial designs, whether in the Balkans or the Middle East or in Africa. As a former attorney general and the son of a Supreme Court Justice, Clark could easily have made a comfortable living in a white-shoe law firm or within the security-industrial complex. Instead, he chose to embrace unpopular causes and to endure sniggering ridicule. It is noteworthy that someone who specializes in questioning the motives of people, should be so oblivious to the peculiar, indeed somewhat sinister, nature of his campaign to try to discredit Clark.What Israel is most definitely not entitled to do is to associate the ICDSM and, especially, Slobodan Milosevic, with his tirades. It was one thing for Milosevic to refuse to appoint Clark Until we hear otherwise from Milosevic himself or a representative of his, we will assume that they do not wish to associate themselves with his campaign.
I doubt very much that Milosevic would want to attack one of the few people who consistently spoke out strongly against the onslaught on Yugoslavia as well as his abduction and incarceration.
Robert Hessen
Seattle
Washington- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 8:27 pm
So do I, but since Mr. Milosevic is engaged at the moment in a more important battle than petty quarrels about who qualifies as a fascist, etc., I will leave this issue for another time. In the mean time I stopped reading the emperor all together.
I hope this will give so confort to Peter Taylor, it does to me and my opinion of the Belgians, wheter Flemish or Wallon is on the raise.
War crimes suits filed in Belgium against Bush, Blair
Keep fighting!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 9:03 pm
PEACEKEEPING continues:From: "decani3"
www.b92.net
B92, Belgrade 19 June 2003
UNMIK clears hospital with tear gas | 21:20 | B92
BELGRADE -- Thursday - International police in Kosovo Polje today used tear gas and batons to clear patients and medical staff from a hospital, after they refused to leave on the demand of police and Kosovo Protection Corps troops.
Ten doctors suffered minor injuries during the attack, staff physician Nebojsa Djelatovic told media...
See full version at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/75607
Pasha Ponomarenko
Australia- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 9:09 pm
The other one to read about UN witness murder in Kosovo:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/75613
Pasha Ponomarenko
Australia- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 9:35 pm
I feel I ought to point out that Jared Israel seriously misrepresents the issues involved in the Linnas case. It is outrageous to characterize, as he does, Ramsey Clark as an "apologist for Nazi war criminals."Opponents of Linnas' extradition were not objecting to his being put on trial for war crimes. They were objecting to his being handed over to the Soviet authorities. What Buchanan, Clark and others were arguing was that Linnas should be put on trial in a U.S. court and that he Soviet Union should present its evidence against him there.
In 1987, the United States was fighting the Cold War and the official U.S. view of Soviet justice was that it is no justice. That may or may not have been a reasonable view. But given that there were perfectly good arguments not to hand over anyone-even the worst criminals of all time-to Soviet justice.
Bringing up U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani is disingenuous at best, and dishonest, at worst. In the first place, no one has ever accused the former New York mayor of being a passionate believer in civil liberties. Second, in 1987 Giuliani already had his eyes on political office in New York and was therefore zealously courting the Jewiah vote.
In addition, since Linnas had been sentenced to death in the Soviet Union, handing him over to be executed was a serious violation of international law. States do not surrender individuals who face certain death. It would be shocking if Ramsey Clark didn't protest this!
Finally, there are indeed very good civil libertarian reasons not to try people for crimes committed 40 or 50 years ago: Eyewitnesses are dead, memories are hazy and lend themselves easily to suggestion, key documents that might establish alibis are lost. Does that mean that guilty people may get off? Certainly. But that's the whole point of civil liberties: It is better if some guilty people get off than that an innocent person should be punished for something he didn't do. Hasn't Ramsey Clark's life been informed by this precept?
Ramsey Clark defends people who are unpopular. But it precisely those people-the ones everyone is already convinced are guilty and wants to tie the rope around his neck-that most need defense attorneys.
I suspect that the time has come for the ICDSM to disassociate itself from Jared Israel. Slobodan Milosevic cannot afford to have "friends" like him.
Robert Hessen
Seattle
Washington- Thursday June 19, 2003 at 11:49 pm
Here is another one Paulin Dvor victims identified in Zagreb | 13:55 | B92 BELGRADE -- Thursday -- Savo Strbac, Director of the Veritas information-documentation centre, has confirmed to B92 that the victims of the Paulin Dvor war crime have been identified in Zagreb. Paulin Dvor was the scene of the slaugher of 19 civilians at the hands of Croatian soliders. Among the victims were 16 Serbs. Strbac explained that the bodies of 18 of the victims were exhumed last year by Hague investigators in Velebit, several hundred kilometres from the scene of the crime. Strbic said: "A year and a half after the exhumations, the families identified the bodies at the Zagreb Institute of Forensic Medicine. Proceedings recently began against two Croatian Army members indicted as direct perpetrators of this crime, but neither The Hague prosecution, nor the local prosecution, have indicted anyone for this crime in line with command responsibility, or those who had ordered and organized this crime and moved the bodies".
Vasile Ianos
NJ- Friday June 20, 2003 at 12:25 am
Yes I too feel more responsible for our war against Serbia and thus more interested in the Kosovo section of the trial.I get a double helping of guilt and responsibility being born English and being Canadian by choice. I don't have much time for the British conservative party, but I must say every time the talk turns to Tony Blair I am reminded again of those conservative posters warning a nation to beware "demon eyes" Tony. Am I alone in remembering this now long past slogan.
Robert, in the war in Afghanistan Canada did turn over "prisoners" to the US without first ensuring that they would be treated according to the terms of the Geneva convention, and further without first obtaining assurances from the US that those transferred to US authority would not subsequently face the death penalty. The minister of defence (who was also minister of defence during the bombing of Kosovo -- Art Eggelton) effectively lost his position over this, coupled with his lack of ability to say who had been thus handed over or when, or to adequately notify his superiors of this fact. It was a very serious lapse of judgement on his part, and it was yet one more blot on our already stained reputation.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Friday June 20, 2003 at 12:32 am
Godfrey, I was in Copenhagen a while back.. A beautiful city. Definitely not one that should have been shelled by the British. But if we are discussing remembered grievances, Danes found England a good place to rape and pillage, long before the British found Denmark a good place to shell.Ever heard of danegeld
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada- Friday June 20, 2003 at 1:46 am
Robert Hessen,I suspect that Slobodan Milosevic is better suited to pick his friends than you are, and it is precisely Slobodan Milosevic who made the decision to fire Ramsey Clark from the post of ICDSM co-president.
For those of you who weren't able to watch Zoran Lilic's testimony for these last 3 days at the tribunal, I have written a synopsis of what happened.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg061903.htm
The reports that I have seen in the media concerning Lilic's testimony are incredibly inaccurate. BBC and AP simply repeated eachother's lies and Beta made up some more lies of it's own.
What you have seen in the media is fairy tales designed for children. Their reporting was absolutely pathetic. Jayson Blair has nothing on these people.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Friday June 20, 2003 at 6:50 am
We seem to be getting lots of pathetic reporting from all quarters. No better served than by oneself. keep watching the trial observe, think and send a post card expressing support to President Slobodan Milosevic, I am sure he will appreciate it!
Robert Hessen comments about defending the unpopular are exactly what justice and the role of the defense lawyer is all about, without it becomes lynching!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Friday June 20, 2003 at 8:09 am
Ramsey Clark is not Slobodan Milosevic's defense lawyer. This point needs to be crystal clear.Of course defense lawyers need to defend unpopular people, but Slobodan Milosevic is not Ramsey Clark's client.
Slobodan Milosevic fired Ramsey Clark from the post of ICDSM co-President. Do you think he did that because he appreciates all of this "good help" that you seem to think that Clark is giving him?
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Friday June 20, 2003 at 12:16 pm
I read about the attack on the hospital staff & patients first on B92, then via the url given on this forum. But I have found no explanation for the attack or why UN police were involved. Can anyone help with that question?
M Donne
Canada- Friday June 20, 2003 at 12:54 pm
Re UNMIK hospital attack:Twenty medical employees of the Kosovo Polje Health Center were injured during an attempt by UNMIK and Kosovo police to evict the patients and Serb medical staff from the building of the former Russian hospital in the village of Bresje. UNMIK policemen ordered the Serb patients and medical staff to leave the hospital, Health Center director Dr. Zorica Jovanic told KIM Radio. "When we refused to follow their order, they threw tear gas in front of the hospital building and took out their batons, after which real chaos ensued.
After the withdrawal of Russian troops UNMIK and the Kosovo Police Services demanded that I turn over the keys of the Russian military hospital," said Dr. Jovanic. The building used until recently by Russian troops is owned by the Serbian Institute for Blood Transfusion, formerly located in Pristina. In addition to the team of Russian physicians and technologists, the dispensary and specialist section of the Russian military hospital employed a Serb team of physicians from the Kosovo Polje Health Center.
Dr. Jovanic says that prior to leaving the building the Russian troops advised that according to the provisions of the Kumanovo Agreement, they were supposed to give the keys to UNMIK. "The people in Steiner's administration remembered the Kumanovo Agreement applies in the case of the Russian military hospital even though it is obvious it is not being implemented anywhere else in the Province," said Dr. Jovanic. After the incident, an agreement was reached at a meeting with the regional police administration in Pristina to allow the Serb medical staff to continue to use the former Russian hospital.
Read source KIM RADIO JUNE 19, 2003
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Friday June 20, 2003 at 1:40 pm
Everybody,
I am now posting my analysis of how the Western mainstream media works. The goal of this series of articles is to expose all of the subtel techniques that the mainstream media uses, and leave not doubt that it is not only centrally controlled, but tightly so.
The example chosen is the reporting of the Freezer Truck story allegations, which I follow chronologically. In all this, I am assuming that my readers already know the important background: that the freezer truck allegations were a hoax, because they already read my expos about that.
The first article in the series is posted and more will follow. The series is called:
I hope contributors to this list will find it useful.
Francisco Gil-White
Pennsylvania- Friday June 20, 2003 at 1:58 pm
Lilic says that Milosevic had abiding influence of army command.Lilic says that Milosevic didnt make any attempt to investigate the events at Srebrenica.
Mr Lilic exploded Milosevic's theory about the French committing the crime 'those crazy Serbs in Pale'. Which is it Mr Milosevic was it those crazy Serbs or those crazy French?
Mr Lilic said that JUL controlled SPS / Milosevic.
Mr Lilic says that the Bosnian Serbs were during the time of Srebrenica under Belgrades payroll.
Mr Lilic says that Mr Stojilkovic said to 'kill all Albanians'. Mr Stojilkovic later kills himself and is said to be responsible for the very same bodies that appear in Serbia.
Well thats another witness for the defence then!
Michael Ryan
Ausie- Friday June 20, 2003 at 2:05 pm
MUP confusion and iwpr liesWestern media are downplaying the disastrous for the prosecution testimony of former Yugoslav President Lilic and are instead advertising the latest piece of Srebrenica misinformation from iwpr and its preeminent Bosnian Muslim propagandist Emir Suljagic. On the basis of an RS military order (see copies in Serbian & English in the iwpr link), Suljagic claims that "a unit that included members of Serbia's interior ministry police, MUP" [participated] ... in the Srebrenica operation", thus supposedly implicating Serbia and Milosevic in what the prosecution calls "genocide". I suggest that Serb-speakers read the alleged original military order and comment on its exact content. Judging from the English translation, it seems to me that Suljagic is not just spinning facts but is plainly lying, deliberately confusing local Bosnian Serb special police with the official Serbian "MUP". Previous posts in this forum have noted this apparently deliberate "MUP" confusion and it is alarming to see that this misinformation is parroted in mainstream media, e.g. NY Times. For those of us who are into sending letters to mainstream media, I believe that we should not attack the parrots but politely point out to them that Suljagic is a liar and his main agenda appears to be the promotion of the Bosnian government's ICC "genocide" suit against Yugoslavia (a subject which he often includes in his articles).
Pythagoras Crotoniatis
Greece- Friday June 20, 2003 at 2:09 pm
Robert Hessen said this:
"What Buchanan, Clark and others were arguing was that Linnas should be put on trial in a U.S. court and that he Soviet Union should present its evidence against him there."
That makes me wonder whether Hessen read Jared Israel's piece. Here is a quote from Ramsey Clark, which appears in Jared's piece:
"'There comes a time after the most horrible acts when the possibility of reconciliation outweighs any possible need for retribution or to maintain the integrity of the law,' he said. 'If you take a man who's senile, who's on his deathbed, and you can hear the rattle, and you have to rush to strangle him before he dies, then there's no hope for reconciliation.'"
In other words, Clark was saying that if Nazi criminals become old men, then we must throw away the integrity of the law for the sake of... of what? For the same of reconciliation! With whom? With the same old Nazis, apparently...
In case you missed it, this is a general argument against prosecuting Nazi mass murderers now that they have old men, and it applies to any court that might want to try them, not just to Soviet courts.
Sure, Clark also made arguments about how you supposedly could not trust the Soviets: his goal was to save Linnas and he was pulling all the stops, using any argument under the sun. But if his goal had really been to try Linnas in the United States, as you argue, then he never would have used the argument that Nazis mass murderers should not be prosecuted because they have been more fortunate than their hapless victims, and have managed to age.
Francisco Gil-White
Pennsylvania- Friday June 20, 2003 at 2:32 pm
'decisions of the SDC were reached by consensus and that Milosevic didn’t have any more power than any of the other members of the SDC.'Mr Wilcoxson I cant wait to see you back up half claims you made in that report including the above one. He had great deal of influence according to Lilic. The transcripts will expose your bias and I for one will read them.
Lilic testimony exposes Milosevic as an autocratic leader who made bad decisions and who was ruled by his wife.
Count me out of the Milosevic fan club
Michael Ryan
Aus- Friday June 20, 2003 at 2:33 pm
Criticizing the article that Nico Varkevisser and I wrote, Ramsey Clark: Championing Nazi Butchers Mr. Hessen says that Pat Buchanan and his ally, Ramsey Clark, were not opposed to putting Nazi war criminals on trial - they just wanted those trials to occur in the U.S. In fact both Clark and Buchanan are on record opposing *any* legal action against Nazis "after 40 years". (One can read the quotes in our article) Clark goes so far as to say that it was acceptable to not "maintain the integrity of the law" if by violating the law one could effect reconciliation with Nazis. A truly remarkable statement.
The OSI deported and deports Nazis who immigrated to the US in the 1940s and '50s and who lied about their Nazi past in order to gain entry. If the U.S. does not deport these people it would be making an explicitly pro-Nazi statement.
It is an interesting side note that many Nazi murderers of the Ustasha variety were kept in fine style in the U.S., Cananda and other countries and then, years later, they and their children returned to Croatia to help with the destruction of Yugoslavia. That is, they were saved from being tried by the Communists so that they could be used later. Since Mr. Clark opposes prosecution of Nazi war criminals *in general* he would of course have to oppose prosecution of these Ustashes as well.
Ramsey Clark: Championing Nazi Butchers
Jared Israel
USA- Friday June 20, 2003 at 3:32 pm
Reply to Ian Davis:
The following is a quote from my piece on the history of the Palestinian movement (visit the link to see the documentation):
Israel痴 1948 Declaration of Independence includes the following: 展E APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
UN Resolution 194, which was acceptable to the Israelis, stated in point 11 that, 套refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property This resolution was *unanimously rejected* by the Arabs.
About Sabra and Shatila, even looking at what those most interested in trying Sharon for war crimes have to say, it is clear that they have nothing on him. This should not be entirely surprising to anybody on this list because we are discussing here a trial against a man - Milosevic - whom many of us know to be innocent, and against whom the entire apparatus of the Western media has been mobilized, making eveyrbody believe that he is a fascist.
Well, it could happen to others...
The following quotes come from this article: The Guardian (London), November 28, 2001, Guardian Features Pages, Pg. 6, 1697 words, Inside Story: The Sharon files: A Belgian court will today decide whether to try Ariel Sharon for war crimes. Julie Flint uncovers secret documents that detail Israel's involvement in the 1982 massacres at Sabra and Shatila, Julie Flint.
Here is what they say about Sabra and Shatila:
[Start Guardian Quote]
"In February 1983, the [Israeli] Kahan commission found that no Israeli was 'directly responsible' for the massacre, but determined that Sharon bore 'personal responsibility.' It ruled that he was negligent in ignoring the possibility of bloodshed in the camps following the assassination of the Lebanese Forces' leader, president-elect Bashir Gemayel, on September 14."
[End Guardian Quote]
Many hang their accusations against Sharon on this Kahan finding, because the Kahan commission is Israeli. The argument is, if some Israelis accuse Sharon, somewhat, then he must be guilty. But then so would Milosevic be guilty, since quite a few Serbs can be found to accuse him.
Such arguments are absurd, and so is the reasoning of the Kahan commission - and it is unique, as I will demonstrate below.
First, the Kahan commission complains that Sharon ignored the possibility of bloodshed against civilians.
Huh? The "possibility" always exists, and nobody can justifiably be held responsible for ignoring this ever-present possibility. Moreover, Sharon is accused of ignoring this possibility resulting from an event entirely out of his control, namely, "the assassination of the Lebanese Forces' leader, president-elect Bashir Gemayel, on September 14." Gemayel was Sharon's ally, and he was murdered by a rival Lebanese faction, so one cannot blame Sharon for the murder, much less for events that this murder triggered. And finally, Sharon is held responsible even though the forces which perpetrated the massacre were not directly under his command, as these were Lebanese, not Israeli forces.
A sensible and intelligible accusation (whether just or not is a different matter) would speak of neglecting the obvious likelihood of bloodshed against civilians by soldiers under Sharon's command responsibility. But since the Israeli Kahan commission did incoherently hold Sharon responsible for neglecting the mere possibility of attacks on civilians by soldiers not under his command, we may conclude that Israelis are so concerned about protecting civilians that they take it to the point of absurdity.
For comparison, here are the standards used by the US military:
[Start Quote From U.S. Army Field Manual]
"The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof..." -- "The United States Army Field Manual: The Law of Land Warfare," 1956 http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/fieldman.html
[Start Quote From U.S. Army Field Manual]
Notice the words "by troops or other persons subject to his control," and also "are about to commit," both of which make a point very different from such actions being merely "possible," which they always are.
Apparently aware that what is needed is an accusation in harmony with the requirements of something like the US Army Field Manual, the Guardian reports that the Belgian lawyers are trying to establish both that Sharon had command responsibility over the Lebanese forces, and also that he actually knew attacks against civilians were likely. But what evidence do they bring forth?
[Start Guardian Quote]
"a stack of documents delivered to lawyers seeking to bring Sharon, now Israel's prime minister, to trial in Belgium for war crimes committed in Lebanon 19 years ago when he had overall responsibility for the IDF.
The documents, exclusively obtained by the Guardian, cover the period between June and November 1982 - from a meeting in which 'the cabinet has decided to have the Lebanese army and the Phalangists participate in the entering of Beirut' to the testimony to Israel's Kahan commission of inquiry of a senior military intelligence officer, Colonel Elkana Harnof. Some are in Hebrew; others in English. Michael Verhaeghe, one of three lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case against Sharon, has little doubt about the documents' authenticity. They arrived anonymously in June, within 10 days of the suit being lodged under legislation that allows Belgium to prosecute foreigners for war crimes, wherever they were committed."
[End Guardian Quote]
So these are documents that arrived anonymously.
The Guardian says that the lawyer who intends to use these anonymously delivered documents in order to bring charges against Sharon "has little doubt about the documents' authenticity." Why does the Guardian share this piece of information? Is anybody supposed to expect that the lawyer who intends to bring charges against Sharon by using these documents would express skepticism about their authenticity? And if not, of what value is it to learn that he is supposedly very sure that they are genuine? Or is the Guardian trying subliminally to whisper that they are authentic?
Not quite. the Guardian actually means to yell that the documents are supposedly authentic. This is what the Guardian says next:
[Start Guardian Quote]
"'The documents give a very detailed account of a number of events which would be very difficult to fabricate - especially in that very short period of time,' says Verhaeghe. Investigations by the Guardian in Israel and Lebanon have confirmed the identity of the intelligence officers named in the documents as well as the dates, times and locations of some of the meetings, those who attended them and some of their content. The typescript of the Hebrew documents matches that used at the time of Kahan. And the voices of many of the protagonists are unmistakable - among them the courtly Pierre Gemayel, patriarch of the Gemayel family, and Sharon, referred to throughout as DM."
[End Guardian Quote]
So we have, first of all, that "The documents, exclusively obtained by the Guardian," have had their authenticity confirmed through"Investigations by the Guardian."
Can we believe the Guardian? Well this is, after all, the same Guardian that lied through its teeth about Milosevic and the Serbs. So I hope I can be forgiven if I withhold my judgment as to the authenticity of these documents.
But notice that even if we were to believe in the Guardian's work as competent and honest, they are only claiming to have confirmed "some of the content" of those documents. This is important because in fact the documents make contradictory claims, so it is incumbent on the Guardian to tell us which content has been verified. But we are not told.
Finally, let us take a look at what these documents supposedly say. Is it really damning? Remember, the key questions here are three: (1) Did Sharon have command responsibility for the Lebanese forces that carried out the massacre?; (2) Did he know that a massacre was likely?; and (3) Is his behavior consistent with a lack of concern for such an imminent massacre?
[Start Guardian Quote]
"In his testimony to Kahan, Sharon claimed that no one imagined the Lebanese Forces would carry out a massacre in the camps. This claim is contradicted by numerous testimonies in the documents in Belgium - among them Sharon's own complaint to Bashir Gemayel, minuted 10 weeks before the massacre, that 'it is incumbent that we prevent several ugly things which have occurred - murders, rapes and stealing by some of your men.' In the same month, in a meeting with American diplomats at the home of Johnny Abdo, Lebanon's military intelligence chief, Sharon proposed that the PLO fighters in Beirut be given 'refuge' in Israel. 'Although we are at a friend's house,' he said, according to the report of the meeting, 'rest assured that they would be more secure in our hands!'
[End Guardian Quote]
Notice that the attempt here is to establish that Sharon lied when he said that "no one imagined the Lebanese forces would carry out a massacre in the camps." In order to establish this, we are told that Sharon told Bashir Gemayel that "it is incumbent that we prevent several ugly things which have occurred - murders, rapes and stealing by some of your men."
This is an amazing way to make the case that Sharon is a monster!
The quote - if authentic - explicitly demonstrates that Sharon was worried about violence against civilians, and other illegalities. Moreover, it suggests that only a few rogue and individual elements among Gemayel's forces ("some of your men") had engaged in such behaviors to date. From this perspective, it was reasonable for Sharon not to expect a widespread massacre against civilians, for there was no evidence that Gemayel had any such policy. Finally, the quote establishes that Sharon made it clear to Gemayel that civilians should be protected. However, he did not command him. What he said is, "It is incumbent that we prevent." That is how one speaks to an ally, not to one's subordinate. Sharon may not have minced words when he criticized Gemayel for the individual crimes committed by some of his men, but he did not issue a command. This should surprise nobody. After all, we are talking, as the Guardian says, about Lebanon's "president-elect Bashir Gemayel," and it is indeed a stretch to imagine the president-elect of a country making himself the subordinate of a foreign soldier.
The point about giving refuge to the PLO fighters in Israel is far from being clear as to its meaning. But it appears to suggest - if authentic - that Sharon might have even been concerned that the PLO terrorists would be mercilessly killed, whereas he preferred that they be arrested. Is this the picture of a monster?
It is also worth pointing out that Gemayel, the man whom Sharon admonished to be careful about protecting civilians, died assassinated on September 14th, 1982. The Lebanese militiamen went into Sabra and Shatila on September 16th. The relevant points here are:
(1) It is not Sharon's fault that Gemayel was assassinated, and it is Gemayel who was admonished by Sharon to protect civilians;
(2) Although Sharon had impressed upon Gemayel the importance of protecting civilians, he had not issued a command, suggesting Gemayel was his own man and not under Sharon's orders;
(3) the Lebanese forces entered Sabra and Shatila only two days after Gemayel was assassinated which suggests that, even if Sharon had known that those who took over after Gemayel died were likely to conduct a massacre, there was precious little time in which to prevent the attack, and it was probably complicated by the confusion resulting from Gemayel's assassination.
Given all this, the conclusion of the Kahan commission, which accuses Sharon of being "negligent in ignoring the possibility of bloodshed in the camps following the assassination of the Lebanese Forces' leader, president-elect Bashir Gemayel, on September 14," seems harsh indeed. The Israelis apparently require that their soldiers be clairvoyant and omnipotent.
About the bombing of the supposed "star witnesses" against Sharon, I don't know anything about it. But what point is it supposed to make? Do you know who killed them? Or are you saying that since somebody killed them it has to be Sharon? Let me remind you that in Sarajevo the Bosnian Muslims attacked their own civilians so that the propaganda Western media could blame it on the Bosnian Serbs (e.g. the Breadline massacre). Given that such things are possible, we should not jump to the conclusion that whoever the media suggests is behind something really is. If there is no case against Sharon, as my analysis above suggests, then somebody else might have killed these alleged "star witnesses" in order to make it seem as though Sharon is worried about them. This would have the effect of mobilizing more antisemitism, which is exactly what the organized neo-fascists want.
Francisco Gil-White
Pennsylvania- Friday June 20, 2003 at 3:52 pm
I wrote my notes, above, before I read those of my friend, Francisco Gil-White. Francisco wrote, concerning Mr. Hessen's mistaken argument:
"Sure, Clark also made arguments about how you supposedly could not trust the Soviets: his goal was to save Linnas and he was pulling all the stops, using any argument under the sun."
This is true. However, I would like to add my own perspective regarding the significance of Clark's anti-Soviet statements. Pat Buchanan was Pres. Reagan's top communications official. Buchanan was the leader of pro-Nazi forces in the U.S. He spoke and wrote with passion against *every* aspect of the Soviet Union and in favor of the worst Nazi war criminals. Buchanan was a key part of the illegal attack on Nicaragua. The Baltic groups Buchanan worked with were *notoriously* pro-Nazi. For Clark to have linked himself to these people and to the anti-Soviet vendetta which was the hallmark of this section of American politics - not the "Right" but the pro-Nazi Right! - is truly amazing. It is also amazing that even while Clark was continuing to make pro-Nazi statements, in 1991, he also organized the International Action Center which is run by Workers World, which considers itself communist and identifies with North Korea. This instantaneous and unexplained jump from anti-Soviet to pro-North Korean positions suggests nothing but a high level intelligence operative given a change of assignment.
Jared Israel
USA- Friday June 20, 2003 at 3:56 pm
Michael RyanYou obviously did not watch those proceedings. You have obviously read about this in the media and so you are misinformed. That isn't an insult against you. It isn't your fault that the media provided you with faulty information. I hope that you and everybody else here does read the transcripts when the tribunal makes them avaliable.
I want people to read the transcripts. I want people to watch the video. Throughout every day of Lilic's testimony I came here and told people to watch it. The day before he testified I told them to be sure and watch the testimony. I even tell people in the article itself that the transcripts should be read.
As for the points you raised, which I assume that you got from reading the media I shall refute them one by one:
Lilic says that Milosevic had abiding influence of army command.
Lilic stated in no uncertain terms that the Supreme Defense Council made its decisions on the basis of concensus, and that Slobodan Milosevic's authority was equal to the other SDC members.
Lilic says that Milosevic didn't make any attempt to investigate the events at Srebrenica.
Milosevic was the President of Serbia, and Srebrenica isn't in Serbia.
Mr Lilic exploded Milosevic's theory about the French committing the crime 'those crazy Serbs in Pale'. Which is it Mr Milosevic? Was it those crazy Serbs or those crazy French?
Lilic didn't explode anything. He was simply explaining Milosevic's initial reaction when he heard the news about Srebrenica for the first time. Nothing Lilic said excludes the possibility that Milosevic received other information later on.
Mr Lilic said that JUL controlled SPS / Milosevic.
This is a matter of opinion. This was Lilic's personal opinion, and I believe that he used the term "disproportionate influence" and not the term "control."
Lilic did confirm, and it is a fact that only 6 out of 37 ministers in the Serbian Government were members of the JUL, and 2 of those 6 were ministers without portfolio. It is also a fact, confirmed by Lilic that only 2 out of 21 federal ministers were members of the JUL.
We are merely discussing Lilic's opinion here. Lilic has a right to his opinion, but I think that the facts that he confirmed suggest that his opinion is either politically motivated, or simply incorrect.
Mr Lilic says that the Bosnian Serbs were, during the time of Srebrenica, under Belgrade's payroll.
Not only during the war but all the way until Kostunica abolished the social insurance program that they were being paid from.
Those particular VRS members (the ones who had previously been JNA members) were only receiving their social insurance payments which they had legally accrued as citizens of Yugoslavia and as members of the JNA. They were simply being paid the money that they were already owed.
Mr Lilic says that Mr Stojilkovic said to 'kill all Albanians'. Mr Stojilkovic later kills himself and is said to be responsible for the very same bodies that appear in Serbia.
I don't remember that being said at all, but even if it was said, it dosen't matter anyway, since that alleged opinion of Stojilkovic's was never translated in to policy.
Lilic said quite clearly that there was no plan to exterminate Albanians from Kosovo, and that the Army and the Police were never issued any orders that called for them to purpetrate crimes.
Please read the transcripts when they are avaliable. Unfortunately, bard.edu has not updated their video archive in 8 days, so the video is not avaliable yet.
I encourage you to e-mail them at: hague@bard.edu and ask them to make the video avaliable as soon as possible.
The link to their video archive is:
http://hague.bard.edu/video.html
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Friday June 20, 2003 at 5:18 pm
June 18, Ramsey Clark Interview Junge Welt, June 18, 2003Besides being a political activist you are an attorney. You have charged that the ICTY is illegitimate. What do you mean by that?
First of all, the ICTY was not lawfully created. To create a criminal tribunal, the UN Security Council had to usurp powers not given by the UN Charter. No person aware of the history of the UN痴 founding, let alone any serious historian, would believe for a minute the five dominant powers that became the permanent Security Council members would have allowed the UN to begin if they had the slightest belief it could create a criminal court that could prosecute them for Nuremberg-type war crimes.
And yet Madeleine Albright introduced the ICTY and pressured the Security Council to suddenly seize this power and create the court. The ICTY痴 purpose was to pressure U.S. enemies and their leadership by determining that genocide occurred in Yugoslavia. The charges focused on Serbs, the most populous group in the federal republic, and thus were based not on equal justice under the law. It could only prosecute for acts in Yugoslavia. Because the court appears to be neutral, and almost exclusively charges Serbs with alleged war crimes, it becomes a way to carry out war by other means.
The U.S. always insists it is above the law and can稚 be prosecuted, not even by and International Criminal Court. The ICC is at least created in accord with law. Ninety countries have ratified the ICC, and 130 approved, while ICTY and others like it are illegitimate in conception. Washington identifies enemies in Liberia, in Cambodia, in Iraq, and tries to use the court to remove them from the scene. Besides the illegality of the court, there is the ridiculous way it made charges against Pres. Milosevic. In the middle of the 1999 bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, when the U.S. is trying to negotiate with him, to make him surrender, the court brings charges relating to Kosovo, saying that Milosevic has forced a migration. Meanwhile NATO is bombing all over Kosovo as well as Serbia, killing hundreds of people and driving hundreds of thousands out of their homes, and foreign interests are arming enemies of Yugoslavia within Kosovo.
The court brought in charges regarding Bosnia and Croatia much later, long after the civil war in Bosnia, long after hundreds of thousands of Serbs were driven out of the Crayina region, and with the knowledge that Mr. Milosevic had no direct control over what happened there. This is contemptible.
Mr. Clark, why have you endorsed the demonstration set for June 28 at The Hague in solidarity with Mr. Milosevic?
I support the June 28 demonstration because the court should be recognized as illegitimate in its conception, and because it is important to let the world know what is happening in The Hague. We want to live by rule of law and not by political power that can demonize people.
to read the full interview, please visit: http://www.jungewelt.de/beilage/index.php?b_id=12
Dan B
Canada- Friday June 20, 2003 at 9:33 pm
The text above refers to an interview with Ramsey Clark, conducted by Catherine Scheutz, who works with Ramsey Clark's group, the IAC. The interview has just appeared in Junge Welt, formerly the newspaper of the youth section of the East German communist party. It is of course an attempt to rebut the articles Nico Varkevisser and I have written. A few points on this.
a) As Nico and I wrote in our article entitled Ramsey Clark's IAC accuses EC Editors of Slander but they get the Facts Wrong... , when appearing in anti-NATO meetings and media, Clark attacks US policy, though sloppily. (There is much that is semi-accurate in this interview - typical of Clark when he is being pro-Yugoslav, for the consumption of critics of US policy.) But, as we pointed out, when he is addressing *ordinary* people, the same Ramsey Clark has publicly (on CNN) accused the Bosnian Serbs of war crimes and said that even though President Milosevic may have supported those crimes (this is all from Clark, mind you) he could not be convicted. So we have two Clarks. One provides sloppily presented, semi-accurate statements of defense. The other attacks Milosevic and the Serbs. However, given the severe implications of our articles, it would not now surprise me if Clark, for the first time, made some sloppy, semi-accurate defense of President Milosevic in the *mainstream* media as well. Stranger things have done, under compulsion.
b) We have read Clark's Junge Welt interview and besides repeating much-stated points about Yugoslavia, some of them inaccurately, it includes self-promoting lies about Clark's role in "defending" Milosevic. This is important, because this article is part of the campaign to put forces associated with Clark's IAC in a controlling position in President Milosevic's publicity/support work. That is underlying reason why, after a year and a half of silence, Clark again was associated with Milosevic, during the recently televised National Press Club luncheon, why some people are very upset about our articles, and why this Junge Welt piece has appeared. The US covert apparatus has re-mobilized Clark now because the defense part of the so-called trial is next, and they want to be in position to publicly link it to Clark's fascism.
By the way, President Milosevic has *reaffirmed* that he is 100% in agreement with what Nico and I are arguing. Thrown into The Hague's prison, he could be forgiven if he grabbed at *any* straw, any appearance of support - and Clark does have celebrity. And yet he said, and I *quote* his words: "We are fighting neo-Fascism. We cannot let ourselves be associated with Old Fascism." Despite an organized effort to get President Milosevic to change his mind, the President has refused to reverse his stand that Clark be removed as co-President of the ICDSM. Why does it seem that so many of the world's heroes come from one small Balkans nation?
Jared Israel
USA- Friday June 20, 2003 at 9:43 pm
Andyfirst rate report on your website describing the Illic testimony at the Milosevic hearings.
as I've noted, the lpnger the hearings go on, the better for the truth and the worse for the War Party
AP V
NY
NY - Wednesday June 18, 2003 at 6:15 pm
