MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 12:13 am
  Arandjelu Pasicu, Do us all a favour and don't blurt things out from the heart instead of the brain. The maffia (now in power) was homegrown and preceede Milosevic. The old Communist Yugoslav Secret service (UDB) actually nurtured those criminals because it used them as assassins in foreign countries. With the crash of the communist system it was just a matter of time before these guys united and created these mob clans. Then you also had some foreign help and capitalism played a part too. Criminal gangs are a chronic problem all over Eastern Europe, from Russia to Albania. I suppose Milosevic is to blame for that too just because you were/are a Djindjic supporter (how do you like them apples)?
  
  Igor Jaramaz
  Canada

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 12:51 am
  This Radio Netherlands article on Djindjic is the best that I have seen: http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/djindjic030312.html b Lack of support > The pro-Western Mr Djindjic was a flashy dresser who loved fast cars - in Serbia that's almost a conditio sine qua non if you want to wield power and influence people. Yet Mr Djindjic, one of the opposition leaders who was instrumental in ousting dictator Slobodan Milosevic, never managed to win universal support in Serbia. b In the opinion polls and popularity contests, he was never given much more than 10 percent. > His position was harmed by his permanent quarrel with (former Yugoslav) president Vojislav Kostunica (the face of the Democratic Opposition of Serbia), who replaced Slobodan Milosevic as Yugoslav President: Serbs preferred the mild nationalism of Mr Kostunica to Mr Djindjic's unconditional pro-reform, pro-Western stance. > Mr Djindjic's own brand of Realpolitik, which involved handing over the imprisoned ex-leader Milosevic to the UN Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague in exchange for Western dollars, earned him some brownie points with the impoverished Serb population, but it didn't last. Hardly the great individual that brought democracy to Yugoslavia. On the contrary, his major accomplishment was the very destruction of Yugoslavia as a puppet of cold war Slavophobes like Madeleine Albright. Speaking of which (witch?), does anybody wonder if Maddie will dare coming to her puppet's funeral? I doubt it.
  
  Adrian Justin
  Seattle
  USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 12:58 am
  Mrs Baca from the Dubrovnik Institute for the Cultural Monuments Protection did a fine job for the Defence: in her eagerness to show how diligent at the Institute they were to protect all those valuable buildings, she described how all the staff, herself included, were summoned from their holidays by a letter from their competent Ministry of Culture to help placing big sign-boards of The Hague Conventions upon each and every building, marking them visibly against shelling. The only problem was the timing: the letter from the Ministry ordering this was dated 22 August 1991, the placing of signs happened throughout August and into September when the JNA around Dubrovnik was not yet to be seen for months. Finished the marking of the cultural sites, the set prepared for the show, the Croats then engaged the JNA in Montenegro, at the Prevlaka peninsula, starting thus the months of clashes that would finally bring the JNA all the way to Dubrovnik. What a remarkable foresight from Mrs Baca and the Institute. The letter from the Ministry was submitted as the exhibit of the Prosecution.

  Today TV B92 renounced the Milosevic 'trial' transmission and covered instead the events around the Djindjic assassination for the whole day. Therefore I was unable to see what Dr Ranta had to say. Can someone fill me in?

  It's bad to have a Premier killed: political instability due to power-grabbing, state of emergency proclaimed, bad image for the country. That said, this particular Premier was not a champion of democracy, legality nor reforms and his numerous personal ties with organized crime are in the public domain. He was the man who gave the impression that one crime group is not the same as all others, by awarding them governmental road contracts, visiting their homes, riding their private planes and at the same time claiming he would fight crime. No wander other crime groups got sufficiently angry. He was the man who dragged his feet in establishing state institutions, slowly ousting his allies and was ruling it all personally, by Governmental decrees instead of laws. This is not something claimed by Milosevic supporters; quite the opposite. Look at those few statements given today, upon the news of his assassination, by his own allies, DOS leaders who helped him topple Milosevic. The italicising is mine.

  Vojislav Kostunica, Head of DSS (Democratic Party of Serbia): "The first word coming to my mind is 'terrible'. A mere fact that political violence is happening to us not for the first time is a horrible warning of how little we have progressed on the path of a true democratisation of our society. Zoran Djindjic and myself disagree on many issues and we hold a lot against each other, both in our programmes and in our methods. However, what is at this moment of the sole importance for me is to denounce most deeply and most strongly any form of terrorism and resorting to violence in political and any other fights. Unfortunately, I'm afraid this is yet another cruel warning that we must face the truth and see how deeply crime has penetrated all pores of our society. Crime can not be classified as good and bad, ours and theirs. We have to understand it is damaging to the social tissue and a natural enemy to all democratic institutions. Of course that I hope all the perpetrators will be brought to justice, and particularly I do hope that all of us, both the government and the opposition, will finally put a finger to our foreheads and draw a clear line between that what is legal and that what is not. There's no room for compromise in this."

  Velimir Ilic, Head of NS (New Serbia Party): "We were often warning Zoran Djindjic not to cast off that easily those who brought him to power in October 2000. Something like this could have been expected, and he himself summoned up the evil, what with that small truck at the highway. Personally, I used to say, 'Zoran, you can not go alone, you did not win alone, grabbed-damned [oteto - prokleto], but it was to no avail, he wouldn't listen. I'm sorry that something like this happened. I'm afraid of the chaos in this country, because there are no institutions. The only institution so far established was Djindjic himself. I have to say that he cast us off and let us all wear bullet-proof jackets. We are truly sorry that something like this happened. Thus, no-one is safe here."
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 2:42 am
  It's very sad whenever anyone is killed in such a brutal and murderous manner. Truth be told, however, such killings have almost become a way of life in the Balkans over the centuries. And in this context, the events of today are only part of a much lengthier series of assassinations; revanchist actions, and wars. Sure, it's sad that the Premier of the unconstitutional "Serbia-Montenegro" is assassinated. So too was it sad when former Defense Minister Pavle Bulatovic was similarly assassinated - not that I recall much mourning in Germany at the time, or even down at Sonja Biserko's office. It was even sadder when hundreds of innocent Serb civilians were assassinated by Albanian terrorists before the NATO states joined them in assassinating thousands more. It was similarly sad when thousands of other Serbs were assassinated in other parts of the former Yugoslavia in the years before that. But what's just sick is when someone comes on this board to make the sort of spectacularly rude; vulgar and completely unwarranted post of the sort above, looking to make some sort of cheap shot at forum participants.

  The article posted by Mr. Justin above does well to suggest something closer to the truth, which is the late Serbian politician, Zoran Djindjic, made so many enemies in so many quarters from the time that the coalition of so-called "democratic forces" violently seized power, that suspicion could fall almost anywhere but in the direction which the extremely rude guttersniper above would have it. First of all, there are his former political allies, not a few of which have close ties to organized crime, and are not the kind of persons who fall victim to backstabbers kindly. Then there are familiar foreign and anti-Serbian forces, any of which are keen on creating a political crisis as much today as any time previous. Finally, there are the millions of citizens who have fallen victim to any number of policies, and not just economic, and hold the late Premier responsible. That's just the short list.

  As the article above indicates, Mr. Djindjic's own political popularity, like that of the rest of the US Embassy sponsored "democratic forces" had already hit bottom at the time of his assassination. Meanwhile, all reliable political polls indicate the popularity of non-DOS parties have been rising, some to unprecedented levels, ever since Mr. Djindjic became Premier. In such circumstances, there is little likeliehood of a "red-black" conspiracy apart from the upcoming election where those colours are expected to do very well.

  
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CANADA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 3:07 am
  Peter, as you know, I agree with you. All the things that I have said I have meant. I am sick about the RTS bombing and the "law suit" against Milanovic, the blessing of the cluster bombs, the kidnapping of Milosevic, putting pressure on the Serbian government for not delivering the indictees, when Nato is doing nothing investigating its own war crimes, the lies about the ethnic cleansing of Krajina and the massacre of Srebrenica.

  But back to that trick question: Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial? Considering all the things above, he is not. And he is probably convicted on Srebrenica anyway, which is why Nice is reserving so little time for it. So, it is obvious that Milosevic is being falsely accused. It is true that he was taken out of the country illegally to an organ that is more of an administrative caretaker government than a court of justice.

  But is he getting a fair trial? Now that May is acting more and more like a judge and allowing people to see that the prosecution can screw up too, I would say the trial is getting fair. I still maintain that, since the trial and the organ are frauds, the fact that the trial is getting fair at this stage isn't enough. But forgetting about the past, the trial would seem to be fair at this point. Milosevic may be falsely accused, but that is not to say that the trial is not fair. The trial may also not be as public as the media trumpeted at the outset, but there is coverage (thanks to Vera, though). And as long as it is not certain (=100% certain) that Milosevic is getting convicted on Srebrenica, the trial stays fair, although I know I am kidding myself here.

  But the whole breakup of Yugoslavia goes along with the trial, and that messes things up. Pro-Yugoslav discussions like this may ascribe sentiments to Milosevic which he never subscribed to. We have swallowed the bait. Milosevic was stigmatized as a former communist, an SFRY-gone-Greater-Serbia freak by his opponents, and we believed them.

  The breakup of Yugoslavia is a fact. Or maybe that is putting it too negatively. Let us say that Yugoslavia is back to its constituent parts. A well-known prayer goes something like this: give me strength to change those things that I can, calmess to accept those things which I can't, and the wisdom to know the difference between the two. I think many people who have been "lurking" here, must have wondered why someone would ask things like that.

  Once in a while we get some brave posters from Serbia, who get the "agent provocateur" treatment. I think their message is too consistent to dismiss any more. It is basically what the prayer said: accept the facts. I feel bad about Djindjic, but - curiously enough - I feel bad about AP, who gets the customary garbage treatment from those who say they care so much about Serbs like him.

  Talking about independence, the small states may not independent politically, but which of the European states is? They are also members of the UN, so ultimately you are attacking the UN by attacking them.

  It would be good to accept the status quo of the former Yugoslav republics. Ironically, the ICTY, which was supposed to ensure this, has us delving more and more into the past and exposing all the lies that we have been told. This is good.

  But it still is important to accept the facts, not only for Serbia, but also for all the neighbour states and the Serb diaspora. The Almighty international community should also defuse its anti-Serb machinery correspondingly.

  Simon, it is good to hear from you. I was complaining about the lack of reasoned opposition in this discussion, but we were in need of extreme measures to be able to develop an "official line" here in the first place. Remember, we were the opposition first, and a tiny one at that. And the Serb diaspora was treated like dirt, believe me. However, we may have gone too far, when the Serb diaspora starts treating the Serbs in the Old Country like dirt.

  The Milosevic trial is a joke, that is plain for everyone to see, so we don't need that kind of self-destruction here. I don't think it may have been a bad idea to get him out of the Serb politics, but I have considerable doubts whether this is the way he should be kept out.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 4:37 am
  A couple of days ago a former bank-robber was speaking on British TV about the use of guns. He said that “professional” criminals often carried guns but rarely fired them. This criminal admitted to carrying a gun to frighten his victims, but said to fire it would bring an intense police response. If someone were shot or even killed, then there would be hell to pay. Professional criminals want to avoid and not attract police attention. They never fire guns unnecessarily. If this is the case, why would Serbian criminal elements bring the whole force of the state security apparatus down on them by murdering Djindjic? I doubt that criminals ordered this killing (though some may be involved in its execution). My suspicions were increased when I heard that only hours after the killing, the Belgrade authorities were seeking 20 “Mafia” types, including a famous ex-policeman, Legija. The Belgrade authorities were a little too quick to point the finger. Interestingly the British Press has taken little interest in this killing. For the past 12 years we have been bombarded with thousands of news stories from the former Yugoslavia; but when the Prime Minister of Serbia (installed by NATO) is gunned down in broad-daylight, it is mentioned only briefly near the end of our news reports.
  
  Michael Thomas
  London
  UK

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 4:58 am
  The pieces seem to fit together here. Remember when Momir Gavrilovic was assassinated? It was reported after that killing that Gavrilovic was murdered because he was offering evidence of corruption in the Serb government, more especially of connections between a Belgrade mafia gang (the Surcin Group) involved in large-scale car theft and cigarette smuggling and no-one less than -- Zoran Djindjic.

  Apparently Djindjic's connection to the Surcin gang was in the form of his friendship with one Stanko Subotic Cane, to whom he was introduced by Milo Djukanovic who is connected to the same gang.

  Now Dijindjic has been assassinated himself, and it looks like the Zemun criminal syndicate is responsible for his killing.

  Zemun and Surcin are rival gangs. Djindjic was connected with the Surcin syndicate, and the rival gang Zemun killed him.

  Zoran Djindjic lived by the sword, and now he has died by the sword. This isn't good for Serbia. It would be far better to see all of this borne out in the Serbian courts. Djindjic should have been removed long ago, but not like this, not gunned down in the street.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 5:16 am
  

  You see, what you have to understand is that when a country from the Eastern bloc or a socialist country is brought to the paradisiac enjoyments of western democracy, nothing else but money, mafia, organized crime, corruption, gangs, etc., can perpetrate a crime.

  Political motivated crimes can't be found in a Western democracy, revenge, humiliation, dignity, passion all those things are elements of the old regime which the new democratic regime don't understand or consider to be of any relevance, since the modern democratic, Western democratic citizen has no principles, no dignity, no love for his nation and is only concerned about his well being, his credit rating, his VISA or American-Express and other delightful dreams of Western paradise.

  Look at Kosovo under KFOR, how many politicians have been murdered there, all attributed to criminal mafioso, blood feud, criminal gangs but never described as political rivalries in a power struggle.

  As the CIA likes to boast every-time one their employees is caught spying:

  thanks God they do it for money, not for ideology!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 5:23 am
  

  And, who wants to really to think the CIA, or something like it, could have killed a rather unorthodox president, in fact a whole family of politician like the Kennedy's when the Cuban mafia in connection with some other mafia did it?

  Do you know what is the main reason the public supports Bush in going to war against Iraq?

  It is not oil, nor geo-politics, but because Saddam is evil, that is why!
  
  G C
  Conn., USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 5:34 am
  

  Not too long ago an American journalist now retired after a long working life with UPI, told me he never understood Dostoyeski's The Idiot since according to his observation the character in the book, the idiot did not seem to be one at all!

  An a Canadian CBC journalist told me about Tolstoy's Anna Karenina she did not understand why Anna could not make her up her own mind and continue making life hard to everyone in her life!
  
  G C
  USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 6:13 am
  

  Baca's testimony on Dubrovnik is over and Mr. Nice (NATO) has no witnesses available for the rest of the day or tomorrow. So, the court is debating the admissibility of next witnesses or reports under rule 92 bis.

  How many times has judge May (NATO) said to Mr. Milosevic hurry up we have no time! and when the prosecution has not witnesses for two whole days the court keeps silent!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 6:27 am
  Vera Do you have any comments to Ranta testemony?
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 6:32 am
  

  Vera did not follow it (read her posting please) since the assassination of Djindjic eclipsed the trial on the Serbian media.

  I in the other hand followed it and found it absolutely pitiful. Ranta has been cooked and buttered up by the OSCE and who knows who else to the point she was a pack of contradictions. Mr. Milosevic won, as always, once again.

  Bravo!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 7:10 am
  

  Who the hell is this Djindjic guy who was shot?

  Is he the same guy who supported the bombing of his own country and people in order to get rid of Milosevic so he could rise to power?

  Is he the same guy who was so intimately connected to one of the organised crime gangs in Belgrade and some other ones in Germany?

  Was he the same guy along with Tudjman, Djukanovic, Izetbegovic, Berisha and Thaci that the West supported while they tore Yugoslavia to shreds?

  Is he the same guy who so believed in law and order that he tore up the Yugoslav and Serbian Constitutions in the cause of realpolitik?

  I say, if Bush, Blair and Madeleine Albright liked him, his credentials leave a lot to be desired. No doubt he was one of the great 5th columnists! Vale.

  As for the anti-Milosevic contributors, they can say whatever they like. Many of us who are anti-ICTY and against the charade currently going on are NOT torch bearers for Milosevic. As far as I'm concerned the issue is not one of Milosevic or Djindjic or any other personality. The issue is to do with the mechanisms in which we as civilised human beings place our faith to avoid the law of the jungle.

  The ICTY has glaringly failed in that task, all the more so as it creates it's own law of the jungle under a veneer of allegedly just and civilised behaviour. The anti-Milosevic crowd would howl in protest if one of their own family were on the receiving end of May's and the Prosecution's antics. And I for one would feel obliged to think that it had a very valid gripe!
  
  David
  Australia

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 7:12 am
  My favorite question was how com that nobody from the Yugoslav team was invited to press conference?

  On the Djindjic note: it is ironic that same man (Legija) that brought him to power is now accused of killing him. I saw Djindjic interview in which he said that on the 5. October 2000 he met with Legija and they had a "talk".
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 7:43 am
  I have number of comments to make about situation in SM right now. First I want to make point that I am not supporter of Djindjic (what has that got to do with whether I am sorry for leaders death or not?) Second there is complete surprise to me that people on forum dont feel anything personal about the assasination of Prime Minister and make other definitions or scinetific comparison. Walter post was interesting although must be honest to say I didnt understand all of it but right now it doesnt help way many feeling. Is the Milosevic trial more important to Serbs right now when the future of the state is in question? We have no Premiere and no President of Serbia, basically acting one. We have state of emergency. We have army in control. We have police on the streets. We have hundred of people paying respect to Premier. We are on second day of morning of three days. Part of rules are restriction on media, ban of trade union demonstration etc etc. Everybody is looking at other people in strange way. Everyone is talking about criminal gangs and where Legija has gone or if he will ever come back.

  Last night I slept with a sick feeling inside. And believe its important to say because it never happened before and many dont understand how it makes people feel / it is very difficult to explain.

  Thanks to Jari, it means a lot to hear what you say and thanks to Andy as well, I believe both of you what you write with a good heart.

  As for many others like the Canadian Igor, Anna (who says she is in Yug but doesnt know B92 has no live transmission) and Vera who make no personal comment at all about Premier death I dont understand. In some way I feel much closer to Kathryn since even if she does not believe I am real person it is evident she has real feelings about how she feel if her President was killed. I hope you Kathryn were more satisfied than me of Veras comments about assasination.

  Nico your idea about foreign forces ordering death of Djindjic is rubbish. You make your mind up - was Djindjic West lacky or not?
  
  Arandjel Pasic
  Srbija

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 7:50 am
  Jari "... I feel bad about AP, who gets the customary garbage treatment from those who say they care so much about Serbs like him..."

  "... However, we may have gone too far, when the Serb diaspora starts treating the Serbs in the Old Country like dirt..."

  What are you talking about? What customary garbage treatment? The guy was supporting Djindjic. Djindjic supported the bombing of his own country and people. Therefore it follows that the guy was like minded? In which case he's a ratbag like Djindjic was, no matter what one thinks of Milosevic! Are you suggesting that someone who advocates bombing your country, people and family should be treated as a national hero in the name of getting rid of a tyrant such as Milosevic maybe?

  You were doing well on the legal analysis but I am astounded that you missed out on such a simple deduction. LOL

  As for the diaspora treating Serbs in the old country as dirt, I don't know how you manage to get that notion from the limited sample group you have here. Nobody treats Vera like dirt nor have I seen anybody similarly treating any of the other intelligent comments from Serbs in the old country irrespective of whether they're pro or anti Milosevic.

  But when a twit starts feeling sorry for someone purely because someone may have a different point of view, then they deserve to get everything they get, and I'm not so sure you need to pander to such implicit arrogance and contempt. But then again, it may just be that I am less tolerant of such crap.

  Keep up the legal analysis, I always look forward to reading it.
  
  David
  Australia

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 7:56 am
  Legia is clearly a useful fall guy

  The only people who benefit from Djindic's murder are the HumWarriors.

  Djindic got the $100 million from the HumWarriors in the Spring, Summer, and Fall of 2000. Djindic never fulfilled his part of the bargain.

  Neither Holbrooke, Soros, Clark, Short, nor others of their ilk have been able to partake in the rich pickings of Djindic's privatization.

  In addition, Djindic started mouthing off about UNSCR 1244.

  The HumWarriors created Djindic.....and when Djindic didn't fulfill his committments......they destryoed him.

  The last thing any gangsters want is the shine of publicity on their activities. Don't be fooled by media nonsense about Gangstaers killing Djindic.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 9:35 am
  Ladies and Gentlemen of this Forum,

  To begin with that I am sorry for the widow Djindjic and his children. In this era when political solutions are provided by killing, be it in Israel, Iraq or now in Serbia, murder is the rule of the day. I think there is a worldwide psychology of war and killing which undoubtedly relates to the Djindjic assassination.

  The second point I would like to make is to those who sometimes do not like the statements Mr. Jari Nausianien makes. I, for one welcome his point of view. Not all the views on this Forum have to conform to the Serbian view. In fact his nonconformist view adds to the strength of the arguments that Serbs have been wronged. Badly wronged and pilloried. Perhaps this assassination had a precursor in that international intervention.

  But Mr . JN adds the strength to the Serbian cause by being clearly independent and having his own views.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 10:55 am
  AP V,

  Maybe Djindjic was killed by gangsters, and maybe he wasn't. We don't know. What we do know is that Djindjic had his share of dealings with the mob and so it can't be excluded that a rival gang killed him.

  It is also possible that Albanian terrorists are responsible. Albanian terrorists in the Presevo valley have been making trouble lately, and accusing Djindjic's government of being "as bad as Milosevic." Djindjic was also recently pushing for a partition of Kosovo where Serbia would have the northern part of Kosovo and write off the south. The north has most of Kosovo's mineral wealth, so the Albanians in Kosovo didn't like Djindjic's idea. Maybe they had the motive to kill him.

  There is another possiblility that somebody in his government wanted to takeover his job. Maybe Nebojsa Covic wanted to be the Prime Minister. Nebojsa Covic was elected to the Main Board of the SPS at the 1992 party congress. This suggests that Mr. Covic is more driven by a lust for power than by any ideological conviction. Milosevic and Djindjic are opposites on the political spectrum and so it is suspicious that Covic would have been allied with them both.

  Who ever shot Djindjic knew where he would be, when he would be there and which entrance he was going to use to enter the building at. In any case this was a planned event.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 11:04 am
  Just one or two more comments - thanks to D Jovanovic. It is obvious that you care Mr Jovanovic about the situation here. There are many confused people around at the moment, even though many of them didnt support Djindjic they admired him because they belived he was stong and without tiredness.

  I dont know about the Serbian view as I dont think all Serbs think same but Jari has right to his view as we all do.

  Having said the above it does not do forum credit when somebody make wild allegation like AP V who thinks that Soros, no doubt with help of Albright and probably Djindjic himself killed Djindjic.

  That is kind of theori that makes this forum look not serious. There is no evidence that this happened and its makes me wonder what kind of people are representing Serb cause. They have so much hate inside that everything must be blamed on outside forces. I lived through difficult times and believe me how angry I have been with USA, England but I also know about collaboration between mafia and Milosevic, about how Arkan was big boss here and problems he had with Rade Markovic who was looking after Marko Milosevic tobaco interest. Then came collaboration with Djindjic and mafia in deal for October 5. This involved Legija guarantee to support revolution. Now Djindjic said enough so Legija said enough.

  Remember context about last year Red Berets were on streets ordered by Legija. Last month there was asasintation try on Djindjic by this guy 'Bugsy' who worked with Zemun mafia of Legija and 'Siptar' Spasojevic who himself made defection from Surcin camp. It was to expect that Buha (Surcin boss) would come back with state protection. Legija knew this so blowed up road building factory as warning. This month assasination succeed, certainly its only elementary evidence but better than blaming Clark (why stop with Clark, maybe DelPonte pulled trigger?)
  
  A V
  Srbija

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 11:07 am
  What I find strangest is that Seselj took of prior to this. Just like he knew this might happen and that safest place is Hague. And his words “I want to have nothing with that government mafia (thinking Djindjic).”
  
  Dakic Ana
  Serbia

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 11:59 am
  Actually, I said something to the point (the point being the fairness of the trial): that the trial is getting fair. Any comments? Or am I getting the garbage treatment, because I am not being so wacky about the MURDER as some other people here (and I mean really wacky)?

  Yugoslavia is back to its constituent parts. The Croatian independence didn't go too smoothly for the Serbs, because bothe sides screwed up. The Croats forgot that Croatia was originally a state for both Croats and Serbs, as Pero has kept repeating. The Serbs forgot that Croatia was bound by the Constitutional Law to ensure the safety of the Serbs. So in the case of Croatia, there was not even any need to follow the Yugoslav parliamentary committee's opinion on the need to renegotiate the borders along the ethnic lines, which is beginning to seem more and more like a stalling argument.

  In honour of Djindjic, I think he got it right when he said that Kosovo should be partitioned. Or does someone have better suggestions, like MURDERING the Albanians back in response to what they have done, or pushing them to Albania, or what?

  Correspondingly, the Republika Srpska isn't working, so it should be annexed to Serbia, as Djindjic suggested. The problem is what the Croats might do after that.

  You know, these are the two main sticking points. The Yugoslav parliamentary committee referred to the AVNOJ documents which suggested that the borders of the republics should be renegotiated among the constituent peoples. One problem: the Muslims (= the Bosniaks) and the Albanians were not among these original constituent peoples. Should they have been ignored? They were the problem!

  So instead of this pusillanimous Internet overkill of the already dead Djindjic, what should he have done? Oh, it was so easy in Yugoslavia.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 11:59 am
  Why would Legija kill Djindjic? Had he done so, he would be signing his own death warrant. I doubt Legija or the so called Serbian "Mafia" had anything to do with this killing. Often those who want to hide their own actions are the first point the finger at others.
  
  Michael Thomas
  London
  UK

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 12:05 pm
  Dr Zoran Djindjic was one good man.
  
  milan masic
  srbija

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 12:40 pm
  As a man, he did not deserve such and end, as a politician, he was a traitor and in being such, won zilch for his people. Where is the US$1.2 billion in aid promised for the Milosevic handover? Western slight of hand changed this to forgivness of 2/3rds of its foreign debt by the US government and other minimally effective measures. Croatia is still the stumbling block to the divving up of the assets of the SFRY.

  Sure he was the most talented political operator once Milosevic was out of the picture, but he engineered his own downfall by attacking those who helped to overthrow Milosevic. No doubt foreign pressure on him was considerable, but he did not behave with honour. His 'White Knight on a horse' syndrome certainly didn't help.

  How could he be called a democrat when he engineered the expulsion of Kostunica's MPs, the largest representation by any political party in S&M? His refusal to allow the democratic process to work (regarding the above), was itself a major cause of instability and worked directly against any effort for reform. DOS served it's purpose, but like NATO, should have been dismatled and put away.

  This puppet will be sorely missed in the 'democratic' West.
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Belgium

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 12:49 pm
  Jari, You got the point when you said:
  ” You are fooling yourself when you think the Greeks were happy with the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to begin with. They blame good old Tito for creating such an entity”
  So Greeks know it was Tito not Serbs.
  There are two things here.

  In 1944 Montenegrins and Serbs from Krajina and Bosnia basically conquered Serbia from southwest and Russians from Northeast.
  Despite the role of Serbian population and Draza Mihajlovic in WWII, and France interference then, Serbs were forced to cast vote between Subasic (Croat) and Tito (Croat).

  There were instructions during WWII from “Kominterna” and directive in 1945 that Bulgaria immediately had to join Yugoslav federation - maybe this has something to do with Macedonia recognition.

  Why did Milosevic “allowed” Macedonia to go?
  Obviously it is not because there were no Serbs in Macedonia, and obviously it is not because there was no dispute about borders. (Since borders were not agreed by Serbian and Macedonian parliament, and not verified by international arbitrary body) Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Slovenian’s, Croat’s and Muslim’s government expressed hostility and attacked Serbs and JNA, and Croats and Muslims parliament unilaterally throw out Serbs from the Constitution, while Macedonians did not
  Regarding “Greater Serbia” and changing borders:
  I would like anybody to review the subjects of formation first and second Yugoslavia.
  If first Yugoslavia dissolves it should dissolve on: Serbian Kingdom and The State of Slovenians, Croats, and Serbs, nothing else

  If second Yugoslavia dissolves it should dissolve on: Slovenia, Federal Republic of Croatia (with Croats and Serbs as constituent nations), Bosnia and Herzegovina (With Croats and Serbs as constituent nations) Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia. If one takes SFRJ constitution from 1974 then Bosnia and Herzegovina would be the state of Muslims, Serbs and Croats, and Croatia would be the State of Croats and Serbs. Additionally the borders should be agreed by relevant subjects (neighboring parliaments) and verified internationally.

  Serbs from Serbia expressed solidarity with Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia and still have mixed feelings, as majority did not even know for the existence of the Serbs west of Drina. Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia new quite well that reality.

  Serbs from Croatia and Bosnia did not constitute any shape of autonomy until they were relieved constitutional rights. Besides that Serbs in Krajina did not represent majority of Serbs in Croatia. So “Graeter Serbia” would not be a solution for them. Krajina was just last resort for them as it was in WWII.

  One point.
  After WWI, when Serbs where in much better international position to make “Graeter Serbia” they did not. Then when Belgrade was pushing for more centralized system in 1924 Serbs from Croatia with Svetozar Pribicevic as head of SDS sided with HSSL, Stjepan Radic and confronted Belgrade.

  In WWII all partisans’ formation inside Croatia were formed and operated in the territory where Serbs were majority. Yes there was communist cells (Serbs and Croats) that operated in other parts of Croatia against nazis, however significance of it could be judged by the number of all members of Communist Leage in Jugoslavia in 1941 - FIVE THOUSAND.
  Week ties with Serbia and Draza Mihajlovic lead to easy infiltration of Croatian communist element (Hebrang, Kopinic, Bakaric) among Serbian fighters in Krajina in 1941, which represented together with Bosnian Serbs and Montenegrins the core of Tito’s partisans between 1941 and 1944.
  All three ZAVNOH (Croatian-Serbian Parliament) in Croatia where held in Krajina - (Otocac, Plaski and Topusko). Only ZAVNOH was recognized by AVNOJ therefore Croatian state rights were build together with Serbs from Croatia.
  On the other hand it was impossible for AVNOJ to determine borders. The whole point is there, if nowhere Tito was right here - whoever tried this to solve; there would be a war. (The only approach to it was internationalism - it could’ve applied to globalization too) So West tried to undermine the fact that republics borders were not borders formed by all relevant factors. I doubt that they haven’t been aware of that, and this is the point where in fact they interfered in sovereign state unlawfully what makes them aggressors which only culminated by NATO bombing.

  Why was impossible to determine borders during AVNOJ.
  There are four things that determine state:
  Nation
  Territory
  Borders
  Sovereign power on the specified territory
  There were four nations that they could not prove their independent ethnicity: Muslims, Slovenians, Macedonians and Montenegrins (Even though Montenegrins had their own state prior to formation of first Yugoslavia thus they constitute nation) Slovenians and Croats could not prove their independent territory since they came to first Yugoslavia as constitutional nations with Serbs in The State of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs. That state was not federal, and it did not have at all any borders between these three nations.
  During AVNOJ it was known that these nations existed. It was known that Slovenia ethnically was quite coherent, and territory was known
  The remaining territory was left to Croats and Serbs - with no borders, because population was ethnically mixed. Serbian population did not care so much about defining them hence their strength did not belong to specific region (Krajina), it belonged to cities in which Croats were majority.
  At that time there were two Croatian parliaments in existence: Sabor in Zagreb as parliament of nazi Independent State Of Croatia
  and ZAVNOH (which later became Sabor) on the territory where Serbs where majority, and where resistance to Zagreb’s nazi Sabor was organized. ZAVNOH with governance of Croatian communist elements and Serbs as major force on allies side, made Croatia as victor state in WWII, and thus ZAVNOH proclaimed Croatia as Federal Peoples Republic,: State of Croats and Serbs. The Serbs in the Croatian constitution were the main differences between nazi’s Sabor and Krajina allies sabor.
  If ZAVNOH tried to draw borders they would be of catastrophic consequences for Croatian population outside Krajina, since Zagreb and Independent State of Croatia would finish most likely under Russian offensive as Berlin did.
  Croatian government did fifty years later in 1990 just what Zagreb’s nazi Sabor did in 1941, throw Serbs out of the constitution, and Bosnian government proclaimed independent state without Serbs - and West recognized it. After that it was obvious that the war is only resort. I would like to emphasize that this does not have anything to do with Milosevic nor Greater Serbia.
  
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 12:57 pm
  Pero, I guess it has a whole lot to do with Milosevic's successors.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 1:29 pm
  

  it is interesting:

  Kosovo could be divided but not Bosnia-Hercegovina?

  unitarian BiH is a fallacy now because that is what it was and wouldn't be for many years to come thanks to the international communities of intruders, invaders and their among themselves eternal differences about what to do to others when they don't know what to do the themselves.

  What sense would it make to divide Kosovo when it is not viable once separated from Serbia? Perhaps the remaining Serbs could have at least safety but the rest of Kosovo will remain an insolvent pariah under the protectorate of some foreign interests.

  Could at least the Security Council resolution about Kosmet be respected, then we could talk about credibility of the UN, or do they have to nuke Kosovo to prove they are credible?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 1:42 pm
  

  Political assassinations are despicable, yet they take place in a context which is for every body to see and perhaps even understand. I said yesterday after learning about this tragedy for the Serbian nation, I expected a coup to follow and that is what it is all about. Now, Serbia was in stalemate infuriating most of all the Western fat bosses, including besides Wall Street, the Deutcher Bank.

  Slobodan Milosevic called for elections and won elections, Zoran Djindjic ruled by decree and could not even run in an election because he was despised by his nation. Now, the heat is up, the Army, not the People's Army but the BIG MONEY army will run the country and unless the Serbian nation does not react quickly and overthrow the usurpers of power it would be too late.

  You see now why Slobodan Milosevic supported Sejsejl during the last elections?

  See now why the latter was indicted for war crimes , see now what war crimes really mean?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 1:43 pm
  As I understand it most Serbs were in favor of a partition in Kosovo, partitioning off Mitrovica where the majority of the Serbs are. It has been said that Djindjic was trying to ingratiate himself with the Serbian people by suggesting this. There is no one that I know of that is calling for the MURDER of Albanians. Serbs have had enough of sly accusations that turn into reality for some.

  Anyone who wants to can continue with the discussion of the trial.No one is stopping you. Just use the little “post” square.Maybe if you do not p---off too many people, someone will respond.

  The trial discussion will go on as long as this forum is here. If not it can go on at the SUC forum. There are many people who read this forum and do not post and there are many participants who want to keep it going.Most of us look forward to reading Vera’s post because she is watching the trial.

  The Los Angeles Times today has quite a few articles regarding Serbia. Here is one excerpt of interest.

  “The Hague has cast a long shadow over the country,” Smajlovic said. “It’s not the people who are already indicted; it’s because the list of suspects keeps getting longer and longer and there are rumors that hundreds of more could be indicted.

  “Djindjic said we could put this behind us, but we couldn’t.”

  ----------------- You see remarks about Serbs murdering Albanians is something that I personally am offended by. I doubt that anyone on this forum thinks it is clever.

  God another disappointment..............................

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 1:54 pm
  It's very strange, and disturbing at the same time, to witness the appearance of some new voices on this board which are unrestrainedly loud in denying even the possiblity of foreign forces as responsible for Mr. Djindjic's assassination. While such comments can be all too easily be dismissed as behaviour typical of persons who only have a casual or passing interest in such matters, or rather none at all, they are striking, not so much for their hostile tone and adoption of invective, as for the oddity of their views. Not that I doubt for a moment the authenticity or sincerity of their sentiments, but it's indeed curious how anyone in Serbia, not serving in an official capacity, would make the effort to deny even the possibility, much less go so far as to make these views public on the internet, and on a web page dedicated to discussion of the Milosevic trial.

  It's all the more curious when you consider that awareness of these same foreign forces' activities is very common in Serbia. Activities, which besides directly invading and killing Serb civilians and officials throughout the former Yugoslavia for more than a decade, also include supporting terrorist groups and hiring gangsters to serve as spies; saboteurs, bounty hunters and assassins. And yet one sees some who, while allegedly based in Serbia, are vehemently denying as much. Quite an oddity, I would say, especially when at least one of their number tried, in his first post ever, to blame any and all supporters of Milosevic on this board for the murder.

  It's difficult to see how such posts are even worthy of a response, in addition to those of one very frequent visitor to this board who we now see soliciting proposals for the MURDERING of Albanians(!?).
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 2:22 pm
  Nico,

  I think you said that extremely well.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 2:38 pm
  KL
  Do you really think JFK, followed by Robert and then Teddy as president would have been a good thing? 24 years of Kennedies?

  Bob Kennedy was shot by Palistinian Serhan Serhan, who I think, is still in the 'big house'. Amazing, how after 40 years of terrorists attacks since then, there are those marching in the streets, coddling the 'culture' hell bent on wagging the USA to the will of Islamists.

  Kennedy populated Vietnam with troops and the Johnson took it to the next disastorous next step. His objective was a 'stupid' stalemate as in Korea. Johnson was so depressed by his screwup he declined to run for a second term. The catastrophy of Vietnam fell into the lap of Nixon, he got serious, he got us out while the Democrats cut funding as our evacuating soldiers were still being killed.

  Nixon stayed on, winning a second term by a landslide. The Democrats, true to their color, with the usual help the 'media' controllers, hounded Nixon out of office for a deniable obscure two-bit burglary.

  Granted, JFK had his 'ups', putting man on the moon, Krushev missile stand off, reducing taxes . But when it came to character, he won his 'election' by Chicago fraud , had his Monica in Monroe, instigated the Bay of Pigs and then welched.

  Bush is working on his legacy and , in balance, so far so good. Sleep tight with W, be thankful we don't have Gore, being puppeted by the Clintons. Every time I see Saddam supporters in the streets I turn my head. Milosevic, to his credit, drew a line in the sand, kept title to Kosovo, did not give up Serbias soveriegnty, and is making a mockery of the judicial arm of NATO. I never turn my head watching Milosevic ferreting out facts, and the 'prosecution' squirming in their seats.
  
  J P
  USA.Wis

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 3:28 pm
  On the topic to cut up Kosovo. Most Serbs would accept this situation. Because of the situation today there is very little choice for Serbs.

  High handed post Mr Tarzanovic. Tell me something not that I doubt your identity but what is origin of your surname since it sound suspicious. Is it possible that some people claiming to make the Serb view are actually disinformers of Albanian or Croatian background here as in other places on the internet? Your opinion interest me.

  Reason why I was so angry was that my Prime Minister had just been assasinated but I dont expect you to understand since it is evident you dont care for Serb state or people. If you or other poster think that by to discredit somebody they will go away you dont understand Serb stuboarness which make me doubt you more. Yours and evidently Anna's theory is that anyone who makes contradiction in your view is some kind of spy. Wow you have very inflated idea of importance of Serbia. Maybe it was me that pulled trigger in legue with British SAS or French foreign leigon. Maybe my partner skully and FBI ones helped me. By the way Mr Tarzanovic maybe you can give some proof to your theori that Serbs were assasinated by assasins hired by foreign spies. Which Serbs was assasinated by foreign spies? Arkan maybe?

  I am little shocked still but will make my opinion now of Milosevic trial - not because people are demanding opinion from me but because this is what board is about.

  Milosevic should be put on trial there is no question. Question is where, what for and by who. Dont want to upset Andy but I think he is guilty of many frauds and stealing, not much personally but giving to others in JUL, his son etc. Second would this trial be possible in Serbia? Answer is no there would not be fair trial. Either judges would take orders form Djindjic or Milosevic would still be able to use his old links in judges, police and prosecution.

  So onto trial for war crimes. Milosevic was in my opinion guilty as were all the others. Can he get fair trial at Hague? No. Is he guilty of Genocide? No Can he get fair trial in Belgrade? No.

  Was extradition of Milosevic legal? No.

  Was it desirable? Maybe. Some poster above said that Milosevic won the last election. That is not true - he did not win the election. He even came on TV to admit defeat.

  Maybe somebody can explain how or where to try Milosevic because I still dont have answer.
  
  A V
  Srbija

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 3:40 pm
  A.V. Are you claiming that election and happenings on Oct. 5. were legal? In my opinion it would be legal if there had not been foreign interference?

  Was there foreign interference/influence?
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 3:44 pm
  

  Kathryn Love,

  It's only surprising that you took as long as you did to see something fundamentally dishonest about the board's permanent "neutral", posting from the same "neutral" country as the allegedly "neutral" Helena Ranta and the equally "neutral" former President and now George Soros employee, Martti Ahtisaari. I'm not making fun of you, but just wondering why you gave someone else the benefit of the doubt for so long - not there's anything wrong with that.

  I'm just wondering what was it that first set off some doubts as to the real agenda of the board's only "neutral"?

  For I noticed that you were not set off by his persistence in openly insisting Milosevic had to know "something" about Srebrenica. "Something", in this case, aside from the fact 10,000 fully armed Muslims were using it as a terrorist base for three years, and engaging in the slaughter of thousands of Serb civilians, while the UN protected them and claimed they were "disarmed".

  I also noticed you praised him previously, even after the board's "neutral" had made several outlandish efforts to provoke debate on topics which were at least somewhat connected to the Milosevic trial, such as his insistence that the FRY President, as well as General Mladic and others, were all to blame for their fate by seeking to engage the UN and the Western Powers in resolution of the Yugoslavia crisis from its very earliest days. Whether this gave you any pause, I don't know.

  Was it perhaps the "neutral's" inexplicable efforts to avoid discussion of the trial altogether, using this forum to denounce Serbia's only ally in the European Union and NATO? Or was it just his persistent use of invective in addressing some of the board's most valued writers? Perhaps it was his recent proclaimation of "Greater Serbia" as a criminal conspiracy? Or was it his most recent attempt to portray himself as a martyr for the cause of independent thought at the Jurist forum?

  Just curious, you know. For I severely doubt that Gogol Charlemagne was the only one to notice the "neutral" refused comment on the appearance of Helena Ranta as a prosecution witness; much less her not so well-known role in politicizing forensic investigations; and abusing her office to make personal statements for the benefit of NATO aggressors.
  
  Nico T
  CAN

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 3:57 pm
  Appropos the brutal end of the Djindjic regime, this article from the Times of London of February 22 may be interesting:

  HEADLINE: Serbs may back rebel republic in Kosovo BYLINE: John Phillips BODY: Zoran Djindjic, Serbian Prime Minister, tells John Phillips why he wants to send troops across the border. BELGRADE will sponsor a breakaway Serbian mini-state in Kosovo if the West prevents Serbian troops returning to the province to guarantee Serb rights, Zoran Djindjic, the Serbian Prime Minister, said yesterday.

  In an interview with The Times, Dr Djindjic dismissed the American contention that it is too early to discuss Kosovo, saying that its hard-won democracy could be at risk.

  This month, the United States issued a statement saying that it was concerned with developments in Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo and said that any attempt to force the pace of change could lead to instability.

  Dr Djindjic said nationalist extremists could regain power in Belgrade in elections next year if the international community did not stop Kosovo's ethnic Albanian majority obtaining independence, which, he argued, the UN was already fostering.

  "What is going on is the transfer of all sovereignty to the Kosovar institutions," he said. "This didn't just happen. It was planned. International institutions are creating a fully independent Kosovo. By passing laws in Kosovo's parliament they don't care what happens in Serbia."

  Dr Djindjic, a formidable opponent of Slobodan Milosevic, received Western support after the former Yugoslav President was overthrown in 2000. Recently, however, his increasingly patriotic stance has alarmed Western diplomats. But

  Dr Djindjic is now concerned about a nationalist backlash. He said that the powers of Kosovo's parliament, elected under the auspices of the UN interim administration, exceeded the "substantial autonomy", envisaged under UN Resolution 1244.

  According to Dr Djindjic, this outrages Serb refugees from Kosovo in Serbia, who make up about 15 per cent of the electorate.

  "They would explode if Kosovo became fully independent. People would say my Government was not defending them," he said. "It is time to put our cards on the table. The international community should say how it imagines the future. I don't think that democratic government can survive if we don't do enough now.

  "Next year we have elections. Kosovo will be the issue. We can't say it is not time now. We can offer a solution from Belgrade's side but, if we say we are unable to do that, nationalistic forces will say: 'We have a solution'."

  Dr Djindjic said that "a thousand or a few hundred" Serb troops should be deployed in Kosovo to enable Serb refugees to return.

  "None of the promises have been implemented. All the promises to the Albanian side have been implemented but nothing on the Serbian side." "I can leave office and say: 'OK, I can't handle this'. But what will come after this Government? In the 2002 elections, the extreme nationalists, led by (Radical Party leader Vojislav) Seselj, got 30 per cent."

  Dr Djindjic denies courting nationalist votes, saying he is entrenched politically because he has outmanoeuvred his rival, Vojislav Kostunica.

  Mr Kostunica became Yugoslav President after Milosevic's downfall but was marginalised when Yugoslavia became the Union of Serbia and Montenegro.

  "Some people say this is an attempt to get support. I don't need that now. Kostunica is not competition," he said.

  "My proposal is to give the Kosovo Serbs constitutional rights and the institutional tools to protect their interests. As a first step it would be enough for the Serbs to be recognised like the Croats in the Bosnian federation. The Croats were 17 per cent and they got a third of representation. In 1999, Kosovo's Serbs were 18 per cent.

  "The people say: 'Why do Albanians in Macedonia come into the constitution and why do Croats in Bosnia? Why South Tyrol? Why ten other situations?' What should I answer?" Without a Western-brokered compromise, he said Belgrade would not shrink from partition; with the Serb majority in northern Kosovo, next to Serbia proper, forming a breakaway mini-state similar to the Republic of Srpska in Bosnia.

  Ethnic Albanian leaders would oppose that since the province's mineral wealth is in the north around the city of Mitrovica and war could erupt again in Kosovo threatening Nato peacekeepers.
  
  Robert Hessen
  New York
  N.Y.

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 4:04 pm
  AV.
  "Where to try Milosevic?"

  Until we have valid laws we are obliged to follow them. When we change laws and make better ones, we will be obliged to follow these, better ones, until then we have to be satisfied with what we have.

  Anyone who committed crime anywhere in the world is tried where crime is committed. Since there is, “corpus delict”, witnesses other court resources etc. Is there any difference to extradite Milosevic to Croatia or NATO?
  If we are not capable to make laws - then we will need somebody else, that means other nation, or other nations representatives to do it for us - However I would not dare to deprive any nation of it.

  Laws are integral part of one nations superstructure. Depriving nations of superstructure you are in fact alienating nation of its being.
  This is all about extended arm of NWO.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 4:05 pm
  AV,

  I don't understand what you are going on about for so long. It was you, wasn't it, who came on here yesterday and posted an offensively accusative message about how we who participate in this forum must be glad that Djindjic was assassinated because we all like Milosevic (I paraphrase). That was an arrogant double misconception. I would guess that most, if not all, here are not Milosevic supporters, except in the Hague, where the issue for us is legality and legitimacy, not Milosevic's popularity. I would also say that no one here was happy that it is so easy in Serbia to shoot down in the street someone of Djindjic's high office, nor had anyone here desired that his downfall be assassination. Djindjic needed to be kicked out of office by the people and Kostunica, for lack of anyone else, should be running the country and given a chance to do so without the underhanded escapades of a Djindjic and without his hands effectively tied behind his back as they were before.

  Your woeful //he was after all a human being// lament (again I paraphrase)was meaningless insomuch as so is everybody else, and Djindjic's lack of concern for most of the Serbs, whether their physical welfare or their opinions, spoke volumes of his own lack of humanity and his focus on his primary interest, which, obvious to anyone, was his self-promotion.

  I say enough already of this absurd topic -- who was glad to see Djindjic killed. Nobody, that's who. But that doesn't mean we liked him any better than Milosevic.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 4:34 pm
  Mr Peric I dont think nobody would deny there was inteference from outside. Its another point if that means that somebody didnt win the election or would have won or lost anyway. Is there election in the world not more or less influence by outside factors?

  Anna P. I already told you I was shocked at that time. Perhaps you could comment on whether you think that Milosevic's policies contributed to a mafia state I have to live in.

  Its clear to you about Milosevic maybe but not to me because this is the country I live in. The countries Prime Minister is dead, that may mean nothing to you but it means something to me. Im sorry if that topic is absurd to you Anna but somehow believe most people are interested in the assasination.

  Since Mr T(arzanovic) only sees fit to talk with me when he feels like it maybe you can explain why I might be some kind of spy since you agree with his paranoid post.

  
  
  A V
  Srbija

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 4:51 pm
  A.V.
  No, there is no country in the world that would oppenly accept money to topple a legal system though US called it regime.

  What I can see there is a real regime today in Serbia.

  This is a very dangerous, and unlawfull situation, if soon something postivie does not happen - (Coalition Government or something similar) - tomorrow may be late.

  "State of Emergency" is proclamed and maintained now only by executive power.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 5:05 pm
  The state of emergency is in fact the term for legal military coup; Legal under assumption that there is a function of democratically elected Parliament, President, Government, and function of established judicial system.

  I am guessing very soon will be suspended many institutions, including implementation of control of news agencies etc.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 5:32 pm
  Anna P, Thanks for the kind words and the encouragement.

  It now appears that these same new arrivals on the board, are not only accusing forum particpants of playing a role in the horrifying assassination of the Serbian Prime Minister, but are also convinced anyone writing here must be a spy as well.

  For this reason, and many more besides, it's not a good idea at all to even consider the possibility of a fruitful discussion with such persons. Responding to provocateurs only serves to reward their irresponsible behaviour and reckless disregard for any and all rules of civilized behaviour, assuming that their agenda was not to lower the quality of this forum in the first place. Such tactics have been used to great effect in many other websites which at one time or another hosted debates related to politics in Yugoslavia, Balkans, etc. providing the webmasters a ready excuse, whether out of convenience or legal necessity, to close the discussion. It's something which has been seen time and again over the years, and has almost always resulted in the sort of censorship desired by the offending parties.

  
  
  N T
  C

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 5:37 pm
  To: all forum participants

  Be aware that Arandjel Pasic or A P has now given his place to "A V". Careful reading reveals that the writings are from the same person.
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 6:28 pm
  Actually, Pythagoras, you are right and you made me realize that I had inadvertantly transferred "AP" to "AV" without even being consciously aware of it. In writing to AV I thought I was writing to AP. I'll be more careful...
  
  Anna P
  California

• Thursday March 13, 2003 at 6:33 pm
  Nico,

  I'll take your advice. I have seen some of what you have seen, on other forums. Beograd.com's forum, for instance, has been completely ruined and for a long time now.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 12:17 am
  A.V.,

  Would you consider the possibility that the sanctions imposed from outside created a massive black market in Serbia, and that the black market itself is what funded and ultimately gave rise to organized crime in Serbia.

  Was it Milosevic's policies, or was it the policies of the international community that have created this situation? Did Milosevic ask to have the sanctions put on Serbia?

  The equation is simple: Sanctions = black markets and black markets = organized crime.

  If Milosevic was the problem then it would have been logical to see organized crime subside after October 5, 2000. Has organized crime subsided since October 5, 2000? No, it has gotten worse.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 12:58 am
  Nico:

  You ask when did I get my doubts about Jari? When I offered to give him a big hug and he did not send me back a big kiss.

  How long have you been on the “Jurist?” It seems to me that I have not seen your name until recently. I believe Jari started posting in March of 2002. The following is an excerpt from one of his legal points of view:

  “Therefore, the prosecution's case falls apart (in principle) for overstepping these temporal limits, which means that you have to accept the fact that the whole establishment of any given state is not the easiest thing to put on trial. You simply run out of competent courts. The former Yugoslav republics had no choice but to accept the tribunal's jurisdiction (under duress). The states which have a choice would never have agreed to an international tribunal having such sweeping powers to prosecute their citizens even at the highest level. This gives some indication that the Rambouillet accords, which were not even signed except by one party (KLA, a terrorist organization) under duress, were designed from the start to make it possible to transfer the Yugoslav leadership to The Hague.”May 2, 2002

  “By the way, the word "farce" has been used a lot to describe the ongoing trial. Read the latest Freedom fight in the Hague bulletin (no 9) and you know that the word "farce" is not an exaggeration.”May 7, 2002

  Do you see anything wrong with those?

  Now here are some comments from other forum posters concerning Jari. I hope they do not mind.

  Keep up the legal analysis, I always look forward to reading it.David Australia

  But Mr . JN adds the strength to the Serbian cause by being clearly independent and having his own views. D. Jovanovic USA

  I know there are more like those but it takes times to scroll through the archives.

  When Jari implied the Serbs wanted a Greater Serbia, I criticized him for this. He did not curse me for it.

  Jari may be on the side of the Muslims and Croats, I do not know, I have always felt he was being even handed.< When he said murdering the Albanians I saw red when I shouldn’t have. In a cooler frame of mind I think maybe he was saying, “what other choice do we have?”

  Srebrenica? I do not read all these posts. If he thinks Milosevic knew about it what makes him say so? Did you debate this with him? You probably are in a good position to do so.I personally do not think anything occurred at Srebrenica. Why how many days would it take to shoot 8,000 people. The Serbs were being watched day and night. Our military has anything and everything you can think of and they were using it to observe the Serbs. If the Serbs were shooting just think 8,000 how many blocks would they be stretched out over? Someone would have witnessed it,the USA, French, Dutch, and if they witnessed this they would be just as guilty for not stopping it. No it never happened. As bright as Jari is he did not use common sense here. Dragging bodies around and destroying the with some kind of acid? Preposterous!

  I have seen agitators on forums. Jari is not an agitator. He wants input. He wants response. I never read any post where he said, all Serbs should die, like I have seen others write, and like him or not when a guy can post the legal mumbo jumbo the way he can, the forum looks a lot better. He is one smart guy. Posters came and went and he stayed.

  To tell you the truth, the one post I look forwad to is Vera’s and after I read it I copy it and distribute it.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 3:08 am
  I am a celebrity. I can't recognize myself any more in all these comments on myself. So did I say 7,000-8,000 Muslims were killed in Srebrenica, or didn't I? Those who have got the same Tarzan treatment as I have must be as horrified as I am to see who we have shared company with. I would tell them to get their heads examined, if I didn't think that they already have. It is funny nobody was so interested in me when I stood up for the Serb diaspora.

  I guess A V is a provocateur, because he was the only one who actually said something of the trial. The great crusader of those who stick to the topic, Ms Anna, hasn't said anything about it, as far as I know.

  The first time I heard about the partitioning of Kosovo was in 1999 from the Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie, and I thought it was a good idea. Maybe I was wrong, because lately I heard that Djindjic supported it too.

  In fact, if you read Ahtisaari's memoirs, you are told that Milosevic was only interested in securing the Trepca mines (for all his opinion is worth). Maybe I am now expected to defend Ahtisaari by those Serbs who won't defend Djindjic even if he was a Serb like them.

  All the bad things that have been said about Djindjic have been said, and repeating them now is only going to sound as if he deserved to die. Did the people here rejoice that he was dead? Anyone wanting an answer to that question should consult the posts from a couple of days back. In fact, I encourage you to do that. David is the most glaring example. But maybe David is Nico.

  So let us take another look at Djindjic. Is he responsible for The Hague treatment of Milosevic? Well, Milosevic was indicted. Those who keep criticizing Djindjic keep repeating that the Serbian financial situation didn't get any better after the transfer. But how would it have got any better even if Milosevic hadn't been transferred? The point is made that most of the "bribe" went to the public debt. Dear me. Does that mean that it wasn't a bribe, for which Djindjic should be ridiculed, because he thought he was going to be bribed? As many will know, the best investment you can made is to pay your debts. The nasty thing about debts is that they grow interests. And at least you can agree on which purpose the money should be put to. And besides, the US policy in regard to Bulgaria and Turkey revolves around the fact that the US paid the public debt.

  As for Djindic being in Germany during the bombing, I think most of the people that criticize him for that were outside Serbia as well. These are the people who criticized those bombed for accepting the fact that they were bombed. These are also the people who criticize their own critics of logical fallacies.

  As one participant implied, when those who normally disagree agree on something, that gives more power to the argument. Djindjic said that Milosevic wasn't guilty. So there is the agreement. But I don't know if Djindjic thought that Milosevic was going to get a fair trial.

  What do you think? Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial? The word is free. That is the point.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 3:22 am
  And talking about garbage treatment, I think it is agreed that Djindjic was accepting the garbage treatment when he delivered Milosevic to The Hague. That is why it was he that did it and not somebody else. Was he a Judas? Judas delivered Jesus, so the answer depends on your opinion on who Milosevic "really" is. Did Djinjic accept the possibility that he would be shot? Judging by the feeling here that an assassination is one of the occupational hazards of being a politician in the Balkans, he might have.

  By the way, the initials JN stand for Jari Nousiainen.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 3:59 am
  

  The only European politician shot in the last 18 years the media repeats

  How stupid a comment. 18 years ago it was a Swede who was shot, another prime minister. But in within this two prime ministers there are dozens of politicians killed!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 5:31 am
  

  Jari,

  Any comments on the Finnish elections?
  
  G C
  USA

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 6:09 am
  Jari

  You seem to like drawing long bows at times. For your information, I am not glad Djindjic was assassinated. By the same token I am not devastated either. As far as I am concerned he was a less than savoury character. I'm not sure you necessarily need to extrapolate too much more from what I said. I simply don't much care for Djindjic or his assassination. I was much more devastated by the killing of innocent civilians of all nationalities in YU.

  My point is that I find it difficult to comprehend why some people would assume that as a critic of what's going on in the ICTY I must be a supporter of Milosevic and therefore am to be pitied as I must be automatically rejoicing over Djindjic's assassination. I also have difficulties with the fact that some people want to treat Djindjic as a great statesman and patriot in the light of his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

  Hence the criticism of AP or AV or whatever his name is. In fact, given the unprovoked and offensive nature of his comment he got off pretty lightly.

  You may feel sorry for AP or AV and the treatment he got on this board from some participants, including me, but such sentiment should not cloud your judgement and lead you to infer more than what is actually said. You do yourself a gross injustice there particularly if your sympathy towards AP or AV was sincere.

  I assure you that if I were in fact glad about Djindjic, I would have had no hesitation in making it perfectly clear. Any other inference on your part leans, albeit much more passively, towards the variety of unwelcome comment supplied by AV or AP.
  
  David
  Australia

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 6:38 am
  

  Pero

  You guess right. The state of emergency includes the following:

  1. Freedoms and human rights under Serbian constitution are suspended.

  2. Anyone affectig the security of other citizens or the Ministry of the Interior can be held for 30 days, appeals available only to the Minister of the Interior and no right to legal representation as per the Criminal Code.

  3. The Minister of the Interior can prohibit movement and can order people to remain in defined locations.

  4. Privacy laws and principles are abandoned and measures relating to bugging, spying etc do not require court orders.

  5. Entry into private premises requires no court orders as long as it is in the context of preventing organised crime.

  6. Strikes are banned.

  7. Public meetings are suspended.

  8. Political, union and other activity is suspended if it interferes with state of emergency measures.

  9. Public broadcasting, newspaper and other information distribution is prohibited from discussing the reasons for the emergency measures and can only transmit information releases from the appropriate authorities.

  The above is pretty much a paraphrased version of the state of emergency decree. Is it all an overreaction?
  
  David
  Australia

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 7:18 am
  

  In other words it is a COUP!

  Kostunica (who is left?) has denounced the imposition of the emergency measures and opposition parties are nearly in revolt.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 7:29 am
  Pye maybe you should rename yourself Sherlock. No careful reading is needed to see AV and AP is same person at all. By the way maybe you would like to comment on Greek units involvement in Srebrenica? That is much more relevant than my secret identity or Macedonian question.

  So that make this AP very bad spy then I think?

  To make clear continuation of paranoia of some participants and explain. A P V is my initial. I have two last names. Unfortunately I see that somebody is already using A P V but I forgot which initial I was using. Not biggest conspiracy ever, really simple. From now I will use Arandjel PV

  Thank you Andy to treat me seriously. And yes I agree with you that Western policy of sanctions made mafia state possible. Where maybe we disagree is government policy that gets western nations to put sanctions on nation - Yugoslavia.

  I dont think we will ever agree on this. I am 'veteran' of early protest against Milosevic policies. There was another way to handle problems of former Yugoslavia - maybe confederation, maybe something else. Any way Milosevic should have considered us the people before society criminalised. What criminalized means? It means everyone uses black market goods supplied by mafia, black market cigarettes because it is only way to survive. Sanctions helped Milosevic and he knew this. It made us people think life was normal and criminals like Subotic, Marko Milosevic and Arkan were doing very well. The last comment you made about organised crime in Serbia. Before assasination of Djindjic would not say that organised crime is worse than before - even cigarette companies would say this but now..

  May I ask people to please stop talking about one comment made that has been explained. Its boring. Read Walters post about assasination, now I understood it. It is great and somehow explains how I felt.

  What happen in the West if President or Prime Minister assasinated? Is there state of Emergency?
  
  Arandjel P V
  Srbija

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 7:33 am
  
  ‘PRIME MONSTER BLAIR’

  The above is today’s fitting headline in the Daily Mirror UK.

  Last night’s BBC programme ‘Question Time’ had yet another British politician, Anne Clwyd, boasting how Blair “stopped ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo.

  I started my quest here for the truth one year ago, bar two days, and I am still being told lies by this New Labour government and its representatives - which in contrast to Milosevic I did support at one time: AND I AM STILL WAITING TO KNOW WHY MOST OF ITS MEMBERS ARE STILL TELLING MASSIVE LIES ABOUT KOSOVO?

  Blair, Cook, Robertson, Straw, Hoon and many backbenchers such as Clwyd KNOW that Kosovo has been ethnically cleansed of its minority populations but they persist in perpetuating the myth, during the past four years, that their intervention “stopped ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo!

  They are referred to as Honourable Members, some even Right Honourable Members, of the House of Commons and Blair in particular is described almost universally as SINCERE. This is to destroy the meaning of language. How can they claim to run a democracy when the electorate is fed lies upon which to make its decisions?

  I do not agree with many of this commentator’s other remarks, about Milosevic for which he needs to provide evidence, but his analysis below is spot on:

  “I called the Kosovo conflict the flower children's war because it was Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder, Javier Solana, and their friends -- politicians who emerged from a '60s generation of confused peaceniks, eco-freaks, draft resisters, and flower children -- who, after a life-long opposition to NATO and everything it stood for, hijacked NATO to act out their mushy liberal fantasies of fitting every region into the Procrustean bed of a multicultural dream.” George Jonas, National Post 12 March 2003.

  How fair is this trial: For the reasons above (The continuing lies of the likes of Blair) and many other reasons given before such as the bogus evidence accepted from many witnesses (for example the statistician Ball) this trial is manifestly a FARCE.

  What can be done: British contributors can demand of their MP’s and media managers that they start recognising and reporting the TRUTH about Kosovo. In particular we need to demand that Prosecutor del Ponte keeps her many promises to indict those ‘right up to the head’ of organisations that committed crimes against humanity in Kosovo - the Leaders of the KLA.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 7:40 am
  Jari,

  Actually, I do think Milosevic belongs in Hague. Why? Because regardless of charges, that is the place where we separate allegations from facts. It is the court (bad one but still court). I am personally sick and tired of "alleged" word. Should have Djindjic send Milosevic to Hague? Yes, but he did it for the wrong reasons. He did it for money instead cleaning up Serbian image. He should have delegated a team of lawyers designated to follow trial and react on every irregularity as a state in front of Security Council. Use their own weapons to defeat them. After all, Slob was a president of the state and his fate can become yours if you do not have proper defenses. Do I like Milosevic? I really like him NOW while he is in "brig". Its like watching Monty Python's Flying Circus especially now with Seselj around.
  
  DAkic Ana
  Serbia

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 8:08 am
  Indeed Ana. ICTY is established by UN. YU had an obligation to honour its role in the UN and hand over Milosevic. But you are 100% correct! YU govt should have done so and provided Milosevic with the legal representation due to a former head of state as he is accused of crimes while he was head of state. As it is, they ditched him for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver. It was their duty to provide him, as they should provide ANY citizen, with legal representation. The fact that the court is in the Hague makes little difference with respect to YU govt obligations towards a YU citizen charged with a criminal offence, either in or outside of YU, no matter whether he be Barabbas or Jesus.

  But hey... politics is politics! Milosevic, whether he is guilty as charged or not, would not be the first politician to be thrown to the wolves so opposing politicians can feed their egos and rise to power.
  
  David
  Australia

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 8:20 am
  
  Words of warning to wannabe “serial regime changer” Blair

  “The lesson from Serbia for today's serial regime changers is a simple one. You can try to subjugate a people by sanctions, subversion and bombs. You can, if you wish, overthrow governments you dislike and seek to impose your will by installing a Hamid Karzai, General Tommy Franks or a Zoran Djindjic to act as imperial consul. But do not imagine that you can then force a humiliated people to pay homage to them.” Neil Clark, The Guardian 14 March 2002.

  
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 8:55 am
  Arandjel P V,

  You and I agree that the sanctions are ultimately what fostered and enabled the growth of organized crime in Serbia.

  We agree that sanctions necessitate black markets, and that black markets inevitably bring about organized crime.

  Where we disagree is on this point; you spoke of government policies that got western nations to put sanctions on Yugoslavia.

  My question to you is this: What policies did the FRY government have that would justify the imposition of sanctions?

  My contention is that the justifications that were put forward by the West when the sanctions were imposed were lies and false justifications, and manipulations.

  You can see the text of resolution 757 (the resolution imposing the sanctions) at this link:

  http://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u920530a.htm
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 9:20 am
  My answer to the topic question is still NO, although I must admit that I understood that question in much broader sense, more like “What do you think about ICTY?” But I will come back to this later with some legal doubts (not my field), first I will try to prove to Jari that participants on this forum are very honest and decent people (including Jari, of course) who can accept different opinions and can exchange arguments without “garbage treatment”.

  I have totally different opinion about Zoran Djindjic than most people on this forum. I think that he was best thing that happened in Serbian politics in the last 20 years. He was politicians with vision and courage and that is vary rare. His biggest disadvantage was that he was too young and too inpatient.

  From previous posts, major accusations against him are 1. delivering Milosevic 2. “supporting” NATO aggression 3. “pro western” politics 4. mafia connections.

  1. This decision makes him great in my eyes. First, timing was brilliant, day before conference about money. Everybody can see that decision is squeezed out of him by “International community”. Second, courage to do that although aware that that will hardly help his popularity. This decision brought Milosevic in spotlight and his side of story what happened in Balkans in last 15 years will be recorded on tape and easily compared with corporate media “truth”. If we can translate this event (delivering Milosevic) to everyday life, in my opinion accusing Djindjic for delivering Milosevic is like accusing beaten and raped women for having sex.

  2. As far as I know he didn’t support aggression. He was in Germany (or Montenegro) during bombing because of death treats. Journalist Slavko Curuvija was killed in that time. There was another group (and still is) of “Super Serbs” (my expression) around layer Srdja Popovic who supported bombing. HumWarriors like Biserko, Kandic, Perovic etc. (mentioned before by Vera) belongs to this group of “ultra Serb nationalist with opposite sign”. In short, this group is obsessed with Slobodan Milosevic. According to them he is personally guilty for everything what happened. He is Lucifer itself, so in order to fight such supernatural evil you need same kind of supernatural power like this group of “Super Serbs”. Again as far as I know Djindjic didn’t belong to this group and I think he sign petition to stop bombing. If I am wrong somebody from Serbia will correct me.

  3. This kind of “accusations” like “pro western” or “traitor’ I don’t understand. What else he can be “pro Russian”? They are also “pro western”, maybe “pro Chinese”? He is “traitor” of what? Serbia? Best for Serbia is to avoid more sanctions, and he did that. Milosevic? Milosevic was always his political enemy.

  4. I do not have any doubt that he had some kind of connections with mafia. The question is what kind of connections? If he received money from them in exchange for some favors, than that is criminal behavior but if he had contact with them because they are powerful and influential part of society than contacts with them is part of his job. I agree with Andy that mafia is result of sanctions but whatever reason is Prime Minister of country must face this problem and he did. Again he was to inpatient and tried to get rid of mafia to early and that mistake he paid with his life.

  So, I am very sorry that he is dead, but I also believe that even his death will help Serbia to overcame troubles.

  Back to topic. About ICTY I think exactly the same as Slobodan Milosevic and participants on this forum, so no need to repeat. I do not follow trial directly, I also read Vera’s reports, so I can’t tell if he gets fair trial if we reduce question on procedural level. I have one legal question and I hope somebody with law background will answer. We all know that SM doesn’t’ t recognize the court and he didn’t appoint lawyer, but from Mr. May point of wiev court is regular and if Milosevic wants to be his layer he can. My question is why Mr. Milosevic-layer doesn’t receive all what other layers received in that court. Including salary, assistants etc. Is that FAIR?
  
  Vedran T.
  Netherlands

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 10:28 am
  

  Serbia says UN prosecutor not welcome at Serbian PMs funeral

  Serbia said it asked the top UN war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte not to attend the funeral for slain prime minister Zoran Djindjic here, saying she was not welcome.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 10:32 am
  Did Djindjic say, Morals are for the monastery?He must have been one great guy. I know my morals would not allow me to go to another country and CHEER the bombing of my own. I know my morals would not allow me to kidnap my president and take him to the Hague and I really dislike this president we now have.

  When John Kennedy was assassinated there was no such state of emergency. The country went black with mourning.

  Years ago someone from Yugoslavia said to me, “You know what would be a wonderful thing for Europe? If it would unite and become the United Europe like the USA....but that will never happen because those people just cannot get along.”I think he was right. Whatever this EU is it goes about it in a very discriminatory fashion. Choosing this one and that one, why not invite them all in at once and make it successful? The US did not say “Louisiana not you I do not like your slave policies.” Our founding athers knew it had to be all in order to be successful.

  David and Andy. I do read all of your posts.

  Tomorrow I am looking forward to a large protest throughout the world against the bombing of Iraq. Let us stop the bombing of “all people” by more powerful nations. Enough!
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 10:36 am
  Vedran,

  What of the two following points:

  Djindjic engineered the ejection of Kostunica's MPs from parliament.

  He was behind efforts to stop the reform of the 50% law for the second round of presidential elections.

  These actions, if anything, point to him being anti-democratic.

  Andy,

  recalling from memory about the imposition of sanctions, I believe that the UN General Secretary asked for a report on whether the FRY had fully withdrawn its soldiers from Bosnia. This report would have been used as evidence before any vote on sanctions. Alois Mock, the Austrian Foreign Minister at the time was supposed to deliver this report. He recieved it several days before hand, yet only released the document after the vote had been taken. The report apparently stated that the JNA had in most withdrawn from Bosnia.

  As for the trial, I am at a loss as to why the Prosecution needs more and more time. Their method seems to be of 'quantity versus quality', the hope that if one throws enough mud, some will eventually stick. It hardly seems professional. In some ways the tactic seems to reflect that of Iraq situation, how does one prove a negative?
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Belgium

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 10:36 am
  I guess Carla is relieved. Although she might have been able to grab up a few secret indictees.

  Why does this woman remind me of the one in Thousand and One Dalmatians?

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 10:37 am
  fix?
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Belgium

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 11:35 am
  Kathryn,

  If Djindjic really said so (Morals are for the monastery), he merely admit what is truth for politicians. There is no moral politician, and I sincerely hope that you will not bring John Kennedy as moral person.

  Alexei, I did not approve all Djindjic political moves, but I do believe that he had vision of democratic Serbia and he was working very hard in that direction.
  
  Vedran T.
  Netherlands

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 11:40 am
  I think west mainstream media uses term “pro western” just to point to a “good guy”.

  The other arguments you make about Djindjic are the Serbian old dillema already seen in 1941. One will find many similarities between acters then and today.

  Tito “pro Russian” - foreigner - accepted by population
  King - “pro western” - Serbian - not accepted
  Draza Mihajlovic - “”pro western” pro American” - Serbian - Accepted?
  Nedic - “pro German” - Very courageous - under the pressure accepting the role of Prime Minister under German Control knwing that he is going to be “Traitor”.(He lost his son in battle with germans) -accepted between 1941-44?
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 12:27 pm
  In the short time I have, I would like to comment on something Arandjel said in passing. I have also read in some article (maybe on the NIOD report) about the Greek involvement in Srebrenica. (And the Israeli involvement too.) I just thought about that when we got to the subject of Greater Serbia.

  Djindjic may have been connected with mafia, but who wasn't? That doesn't make him another Djukanovic (who is not my favourite guy, but what do I know). Djindjic may not have filled Slobo's shoes (no value judgment here), but I think Djindjic did great considering the circumstances.

  Slobo himself may not be a mafia guy, but who knows. I am still at a loss why he didn't do anything about the big thugs like Arkan. Or maybe he did: it was speculated by the "West" that he did get Arkan killed.

  On the other hand, the Serb war propaganda during the bombing knew the evocative value of Arkan. He was allowed to make the statement on TV that if Nato should send ground troops, he would send them back in bodybags. This sort of statement can hardly be made without Slobo's knowing, which suggests that between there was at least a symbiotic relation between Arkan and Slobo.

  Vedran's suggestion that Slob should get a salary is interesting. Because if he doesn't get the salary just because he doesn't recognize the court, then he should indeed be charged for the accommodation as well (as Gogol suggested).

  Just for the sake of argument, let me say that the trial looks quite fair at the moment (although I haven't seen it). That is indeed what the NYT article with the great fanfare concerning the "regularity" of the trial was about. But after all that has happened in this trial, do you really trust these guys?

  And besides, the trial is public at the moment, in the sense that those who want to follow it, can. A public trial doesn't mean it has to be broadcast on prime time TV. This is something any accused would appreciate, when it is he who is in the dock.

  And besides, even if the trial were not fair, I guess this is another occupational hazard of being a politician in the Balkans. As David said: politics is politics. It is a pity that this is taking place in a courtroom.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 12:54 pm
  Vedran,

  so what was the point of elections? Yelstins faced a corrupt Russia (for which he should carry much blame), but he personally chose someone who was trusted by the intelligence services and had real weight, thus the oligarcs were brought into line.

  Djindjic survival depended on playing one side off against the other, that was his 'virtural' power. If he was to go after the crimials and deal with the other titanic problems that face Serbia, he didn't consider it necessary to have the support of by far and most popular party and leader in Serbia. Why? Was it because he thought that Kostunica just couldn't hack it when it came to dealing with the West? Was Kostunica against reform? No.

  I'm suprised that you dismiss the expelling of Kostunica's MPs so easily, it is supposed to be a democracy yet this action is taken by a man that is proclaimed in the West to be a democrat! It was illogical for the ~30 parties of DOS to exist for so long which is exactly why the elections were called. Djindjic may have been a skilled political operator, but he was no kind of King Arthur.

  When you say Djindic had vision of democratic Serbia and he was working very hard in that direction., your are effectivley saying 'the end justify the means.' His actions were clearly anti-democratic and bad for Serbia. Sure, in the West quite a few governments were voted for by a minority, but Djindjic and his followers level of support really takes the biscuit!

  As a side note, when gas prices were raised a couple of years ago, Djindjic blamed it on the Minister for Energy. Djindjic lied outright - a true lesson in how to avoid accountability.

  A though on Milo if I may; with all the volumous documents being given to Milosevic, I wonder if he has time to do some preparation on his own defence. I wonder if this is a deliberate Prosecution tactic. How much time will he be allowed to prepare?
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Belgium

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 12:55 pm
  Vedran: John Kennedy was an American who would not have sold out his country. When he died the country all mourned. It was a very black time. He liked women so what? Sometimes men who like women than those who don‘t. I loved John Kennedy. Did you love Djindjic?You would have hundreds of thousands say this about Kennedy, how many would say it about Djindjic? I have a particular dislike for those who are traitors to their country. God, Country and Family. Maybe that is why the USA is successful.We were taught this from birth.
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 12:57 pm
  Pera said the documents don't count in the final assessment. The prosecution hasn't read them either.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 2:54 pm
  Kathryn,

  RE JFK, Clinton, et al. Do you really believe that a man who is not honerable in his own house can be honorable anywhere?

  Clinton often made it clear that he thought he was following hin JFK's footsteps, his hero. You have no way of knowing what JFK would have done in Clinton's shoes. No point in speculating about that, I suppose. It's painful to have our heroes pulled off their pedestals. JFK still wears his halo only because journalism was more curtailed in his day. I think it was better to know less personal information about our leaders, so I'm sorry those days are gone. On the other hand, I do wonder if a man who is dishonorable to his own wife and family can have any honor whatsoever.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 3:14 pm
  

  I am a little short of time but I hope Vera will delight us all with the account of the last few sessions (sorry she missed Ranta's) todays; being really good and funny for Mr. Milosevic when the Head of the Forensic Investigation of Croatia presented his evidence as described in the indictment for Croatia.

  Mr. Milosevic asked the doctor, how a corpse without a head could be given "injuries to the head" as the cause of death, or how an exhumed skeleton could die of "internal hemorrhages". I know , among other things I like black humor, of which the ICTY has plenty.

  May (NATO) announced the week after Easter (Western) there will no hearings.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Friday March 14, 2003 at 8:42 pm
  If you have not gone to Peter Taylor's Gurdian comment it is a must. Here it is again. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,913918,00.html
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 12:14 am
  Gogol that is pretty funny. You should tell us how the doctor responded.

  The article from the Guardian is wonderful.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 12:25 am
  Another good article posted on the SUC forum by Nadine: I cannot give you the click, cannot do it right.

  Who Killed Djindjic? And What Will Be the Repercussions in the Balkans?

  Sherlock Holmes would have plenty of work to do in the Balkans. And plenty of suspects on his hands because it would be difficult to find anyone who was a friend of Zoran Djindjic. "You are the head of the mafia, and I've got the proof!" said Vojislav Seselj, making his accusation before a full session of Parliament. A lot of others thought so, too. Where is Serbia going? Michel Collon
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 12:40 am
  It's difficult to see any use, or benefit, for these labels like "pro-Western", especially for Serbian politicians. History shows this highly coveted title of "pro-Western" was rarely, if ever, an asset, even during times when it might have mattered for something. King Alexander was "pro-Western", but his efforts to build a defensive coalition against fascism were very inconvenient for a Europe looking forward to the Olympics in Adolf's Berlin. Draza Mihailovich was "pro-Western"; he tied down German divisions and saved American pilots too. Didn't matter, the so-called "West" supported the Communists anyway, and American bombers followed the example of the Luftwaffe. Even Milosevic won wide praise in the West for his role in the so-called "Dayton Agreement", where he represented Serbs who were not even a part of his constituency, and more to the point, not recognized by the West as such either. Even after doing this dirty work, the West decided he was more useful in the role of "mini Hitler", rather than a "pro-Western" statesman, and so the "Butcher of the Balkans" was born.

  Djindjic was "pro-Western" only when he followed instructions, but make no mistake, the West would have demonized him as well if he pursued an independent course. Perhaps it's some comfort to his supporters that the Prime Minister was assassinated before this could happen, as this title of "pro-Western" is apparently something more important than dignity, or even life itself. No doubt such persons attach a lot of significance to other sophisticated political actions, such as dropping the "French" from "Fries". But were they asked to offer their opinion on which they consider more western, "Freedom Fries", or "French Fries", they couldn't tell you.

  Were Djindjic to have continued pressing the UN for the full implementation of Resolution 1244 over Kosovo-Metohija, for example, western politicians and dutiful propaganda editors would have stripped him of this highly coveted "pro-Western" label, and branded with some sort of smear label such as "ultranationalist". Anyone know what this title of "ultranationalist" means by the way? Where are these political science books which distinguish "ultranationalism" from ordinary "nationalism"? Do they explain why one is better than the other, or is this something of any interest to people who like to use catch phrases like "pro-Western"?
  
  Nico Tarzanovic
  CAN

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 1:00 am
  Nico, There are two left to answer:
  Tito and Nedic.
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 2:12 am
  Nico, I read couple times your post and did not anderstand your sentnece: "American bombers followed the example of the Luftwaffe."
  When?
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 2:13 am
  Interesting decission on "french fries" something that the kids in kinder garten do. However, What is Presidend going to do with the Statue of Liberty, remeber that statue is gift from French people to American people?
  
  Carla Berg
  Austria

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 4:28 am
  Make up your minds folks. Did the Yugoslavs want Europe to unite? If you want to prove that the EU is discriminatory in that it didn't, show me the Yugoslav membership application first.

  Or did Djindjic deserve to die, because he was pro-Western? If pro-Western means pro-EU, was he even as pro-Western as Labus?

  I am not sure if you can get it both ways.

  There is one more beneficial thing about the fact that Djindic delivered Milosevic to The Hague. It shows that Milosevic was no tyrant, which he has been made to be. He had people under him, who were prepared to get him to The Hague, and that wasn't even a surprise to anyone.

  There are also two things which should be cleared about this event. Djindjic has been likened to a Judas. There is something that doesn't fit: Djindjic didn't keep the money himself. That is the money that benefits the Serbs at this moment. So if honour is putting the people first, Djindjic did the honourable thing, especially if he knew that he would pay the price the way he did.

  The other thing is that Milosevic was indicted, and there is no getting around that fact. Supposing that the trial is fair, Djindjic did the right thing to let Milosevic clear his name (which is what Ana said, I think).

  And besides, did Milosevic really resist going? I think he was given ample opportunity to disappear to some quiet place, which is what his son opted for. Whether the Milosevic trial is fair or not was strictly speaking none of Djindjic's problem. Given the circumstances, it is not even to the point whether the tribunal is in Serbia or not.

  Finally, Djindjic himself said that he didn't think that Milosevic was guilty. If there is any consistency here, Djindjic's pro-Westernness can only enhance Milosevic's chances.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 4:32 am
  Does anyone have any ideas why Ranta was not called by the Prosecution to substantiate its case on the Racak massacre but was actually called by the 3 wise men?

  One would think the Prosecution would have had her at the top of its witness list. Seems strange, but then again it may be that I'm just an old fashioned conspiracy theorist.
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 4:36 am
  Pero: I'll answer for Nico. Both the Luftwaffe and the USAAF bombed Belgrade during WW2.
  
  Philip Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 4:58 am
  

  Jari,

  The problem of Milosevic's delivery to the Hague is that it was NOT lawfully conducted. I suggested previously that Djindjic should have waited till the law was amended as it was amended subsequently and then sent Milosevic to the Hague in line with YU obligations to a UN body.

  Secondly, he was aware that Milosevic would not get a fair go due to the massive media campaigns conducted over the previous 10 years. He should have at least treated Milosevic as just another YU citizen and provided the necessary legal requirements for his defence, or at least to ensure he did get a fair trial according to international law.

  YU was following a non aligned policy and Milosevic was looking at a Balkan bloc which would be independent and non aligned. It would seem though as Bush put it... "if you're not with us, you're against us". And if you refuse to install a "free market" system in your country the way the multinationals want, you've got problems! One cannot have globalisation with any significant exceptions as it sets a bad example to others. In the end, what we have is a forcible takeover of YU to suit western interests and the punishment of those "ultranationalists" who had the temerity to resist. In business it's called a friendly or unfriendly takeover. Those politicians who went along with the globalists interests are now the darlings of the world and champions of democracy.

  And we all know how many champions of democracy the US has championed throughout the world. The ICTY is just another example.
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 5:17 am
  David, I agree the case was pre-judged, but you might also say that this was another reason for Miosevic to go to The Hague. The trial wasn't fair, but Milosevic is doing his best to reform the tribunal. And I think the trial stays fair, now that we have NYT on record as saying that it is like any other trial. This is is not just law, it is also politics, so there is no right way to approach these things.

  About the market economy and globalization and stuff. Now that the recent events have cleared my head, I just thought that Tito was globalized. I wonder how much of the Yugoslav economic success was financed by foreign banks. It is well-known that SFRY was financially bankrupt, before it finally fell. And I don't know in what kind of dream world we have been living. Debts have to be repaid. Until they are, there can be no talk about "independence". This also helps us to see the US 1991 decision to freeze credit to Yugoslavia in the correct light. Why would anyone keep lending money to a country that was already bankrupt. There is no Western conspiracy, there is just as much Tito's financial extravagance.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 5:27 am
  Jari,

  Tito's excesses are well known, but what is less known is YU had phenimenal productivity and growth rates from the mid 60s to the mid eighties. When it became clear that the Soviets were falling apart, non aligned YU became redundant and the IMF moved in suddenly with massive credit cuts, massive refinancing at astronomical rates and a stupendous debt blow out as a result. The dismemberment of YU began at that time as the workers' self management concept had established itself as highly successful. Guess who was not impressed! And guess who set about changing the economic ambience and the consequent political framework and for what reason.
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 5:47 am
  David, a lot seems to depend on whether the self-management concept can be regarded as successful. On the other hand, I do have to admit that the US did have a plan as early as 1984 to dismember Yugoslavia, as Dusom pointed out. Whether that had anything to do with the finances, I don't know.

  Sorry, I have to leave now. Whichever direction this discussion is heading, there is one thing to bear in mind: Yugoslavia is no more.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 5:47 am
  

  The Yugoslav Constitution prohibited the extradition of any Yugoslav citizen. Djindjic as the premier of Serbia bypassed the Yugoslav government and institutions and had Mr. Milosevic deported to the ICTY in The Hague pending a decision by the Yugoslav Supreme Court on the legality of his decree.

  Mr. Milosevic was the only indicted deported this way. Then for months a Law on Cooperation with the ICTY was debated and finally adopted. This Law is still not in line with the Constitution and it is been challenged in the Supreme Court, further this Law authorizes only a specific number of indictees to be extradited to The Hague.

  Under the current state of emergency (nice euphemism for a coup) I guess everything is possible unless there is a struggle for power in Belgrade disguised as fears of instability

  Carla is going to the funeral despite warnings she is not welcome.

  David,

  Dr. Ranta could only be of any value if her impartiality could be demonstrated associated with her forensic report. Ranta was not suitable witness for the prosecution. She was not ready to sign a summary of her interview with them and previous to her visit she had a very limited contact with the OTP, meaning she did not suit them to have a witness who claimed and tried to keep neutrality. Her cross examination demonstrated, first, not that she was intentionally biased but that her job, her investigation at that late, well after the facts stage, was and couldn't be anything else than inconclusive. Second her press release, of not legal value, was presented and integrated in some form of phony report and quoted and misquoted for many political purpose. It was clear the troika of judges lost interest on her minutes after her cross examination began. The judges understood.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 6:10 am
  

  Yesterday expert witness for the prosecution, doctor Davor Strinovic from Zagreb had to admit many of the forensic reports were not verified by him and were not acceptable. There is also a discrepancy of 7,000 people between the indictment and the figures reviewed by this expert .

  While Doctor Ranta claiming a high level of scholarly knowledge told the court the famous paraffin test (used to detect presence of traces of gun powder) was quaint and she only came a cross in some scholarly literature. She did not say it was inaccurate, because it is not, but she under the examination of prosecutor Nice (NATO) she gave the impression it was and it is, an old method and she said "I would recommend to adopt more modern technology..." without saying what advantage this modern technology could bring, since the paraffin test if positive is 100 percent reliable, its only problem being not capable of detecting smaller traces of gun powder.

  But amici curiae Tuposkovic brought the subject back when cross examining expert witness Dr. Strinovic asking him whether the paraffin test was in use and considered reliable in Croatia as it was in Yugoslavia. "Yes, of course it is" was his answer.

  Not bad considering one can assume the 5,000 victims his report covers must have being in part tested by the paraffin method.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 6:33 am
  

  The DOS coalition was never proved to have a legitimate claim to have won the elections, elections called by the Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. The results of the first round of the elections were never established because the American financed and directed from their operational HQ in Budapest movement of disruption, including otpor (not heard from them ever since) managed to stop the Electoral Commission in counting and proclaiming the elections results. Why couldn't the DOS coalition see the results of the first round and win the second if they were so popular as they claimed?

  It was a Russian who came to visit Slobodan Milosevic to tell him, to persuade him there will be no help, no support because the carrots and the sticks (I like the Hum-Warriors) proponents were in charge and fed up with Yugoslavia and it was time after the enduring of Operation Punishment to get down to the pressing business of re-integration or suffer further consequences (proved to be right).

  If Putin issued a decree, his very first, protecting Yeltsin from any prosecution why could such a deal not be acceptable for Mr. Milosevic I would ask and tell you why, because while Yeltsin was a rotten lackey of the, lets not call it West, but Wall Street, Mr. Milosevic was not and the old socialist ideal so prevailing in Yugoslavia was not going to go away by just a decree as it is not gone away in any of the ex Yugoslav republics including Croatia, Slovenia, and BiH. So, that is why the western media, really more a medium than a media, worries about future instability since the fundamental issue remains unresolved.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 6:41 am
  Pardon me for bursting the bubbles of wishful thinkers but DJindjic was a simple demagogue, all that talk about partition (or a return of Serb police to Kosovo) was all part of the pre-electoral campaign.

  On June 15th, 1988, in "Knjizevne Novine" DJindjic proposed the wholesale amputation of Kosovo from Serbia in his article entitled 'Kosovo i Srbija'. That was way before the separatists of Ibrahim Rugova had even founded their phantom-government.
  
  Igor Jaramaz
  Canada

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 6:44 am
  
  More on ‘the US champions democracy’:

  "What's happening with Iraq is not isolated, it's part of a global phenomenon. When we see the installation of U.S. military bases throughout Latin America, when we look at [American interference] in countries such as Venezuela and Colombia and Panama, we have to ask ourselves what's going on.” Adolfo Perez Esquivel

  In his support Me-too Tony claims moral imperatives which translate in true language to Realpolitik.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 6:45 am
  

  And before I go to enjoy this promising early spring day, let me tell you how I feel about GWB going to the Azores Island to take consolation from his two European, nostalgic as they may be of their respective British and Spanish empires, followers and have a conference thinking perhaps it was Yalta instead of facing the heat at the United Nations meeting with other heads of state, the ones wanting to argue and be convinced in search of consensus and unity. I hope the cheeps of the Azores are not too offended by the pressence in their soil of so much cowardice.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 7:05 am
  Yugoslavia: Structural Adjustment and Dismemberment the Roots of War by Nick Beams found at http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/kosovo/roots.htm is very clear as to how the IMF did Yugoslavia in. “Economic devastation in Yugoslavia The Yugoslav foreign debt, which stood at $2 billion in 1970, rose to $6 billion in 1975. By 1980 it stood at $20 billion, representing over a quarter of national income, with debt servicing taking up some 20 per cent of export revenue. Debt servicing and repayment led to an increased fracturing of the federal republic”
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 7:24 am
  All foreign debt isn't necessarily issued by IMF. Hello, 1980! Did the IMF do Tito in?

  Djindjic was a demagogue. Milosevic was a demagogue.

  DOS didn't win the elections? There you have it: Djindjic threw them out of the parliament.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 7:28 am
  Walter's link is enlightening, but one-sided. It speaks of IMF, as if were the cause of everything, when in fact the article only pinpoints the effects of IMF shock-therapy, and that must be after Tito - and after 1980, when the foreign debt was 20 billion dollars.

  Gogol, I will go back to the sun.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 9:26 am
  Jari,

  If memory serves me right, it is not the 20 billion debt which fragmented Yugoslavia. Rather it was a congressional act promulgated by Robert Dole which insisted that aid and material assistance be handed out to the individual republics of Yugoslavia. The debt remained the federal burden but further assistance was divide to the specific republics.

  That act in 1986 or so was a sparkplug for the disunity.

  Somebody who has a batter access to the Federal documents can verify my statement.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 9:44 am
  To those who did not know.

  US air force has bombed Belgrade on Titos’s request several times in 1944. Ironically, the first bombing was on Easter when many people gleefully looked at the sky and welcomed American flying fortresses.

  The number of collaterals was estimated at 18,000 civilians. In those days it was just a standard carpet bombing. In one street, Krunska Ulica, every second house was destroyed. That was the center of Belgrade, far from railroad station and the like.

  I was there. 14 years of age!
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 10:00 am
  

  Public survey of "Mark-plan" agency about political situation in FR Yugoslavia July 19, 2000

  Serbia for early, Montenegro for regular elections

  Belgrade - According to research of public opinion conducted by "Mark-plan" agency in the period June 5-18, 2000 almost half of population of Serbia is for elections at all levels and as soon as possible. Almost one fourth thinks that regular elections should be waited for. In Montenegro, however, the percentage of those supporting regular elections is 36.3. Only about one fifth supports urgent call of elections at all levels.

  In Yugoslavia, more than 39.5 percent of people do not trust any politician. The percentage of those trusting Slobodan Milosevic is 13.7, then follow Vuk Draskovic 6.3, Milo Djukanovic 4.9, Vojislav Kostunica 4.6, etc. If elections in Serbia would be carried out today the percentage of those that would vote is 85.1. Socialist Party of Serbia would get 17.6, Serbian Renewal Movement 11.5, Democratic Party 8.3, Democratic Party of Serbia 7.8, Serbian Radical Party 4.4, Citizen Coalition of Serbia 3.1, Yugoslav Leftists 2.4, Democratic Alternative 1.5, New Serbia and Demo-Christian Party of Serbia 1.3 each, Social Democracy and Vojvodina Coalition 1.2 each and Otpor 1.0. Almost one third of those that would vote, did not want to say who they would give their votes to. If parties of democratic opposition of Serbia would take part in elections united, they would get 32.2 percent of votes. Coalition of socialists and leftists would get 14.3 percent what is considerably more than in case that radicals are within that coalition, too.

  In Montenegro the situation is as follows. If elections would be held today, 92.5 percent of voters would go to the polls. Almost 29.2 percent would vote for Socialist Peoples Party and 26.4 for Democratic Party of Socialists. It is interesting, however, that coalition "Let's live better" would get only 9.4 percent of votes. Only 8.3 percent did not want to say who would they give their votes to.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 11:32 am
  Mr Gorbulski Just to clear up mistake of believing that DOS / Djindjic relived DSS party of their post's in parliament. It is not correct information. The MPs that had the worst attendence in parliament had their voting right taken away. Most of the absent MP were DSS but there were also others. After that DSS quit parliament in protest. So DSS surrendered right to vote in parliament it was not taken from them. Small but important difference.

  Second DOS as whole decided not to support less than 50 percent rule. My opinion is that unless 50 percent of people vote you dont have legitimate government

  Of course Djindjic was not democratic as he wants the world to belive but it is worry that there is as much anti Djindjic propoganda in some circles as there was anti Serb propoganda in opposite ones.

  Let me also say there is no moral politician. Djindjic, Kennedy, Bush, Clinton are same though some better than others. But there were also Americans who considered Kennedy as traitor for 'yellow' attitude toward war. When he died he became bigger hero.

  Today with maybe 250,000 people I attended funeral prosesion of Djindjic. Del Ponte decided not to come. Racan, Rupel, Prodi, Eshdown and other ones came. Only sign of American delegation in Belgrade New Cemetary was in car (the only car flying the flag). American second class delegation were scared to walk past Serbian people - not like our politicians, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians or King. Very sad, sad atmosphere.
  
  Arandjel P V
  Srbija

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 11:37 am
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2852393.stm Report in English on funeral. One more anti Djindjic propoganda to get correct. People are saying that Djindjic spent all time in Germany. Djindjic spoke about that time in interview. He proved that most time spent was in Montenegro not Germany.
  
  Arandjel P V
  Srbija

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 11:44 am
  

  I have another Wall Street Journal article to email to any one who request it from me at:

  gogolc@hotmail.com

  Here is the begining:

  Friday, March 14, 2003

  The Wall Street Journal

  Zoran Djindjic, By Norma Percy

  LONDON?In 2001, I went to Belgrade, Serbia, to make a TV documentary, ?The Fall of Milosevic.? Slobodan Milosevic had lost the election and Zoran Djindjic had become prime minister. Mr. Djindjic was a man who could speak the West?s language, an attractive figure, stylish suit, plausible manner?rather like a trendy American congressman (he had Bill Clinton?s, hair style). But also a person thoroughly at home in the darker side of Serb politics.

  We got a sense of this from his story of a rendezvous on the eve of Oct. 5, 2000, the day the opposition planned the demonstration that would finally make Milosevic accept his election defeat. The opposition leader got a call from the head of Milosevic?s Special Operations Unit, a young colonel known as ?Legija? (Milorad Lukovic) Who demanded a meeting. Mr. Djindjic told us his colleagues responded: ?It?s an easy way for Milosevic to liquidate you. It must be a trap.? But his wife said: ?If Legija wants to kill you tomorrow, he can?so go!?

  Djindjic They met in a huge Jeep parked outside 14 Admiral Geprat Street. The guy inside, Mr. Djindjic told us, looked like he was from a Sylvester Stallone movie, ?a sporty type.? Mr. Djindjic nervously asked him what he thought of the situation. Legija replied: ?Milosevic stole the elections. He lost. I?m not going to shoot people for the man who stole the election.? What would he do if he got an order to shoot? ?l?ll act as my conscience dictates,? he said. ( . . . .)

  For fair use only.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 11:44 am
  Describing W as 'cowardly for attending a 'parley' ( remember that word? ) in the Azores is what Milo likes to say, upside down thinking. Forging on, despite headlines by Islamist terrorists coddlers, is more accurately 'brave'.

  But if it didn't too complicated, it would be nice to have include Japan, Italy, Australia, etc.

  The UN supported 'force', but when 250,000 men and equipment was put in the field, they got cold feet, I presume because of 'terrorists' threats, and soon to be revealed complicity in supporting the Islamists movement. Now, that's what I call 'cowardly'.

  France has sold it's soul, bought Turkey, is in the closet with Germany, and some say Iraq to boot.

  At this moment in time, France is the UN. A lousey place to discuss serious matters.
  
  J P
  USA,Wis

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 11:49 am
  

  Jari

  It is not a parley it is as described in the press, at least the US press a WAR COUNCIL!

  And if the UNO is a bad place the alternative is even worse. Both the ICC and the ICTY are UN's children, which one will last?
  
  G C
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 12:30 pm
  IMO, parley is a nostagic fit. We arm to parley. Couldn't be put better.

  I picked this 'lightening up' link up from a Freerepublic.com poster today. Fast loading, beautiful listening.

  http://www.sv-luka.org/chants/index.html
  
  J P
  USA.Wis

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 1:28 pm
  
  More victims of ‘Prime Monster’ Blair:

  Abducted, tortured, murdered and hidden in a Muslim cemetery

  Pathologist Slavisa Dobricanin said that the 37 bodies exhumed were all of people from the local region. Most were Serbs but several Roma were among them.

  >

  Some were killed by firearms, some by blows from a blunt instrument, as evidenced by multiple fractures. One of the bodies showed signs of torture and had been tied up before death, said Dobricanin.

  When will the ICTY indict the leadership of the KLA for these crimes against humanity?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 2:17 pm
  Peter: How would you like to see billions of Islamists coming down on the world? You will not be seeing ICTY indicting the KLA terrorists.

  Kennedy yellow when it came to war......GOD BLESS KENNEDY. I wish Clinton and the Bushies would have been yellow when it came to war.

  Today I heard that the new bomb weighing 21,000 pounds with 18,000 explosives can wipe out an entire city. Where would you like to see that bomb drop? Yes, you give me a president who is yellow when it comes to war and I will support him over and over.

  European Discrimination?

  Every country in Europe has assets, whether it is in the ground,in the forest, in the rivers, in the bank, in its people. Just as in every state in the United States there are assets. I am sure Europeans are aware of this. If Europe picks and chooses they will end up with nothing.

  In America, American born,Indians, Serbs, Croats, Italians, Japanese, Chinese,Germans, Swiss, French, Danish, and people of all origins call themselves “American” and love it.You may criticize America but you will admit that this is a success story.

  Can the Europeans become one? The French think they are better than Germans, Germans think they are better than French etc., etc., and of course they all look down their noses on the Balkans. Croatia is the only one who hasn’t figured that out yet.Tony Blair holds on to the U.S. and does their bidding because in his mind this makes him the most influential person in Europe. What would Blair be if he was not a puppy to Clinton and Bush? Would he be getting the media attention?

  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they would all say proudly we are “European.” They would blend together and just think...... no more European wars,.... when they consider themselves as one people. Working together to have a good economy. To salute one flag and to be one. I say I am an American Serb, but I am an American first. What is wrong with that? I criticize my government when I believe they are wrong because I know that is my right as an American, just as it is the right of all Americans.This could be the same in Europe.

  Someone once said that if civilization lasts long enough there will only be one race and that will be the “golden race.” Wouldn’t that be nice?
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 2:52 pm
  Yes Kathryn I wish Milosevic, Tudjman, Izetbegovic and company had been yellow also...

  No country or continent is perfect. Look similar attitude of some Americans to Yugoslav war 'o Europeans -so primative, look at barbarians in the ethnic war killing each other, not worth one American life' kind of thinking. That superior thinking only add to imperialistic attitude in direction of other countries. There must also be many Latinos, blacks and nativ Americans who dont feel such part of American success.

  We could also talk about American media which is terrible and can not help make educated population. We could talk about how Americans think (even after all this war) that Yugoslavia is in Afrika, even when we won basketball. Some Americans were asked who was world champion. Have a guess what was reply?

  American success story does exist but it not all flowers.
  
  Arandjel P V
  Srbija

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 4:11 pm
  Arandjel,

  I am quite sypathetic to your post above.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 4:47 pm
  Arandjel,

  thanks for reminding me of the details. It's clear that Djindjic was deliberately trying to make it impossible for Kostunica and co. to take part. Many 'Western' countries don't have a 50% law, which is useful as few people seem to want to vote, does this make these countries illegitimate?

  It seems to me that the 50% law is part of the reason why things turned out this way. Was Djindjic the only politician that could save Serbia? I doubt it. Just because no one alternative easily springs to light, doesn't mean one wouldn't be found.
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Belgium

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 7:31 pm
  A good 'current' read for those who march in antiwar protest or think that a 'feel good' world central authority (UN) is the solution to the continuation of civilization.

  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865684/posts

  snips

  A comedy marked by the double games, rather the complicity, of the inspectors and by the conflicting strategies of Bush, who on the one hand asked the security council for permission to use force and on the other sent his troops to the front. In less than two months, 250,000 troops. With the British and Australians, 310,000.

  And all this without realising that his enemies (but I should say the enemies of the West) are not only in Baghdad.

  Do you know why? Europe is no longer Europe. It is a province of Islam, as Spain and Portugal were at the time of the Moors. It hosts almost 16m Muslim immigrants: that is triple those who stay in America. (And America is three times larger than Europe.) It teems with mullahs, imams, mosques, burqas, chadors and don’t you dare protest.

  IMO, Orianna and Vera are cut of the same cloth, they tell it like it is.
  
  J P
  USA,Wis

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 7:41 pm
  Maybe, just maybe it could be that Djindjic was fed up with US promises and support which never eventuated except rhetorically. Maybe he had had enough of sticking his neck out and losing popularity to less than 10% and thereby his legitimate hold on power. Maybe he was after all a patriot and believed what he was doing was right for the people of Serbia. Maybe he felt betrayed about Kosovo and was starting to be a nuisance.

  Or maybe he felt betrayed by the "West" and was ready to spill the beans on the extent to which the "West" had gone to get him into power and achieve its interests. Dirty laundry washing about to be done in public? We couldn't have that could we, it might just cloud the issues regarding the "Wests" strategies and methods with respect to Iraq and destroy its credibility about spreading democracy around the world.

  So what might have been the best solution? Neutralise Djindjic. Maybe he went the same way as Milosevic when Milosevic beagn resisting too much. After all, unfaithful or disobedient "servants" are dispensible as a litany of them in history has shown.

  Then again, maybe Djindjic was genuinely a victim of criminal elements. Will we ever know? You bet we won't, some things are NOT for public consumption. So maybe I'll just reserve my judgement and not opt for any of the possibilities despite what the official lines are.

  The same goes for Milosevic who may or may not be guilty. My objection to the ICTY is the political involvement in the process of justice. And I think that most participants who "appear" to defend Milosevic's case are merely struggling in principle to keep politics out of the justice systems of the world. Otherwise we begin to descend into the worst excesses of the former Soviet system of "political justice".

  Although it may be a natural tendency in some quarters, it doesn't equate with natural justice.
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 7:52 pm
  JP,

  America is 3 times as large as Europe? Europe is a province of Islam? Europe is under the thumb of Islam?

  What atlas, demographic, political and sociological info are you reading? The same as Fox News?

  Do you ever get European broadasts or media info in Wisconsin?
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 7:59 pm
  

  David, if the following statement of yours is correct, Yugoslavia wouldn't be indebted as it was. If you are right I would be still living in Yugoslavia not in Canada. At the time when I left the general attitude in Yugoslavia was: "Nobody can pay me as little as little as I can work." The other maxim was: 'If I work or not work it does not matter I will make enough money to listen to the radio."(meaning: I will get enough money to survive.)

  David's statement: "The dismemberment of YU began at that time as the workers' self-management concept had established itself as highly successful."

  My opinion is that the self-management system is potentially good, provided that is implemented as conceived, meaning that the people implementing it adheres to the laws of economy. In Yugoslavia the laws of economy were deliberately ignored. Yugoslav economy was not relying on the money that it was making, but on the willingness of the borrowers to give money at any cost. Yugoslavia was more acceptable to the West then the Eastern Block. Yugoslavs were paid by the West to keep it together regardless whether they were working or not. Once when the danger of the Eastern Block disappeared there was no reason to pay people for not working.

  It is interesting how communists hated the West, but lowed to take lawns from them. IMF and other mayor international banks are sharks. Most of them, to my mind, are working as money laundering operations. This explains why they are giving loans even to the countries that are never able to re-pay their depths (Argentina). Simply, money gets into a country and than irresponsible leadership of the country sends its back to the private accounts of the western politicians and bank managers. (Otherwise they will never get a loan.) Not all the money, but considerable amount. How a bank can survive this kind of miss management? Well, there is always friendly government to bail out the involved banks from bankruptcy. The most recent example is when Mr. Bill Clinton saved several banks in the USA, when their failed loans to Mexico were about to bankrupt them. The bill/Bill was paid by the American people and most of the money was made by the Mexican and American politicians and bank managers.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 8:24 pm
  The one great thing about the world today. We have ships and planes that take us everywhere in the world we want to go.

  Yes, I know some of the history of this country. I know that not all that was done or is being done is what I would be proud of. I also know the history of some of the other countries, and I say the same about them.

  HOWEVER: I was born in America. I was educated in American public schools. My people served this country in the United States military in almost every war starting with World War I. They served and saluted the flag. When I was ill American doctors took care of me.America provided us with places to dance, roller skate and swim. My teachers never called me a Serb, they called me an American. My friends were all born in America. We were and are Americans.

  What made me sicker than anything when it was my own American who bombed the Oklahoma government building.

  My father who was born in Yugoslavia told me “You are American ....you were born here.” It was my father, who came to this country, and wanted Europe to unite. He thought it would be wonderful. My father knew America was not perfect but he ws pretty damn glad to be here and he did not have the easiest of lives. He criticized but at the same time he praised.

  I am against bombing ANY country. Today there was a large rally in Washington and if you saw any part of that you would know at least we have the chance to oppose what our government is doing. We do not have to FEAR that because we challenged them we will be thrown in the tank.

  I dislike both Bushes and Clinton and many more Democrats and Republicans for taking advantage of having a large military. However, I cannot criticize without saying I appreciate the fact that I am in this country. I love this country! It goads me to see others who live here only criticize.

  I was once in Italy and an Italian waiter said to me, “It is my dream to come to America.” I think that is the dream of a lot of people.

  You can be angry at Clinton or whomever for the unjust war against Yugoslavia. I have a box of letters from the White House in response to my letters on Yugoslavia. I have many other letters of responses from Congressmen and Senators and magazines. When I doubted I did something about it, but I never did criticize without praise of what I have as an American. I am proud of my Serbian Mother. Father and Aunt, and all my ancestors and I did what I could when I knew the ones who were alive had a broken heart and those who were dead would be dejected if they knew.

  My Mother always told me that if you want sweet coffee you have to use a little sugar.

  To those living in Serbia, use a little sugar when you are speaking of your own people. Milosevic was your president he had Serbian blood. If you disliked his policies remerber that some didnot. Remember that he was probably the most intelligent Serb in Yugoslavia and that angered a lot of people. In time of trouble band together.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 8:30 pm
  Pera,

  You have a point to some extent. But note the problems the YU economy had till the mid 60s. They couldn't trade with the West too much as YU was still communist. They couldn't trade with the Soviet bloc because they were dissidents. So they turned to trading with the non aligned third world nations. And even then the Soviets would gazump them by either underbidding or giving away items the YU companies had contracted for.

  Despite the unofficial obstacles, the YU economy, starting from a very low base made great strides forward. Yes, it was with Western money, which the West was happy to lend at a profit, and yes, there were huge excesses and waste and yes, the mentality of the workers was similar to what you say (money for nothing, chicks for free), but in comparative terms the economy made huge progress compared to other states of its size.

  My point is that given that YU was much much more liberal than the Soviet system, when the Soviet system collapsed, the Western lenders, applied shock treatment needlessly for two reason: 1. They didn't need a "neutral" YU, 2. They wanted a "free market" system and a takeover.

  The Self Management system was COMPARATIVELY very successful and provided a VIABLE alternative to the radicalism sometimes seen in the free markets, particularly as YU before WW2 was predominantly an agrarian economy by world standards. So bear in mind that the rise of YU economy after WW2 was over a period of some 40 years and it was based on a concept which was/is anathema to the hard core capitalist system and was/is therefore to be dismantled.

  Milosevic's concept of privatisation was along the lines of selling stocks to employees first, then local investors and then finally foreign investors.

  The foreigners didn't like it as they wanted first pick, which they have now taken, together with a highly skilled (but perhaps somewhat undisciplined) work force and an abundance of natural wealth in minerals and primary resources. Sanctions and political chaos only brought the price down even further. A perfect corporate takeover strategy at 10 cents to the dollar, evident right across the world and not only in YU. Alternatively known as Globalisation. Self management is its antithesis.
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 8:31 pm
  BTW I noticed that when the WTC was attacked, the Blacks seemed to be more patriotice than anyone. The Blacks like myself are American.
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 8:54 pm
  Kathryn

  The American people are a great bunch. That's been my experience on numerous visits to the US. My problem is with the politicians and business end who create foreign policy and allegedly represent the American people but essentially and ultimately represent their own political and financial interests throughout the world. I'm confident most Americans have no idea what is being done overseas in their name.

  You have every right and a lot to be proud of being American, but not necessarily about what is being done in your name. And it's great to see that you are actually doing something about correcting that.

  As Bush says, the American people have no quarrel with the Iraqi people but their leadership. Similarly, most critics of the US have nothing against the American people but their leadership. Unfortunately, the regular folk are, as always, just collateral damage to them.
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 9:05 pm
  David, If you can watch the testimony of Mr. Ranta, you will find why she was not called by the ICTY prosecution. She has nothing to add to their case. The results of investigation, done by here team, are making the prosecution case weaker. Because of this the prosecution did not call her. My opinion is that the only reason, that she was called by the judges, is that twisted results of here investigation were used to justify bombing of Yugoslavia. She was one of the key players in characterization of Mr. Milosevic as an alleged war criminal and it is un-acceptable to allow him to call here as his witness. I disagree with Gogol that she did this out of naivete. I will have more comments on here testimony when the transcript is out. After two hours of listening to her testimony it is difficult to correctly relay all the key points of her testimony.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 9:08 pm
  [p][i]Remember that he was probably the most intelligent Serb in Yugoslavia ...[/i] [p] I noticed that he is more intelligent then any other acter of this comedy in the Hague, as well.
  
  Dusom Sarajlija
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 9:14 pm
  Nico

  Just to put paid to the theory that you are me and I am you, as someone implied previously, (LOL), an ultranationalist is someone who defends their nation's interest too staunchly. That is, someone who in the face of overwhelming odds is prepared to suffer an inordinate amount of pain for what they believe in, considerably more than a mere nationalist who is only prepared to suffer a moderate reprimand for standing up for his nation's interests.

  From that, it follows that ultra nationalists are abnormal, irrational maniacs as per the media descriptions of the leaders of some of the world's rogue states.

  Given the current era where ideology and conviction are dirty words and a matter of herecy, apart from the ideology of increasing one's portfolio and watching stock prices rise, any shift from normality is subject to Inquisition and exorcism. Not too many Galileos left it seems.
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 9:29 pm
  Thanks Pera. As it happens, I watched Ranta's testimony last night. I found it full of contradictions and as you say, she does not aid the other side's case at all. In fact, she confuses the whole Racak story even further and throws even greater uncertainty into the equation.

  (Jari, help! Is the standard of proof the criminal one of "beyond reasonable doubt" or more the civil standard of "probable guilt"?)

  What an embarrassment to the other side she would have been if Milosevic called her. As someone said, if the 3 wise guys call her, she comes across as a neutral witness and her less than naive version appears less concoted and influenced by third parties.

  Given that Ranta was crucial to the Racak case, the fact that the other side did not call her is a glaring lack of confidence in its own case about Racak. Unless of course they knew the 3 wise guys would call her under the pretext of neutrality. Either it's a case of gross bad faith or at least gross negligence on the side of "the other side" or a case of possible collusion between the 3 wise guys and the other side.
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 9:42 pm
  

  I have to report that much of the patriotic fever that followed the Sep.11 attacks have now drop in the face of the coming war.

  Places were national flags were proudly displayed are now showing white letters on black NO WAR ON IRAQ. The American land scape at least her in New England has changed.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 9:44 pm
  David

  I was reading an article written by Orianna Fallaci. The link was provided in my post. Yes, here as in down under, much is available.
  
  J P
  USA,Wis

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 10:19 pm
  Patriotism is not gone. I would say that most like myself, are against bombing. I believe in the slogan, “we support our troops, bring them home.

  Those who carry the banners of no war, are just as patriotic as those who want to bomb.

  BTW: As one said, this would not be a war, this would be a massacre. The outcome could become very scary.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  sjc
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 10:46 pm
  Dusom:

  For your benefit. Someone posted this and I copied it. You should do the same.

  Type

  at the end of every paragraph.

  If you want it italicized use at the beginning and at the end. Don’t forget to use at the end of the italicized or it will just keep italicizing.

  Bold Type use before the target words and after the target letters.

  Underline use before the target words and after the target word.

  You can use capital letters or lower case it does not matter.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  sjc
  usa

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 10:53 pm
  

  Dusom: I am sorry I confused you I hope this works for the example of indicating the end of a paragraph you use the arrow looking brackets with the letter p at the end of the paragraph.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 10:55 pm
  Can someone help out here?
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Saturday March 15, 2003 at 11:53 pm
  One of the consequences of the three-day mourning imposed here is the absence of the Milosevic 'trial' transmissions since Wednesday. What is being shown on all TV channels are the news, short Djindjic-remembering collages and classical music. The Hague transmissions are to be continued on Monday.

  One of the consequences of the state of emergency imposed here is the absence of any media coverage which is not heavily censored. This, I'm afraid, will last much beyond Monday. This was stipulated by the too-broadly and clumsily worded point 9 of the Decree on Special Measures Applicable During the State of Emergency, issued by the Acting President of Serbia, Ms Micic: 'It is forbidden to publicly inform, to distribute press and other means of information explaining the reasons for the implementation of the state of emergency, apart from communicating the official statements by the competent state authorities.' This in practice means that all comments on Djindjic other than praise are banned (one of his Ministers, Zarko Korac, explained that much speaking at length on TV B92, gloating that finally it would mean a stop to those few timid columns and comments questioning Djindjic's policies, including any statements from lawyers of those arrested). Btw, having a lawyer is banned as well by the item 2 of the same Decree, also too broad and all-encompassing: 'A person threatening the security of other citizens or the security of the Republic can be brought under force and kept within the official premises by the Ministry of the Interior Affairs up to 30 days. The person from the paragraph 1 of this point has no right to an attorney in the sense of the Criminal Procedure Code.'

  So, what we are seeing on TV and reading in the press is one endless, exaggerated praise of the dead Premier, rather in bad taste. There is also a televised fumbling of one tragically incompetent Minister of Internal Affairs Mihajlovic, who never solved a single high-profile murder case that happened during the last 2 years of Djindjic time in office. What we saw yesterday was the show-demolition of an empty house-cum-shopping mall belonging to the Zemun gang boss, because 'it has been erected without a proper building permit'(?!). Well, this structure has been standing there undisturbed during those 2 Djindjic years. The owner, nicknamed Siptar, was a wedding witness to a guy nicknamed Cume, but the friendship broke and two 'shady businessmen' with nicknames are now bitter rivals, heading the Zemun and the Surcin crime gang respectively. Cume was a family friend to one late Djindjic, who happened also to be a Prime Minister of Serbia. Djindjic did not contact criminals in pursuance of his job (presumably to better know them and more easily to catch them?!), but in pursuance of their job. Cume landed lucrative state road repairing jobs from the competent Ministry of his friend Djindjic, Siptar got mad and blew up his construction machinery and premises of the Defence Road Co. The competent Ministry of Interior of the owner's friend Djindjic came out with the absurd statement this was 'a terrorist act of unknown motives'. And now, naming the 9 crimes which the Zemun gang is being charged with (among others, drug trafficking, murders, Ivan Stambolic kidnapping, assassination attempts against Vuk Draskovic and Djindjic), the Government included also 'a bomb attack against the Defence Road Company'. Talking about 'Crime can not be classified as good and bad, ours and theirs', as Kostunica put it. Is this once again siding with one gang against the other by the State authorities? Perhaps not, because now there was no more stupidities like 'unknown motives', as it was while Djindjic was in office, this time they justly called this 'mutual settling of scores'. Maybe there's still some hope this Government would discontinue with Djindjic practices. Or maybe we're all still considered as sheep.

  This dirty gangsta story is the gist of what was timidly appearing in our media for months and what is now being muzzled. But, the foreign press can not be muzzled by our State of Emergency measures. Check out just two of the many articles: one is the Neil Clark's, titled 'The Quisling of Belgrade' in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,913918,00.html), the other is the Alison Freebairn's, titled 'Obituary: Zoran Djindjic' in the IWPR (http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/bcr3/bcr3_200303_414_3_eng.txt). I deliberately selected only those two outlets, known for their anti-Serb bias, one being a mainstream media, the other basically an ICTY mouthpiece. There are many other articles, even more to the point then those two, like Nebojsa Malic's column 'Death of a Manager' (http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html), but let's stick to Western commentators. You can read all in detail for yourselves, what I'd like to point out is one obvious trail, neglected by many: Djindjic was not some idealistic philosophy-student-turned-politician, intent to bring democracy into the backwaters of the Balkans. He was a businessman personally fascinated with criminals with one sole agenda: to become the richest Serb and quickly. The political office was just a means to an end. Here are two quotes. From the IWPR article: "It was during his time in Germany that Djindjic began to hone his organisational skills, supplementing his income by building a clothing firm. He spent much of the Eighties in Europe, transforming his business into a thriving enterprise, which imported machine tools from communist East Germany into the Yugoslav federation." The IWPR even hints to 'his toleration of mafia activity', and in the man's obituary, for God's sake! The Guardian article explores his murky past even before he took office: 'There is evidence that the underworld groups, controlled by Zoran Djindjic and linked to US intelligence, carried out a series of assassinations of key supporters of the Milosevic regime, including Defence Minister Pavle Bulatovic and Zika Petrovic, the Head of Yugoslav Airlines' and 'His links with organized crime finally catching up with him.' What us stupid sheep could see, he looked like a criminal, behaved like a criminal, and kept company with criminals, so most probably was a criminal. If the previous regime closed one eye to the criminal activities, at least they had the excuse of the sanctions-busting. What was Djindjic's excuse? It is indeed shameful to have a Premier assassinated. But even more shameful is to have a Premier like that forced on us.

  And, to conclude it, there was a view here about the delivery of Milosevic to The Hague by Djindjic to be a just, even courageous thing to do. In other words, this might not have been legal, it trampled both local Constitutions and several laws, but it had to be done (outside pressure), it was timely and pragmatic. This outdated Macchiavellian reasoning was not drawn to its logical conclusion: by the same token, some may argue 'why making any bones about killing a Premier, it was illegal but justice was done, him being a crook'. And when NATO bombed YU, it was illegal, but 'morally justifiable'. See where good old Macchiavelli would take you. His neat and sharply immoral reasoning had one serious flaw: who is the one who decides what is morally justifiable, albeit illegal? In the case of Milosevic it was pragmatic Djindjic. In the case of bombing, it was the only world superpower. In the case of Premier's assassination, it was probably the Zemun criminal clan. See how a decision-maker varies, deteriorates, slips all the way down to street thugs. This is precisely why those dusty, boring laws have to be kept no matter what, even when your political opponents are in question, nay, particularly when your political opponents are in question. Justice must be indeed blindfolded, impartial, defending anyone against illegality and attacking anyone who breaks the law. When a pragmatic argues: 'let's kidnap the former President, who cares about law, we are under international pressure to do that, and the people, they're sheep anyway, nobody would seriously oppose it, not after being bombed and impoverished, and many resent Milosevic for other things, so let's misbehave and be pragmatic', little did this pragmatic think that he himself could be at the receiving end of precisely such pragmatism. Some may ask 'what could he have done differently, with all the pressure?'. Well, he could have publicly denounced the illegality through all the world media, he could have plainly stated that he's been forced to break the law by the world powers, he could have fought back with all possible lawsuits with all the existing international courts, he could have gone to the UN to complain, and if/when all that had failed, he could have publicly, officially escorted the ex-President of the country to The Hague with the State plane, accompanied by the best possible team of lawyers, provided with all the possible documents proving his guilt or innocence. He could have thought about the legacy of his government, about his role as it would be recorded in the long run. Instead, Djindjic acted as a street thug with only the immediate goals in mind: he took advantage of the absence of Kostunica from the country, kidnapped his hated/feared political opponent and delivered him covertly during the night. Therefore, he emulated his idols, the criminals, in one of the crucial decisions of his short-lived governance. No wander he finished in the same style.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia