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

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 5:06 am
  Very much by way of postings from Jared Israel and his friend, EC co-editor Francisco Gil-White it has become clear to me, that just as U.S. foreign (war)policies are largely incomprehensible (to me anyway!) except in terms of the domestic situation as perceived by "Norteamericanos", so are their contributions to the discussion on the assumed fairness of the trial against mr. Milosevic (and, say, the Israeli-Palestinian problems).

  Having read Gil-Whites "analysis" of the "accusations of a massacre at Racak" (quite meaninglessly dubbed "The Road to Jenin"?) I would suggest, that the discussion can do (better!) without such loquality.

  What is needed is an intelligent handling of facts, - not endless expressions of lack of confidence in nearly everything and everybody (incl. Ramsey Clark).

  The notion of AP V, that "the longer the hearings (meaning the "trial" and presumeably the "trial discussion" as well - gl-j) go on, the better for the truth and the worse for the War Party", made me think of a little piece by Mark Twain (describing the decreasing willingness of (himself as a member of) a church audience in response to the sloppy overstatements of an agitator). I have forgotten the title of the piece though - if not the message.
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 6:07 am
  

  Mark Twain:

  None but the dead have free speech. None but the dead are permitted to speak truth. In America -- as elsewhere -- free speech is confined to the dead. The minority is always in the right. When the country is drifting toward Philippine robber-raid henroost raid, do not shirk your duty, do not fail of loyalty, lest you win and deserve the reproach of being a "patriot." The majority is always in the wrong. Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 6:11 am
  According to Michael Ryan (June 20, 2003 at 2:32 pm) the "Lilic testimony exposes Milosevic as an autocratic leader who made bad decisions and who was ruled by his wife".

  Well, - I wonder? This is NOT however the ICTY charge against mr. Milosevic.

  So: Even it it were "true", - then what difference does it make to the "trial"?

  (Also Michael Ryan's use of the term "the Milosevic fan club" tends to confirm, that this trial discussion is regrettably too concerned with "persons" rather than with facts and points of view).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 6:12 am
  

  It is the War Prayer which was published in the 1920's well after his death. Before, no body dared.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 6:18 am
  

  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 10:32 am
  Ok Andy we will wait and see. Soon as the transcripts are back I will check back with you.

  I did watch some of the testimony over the internet and I did hear Stojilkovic's comments about Albanians. It does matter very much since he was in a position to order the killing of Albanians. Lilic replied that sons of Serbs next generation would be ashamed of such action taken.

  No Lilic did not say that that all army command council members were equal. You will see. He said something along the lines of 'as you know Sloba some were more equal than others' Lets wait.

  If it wasnt milosevic responsibility to investigate Srebrenica then how did he come by information tht the French did it?
  
  Michael Ryan
  Aus

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 1:02 pm
  

  An interesting pattern.

  (1) Somebody posts an attack on Israel, or on Jews, on this list.

  (2) Either myself or Jared respond with detailed documentation refuting the attack, and then

  (3) People complain about us saying there is too much discussion about Israel on this list!

  (4) But despite the complaint they switch gears and launch a fresh attack (because the previous one has been dealt with documentation and apparently it cannot be answered).

  An example of this has to do with remarks made by Ian Davis about Sharon's supposed criminal responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon. I replied with documentation that makes it clear this has been a slanderous attack against Sharon. Nobody answers what I posted directly (how can they?). Instead, Mr. Louis-Jensen complains that we are posting a lot of stuff (but who's forcing him to read anything?) and Mr. Gogol Charlemagne switches gears by posting a fresh attack against Israel that has to do with painting the entire so-called "right wing" in Israel as terrorists.

  So who's obsessed with Israel? Not us. We have merely corrected inaccuracies and falsehoods in other people's postings on Israel, because we oppose falsehoods in general and those which promote antisemitism in particular. Not only because Jews, like any other people, must be protected from prejudiced attacks, but because there is a close connection between antisemitism and fascist movements that destroy the possibility of democracy and freedom generally - and are thus a threat to us all - by awakening primitive passions in people that distract them as to who really is their political enemy. That is how extreme right wingers always work: by motivating ethnic hatreds with lies, and to the extent it succeeds, it keeps those who would benefit from progressive politics from uniting.

  And note that the new posting by Mr. Gogol Charlemagne is an article by the World Socialist Website that contains not one piece of documentation, and which gives the standard antisemitic line which is rampant in the modern so-called "Left" and which distorts the entire history of the so-called "right wing" movement in Israel (not to say the history of the "left wing"). This is ironic, because, in so doing, Mr. Charlemagne is arguing in our court, suggesting that history matters. However, when it comes to discussing my minutely documented history of the fascist origins and current nature of the Palestinian movement, history seems quickly to lose its relevance for Mr. Charlemagne and others. The only kind of history that seems to matter is a distorted (and entirely undocumented) version of the Israeli "right wing", vouched for by "leftists".

  Let us be clear. If anybody wishes the topic of Israel to be dropped they can stop making fresh attacks on Jews or on Israel every time we have refuted the last one. I, for one, have absolutely no desire for the focus of this list to be Israel. But if I see postings that either reflect ignorance about Israel or provide misinformation contributing to antisemitism (or any other form of racism), you can expect answers. I will not let it stand. Open season on Jews is over so long as I am around.

  If you would like to talk about Milosevic, then focus. Otherwise, expect more of the same.

  
  
  Francisco Gil-White
  Pennsylvania

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 1:39 pm
  

  Mr. Ryan asks: "If it wasn't Milosevic's responsibility to investigate Srebrenica then how did he come by information that the French did it?"

  First, let us be clear what is meant by "it", as in "the French did *it*." The Western media and the Bosnian Islamist government claim 7-8000 people were massacred at Srebrenica. Milosevic has *not* accepted that figure. He has accused a French intelligence group of killing a much smaller number of people. His point is: Western covert services wanted to create the appearance of a Serb-perpetrated massacre, and to this end, French agents, and I would add the Islamists themselves, massacred some of "their own", plus some of the Islamist troops did die in fire fights trying to get through the woods and make their way to Tuzla. We have posted a list of Emperor's Clothes articles on Srebrenica which deals with these issues, providing lots of facts and source-references.

  Secondly, when Andy says it was not the President of *Serbia's* responsibility to investigate what happened at Srebrenica, I assume he means it was not his *official* responsibility - not required of him, by law. Why? Because he was not in the chain of command of the Bosnian Serb Army. But that does not mean that President Milosevic would not want to use whatever sources he had to discover the truth. Two entirely different points. That President Milosevic was *not* in the Bosnian Serb chain of command is evident from the severity of the public conflicts, at times, between Milosevic and Karadzic. If Karadzic was under Milosevic, they would not, of course, have had public quarrels. They did quarrel in this way because they were heads of *two different states.* Regarding the quarrels between the two men, please notice that in recent testimony before The Hague Kangaroo Tribunal, President Milosevic has *reasserted* that he does not believe either Mladic or Karadzic did anything wrong at Srebrenica. So - these men may have had conflicts, but they have not turned on one another, despite the obvious willingness to make a deal with a traitor. Did I ask the other day why it is that a small Balkans nation seems to produce such a disproportionate number of heroes?

  list Emperor's Clothes articles on Srebrenica

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 2:29 pm
  CLARIFICATION! In my last post, I wrote that Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic are heroes because none of them turns on the other "despite the obvious willingness to make a deal with a traitor." That sentence got scrambled and is therefore unclear. It should have read something like this: "Despite the fact that the Hague Tribunal uses every possible carrot and stick in its effort to turn Serbian leaders into traitors, this effort has failed miserably with Milosevic, Karadzic, Mladic and so many others."
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 3:39 pm
  Mr. Gil-White when looking at present and past history of Palestine and Yugoslavia we are fishing in some very muddy waters. We can assume that unless we see things personally that they don’t exist. Even when we see things personally they might not be what they seem.

  I met a Mr. Weiss some years ago and the first time I saw the tattooed number on his forearm it sent chills through my body. I saw the number; therefore, I know that it exists. He told me that it was placed there in Auschwitz. However, he could have gone to any tattoo parlor in Canada and had the number tattooed on his arm. There are many reasons why he might have done this, such as profit, pity, belonging and even a form of recognition. Do I need to provide a source for this account in order for it to be relevant?

  I could have been deceived by Mr. Weiss but I don’t think I was. I had met Mr. Weiss’s son before I had met the father. The son knew nothing of his father’s experience and it was through my interest that the son and I learned of the horrors in Mr. Weiss’s past. Does this mean that I should accept Mr. Weiss’s memories as a collective truth of the treatment of the Jews in WWII and reject those that may question his version of events? Mr. Weiss story has reconstituted my interpretation of these historical events and given them another dimension.

  You write “The only kind of history that seems to matter is a distorted (and entirely undocumented) version of the Israeli "right wing", vouched for by "leftists".” Does this mean that I should accept your version of the history of Palestine and reject Gogol’s? You and Gogol are fishing in the same waters and I see Zionism, Irgun, Stern Gang and the King David Hotel as fish that Gogol has caught and I see Fascist origins and anti-Semitism as the cause of the present Palestinian conflict as the fish you display and from this same pool of water the fish that I display is that Israel is America’s policeman in the Middle East and if it were not for the strategic value of Israel vis-à-vis the Arab States this discussion between all of us would be a moot point and it might not have taken place at all.

  Mr. Gil-White I want to thank you for the information on Yugoslavia as well as Israel. Self interest tends to distort events even when they are documented. Carr writes, facts depend ‘on the pond where we fish’.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 3:47 pm
  

  Francisco,

  I decided not to pay any more attention to the EwC after its attacks on Ramsey Clark with which I squarely disagree. You and Jared don't shine any more light on any issue than on your own by making quotes from your own, quoting yourselves as if the EwC was the absolute and ultimate reference in any quest for the truth.

  This remains a forum on International Law and the issue whether President Slobodan Milosevic is getting a fair trial or not. It is perfectly understandable then that international lawyers of some renown like Ramsey Clark and others have opinions to give on the subject.

  We got your message, we understand your despair about the situation in the world vis a vis Israel, but you seem to have a self righteous attitude here with entitles you to judge everyone's opinion here by your standards. No body wishes any harm to Israelis nor to the Jews, but perhaps we are not that interested in discussing its case neither. I posted this fresh out of the press so to speak WSWS article about the State of Israel because it refutes a lot of what you have told us your own version of history, if you have an issue with it, I say take it with the WSWS, they wrote the article and as it is not finish. I am sure they want to hear from you; I hope you do not accuse them to be fascist, nazis, holocaust deniers, revisionists and anti-Semites just because they see things a little differently than you do.

  Sincerely,

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 4:37 pm
  

  Mr. Gogol Charlemagne,

  If you had not stopped reading Emperor's Clothes, you would understand what a refutation is. What you posted does not refute anything I myself wrote. It goes in a completely fresh direction. A refutation, however, would have addressed my points directly.

  Moreover, a refutation needs to provide documentation. The link you posted contains none.

  Enough said!

  
  
  Francisco Gil-White
  Pennsylvania

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 6:32 pm
  Dear professor Gil-White,

  I certainly did not (mean to) complain that you "are posting a lot of stuff". I have often been impressed with the writings of Jared Israel and yourself, and honestly believe, that you have been making an inspired and extremely valuable contribution in the interest of justice.

  However none of my own modest attempts have been "instead" of an answer to what you posted. I just wonder who needs all this chat about whether mr. Ramsey Clark ought to have said something (else) at some luncheon in a press club in the U.S. etc.? I believe that we agree on the need to focus, and while we could probably convince JURIST to open another or even several new fora to discuss "Palestine" and other issues such as "Iraq" (or the presidency of the ICDSM) respectively, it is (in my opinion) high time to concentrate and to summarize the particular discussion on the "Kosovo part" of the "trial" against Milosevic et al.

  In my view the ICTY Prosecution has already lost the "Kosovo" case, - and they are certainly going to lose the "Croatia and Bosnia part" as well (1), - largely thanks (not to any of us, but) to the truly remarkable efforts of mr. Milosevic. The discussion on whether anybody but himself were his attorney seems (to me) to be entirely superfluous (and sadly destructive!) as in fact it is the other way round: mr. Milosevic is acting as our lawyer, - acting as an attorney for the peoples of the World in their longstanding case against the "superpower"(s).

  In respect for his defending the interests of Serbia, (which is serving our wider interests as well), and realizing that US/NATO is still a rather formidable foe, we - the general public - should (in my view) be providing as best we can the bits and pieces required in support.

  It is no surprise at all to me (as an "old European") that the socalled "massacre" at Racak was a set-up, a "hoax". That quite frankly I realised from day one (16 January, 1999), - and so did most of us. Honestly nobody (that I know in Denmark) ever really trusted mr. Walker, mr. Solana or any other US/NATO/OSCE officials or politicians in the matter! From early October 1998 it became obvious to us, that the superpower was just looking for an excuse to attack, and instead of (waisting time on) illustrating our disgust with their dishonesty, we challenged the authorities on their concrete actions (we protested Danish armed participation in the "NATO action in the Western Balkans", as it was then being called).

  Such (in my opinion) should also be our tactics with regard to the "trial" in the Hague: Let us make the Prosecution explain why they need an extension of their case! Make mr. Nice explain why he was mutely accepting when Ambassador Walker declared the proposition that the bodies found at Racak "had been in some way redressed...as civilians" to be "ludicrous" (Trial Transcripts, Page 6799, line 2).

  And instead of challenging her honesty why not challenge the Finnish team leader, Helen Ranta, on this all-important point (which is not given a single word of attention in her forensic report)?

  (1) Contrary to Peter Taylor I am confident that mr. Blair will indeed some day face a court for his war crimes, - while this ridiculously unjust ICTY trial will never succeed in convicting mr. Milosevic.

  Sincerely,

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

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 6:53 pm
  

  S K O L !

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday June 21, 2003 at 11:27 pm
  It does matter very much since Stojilkovic was in a position to order the killing of Albanians.

  Lilic said point blank that no such orders were issued, end of discussion.

  Since when was the Interior Minister authorized to order killings? What do you mean when you say that he could order the killings of Albanians?

  Rade Markovic was under the direct command of Stojilkovic, and he also testified that there was no plan or any orders to kill Albanians, and you can read that in his transcript.

  Goto:
  http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/020726IT.htm
  Read from Page 8726 Line 17 to Page 8729 Line 3.

  And yes I agree that the Lilic transcript, when it becomes avaliable, will prove which one of us is right.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 3:33 am
  Mr Gil-White

  I'm concerned about your attempts to whitewash what Sharon is guilty of at Sabra and Shatila. Even more concerning is the method you're using. You really haven't provided any real documentation for your claims other than information from the Kahan Commision and an article printed in The Guardian which uses, as its main source, quotes from Sharon himself.

  You provide this quote from The Guardian.

  [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]

  You begin your analysis here:

  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!

  I would argue that you're a better journalist than to be taken in by The Guardian's sophisticated defense of Sharon.

  This defense rests on a quote from Sharon himself, that he warned Bashir Gemayel of the tragedy to come 10 weeks before it occurred. It shows great concern by Sharon for the Palestinians. But I ask you. Should we believe those minutes? Why should we believe those minutes. That quote works to the definite benefit of both Sharon and the Kahan Commision. Should we believe the Kahan Commision? Should we believe it any more than we should believe the Warren report? Certainly you can provide better documentation than this.

  Unfortunately, you don't. And you leave out all other documentation concerning what happened in Sabra and Shatila as well. Both The Guardian and yourself have framed the argument as you would prefer it to be framed, revealing a bias which is terribly concerning considering your status as a journalist. That you should insist that individuals here respond to your "documentation" is curious, to say the least. But what's most concerning is that you've begun goading individuals with slurs of antisemitism for having the audacity to disagree with you.

  Finally, your status as a Sharon apologist does not in any way help your credibility as a journalist in bringing justice to Milosevic and the Serbian people. I would respectfully ask that you focus your work on issues you are able to tackle without undue bias.
  
  Arthur Reznick
  Chicago, IL
  USA

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 10:23 am
  Godfred Louis-Jensen,

  My sentiments exactly. Milosevic is and has been beyond superlatives in defending not only himself and Serbia, but also the world, despite intimidation to his own person and his family, friends, and associates.

  Stolen perhaps, but applicable, I think: Never has one man done so much for so many.

  BTW, the CBC has been running on their bottom line accompanying the news that a document linking Milosevic to the Srebrenica massacre has been presented at the Hague. Does anyone have any information about such a document?
  
  M Donne
  Canada

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 10:46 am
  Arthur Reznick

  What about those people on this board who attempt to portray Arafat as a poor misunderstood peacemaker. Do they not discredit the Serbian cause by their mutual support? How odd you did not respectfully reprimand them for this.

  Should these defenders of Arafat and their denial of his imfamous uncle's influence on him be ignored here as with the media.? Will this somehow enable the righteous to unite in the cause of justice?

  Should we ignore connecting certain 'dots' in history because some find the picture offensive? This 'trial' is a testament to the dangers of not challenging those who renumber and move the 'dots' as they wish.
  
  Joel Aksamit
  Cleveland Mo
  USA

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 11:23 am
  M. Donne I have been looking for the info that you are seeking without luck. There is an article in Salt Lake Tribune somehow linking Milosevic with the Bosnian Serb "interior minister, Tomislav Kovac, instructing the special police to move into Srebrenica". http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jun/06202003/nation_w/67914.asp In a well known fashion of yellow journalism the CBC continues to present the news by innuendo.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 1:11 pm
  

  Here is the new document story from Paris! This is from The New York Times and you need to be registered to read it or I can email it to any one who sends me a request at: gogolc@hotmail.com

  The ARTICLE about the document.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 1:14 pm
  

  "The document was briefly referred to in court last week, but its text was first published today by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting."

  Cute!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 1:17 pm
  

  "Even if Mr. Milosevic knew nothing about a plan to massacre civilians, lawyers said he could still be held accountable because he failed to punish the perpetrators."

  Cuter!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 1:39 pm
  Mr. Arthur Reznick,

  You seem to have missed the point of my posting on Sharon.

  The Guardian article was not defending Sharon, it was attacking him. And the documents I referred to, and which I argued exonerate Sharon, are documents that the people who are trying to prosecute Sharon for supposed war crimes are bringing forth.

  In other words, what I showed is that the best that Sharon's accusers can bring forth in fact shows that he is being slandered. The Guardian spins it all against Sharon (it is a very hostile article) but from what the article itself reports about these supposed documents, it is clear they have nothing on him. In other words, the Guardian is doing to Sharon what it did to Milosevic.

  You said the following:

  You really haven't provided any real documentation for your claims.

  But this misses the point, doesn't it? A man is innocent until proven guilty (I hope everybody on this list will agree to that). And therefore the burden of proof is not on the man about whom an allegation is made. The burden of proof is on the accuser. And, at least in American law, it has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". Well, here we have that the prosecution not only cannot prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but something far worse for them: the documents that they claim are their best stuff in fact exonerate Sharon from their accusations. This is a bit like what we have seen at The Hague, isn't it? Even the witnesses that the prosecution calls their "star" witnesses (e.g. Markovic, Lilic) end up as witnesses for the defense!

  Beyond this, let me point out that there is no reason for you to be "troubled", as you say you are, by my defense of Sharon. I looked at the facts, and I analyzed them. There is nothing troubling in this, unless one is committed to demonizing Sharon whatever the facts may be. I prefer simply to go by the facts.
  
  Francisco Gil-White
  Pennsylvania

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 2:16 pm
  Mr. Gil-White

  I'm afraid it's you who doesn't get the point.

  The Guardian article may appear to attack Sharon but it does not. Instead, as you say, it exonerates him.

  This is not documentation or proof of anything. It's sophisticated journalism, much like the VOA article, referred to above, which appears to exonerate Milosevic, but instead attacks him.

  You're a much better journalist than to be taken in by such tricks. That you should insist on being deluded by these techniques reveals your bias, which is most concerning.

  It is difficult for me to take seriously the defense of Sharon using, as you do, quotes from the accused himself and others from the commission which is "trying" to prosecute him. This does not constitute legitimate documentation of the man's innocence any more than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal case is documentation of his or her innocense. The defendant's quotes and testimony may sway the jury, but, for the sake of justice, no reasonable person should be expected to just take the defendant and his lawyer's word for it.

  Mr. Aksamit

  You'll have to show me examples of the quotes from people on this forum making a vigorous defense of Arafat before I can properly respond to your questions. As for myself, from a moral standpoint, I consider Mr Arafat to be no better than Sharon. From a political standpoint, he's been nothing short of an utter failure in protecting the interests of his people.
  
  Arthur Reznick
  Chicago, IL
  USA

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 3:31 pm
  To: M. Donne, Walter, Gogol
  Re: "Document linking Milosevic to Srebrenica"

  The widely publicized document supposedly linking Milosevic to Srebrenica was published by iwpr and was parroted in the mainstream press, including of course the NY Times. It is absurdly alleged that the document impicates the "Serbian ... MUP" in the Srebrenica events. I commented on this document in my post of Friday June 20, 2:05 pm ("MUP confusion and iwpr lies"). I here repeat my suggestion (especially for Serbian-speakers) to read the original document (military order) and to comment on the point in question, the role of "Serbian MUP".

  
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 3:48 pm
  I notice that the document is not signed, which raises the possibility that it is either a forgery, or that it was delibertely not signed because it was incorrect.

  This is an unsigned typewritten document that isn't even on any official letterhead, anybody with access to a typewriter and a blank piece of paper could have produced this.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 4:57 pm
  Mr. Arthur Resnick,

  Thank you for the kudos on my journalistic abilities. You seem to think I have temporarily misplaced them, but that is not the case.

  First, although you compare the VOA article on Milosevic to The Guardian article on Sharon, there is zero resemblance between them. The VOA article, contrary to what you claim, neither tries to, nor appears to, exonnerate President Milosevic. Rather, it softpedals the extent to which Ilic's testimony is favorable to Milosevic (consult Andy Wilcoxon's postings and material to get a sense for how favorable this testimony is to Milosevic's defense). And then, as AP V (from NY) pointed out, the VOA article launches into a lot of misinformation about the supposed slaughter of Bosnian Muslim civilians at Srebrenica which the evidence strongly suggests never happened. (In fact, what is definitely beyond doubt is that Naser Oric, the Bosnian Muslim commander of Srebrenica carried out widespread massacres against neighboring Serbian civilians. For information on this, you may consult Emperor's Clothes's archive on Srebrenica.)

  What the Guardian's article does is precisely the opposite of what the VOA article does. The Guardian takes what the enemies of Sharon say is their best evidence, and tries to make it look good, using subtle phrasings and arguments that twist the significance of the quotes. The evidence, as I showed, hardly convicts Sharon, but all to the contrary. The Guardian quotes the enemies of Sharon explaining how great this evidence is, and it never quotes any challengers, nor does the paper itself choose to examine the evidence at all skeptically. On the contrary, the paper goes out of its way to vouch for the authenticity of the documents! Furthermore, the first part of the article (which I didn't quote) takes a pro-Palestinian line and slanders the Israelis with the lies about Deir Yassin as if they were established facts accepted by all and does not even mention that these accusations are hotly disputed and quite controversial (for the fullest refutation of the Deir Yassin lies see historian Uri Milstein's definitive and multi-volume "The War of Independence" or else "The Rabin File").

  So the anti-Israel and anti-Sharon slant of the article is pretty clear.

  My argument, therefore, is the following: if this is the best the enemies of Sharon can do, then it is clear that he must be innocent. And absent convincing evidence that he is guilty, he must be presumed innocent anyway, or do you have a different standard?

  As to your claims that I am exonnerating Sharon with his own statements, you are quite mistaken. What I did is point out those statements which his enemies attribute to him, which they say they obtained anonymously, which they claim to have verified for authenticity, and which they insist damn Sharon. Since such statements emphatically do not damn Sharon, but all to the contrary, and since his enemies claim that what they've got is the smoking gun, then... well, then what else is there to say? They are the ones who have to prove their case. Neither Sharon nor (much less) myself are required to prove his innocence for actions that everybody admits were carried out by troops not under his command! (Has this point sunk in? These were not his troops.)

  Finally, you ask for names of people who defend Arafat as if this were not obvious. Or perhaps you were not reading the list before... Joseph Crow, Gogol Charlemagne, Dennis Revel, and others have all expressed complaints on this list concerning work on Emperor's Clothes (principally my own) on the Middle East Conflict. (That is how we got on this topic, in case anybody wants to complain again that I post too much stuff about Israel...)

  Ostensibly to contradict what I wrote, these gentlemen have levelled charges against the Israelis. But that is very interesting, isn't it? Because my piece was merely a documentation of the Nazi history of the Palestinian movement, and also a documentation that they have never abandoned their roots or genocidal goals. My piece neither defends nor attacks the current Israeli leadership, nor does it attempt to argue that the Israelis have never done anything bad. So if the above-mentioned gentlemen have a problem with my piece, it must be an objection to the fact that I portrayed the Palestinian leaders as the most vicious genocidal fascists. But we have not seen even the merest attempt to refute this portrayal (a lot of distractions and baiting that looks a lot like antisemitism to me, yes, but refutations?, not one). I would suggest this is because my portrayal of the Palestinian movement cannot be refuted. It is therefore very interesting that the above-mentioned gentlemen have objected to a perfectly fair characterization of the Palestinian movement, and that they have responded with attacks against Israeli Jews (or, as in the case of Joseph Crow, against Jews generally).

  You accuse me of whitewashing Sharon. Let me explain the meaning of "whitewashing". This is what happens when there is convincing documented evidence against somebody, and then there are deliberate attempts to obscure, mislead, and cover up in order to improve the image of that somebody. That has certainly happened in the mainstream media with respect the Bosnian Muslim followers of Izetbegovic, with respect to the KLA, , with respect to Tudjman and his neo-Ustashe (though a bit less so), a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/Israel.htm">and with respect to the Palestinian leadership (all of whom trace their genesis and fascist roots to the slaughters of Jews, Serbs, Roma, and anti-fascists in World War II Yugoslavia), and that is what I am trying to correct. But in the case of Sharon, since even his worst enemies can come up with nothing, there is nothing to whitewash, so I cannot possibly be "whitewashing Sharon." And notice: I have not said *one* positive thing about him. All I said is that the charges against him concerning Sabra and Shatila appear to be false. If you have facts that suggest otherwise, then let's see them. But you will have to do much better than the Belgian lawyers who are trying to bring him to trial.

  
  
  Francisco Gil-White
  Pennsylvania

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 5:00 pm
  REPOSTING THE ABOVE (My apologies, I improperly left unfinished an italics mark and everything became italics. Below is my post, the way it should look):
  Mr. Arthur Resnick,

  Thank you for the kudos on my journalistic abilities. You seem to think I have temporarily misplaced them, but that is not the case.

  First, although you compare the VOA article on Milosevic to The Guardian article on Sharon, there is zero resemblance between them. The VOA article, contrary to what you claim, neither tries to, nor appears to, exonnerate President Milosevic. Rather, it softpedals the extent to which Ilic's testimony is favorable to Milosevic (consult Andy Wilcoxon's postings and material to get a sense for how favorable this testimony is to Milosevic's defense). And then, as AP V (from NY) pointed out, the VOA article launches into a lot of misinformation about the supposed slaughter of Bosnian Muslim civilians at Srebrenica which the evidence strongly suggests never happened. (In fact, what is definitely beyond doubt is that Naser Oric, the Bosnian Muslim commander of Srebrenica carried out widespread massacres against neighboring Serbian civilians. For information on this, you may consult Emperor's Clothes's archive on Srebrenica.)

  What the Guardian's article does is precisely the opposite of what the VOA article does. The Guardian takes what the enemies of Sharon say is their best evidence, and tries to make it look good, using subtle phrasings and arguments that twist the significance of the quotes. The evidence, as I showed, hardly convicts Sharon, but all to the contrary. The Guardian quotes the enemies of Sharon explaining how great this evidence is, and it never quotes any challengers, nor does the paper itself choose to examine the evidence at all skeptically. On the contrary, the paper goes out of its way to vouch for the authenticity of the documents! Furthermore, the first part of the article (which I didn't quote) takes a pro-Palestinian line and slanders the Israelis with the lies about Deir Yassin as if they were established facts accepted by all and does not even mention that these accusations are hotly disputed and quite controversial (for the fullest refutation of the Deir Yassin lies see historian Uri Milstein's definitive and multi-volume "The War of Independence" or else "The Rabin File").

  So the anti-Israel and anti-Sharon slant of the article is pretty clear.

  My argument, therefore, is the following: if this is the best the enemies of Sharon can do, then it is clear that he must be innocent. And absent convincing evidence that he is guilty, he must be presumed innocent anyway, or do you have a different standard?

  As to your claims that I am exonnerating Sharon with his own statements, you are quite mistaken. What I did is point out those statements which his enemies attribute to him, which they say they obtained anonymously, which they claim to have verified for authenticity, and which they insist damn Sharon. Since such statements emphatically do not damn Sharon, but all to the contrary, and since his enemies claim that what they've got is the smoking gun, then... well, then what else is there to say? They are the ones who have to prove their case. Neither Sharon nor (much less) myself are required to prove his innocence for actions that everybody admits were carried out by troops not under his command! (Has this point sunk in? These were not his troops.)

  Finally, you ask for names of people who defend Arafat as if this were not obvious. Or perhaps you were not reading the list before... Joseph Crow, Gogol Charlemagne, Dennis Revel, and others have all expressed complaints on this list concerning work on Emperor's Clothes (principally my own) on the Middle East Conflict. (That is how we got on this topic, in case anybody wants to complain again that I post too much stuff about Israel...)

  Ostensibly to contradict what I wrote, these gentlemen have levelled charges against the Israelis. But that is very interesting, isn't it? Because my piece was merely a documentation of the Nazi history of the Palestinian movement, and also a documentation that they have never abandoned their roots or genocidal goals. My piece neither defends nor attacks the current Israeli leadership, nor does it attempt to argue that the Israelis have never done anything bad. So if the above-mentioned gentlemen have a problem with my piece, it must be an objection to the fact that I portrayed the Palestinian leaders as the most vicious genocidal fascists. But we have not seen even the merest attempt to refute this portrayal (a lot of distractions and baiting that looks a lot like antisemitism to me, yes, but refutations?, not one). I would suggest this is because my portrayal of the Palestinian movement cannot be refuted. It is therefore very interesting that the above-mentioned gentlemen have objected to a perfectly fair characterization of the Palestinian movement, and that they have responded with attacks against Israeli Jews (or, as in the case of Joseph Crow, against Jews generally).

  You accuse me of whitewashing Sharon. Let me explain the meaning of "whitewashing". This is what happens when there is convincing documented evidence against somebody, and then there are deliberate attempts to obscure, mislead, and cover up in order to improve the image of that somebody. That has certainly happened in the mainstream media with respect the Bosnian Muslim followers of Izetbegovic, with respect to the KLA, , with respect to Tudjman and his neo-Ustashe (though a bit less so), a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/Israel.htm">and with respect to the Palestinian leadership (all of whom trace their genesis and fascist roots to the slaughters of Jews, Serbs, Roma, and anti-fascists in World War II Yugoslavia), and that is what I am trying to correct. But in the case of Sharon, since even his worst enemies can come up with nothing, there is nothing to whitewash, so I cannot possibly be "whitewashing Sharon." And notice: I have not said *one* positive thing about him. All I said is that the charges against him concerning Sabra and Shatila appear to be false. If you have facts that suggest otherwise, then let's see them. But you will have to do much better than the Belgian lawyers who are trying to bring him to trial.

  
  
  Francisco Gil-White
  Pennsylvania

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 5:03 pm
  Well, apparently I am no good at this. I will stop posting that one.
  
  Francisco Gil-White
  Pennsylvania

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 5:03 pm
  
  
  test test
  test

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 5:04 pm
  
  
  test test
  test

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 5:15 pm
  
  
  HTML Correction
  : )

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 6:03 pm
  Mr Gil-White

  For a journalist of your intelligence and stature, you are startlingly loose with your accusations. So would you kindly provide specific instances of a vigorous defense of Mr Arafat by Joseph Crow, Gogol Charlemagne, or Dennis Revel? Would you be so kind as to provide a specific quote that justifies your charge that Mr Crow has made attacks against jews "in general".

  Thank you.
  
  Arthur Reznick
  Chicago, IL
  USA

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 6:35 pm
  I will attempt to translate the document in question. The document originated in Republika Serpska from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MUP) from the desk of the cabinet minister. On the right side of the document the words ‘very urgent’ appear in English. The document is numbered 64/95 and dated 10-07-1995.

  The letter was sent to commanders of special police forces headquarters at Trnovo, Vogosca, Bijeljina and police station at Zvornik and the police training camp in Sarajevo.

  The document reads as follows:

  As ordered by the supreme commander of the armed forces of Republika Serpska with the aim of preventing the enemy offensive from the protected enclave of Srebrenica.

  I ORDER

  1. Separation of one portion of the forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs which are presently fighting on the Sarajevo front. This group will be assembled into a single unit and sent to the district of Srebrenica by tomorrow 11-07-1995.

  2. Into this detachment will merge special police forces from Sekovica, first division from police station for the region of Zvornik, mixed division of united forces of the Ministry of Internal affairs from Republika Serpska, Serbia, and Republika Serpska and a division from the training camp in Jahorina.

  3. I appoint Ljubisu Borovchanina as the commander of the Ministry of Internal Affairs division who is presently second in command of the special police forces.

  4. Assembly of the Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Republika Serpska, Serbia and Republika Serpska from the Trnovo Front will be complete by nightfall. The formation will be complete 11-07-1995 in Bratunac in front of the police station expect the second special unit of police which will be formed by 11-07-1995 in the afternoon.

  5. The commander must upon arrival at his destination contact the supreme commander General Krstic.

  The document ends with Commander of headquarters Tomislav Kovac. The document is not stamped nor signed by the sender.

  This document was written on a typewriter which did not have Serbo-Croat characters. There are some minor errors in typing. It is interesting that it is unsigned and that it does not have an official stamp which is always present on official documents that I have seen in the past. The fact that it refers to Serbian MUP (Ministry of internal Affairs) police as assembling with the Republika Srpska (MUP) at Bratunac the court is using circumstantial evidence which seems to say you were there so you must have done something. The fact that Milosevic may have given MUP forces from Serbia to Republika Serpska is no different than USA pilots flying for Croatia or training their forces for combat. My Serbo-Croat is at an elementary level so if I have erred somewhere I apologize. Pythagoras thank you.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 7:03 pm
  Intended visit of the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II to the city of Banja Luka, Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, on June 22, 2003 carries ominous significance for the victims of the Nazi-satellite "Independent State of Croatia" from World War II.

  The Pope's visit will include a mass at the monastery Petricevac and the beatification of Ivan Merz, the founder of an organization called Croatian Eagles.

  Petricevac is a Franciscan Monastery where Croatian Ustashe forces led by the Catholic Priest Tomislav Filipovic massacred 2730 Serbs including 500 children in the most brutal manner on February 6, 1942. The apex of the monstrosity on that day happened at the school where 60 children were slaughtered in front of their teacher, who because of that lost her mind.

  Ustashe tortured school children by gouging their ayes out and then putting them in their slit abdomens, cutting off their ears, noses, fingers and cheeks before killing them all.

  Priest Filipovic later became the Chief Warden of the Concentration camp Jasenovac where he got the nickname "Fr. Satan". According the "Simon Wiesenthal Center", Croatian Nazi Ustashi have killed 600,000 victims in Jasenovac, overwhelmingly Christian Orthodox Serbs. The figure also includes tens of thousands of Jews and Roma.

  As far as we know, the Pope does not plan on asking for forgiveness for these atrocities instigated and led by Catholic clergy 61 years ago. Instead, Pope John Paul II intends to beatify Ivan Merz who founded the Croatian Eagles in 1922, later a breeding ground for Ustashe Youth, the Croatian version of Hitler Youth. This act adds insult to the injury committed in 1998 when the Pope beatified Alojzije Stepinac, the Archbishop of Zagreb during the Second World War. In Croatia, the Catholic Church did not merely turn a blind eye to genocide; it was an active and enthusiastic participant. Priests and monks took part in atrocities and forced conversions all across Croatia. The Vatican also helped scores of Ustashe escape to North and South America and Spain along the Ratlines.

  The Pope has been saying for years that Rome's reconciliation with the Orthodox Church is a major objective of his pontificate, but his planned activities in the Balkans can only deepen the schism that has divided Eastern and Western Christians for almost a thousand years.

  The survivors and descendents of these terrible crimes are offended by the Pope's actions. They believe that the public should be made aware of the significance of this event and are asking the Catholic faithful to pressure their church into making a true reconciliation with the Serbian people.

  
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 8:14 pm
  I didn't realize that today was the day of the infamous visit. I would like to post the above immediately to the Emperor's Clothes and ICDSM email lists. I assume and hope that this is ok.
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 8:37 pm
  Sure
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 8:47 pm
  "Jasenovac is as appropriate a subject for investigation as any other death camp in Europe, from Auschwitz to Dachau," said Dr. Eli Rosenbaum of the U. S. Justice Departtnent's Office of Special Investigation, the governmental unit that revealed former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim's role as an SS operative in Yugoslavia. Rosenbaurrf s office also extradited Ustasha Interior Minister Andrija Artukovich to Yugoslavia for trial and conviction as a war criminal.

  Jasenovac Survivor Lilijana Ivanisovic grieves as she recounts how Ustashi guards "separated babies from their mothers' breasts and threw them into pits. "

  At the conference, Dr. Rosenbaum also documented evidence of Waldheim's direct involvement in shipping Serb prisoners from the killing grounds of Kozara in the German's Western Bosnia Command to the nearby Jasenovac camps. His presentation included evidence from German documents seized by U.S. Armed forces and currently housed in the U. S. National Archives. These documents, which include reports from Jasenovac camp Director Max Luberic, cite the "liquidation" of 220,000 prisoners as early in the war as December of 1943 -- fully 120,000 of them identified specifically as Jasenovac prisoners.

  Dr. Rosenbaum cited laws passed by the NDH and signed by Pavelic that called for incarceration of "undesirables. " Later edicts ordered imprisonment of non-Croatian families and especially children. "I shuttered when I read that," Dr. Rosenbaum said. "A law directing that children be sent to concentration camps!"

  Professor Christopher Simpson, an author and expert in the "ratline" escape routes created through the Vatican for Ustashi leaders following the war, stated flatly: "Genocide is not a learned activity It requires the organization of a State.

  These are crimes that require participation by a much wider range of figures than guards."

  The testimony of survivors at the conference, convened by Dr. Bernard Klein, Chairman of the History Department at Kingsborough Community College, revealed in horrifying detail that there was ample cause for Dr. Rosenbaum's disgust and Professor Simpson's judgment, as did numerous papers presented at the conference by other historians, authors, and recognized holocaust scholars.
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 8:52 pm
  Jasenovac

  by Carl Savich

  The town of Jasenovac lies north of the Sava River, near its junction with the Una River in the Srpska Vojna Krajina, or Serbian Military Frontier Province. Before the German invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941, Jasenovac was a growing industrial town where the Ciglara brick factory and the Lancara tooling plant were located. The majority of the population of Jasenovac was Serbian Orthodox. The town lies on the train route from Belgrade to Zagreb. The Strug and Lonja tributaries enter the Sava near the town, an area of marshes and swamps subject to periodic flooding, with few roads.

  Jasenovac became the largest and most important concentration camp (sabirni logor) and extermination camp complex in the Nezavisna Hrvatska Drzava (NDH), Independent State of Croatia, during World War II. The Jasenovac concentration camp complex would be crucial in the systematic and planned genocide of the Orthodox Serbs of the Srpska Vojna Krajina and of Bosnia-Hercegovina by the Croats and Bosnian Muslims. Other concentration camps were established in Sisak, Stara Gradiska, Djakovo, Lepoglava, Loborgrad. In all, there would be 22 concentration camps in the NDH, almost half of which were commanded by Roman Catholic Croatian priests.

  The Croats first rounded up and murdered the Serbian population of Jasenovac and established a garrison in the town. In no part of occupied Europe during World War II were more churches and monasteries destroyed than in the NDH. In the NDH - Croatia, Lika, Kordun, Banija, Bosnia, Srem, Hercegovina - approximately 450 Serbian Orthodox churches and iconostases were destroyed. The St. John the Baptist Serbian Orthodox Church in Jasenovac,built in 1775,was destroyed by Croat troops on August 15, 1941.

  The first transports brought Serbs and Jews to the nearby village of Krapje, which was 7 miles west of Jasenovac. At this site, the prisoners were forced to build the camp that was called Jasenovac Camp No. 1. A second camp was built after the increase in the number of prisoners called Camp No.2.

  For more visit:

  http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/007.shtml
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 8:55 pm
  

  Towards the end of 1945 Kurt Waldheim was listed number 52 among the most wanted war criminals by the US Army. He was UNO General Secretary for two terms, eight years and nobody, nobody utter a word of displeasure. His behaviour, shall I say his obedience was examplary.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 9:00 pm
  I guess he will not testify in Hague :)

  This is what happen when people like Soros, who survived WWII by working for nazi by identifying Jewish assets to be seized, become experts on human rights.
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 9:40 pm
  In BespucaÝ povjesne zbiljnosti (The Wasteland of Historical Reality), Franjo Tudjman stated that ''about 60,000 perished in all the camps and prisons.'' According to Tudjman, 30,000 victims died at the Jasenovac camp. In 1952, the Union of Jewish Councils of Yugoslavia, relying on the reports of Jewish survivors, concluded that, in the Jasenovac camp alone, ''500,000-600,000 people were slaughtered, among whom were about 20,000 Jews.'' Menachem Shelah in The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990) gives the following figure:Ý ''Some six hundred thousand people were murdered at Jasenovac, mostly Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and opponents of the Ustasha regime. The number of Jewish victims was between twenty thousand and twenty-five thousand.'' The Ustasha commander at Jasenovac, Frater Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic, during questioning after the war, stated that ''according to reports of Maks Luburic... about a half million Serbs were killed in the NDH during these four years.'' On October 20, 1994, Brussels Archbishop Cardinal Godfried Danneels in an interview to Vatican Radio, stated that ''even today it is impossible to say how many Serbs were assassinated in Croatian concentration camps in World War II, but for certain the number must have been over half a million persons.''

  Franjo Tudjman has also stated that 900,000 Jews perished in the Holocaust, and that the figure of 6 million is inaccurate and exaggerated. He further accuses Israel of perpetrating a genocide against the Palestinians, and calls the Jews of Israel ''Judeo-Nazis.'' Invited to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC in 1993 by the US State Department, Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel would neither meet with him nor speak with him: ''I never spoke to Franjo Tudjman. In fact, I refused to meet him.''

  When the flood waters of the Sava River receded, the banks revealed a myriad of human bones, the bones of men, the bones of women, the bones of children, the common grave and final resting place of countless victims of genocide and mass murder.

  
  
  Dakic Ana
  erbia

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 9:45 pm
  

  Petar Makara, who co-founded www.srpska-mreza.com, just translated over the phone a description of what Fr. Satan(Filipovic) did that day. I will integrate his text, translated from a book about this horror, into your text, Ana. Here is the additional information:

  The following is the transcript of a Croatian witness' account, as given at the sentencing of Fr. Filipovic who was tried for his crimes after World War II: "The slaughter began in this way. Before slaughtering the child of one Djura Glamochanin, namely his little daughter Vasilia, Father Animal [Filipovic] said these words, which are fitting only for Satan himself: 'Ustashe! I am doing this in the name of God! I am Christening these scum. And you are to follow my lead! I will accept the entire sin on my soul. And when we are done I will absolve you and relieve you of all guilt.'"

  Mara Shunjich, a school teacher of Croatian origin, said during the trial of Fr. Filipovic, that Fr. Filipovic, with a few Ustashas, went to her school and ordered her to separate children according to nationality. Then, he took out a knife and uttered the following words: "Look, children!" And with those words he started to slaughter the children. Some he only cut but did not finish completely. So these half-slaughtered children, covered in blood, ran in circles screaming horribly. These children were hunted by the other Ustashas who would finish the children with the butts of their pistols.

  [Footnote with sources]

  It is notable that the Germans, afraid that the extremity of Fr. Filipovic's actions would cause a Serbian rebellion, put him on trial for his crimes. However, the head of the Jasenovac concentration camp, Maks Luburic, intervened. He gave Filipovic a new name, Filipovic-Majstorovic, and a post as a commander of one of the camps in the Jasenovac complex. So where even the German Nazis wanted (for opportunist reasons!) to curb this monster, the Pope now uses his monastery, infamous for the worst crimes, as a place of beatification.

  Along similar lines, it is notable that during the Second World War, after being tortured in unbelievable ways, Serbs were often thrown half-dead into mountain crevasses, where they died slowly. After the Second World War these crevasses were cemented over, as if thereby the past would be forgotten. In the mid-1960s, the Catholic Church made an area less than ten miles away from these cemented-over horrors, called Medjugorje, one of its holiest shrines. So both with Medjugorje and with Filipovic's monastery, we see the leaders of the Catholic church, instead of begging forgiveness for these crimes, conducted by the priests in the name of the Church, creating places of holy significance.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 9:52 pm
  

  I should have put the footnote in the above, so people could use it themselves. The part of the above text up to where it says, "[Footnote with sources]" is a translation from a book. The rest is Petar Makara dictating to me over the phone.

  The book is: 'Zasto Jasenovac,' or 'Why Jasenovac,' by Prof. Marko Ruchnov, Published by Nikola Pashich, Belgrade, 2001, p.415. Prof. Ruchnov is a Serbian-American professor of Math who writes on Jasenovac. Prof. Ruchnov got the accounts of the trial of Fr. Filipovic from the book, 'Kozara Partisan Unit,' by Dragutin Churguz and Milorad Dignjevic, Prijedor, 1982.

  
  
  Jard Israel
  USA

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 10:31 pm
  Ana Dakic

  In your post from Sunday June 22, 2003 at 8:52 pm you cited Carl Savich regarding Jasenovac!

  I would like to draw the attention to one sentence from Carl Savich, and I would like to emphisize that Serbian and other audience shall restrain from such posts since it accuses the whole nations and not the ones that bare responsibilities. In this case it was the authorities of the Independent Croatian State (NDH) not Croats and Bosnian Muslims

  "The Jasenovac concentration camp complex would be crucial in the systematic and planned genocide of the Orthodox Serbs of the Srpska Vojna Krajina and of Bosnia-Hercegovina by the Croats and Bosnian Muslims."

  To Jared Israel

  As regard to "cemented-over and forgotten horrors", visit this site:

  http://www.srpsko-nasledje.co.yu/sr-l/1999/01/article-7.html

  And it is really what it sayse there - Karlovac Historian Archive in the scentific manner investigated Jadovno for thirty years!
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 10:35 pm
  I do not wish to keep this not especially interesting debate about Ramsey Clark going forever. However, since it doesn’t look as if Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White intend to let up in their absurd and totally destructive attacks on Ramsey Clark, I feel that it is important that the record be set straight.

  According to Francisco Gil-White: “An interesting pattern. (1) Somebody posts an attack on Israel, or on Jews, on this list. (2) Either myself or Jared respond with detailed documentation refuting the attack, and then (3) People complain about us saying there is too much discussion about Israel on this list! (4) But despite the complaint they switch gears and launch a fresh attack (because the previous one has been dealt with documentation and apparently it cannot be answered).”

  Well, not really. As far as I recall, the current controversy started when Jared Israel and Gil-White launched a vicious attack on Ramsey Clark. They accused him, among other things, of being a Nazi apologist and a “high level intelligence operative.” They presented no evidence whatsoever other than a skewed reading of a few sentences taken out of context and cherry-picked from one or two news stories. It’s a method we have become accustomed to in the media coverage of Slobodan Milosevic and the wars in Yugoslavia.

  First, Israel and Gil-White proclaimed that Ramsey Clark was going around claiming to be Milosevic’s attorney and smearing him. The one interview on C-Span they presented as evidence proved no such thing and was widely ridiculed in this forum.

  Then Israel and Gil-White got to the issue that was really on their minds all along: Clark and his support of the Palestinian cause. They sought to discredit support for the Palestinians by suggesting that anyone who believes in national self-determination for the Palestinians is really a Nazi and an anti-Semite. This is an old trick, used to silence debate and to ostracize those who disagree with you.

  Let us look at the record. According to Jared Israel, both Ramsey Clark and Pat Buchanan “are on record opposing any legal action against Nazis ‘after 40 years’. 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 record, needless to say, is quite otherwise. A quick Nexis perusal recovered the following statements:

  From the New York Times, March 29 1987: “On a 1982 Washington television program, Mr. Buchanan confronted Mr. [Allan] Ryan [former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations] on the issue. ‘Why not abolish your office? And if people bring to you information about a Nazi war criminal in the country, prosecute them. Why have a whole office looking for them?’ Mr. Ryan responded, ‘That’s all we’re doing now, except that instead of sitting back and waiting for people to come in our front door with information, we’re going at it actually conducting an investigation, the same as any U.S. Attorney investigates anything.”

  From AP, Feb. 13, 1987: “White House aide Patrick Buchanan said today that he has urged Attorney General Edwin Meese to meet with East European groups that oppose deporting suspected Nazi war criminals to the Soviet Union. Meese currently is considering handing over to the Soviets Karl Linnas, an accused Nazi collaborator whose U.S. citizenship was revoked in 1981. Buchanan opposes such deportations.

  "‘My only recommendation was that the attorney general meet with these Eastern European groups,’ said Buchanan, the White House communications director. Buchanan, who has resigned and is about to leave the White House, said that his memo ‘does not mention Linnas by name,’ but that much of the correspondence he has received specifically objects to the possibility of handing Linnas over to the Soviet Union, where he faces the death penalty.

  "‘My personal view is that these trials ought to be held in the United States, Europe or Israel,’ Buchanan said."

  From AP March 18, 1987: “President Reagan says Karl Linnas, accused of running a World War II concentration camp, should be put on trial in this country instead of being sent to the Soviet Union where he faces a death sentence, a White House memorandum says.

  "According to the Feb. 9 memo by Patrick Buchanan, the White House communications director who left that job several weeks ago, Reagan believes ‘that Linnas should not be deported.’ Buchanan’s memo was written to Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who is considering whether to deport Linnas to the Soviet Union.

  Linnas, 67, accused of participating in mass murder while head of the Tartu concentration camp during World War II, has been trying unsuccessfully to find another country that will accept him.

  According to portions of Buchanan’s memo obtained by The Associated Press, Reagan expressed his views at a Feb. 9 luncheon with advisers after Buchanan conveyed the concerns of East European ethnic groups. Those groups oppose a U.S.-Soviet cooperative agreement on investigating Nazi war criminals. Buchanan, who was one of the president's staunch conservative aides, strongly supported the ethnic groups' position.

  ‘When I told him it was probably within his authority to block deportation, he said we should go ahead and block it,’ Buchanan’s memo said of the conversation with Reagan.

  ‘He then indicated that we should hold any trials here in the United States,’ the memo concluded.”

  From Washington Post, July 13, 1986:

  “John G. Healey, executive director of Amnesty International USA, has written Meese to protest the planned deportation. Healey said his organization ‘has grave doubts about the fairness of the trials’ that sentenced Linnas and others in absentia and opposes the death penalty in all cases.”

  Los Angeles Times Feb. 12, 1987: "Clark, who began representing Linnas last summer, said that an independent translator’s careful review of the videotapes found flaws and discrepancies that might have led the courts to discount the testimony if the Intourist translator in the Soviet courtroom had given a faithful rendition into English.

  In particular, Clark said, the Soviet official who presided over the taking of testimony used prejudicial language in front of all four witnesses in the case-repeatedly referring to Linnas as a ‘fascist war criminal.’ ‘We have no way of knowing who these witnesses really are, where they came from, how they got there,’ Clark said in an interview. Moreover, he said, although the Soviets provided documents to show that Linnas ran a concentration camp during the Nazi occupation of Estonia, it is ‘inherently implausible’ that the Germans would have placed a 21- or 22-year-old native in charge of a prison camp in his own occupied country.

  Supporters of Linnas in the East European immigrant community, among them the Baltic-American Freedom League, maintain that the chief of the camp actually was a German officer, Fritz Giessen.

  Clark described Linnas as ‘an ardent nationalist, passionately devoted to the old country.’ When the Soviets tried Linnas in absentia in 1962, Clark noted, he was active in the United States in the movement to free Estonia from Soviet control, which dates from World War II, and that it may have been that activity that prompted the Soviets to pick Linnas as a target for retribution."

  Thus it is clear that the issue in the Linnas case was whether a man should be sent to the Soviet Union to face Soviet-style justice and a death sentence. Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White then suggest that there is something sinister about Ramsey Clark’s urging reconciliation. They quote ominously: “ ‘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.’ ”

  Now whatever else you can say about Clark’s statement, it is hardly an apologia for Nazis. Reconciliation is in accord with Christian teaching.

  Indeed, as many people have argued, one of the chief reasons for the peaceful transition from apartheid- to majority rule-South Africa was precisely the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the eschewal of show-trials a la ICTY. In its deliberate pursuit of reconciliation the new South African government refused to prosecute crimes from the past-some extremely serious ones like the police murder of Steve Biko.

  I would argue that the United States consciously rejected the South African option in setting up the ICTY. The last thing Washington wanted was reconciliation in the Balkans. It is in the interest of the Empire to keep these trials going on forever and perpetually to recycle old accusations and recriminations and thereby inculcate new generation with hatred for their neighbors. The more the nations of the Balkans are at each other’s throats, the easier it is to rule over them. Consequently, Clark’s arguments are both ethically reasonable and also prudential.

  However, I’m not here to fight Ramsey Clark’s battles for him. What I object to is the association of Slobodan Milosevic and the ICDSM with Jared Israel’s and Francisco Gil-White’s campaign against Clark. Neither Milosevic nor any of his associates has spoken out against Clark. I’m sorry but I’m unable to take Jared Israel’s account of Milosevic’s alleged comments about Clark as the last word on the matter.
  
  Robert Hessen
  Seattle
  Washington

• Sunday June 22, 2003 at 10:49 pm
  I am unable to read this forum unless I go to a computer with a fast connection. Would the moderator kindly give us a length we can read? Many people are unable to read or post here. I am now in a cybercafe. Thanks.
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 1:07 am
  

  The Interview of Clark for the JUNGE Welt, was send around By Vladimir Krsljanin. So can anyone clarify why ICDSM is no longer connected with Clark, but www.sloboda.org.yu is sending this interview with these links:

  To join or help this struggle, visit: http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association) http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic) http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council) http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM) http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center) http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/ (an independent web site)

  thanks!
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 1:25 am
  To Dan B - Regarding why Mr. Krsljanin would post an interview with Ramsey Clark after Mr. Milosevic has removed Clark from his position at ICDSM, wouldn't the best person to ask to ask be Mr. Krslanin?
  
  John Marat
  New York

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 5:56 am
  

  An insult to the victims of horrific Nazi butchery...

  The Pope's Bosnian Visit: A Blot on the Catholic Church

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 7:42 am
  Pero Peric

  So your objection with Jasenovac article is that it did not user politically correct name for Croats and Bosnian Muslims that committed those crimes. While you are trying to educate in political correctness by telling me what name should be used, could you also educate CNN and Richard Holbruk to also be more politically correct when talking about Serbs.

  Personally, I shall call the things by their name and I am done with caring if I that is going to hurt someone feelings. Nobody cared about my feelings in 1999. I am done with "brotherhood and unity" philosophy. And just maybe if we start openly talking with each other, using words not wrapped in the language of political correctness, we would know where other side is coming from and better understand each other.
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 8:35 am
  

  Regarding Ana Dakic's point, above, people may find useful the TENC interview with two Serbs living in the USA, Petar Makara and Tika Jankovic, called Nightmare with the Best Intentions They talk about the consequence of suppressing the discussion of what happened in Yugoslavia in World War II.

  Nightmare with the Best Intentions

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 11:00 am
  While I would certainly support objections to associating mr. Milosevic (and the ICDSM) with Jared Israel, Francisco Gil-White et al.'s campaign against Ramsey Clark, I cannot blaim Robert Hessen for not wishing to keep this "debate" going forever (even if he was doing very well).

  Neither would I thank Dennis Revell for attacking Gil-White as I believe that Jared Israel, Francisco Gil-White et al. will easily manage to keep their private debates started and going forever all on their own.

  As a citizen of Denmark I do understand of course, that I have no particular claim on a discussion for Pittsburgh and environs. But maybe I speak also for Nikole J. and others unable to read for lack of a computer with a sufficiently fast connection when asking JURIST to graciously open another forum for those of us who still believe in the value of a serious "Milosevic Trial Discussion"?

  As far as I can see the last posting from Gil-White with any relevance to the "trial" was that providing a link to his piece on the Racak hoax (17 June), in which he claimed that "the Finnish report on the Racak Massacre" (sic!) is "all analyzed in detail" in that piece of his (recently published on Emperor's Clothes).

  For all its qualities I have seen no reaction to that other than the applause it drew from mr. Crotoniatis (deservedly so for Gil-Whites ponting to the significance of the "lack of evidence of close-range wounds".
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 12:52 pm
  George Soros was born on Aug. 12, 1930, to Tivadar Soros and Elizabeth Szucs, upper-middle class Jews living in Budapest, Hungary.

  Soros survived in Nazi Hungary during the war by adopting what he calls a double personality.

  Soros said in a radio interview that his father gave him Nazi credentials and, pretending to be "Janos [or Sandor] Kis," the godson of a Hungarian government official whose job it was to deliver deportation notices to Jews and take possession of their property, he helped loot wealthy Jewish estates.

  "In many ways it was the happiest year of my life," he told Michael Lewis of The New Republic, "It was dangerous and exciting. It made me a bit of a risk-taker."

  
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 1:10 pm
  I am too in a cybercafe note to moderator

  MAKE THIS PAGE SHORTER

  Note to Mr Jared Israel:

  Why only now did you notice Clark's dodgy past? You didnt seem to have trouble working with him before. Does everyone who does not stick to your line have to be rubbished so bitterly?
  
  Neil Stamford
  Euroland

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 3:52 pm
  Good question Mr. Stamford.
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 3:58 pm
  Exclusive to The SPOTLIGHT

  By Christopher Bollyn

  In speech before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), George Soros delivered a globalist call for "a society based on international law and international institutions" and praised the World Trade Organization for opening global markets and easing the free movement of capital, which has weakened nation-states.

  Soros was in Chicago to promote his book, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism. However, the 500 people who paid to hear the "guru of hedge funds" and buy his book hoping to glean some wisdom will be disappointed because who George Soros really is-and how he operates-are closely guarded secrets.

  "The devolution in the power of the state is a good thing," Soros told the Chicago CFR on Nov. 20.

  Lauded as one of the most successful investment managers in history and the first American to earn more than $1 billion in one year, Soros, a Bilderberger, has admitted having "some rather potent messianic fantasies" and at times thinking that he is God.

  Considered a philanthropist by some and the front man for the Rothschild banking group by others, Soros said, "the private sector is not a philanthropic system," hinting that the aid given by his Open Society Institute (OSI) to the nations of eastern Europe is not motivated solely by altruism.

  The OSI insinuated itself, and the Soros agenda, into academia, media and government in the newly liberated republics of the Soviet Union in 1993. It has since expanded and opened offices around the world, including several in the United States.

  "He's the only man in the U.S. who has his own foreign policy-and he can implement it," Morton Abramovitz, former American ambassador to Turkey, told The New Yorker in 1995.

  Initially Soros had difficulty deciding what causes to support, because he does not consider himself American, Jewish, or Hungarian.

  Soros decided the one thing he did care about was Karl Popper's "open society," a universalistic concept that transcends national, racial and religious identities.

  By financing the American Committee to Save Bosnia, and other groups, Soros was a key figure in the propaganda campaign calling for U.S. bombing of Serbia and Kosovo.

  Today Soros is involved in the restructuring of the Balkans and has established himself as the official banker and chief investor in the region using U.S. taxpayer money.

  Soros signed a deal with an agency of the U.S. government, in July, to manage a $150 million fund to develop private ventures in the Balkan states of the former Yugoslavia (except Serbia), as well as Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

  Soros invested $50 million in the Southeast Europe Equity Fund, while the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation-a U.S. federal agency-provided $100 million in "loan guarantees," all of which he controls.

  
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 4:22 pm
  

  Mr. Stamford asks, "Why only now did you notice Clark's dodgy past? You didnt seem to have trouble working with him before. Does everyone who does not stick to your line have to be rubbished so bitterly?"

  What is this difference in "Line"? Nico and my "line" is our purpose for being part of the ICDSM - publicizing the truth about Milosevic and the Serbs. Besides *never* working collectively with others in the ICDSM, Ramsey Clark did much harm to this "line" in the fall of 2001, and then when Milosevic refused to accept him as legal advisor, Clark dropped away. Clark was uninvolved with the issue of the Milosevic "trial" for 17 months and then re-appeared, so to speak, doing more harm at the National Press Club We then criticized him in two articles - that is, we defended the truth. At that point we also got curious about what made this guy tick, you know, politically - who was this dog with the head of a cat? - and began seriously to study the Clark phenomenon - a process which has taken many hours of work - and found out information we would never have imagined to be true. Some we have published, some not yet. Some is hair-raising. We are not clairvoyant, so how could we know that it was Clark who allowed the FBI, the worst enemy of U.S. Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King, to investigate the King murder? Even though there was credible evidence that the FBI was involved? We also didn't know his role in championing Nazi murderers and attattacking the Office of Special Investigations OSI), which as Ana Dacic pointed out on this board, is the only US agency which ever went after the Croatian Ustashe mass murderers living in the U.S.

  Nico and I do work for the ICDSM - we do research, political investigating. The same thing we always do. We publish what we discover. Digging up the truth is our raison d'être so we are publishing the truth about Clark. Somebody wrote me that Sara Flounders, a leader of Clark's IAC, said we have refused to publish a refutation by Clark. If she did indeed say that, then she is misinformed. We would *love* to publish a refutation by Clark. Apparently he can come up with no refutation except to have his minions carry out some silly sniping, which is now going on. Well, that comes with the territory.

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 5:25 pm
  

  I guess I would have to conclude ZIONISTS are defending President Slobodan Milosevic and excluding anyone else not meeting with their weltanschaum

  Now, can a Palestinian also defend, well lets say sympathize with Slobodan Milosevic struggle for national determination for the yugoslav people?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 5:31 pm
  

  Ramsey Clark any one who saw and heard his talk at the National Press Club will remember he was asked not only about Mr. Milosevic but also if he supported the existence of the State of Israel to which he responded yes, and I also support the Palestinian people rights to have their own state . Only reading the whole transcript of his talk will put his answers and anonymous questions in perspective. The whole transcript and not selected passages.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday June 23, 2003 at 6:16 pm
  

  When I write about 9-11, , attacking Bush, some say I am a conspiracy theorist. When I write about Yugoslavia,, I am a Serbian nationalist. When, after 50 years of unwittingly supporting Palestinian fascists, I finally write the truth about Israel, I am a Zionist. So I am a Serb Nationalist conspiracy theorist Zionist. Does that mean I get to do three shows a night?

  PS, the ICDSM website, which I edit, has never discussed the Arab-Israeli issue

  
  
  Jared Israel
  USA