MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 5:37 am
  

  Nedic ran the Banjica camp in Belgrade. The Belgrade Special Police gathered all communists, criminals and Jews into the camp and they were used as fodder for the various reprisals the Nazis carried out in the 100:1 scheme they had going. According to records the communists were the first to be surrendered, followed by the criminals and the Jews in that order. Being a communist AND a Jew ensured an express ticket to the execution field. That was Nedic's attempt to save the "ordinary" Serbs in Belgrade and avoid the random reprisal collections and executions the Nazis were so fond of before a deal was made. Otherwise, there was no systematic anti-Semitism or racism. In fact, there is plenty to show that the typical Serb individual was inclined to be protective of the Jews in general. In fact, there is plenty to show that the Serbs have historically always been MUCH MORE TOLERANT racially than their immediate neighbours. How they ever became so suddenly (and allegedly) racially intolerant in the 1990s is a mystery only known to the spin doctors!

  Nevertheless, I presume the ICTY is NOT going to affix WW2 crimes to Milosevic. Then again, given the paucity of evidence so far, they may have to latch onto whatever they can. In which case we may have to suffer some more lessons in historical revisionism.
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 6:33 am
  

  Early moves in the game:

  What Hitler said:April 6, 1941.Waht Churchill said, April 13, 1941 and what the Secretary of State said, on the Invasion of Yugoslavia, April 6, 1941 or How to Run And I will Catch You Later.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 6:45 am
  

  Message to a King on the Run:

  MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT TO KING PETER II OF YUGOSLAVIA

  April 8, 1941

  The people of the United States have been profoundly shocked by the unprovoked and ruthless aggression upon the people of Yugoslavia. The Government and people of the United States are witnessing with admiration the courageous self-defense of the Yugoslav people, which constitutes one more shining example of their traditional bravery.

  As I have assured Your Majesty's Government, the United States will speedily furnish all material assistance possible in accordance with its existing statutes.

  I send Your Majesty my most earnest hopes for a successful resistance to this criminal assault upon the independence and integrity of your country.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shnagri-La

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 6:48 am
  

  At Yalta, Churchill suggested Europe to be partitioned into three zones - a Soviet-dominated zone in Eastern Europe, a US-dominated zone in Western Europe and a British-dominated zone on the western Balkans peninsula (Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia). Stalin agreed.

  Who did not agree?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shnagri-La

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 9:42 am
  David you dont call lining up jews against walls and butchering them some kind of anti semetism? Come on please! You relativise it and place it in historical context. Serbian nationalist idea of friendly fire? Must sacrifice a few hundred less Serb than Serb guys so the rest of us real Serbs will survive? How about sacrificing a few thousand less American than American American indians for the sake of 'real' Americans?

  As for parroting out Ustase propoganda thats also a joke. I spit on Ustase scum.

  However if this is changing into some pro cetnik website rather than to examine Milosevic trial I think a little less hero worship is due. How childish it is to have heros and again and again our own experience in life show that nobody is clean.

  Cetniks are heros hah! I really expect better from grown ups.

  Rebecka I assume you havent read the writings of Bishop Velimirovic but some Westerners interpretation and biased selection of his works. He was an anti semite. I suggest you learn Serbian in order to enlighten yourself or ask someone who isnt a cetnik here to translate his work for you because you obviously are not familiar with it.

  My information is not from Cohen. My information is from relatives in Serbia. My information is from Jewish organisations in Serbia. The man you quoted on some committee is a US politician right? Politicians are not exactly neutral.

  I am not going to do your homework for you since you will chose not to believe the evidence as I see your mind is made up. Who am I to interfere with stereotypes that I expect you accuse others of using against Serbs?

  Heros and villans. Right and wrong. Fixed opinion not to be changed. Is that philosophy of the United States government in todays world or Rebecka and Anna's? Looks like North American culture has done you both a service. How is it that when I visit Serbia I dont hear any of this rubbish but instead on the net mostly ustase and cetnik kids in the United States or Australia propoganda and insults are always coming?

  But the real point is this. There is no question that the Ustase butched so many jews. The real question is why some Serbs have such a problem to admit that they also killed Jews and that anti Semite Serbs exist too.

  'The grouping together of Serbs and Croats as Yugoslavs..' That is very very funny. Its nice to see that there are some here with sense of humour that ustase would be happy with. For your information Mr T (what was name of crazy character from US 80's TV program?) we lived in Yugoslavia and called ourselves Yugoslavs. Not you or any other ignorant outsider can take that away from us. Its outsiders like you that from sidelines encourage ethnic division. Pity you did not have to live in Bosnia so you could see how Yugoslavs helped each other even when we were being attacked from all sides. In the end sadly we were not strong enough to resist your ideal, tribal thinking.
  
  Srdjan Arnautovic
  Sarajevo

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 9:57 am
  

  Very pointly:

  Heros and villans. Right and wrong. Fixed opinion not to be changed. Is that philosophy of the United States government in todays world or Rebecka and Anna's? Looks like North American culture has done you both a service. How is it that when I visit Serbia I dont hear any of this rubbish but instead on the net mostly ustase and cetnik kids in the United States or Australia propoganda and insults are always coming?

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 11:26 am
  Srdjan Arnautovic writes “How is it that when I visit Serbia I don’t hear any of this rubbish but instead on the net mostly Ustase and Cetnik kids in the United States or Australia propaganda and insults are always coming?”

  Srdjan there are two generations of Southern Slavs in the Diaspora. Those that left as emigrants before World War Two and those that left or fled after World War Two. The pre war emigrants faced reality in America. Faced with discrimination and hard work they became drawers of water, underground moles and hewers of wood in the land where their opinion did not matter and their names mattered even less. They were mules incapable of intellectual contribution and if they protested they were shipped back to the rock pile of Lika, Herzegovina and Dalmatian. Look at the life of Tesla, the giant among inventors and yet only one in a thousand high school students in North America might know something about him. Pre war Croat Serb and Muslim from Yugoslavia found in their language and culture that they were more similarity then different. They formed Yugoslav clubs, intermarried and socialized. Many never married and at social gatherings old bachelor groups gathered and talked. The stories were always the same, finding work, working in camps and reminiscing and so on. Most never went back home and today no one visits their graves. They are a forgotten generation of our people. They had a common enemy, corporate greed, just like all other working men and women in the Americas.

  The post WWII emigrants in most cases fled to save their skins because of the atrocities they committed against their fellow citizens. Ustase, Chetnik, and Partisan killed each other where ever they could. Ustashe had a patron in Germany which gave them the opportunity to commit massive crimes against their neighbors while the Cetniks went after the partisan families and Partisan families went after the Cetnik families. After the war Tito was in control and the Cetniks and Ustase fled. They came to Canada, Ameica Argentina and David’s Australia. The old generation didn’t ask about their politics, they just helped them just like the old generation helped each other as they struggled to make a life in the new world.

  Politically this new group was frozen in time. Overtly they supported Yugoslavia but covertly they did everything to undermine its existence. This was particularly true of the Croats. Their children were brainwashed as were Chetnik children not so much to hate Serbs or Croats but to hate Yugoslavs. Reading Ivan’s posts from Australia one can see that influence at work. In reality most of the children had no idea of who did what; they just parroted their parent’s views. Just a personal reflection Srdjan from one who has ties to all three sides.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 1:46 pm
  Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?

  The above information provided by Walter Trkla in an answer to Srdjan Arnautovic (11:26 am) is very interesting for an outsider like myself, even fascinating, - and I believe, that it should not be deemed irrelevant to the "trial" at the Hague.

  However, in spite of the paucity of their evidence, the "other side" would surely not affix anything like WW2 crimes to the former President, - just as David is suggesting (5.37 am); so what is this discussion all about, really?

  Is the former President getting a fair trial? "NO!" responded Janko P. on February 15, 2002; the trial having started only a few days earlier he seemed convinced that the Indictment was "based on false accusations".

  Immediately Evgeny Shtefan came up (all the way from South Korea!) with the suggestion, that a relevant answer to the question of JURIST "may depend on what you call a fair trial"; sure, -and since then the distinguished participants in this discussion appear to have been providing (more than?) ample evidence on this lack of fairness; which probably just needs to be summarized in order to be truly convincing!

  Obviously the Tribunal is obliged to ensure that the trial is both "fair and expeditious" (ref. Article 20 of the statute on: Commencement and conduct of trial proceedings); what is needed now is an easy to read conclusion, - enabling us to "move on to something else" (as Judge May would say, I suppose):

  In view of the looming extensions of the prosecutions time schedule the trial could hardly be called "expeditious", and the reasons hinted for this new extension seem to me to be grossly unfair to the former President. If the trial is so obviously unfair, - then what exactly would one do about that?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 2:14 pm
  Srdjan, Reading your last post, I was remembering the claims of Clinton, the Media and NATO about how the Serbs were engaging in the mass murder of all the minorities of Kosovo.

  So, let the bombing commence. For some ungodly reason, all of these peoples, be they Albanian, Jew, Roma, Turk, etc., to, OF ALL PLACES, Belgrade?

  Now it just does not make sense that people would escape to the one city that had "caused" them all that grief. You seem to be unable to see that not all Governments treat their minorites as the US does. Or Britian for that matter.

  Tito held NO elections to put himself in power. ALL future Presidents of Yugoslavia DID hold elections and many times, minotities won. Even for the Presidency of Serbia.

  If you are going to parrot the Administration 'line', you need to ask yourself, "Does this make sense"? If it doesn't, why do you believe it?

  During the bombing of Belgrade, I sent an E-Mail to a Jewish Organization in Belgrade and received a reply that in essence said we were being lied to by the aforementioned liars. As a matter of fact, none of those liars ever even tried to convince us of Anti-Semitism in Belgrade. Or Anti-Muslim, or Anti-Anything for that matter.

  You have chosen to dwell on one man, at the doors of a gas chamber yet, as indicative of the policies of Belgrade. You make accusations against the Chetniks, with no proof whatsoever. (We would need to be able to read Serbian or whatever???) Apparently publishers of other language editions are unable to believe the lies long enough to publish in those other languages???

  This would be all well and good if there weren't so MANY Web sites that disagree with your assumptions.

  You go on and on about Bishop Velimirovic. Yet you post nothing of any of his speeches before he ended up a few feet from the gas chamber in a German Prison??? You also post nothing of the Croatian and Muslim Leaders that committed Atrocities against the Serbs and Jews during WWII, WITH THEIR OWN HANDS????

  Your bias is duly noted. Sorry YOUR "Heros" are so bestial that you feel you must rip down the very real and deserving heros of others, in order to TRY to make yours look less inhuman.

  I am especially struck by your 'heros' shelling of their OWN people, not once, but twice, in the Marketplace of Sarejevo, for the sole purpose of blaming it on the Serbs. Just not a very HEROIC act in my opinion..... Ditto, Racak.
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 2:35 pm
  Srdjan,

  >David you dont call lining up jews against walls and butchering them some kind of anti semetism? Come on please!<

  What an assinine statement.... Just where have you seen one Link to any Serbs doing such a thing? Just give us one link and let us worry about understanding it. You know very well that it never happened and the ONLY place you could get suce blatant lies would be on a Muslim site.

  Muslims have this theory that the bigger the lie, the better their life will be in the hereafter. Ibn Saud started this thinking and his Biographer cited incidence after incidence in the 'life' of his 'hero'. Like it is a good thing???

  Then the Muslims hired the Ruder-Finn firm to better spread their lies to the rest of the world. Doesn't do much good to lie if you haven't any means to make sure the masses are convinced by its' massive reiteration. (Repeat a lie often enough and they will believe it. Adolph Hitler.)

  If you are going to believe everything you read that portrays what YOU believe it should portray, then you will agree with the Media, Clinton and NATO's intrepretation of Milosevic's speech at Kosovo field.....

  Trouble is...That speech, in its' entirity is on the Net and has been since long before the MIS-intrepretations began. Like I said, you have to see if what you are reading makes sense? Then you have to determine if it is an outright lie...

  Maybe you should look to your own gullibility before chiding others for theirs...
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 2:38 pm
  Srdjan,

  Read "Ibn Saud", By Malcolm C. Peck. The guy was positively enamored of Saud. :(
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 2:51 pm
  

  Most western literature on Yugoslavia since 1989 is mostly useless.

  Most Yankee literature about Yugoslavia since the death, under dubious circumstances of Louis Adamic is pretty bad.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 3:05 pm
  

  Sure thing, it has occurred to none in the Christian West that the Arabs as they were under British Colonial rule had seen a little opportunity for independence in the enemies of Britain.

  No pogroms had been recorded in the whole of the Arab world against their own Jews.

  In fact it would be a good thing to remember the events in Baghdad during Passover 1950, who was responsible for the bomb at the Dar al-Beida coffee-shop, or even better the events in 1954 in Egypt known later as the The Lavon Affair .

  The critical reader should also look careful at the assassination of Count Bernadotte, a countrymen of Hans Blix at the time the UNO mediator in the (how quaint!) Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The year was 1948.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 9:26 pm
  thanks vera for the reports
  
  ap v
  ny
  ny

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 9:54 pm
  To Ann-Marie: you're probably right about those six coded witnesses, it could be that the Chamber III (May & Kwon minus Robinson) allowed their previous trial transcripts and not their statements into Milosevic evidence ; I'll check it when the latest transcripts come out. But, even if they were indeed from some other trial and their testimonies have been tendered into evidence for Milosevic via those original transcripts, the fact remains that this now is a serious precedent. Thus, these six are anonymous witnesses from another trial and Milosevic is not allowed to cross-examine them. As David pointed out, each case is a separate thing with different emphasis and the cross-examinations cannot possibly be focused onto the same issues.

  There was some similarity with Dr Vesna Bosanac, former Director of the Vukovar Hospital, who appeared in the Milosevic case on 4-5 February 2003 and whose earlier testimony in another trial was admitted through the original transcripts. She had almost no examination-in-chief, just a few additional questions. That previous trial was the Dokmanovic trial (Dokmanovic was the former Serb Mayor of Vukovar who allegedly hanged himself in his Scheveningen cell under the most suspicious circumstances). Nice referred to those old transcripts as 'the Dokmanovic transcripts', saying that 'her evidence was substantially given by former testimony in another trial' and Milosevic, while cross-examining Dr Bosanac, often started his questions with 'you said in the Dokmanovic case', or 'in your evidence in Dokmanovic'. Yet, this instance of Dr Bosanac and the latest batch of anonymous witnesses are incomparable: she was not a secret witness at the first trial and Milosevic had the opportunity to cross-examine her now and to seriously damage her allegations, unlike the defence lawyer of Dokmanovic.

  In spite of the unsuccessful protest of Robinson, who voted against the decision of introducing such witnesses without the cross-examination, that sinister practice would be expanded, I'm afraid. After all, the paramount concern of the Chamber is to save time, not the legality.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Saturday May 10, 2003 at 10:47 pm
  Srdjan

  Get a life man. Where did I ever say the Serbs lined Jews up against a wall and shot them? Read my post again and save us the space here by not DISTORTING statements to suit your propaganda crap. The reference was to the Banjica camp and what Nedic was busy doing. On the other hand, we won't even think of mentioning your Muslim SS brothers' divisions during WW2 and what they did.

  The point is that there is no record of systematic extermination of any race by the Chetniks (or the "pro- Yugoslav" partisans for that matter). Unlike the Ustasha and the Muslim fundamentalists who have a rich history of the same! But that matters little to people like May, or probably even to you, who no doubt have a pre defined objective in disseminating propaganda or ignoring historical facts and realities. Dream on, man.
  
  David
  Australia

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 8:50 am
  Gogol

  Muslims took control of the middle east through jihad - religious wars of conquest. In general, local people who refused to convert to Islam were commonly slaughtered. But Christianity and Judaism were perceived as religions of which Islam was the culmination. If the leaders of conquered Christians and Jews signed a dhimma (agreement) their people could be spared. The alternative to signing was death. So the dhimma was a *forced* agreement, a ‘contract’ of surrender. Jews and Christians were protected from jihad, at least in theory, as long as they adhered to the terms of this ‘agreement.’ Since dhimmis were by definition people who refused to convert to Islam, their existence had to be a living expression of the inferiority of Judaism and Christianity. This inferiority was codified in the rules of the dhimma, such as:

  * dhimmi people had to cede the center of the road to Muslims;

  * the only animal they could ride was a donkey;

  * they could not testify against a Muslim in court;

  * they could not build houses taller than those of Muslims;

  * they could not build new places of worship;

  * they had to pray quietly so as not to offend the ears of passing Muslims;

  * a dhimmi man could not so much as touch a Muslim woman but a Muslim man could take Jewish or Christian women as wives;

  * a dhimmi could not defend himself if physically assaulted by a Muslim;

  * dhimmis could not bear arms;

  * dhimmis had to pay a special tax every year and were treated in humiliating fashion when paying it;

  * in public, dhimmis had to wear distinctive clothing, intentionally designed to be humiliating;

  * at least in the 9th century, dhimmis had to nail wooden images of devils to their doors;

  * Etcetera…

  Beyond institutionalized inequality and constant humiliation, the dhimma also meant unrelieved insecurity. Why? Because the dhimma was a treaty of surrender by a people conquered in jihad (holy fighting) and its maintenance was conditional. A Jew or Christian perceived by Muslims as violating the dhimma could be severely punished. Moreover, the dhimma itself could be cancelled at any time, subjecting the entire community to a renewal of jihad.

  [Start Swirski Quote]

  “…the military confrontation between the Jews in Palestine and the Palestinian Arabs and the armies of the Arab states in 1947-49 created an impossible climate for the Jews living throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Within a short period of time, they evacuated en masse to the new state of Israel. Whole communities were transplanted - most of the 130,000 Jews of Iraq, the 45,000 Jews of Yemen, and the 35,000 of Libya - as well as substantial parts of other communities, from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia in the west to Iran in the east. From 1948 to 1956, a total of some 450,000 Jews arrived in Israel from Asia and Africa, compared to 360,000 Jews from Europe and America.”

  [End Swirski Quote]

  So the Oriental Jews didn’t simply migrate to Israel; they *fled* the countries where their ancestors had lived for a hundred generations or more. They lost virtually everything they owned.

  Thus, the general perception that Arabs are the only refugees produced by the Arab-Jewish conflicts since 1947 is simply wrong. The difference is that Jewish refugees who fled to Israel - and who had everything taken from them in the process - became Israeli citizens (or citizens of other countries). By way of contrast, Palestinian refugees were refused citizenship by every Arab state except Jordan.

  So much for your assinine statement-"No pogroms had been recorded in the whole of the Arab world against their 'own' Jews."Could it be that you hold the same position as most of the Arab world?

  "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs."
  
  Joel Aksamit
  Cleveland MO
  USA

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 12:41 pm
  

  Could it be that you hold the same position as most of the Arab world?

  And if I did Joel Aksamit what will you do?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 1:12 pm
  

  The article below was published May 11, it seems, because the author doesn't include the date of this monumental news -- that they finally got Milosevic. Looking back in the forum it looks like this all happened somewhere around April 17th. Does anybody know -- is it true that the prosecution has breathed a sigh of relief, considering the case proven???

  I don't include the whole article because I'm not sure how much is permitted to reproduce. It was emailed to me, no URL for it.

  Milosevic faces new war crime evidence
  Chris Stephen, The Hague
  Sunday May 11, 2003
  The Observer

  .....< >.......
  After 17 months of frustration, prosecutors at the UN genocide trial of the former Yugoslav President in The Hague last week unearthed the first direct evidence that he ordered war crimes."

  ......< >.......
  With evidence now firmly linking Milosevic to murders, rapes, ethnic cleansing and the bombardment of Sarajevo, it is hard to see how he can escape a life sentence.

  ......< >.......
  

  But many share Milosevic's sense of victimhood, insisting he should not be jailed for the crimes of others. Nothing less than direct evidence is likely to change their minds. Now, it seems, this has arrived. For Bosnian journalist and leading war crimes commentator Emir Suljagic, this evidence means the search is over: 'This isn't the smoking gun. It's a howitzer.'

  
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 1:13 pm
  Sorry -- regarding my post above -- I forgot to mention this is the testimony of Arkan's Secretary and of some Pub Owner where the "warlords" attended a meeting.
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 1:22 pm
  

  They will keep looking for the weapons of mass destruction, for the mass graves of Kosovo, for the 7,000 dead of Zbrenica for when you see a flying bird it is a not a bird but an elephant. For the teachings of centuries, for the record of age stops here; the American Way ofseeing and Running the World!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 1:39 pm
  Joel, Great Post. It is just unbelievable that the Arabs do not want the Jews to have even the tiny State of Israel. http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/bravo/blacksept1970.htm

  At first by conviction and then by political necessity, Hussein sought accommodation with the fedayeen and provided training sites and assistance. In Jordan's internal politics, however, the main issue between 1967 and 1971 was the struggle between the government and the guerrilla organizations for political control of the country. Based in the refugee camps, the fedayeen virtually developed a state within a state, easily obtaining funds and arms from both the Arab states and Eastern Europe and openly flouting Jordanian law.

  Tal, known to be a staunch opponent of the guerrilla movement, was directed by Hussein to comply with the cease-fire agreements; furthermore, according to Hussein's written directive, the government's policy was to be based on "the restoration of confidence between the Jordanian authorities and the Palestinian resistance movement, cooperation with the Arab states, the strengthening of national unity, striking with an iron hand at all persons spreading destructive rumors, ***paying special attention to the armed forces and the freeing of the Arab lands occupied by Israel in the war of June 1967***." The closing months of 1970 and the first six months of 1971 were marked by a series of broken agreements and by continued battles between the guerrilla forces and the Jordanian army, which continued its drive to oust the fedayeen from the populated areas.

  ***Looks like Hussein was trying his best to find another 'target' for Arafat. The most ludicrous part of the entire thing is that Israeldoesn't forbid the practice of 'other' Religions within its' borders. EVERY single Arab State does.

  Persistent pressure by the army compelled the fedayeen to withdraw from Amman in April 1971. Feeling its existence threatened, Al Fatah abandoned its earlier posture of noninvolvement in the internal affairs of an Arab state and issued a statement demanding the overthrow of the Jordanian "puppet separatist authority." In a subsequent early May statement, it called for "national rule" in Jordan. Against this background of threats to his authority, Hussein struck at the remaining guerrilla forces in Jordan.

  Looks like Arafat wasn't too particular WHICH country he took over. he finally decided on Israel by default. At least that way, he could get the rest of the Arab States on his side. he and most of his original followers were NOT Palestinain. Most were Jordanian or Lebanese. So the World decides Israel has to give up territory to displaced Arabs, kicked out of their own country of origin, for being Terrorists?

  The people that left the area of Israel, when Israel declared a State, did so at the urging of the Arab World. Leon Uris wrote Novels. His Novels were based on History. "The Haj', is an excellent example if one wants to learn the history behind the decisions that were made at the time. ONE of those decisions was a declaration by ALL of the Arab States that the Arab peoples should flee the area UNTIL Israel could be driven into the sea. Didn't happen!

  Of course, one could say that ANY History of a region is a Novel. It is, after all, one man's view. At least Leon Uris uses many DOCUMENTED events in his Novels. For instance, we have only the word of Josephes for the Roman war against Masada.
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 1:51 pm
  Nikole, They decided Milosevic was guilty long before this farce even started. The law of averages says that they are going to find someone once in a blue moon that will go along with their scenario, simply to avoid prosecution of him/her self.

  Look how many times they have tried that ploy. The amazing thing is that the world isn't up in arms over this whole mess. A grade schooler should know by now that the whole thing is rigged.

  Makes me very, very, ashamed to be an American. The only consolation is that our Government will eventually crumble just like all those that tried to rule the world in the past. It is really upsetting to wish for an end to your own Government. It is worse to be aware of the misery and death that government is causing to so many people in the world.

  I know exactly how the Germans who were against Hitler in WWII felt, now. Someone said it "would never happen again"???
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 3:16 pm
  

  Rebecka -- I've been following the trial as much as I can and I'm pretty sure that conviction will be the outcome. My question about the article I quoted from the Observer is -- has anybody else reported that the case is all sewn up with such assurance? The author does not quote the prosecution lawyers but he quotes Richard Goldstone former Hague prosecutor -- I reproduce the quote below. I mean look at this -- the article triumphantly announces definite proof linking Milosevic with the Bosnian war, yet the witnesses were heard more than two weeks ago. I haven't read any other similar interpretation of this "evidence" from Arkan's secretary and the pub owner.

  For prosecutors, the sense of relief is palpable. Since his war crimes trial opened in February last year, they have presented evidence detailing atrocities in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo in the 1990s - but none linking these crimes directly to Milosevic.

  'You can understand an upbeat feeling in the light of what's happened,' said Richard Goldstone, former Hague chief prosecutor and now head of South Africa's Constitutional Court.
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 4:19 pm
  WHISKY THE WARLORDS? SPECULATION IS RIFE... The URL of the article in The Observer today quoted in parts by Nikole (at 1:12 pm/3:16 pm) would be:

  http://www.observer.co.uk/milosevic/story/0,10639,953376,00.html

  By the more "meety" part of this article, if one might call it that, mr. Chris Stephen would like to make his readers feel "pretty sure" that conviction will eventually be the outcome since: "The former secretary to Arkan...has told the trial of phone calls he received from Milosevic's men giving orders for attacks on unarmed Bosnians. Then details of a secret meeting between Milosevic and his henchmen to approve ethnic cleansing of Croatia's civilian population in 1993 were given by a former casino boss, who said he had served whisky to the warlords in the room. In another breakthrough, Milosevic's right-hand man, former secret police chief Jovica Stanisic, has been arrested and brought to The Hague. Speculation is rife that he will give evidence against his former boss in return for a lighter sentence."

  Wow, Nicole! - apparently we are witnessing not less than two "breakthroughs" in the Milosevic case, which has so far been presenting none, (and which mr. Stephen erroneously is trusting to be completed in two months time as far as the prosecution is concerned).

  Quoting a former chief prosecutor for suggesting "an upbeat feeling" on part of mr. Nice and his colleagues ("henchmen" would hardly be an appropriate term?) mr. Stephen is reporting of their "palpaple" sense of relief; whether or not "what has happened" in fact made these prosecutors allow themselves a measurable sigh of relief is pure speculation, however.

  I am afraid that Nicole may rest assured, that there is no reason to "consider the case proven", - certainly not by what is reported by mr. Stephen. From what I have gathered so far mr. Milosevic will be able to remember even the brand of whisky served (if it were really whisky and if it were served at all on the occasion).

  Now, whether in the light of his previous engagement with the ICTY the comments by mr. Richard Goldstone can be considered "fair" is another matter, - probably rather more essential in the context of this JURIST discussion about the conduct of the trial, - which I think could do well without the personal "convictions" of individual participants as to the outcome. (Since Nicole professes to have been following the trial (which I have myself been able to do only for the initial "Kosovo part"), she might be the able enlighten me about the official "trial schedule"?)
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 6:01 pm
  

  Mr. Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Thanks -- I wanted to know if this article was considered accurate by anybody besides the author and Richard Goldstone. I see that you found the original article. I am not expressing a "conviction" but a suspicion that Milosevic will be found guilty. I always hope that Milosevic's defence will prove so compelling that in the end, despite the necessity to find him guilty, they will have to bow their heads and slink away.

  How many days left? I read a few days ago that Nice has 128 more witnesses to call!!! And that Judge May asked him how much more time he needs. We haven't heard any decision on time yet.

  
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 8:41 pm
  Nikole, try searching the archives for Vera Martinovic's post on the "secretary" evidence. I can't remember her code number but Vera's impressions are pretty accurate in my book. The scretary's credibility is a big fat ZERO.

  As for Goldstone, he's relieved as is the Prosecution that they have at last produced a witness that says something about Milosevic specifically, even if it is all sheer make belief. He's a croney of the ICTY and his "guilty" verdict is somewhat premature, considering he hasn't even begun to hear Milosevic's defence.

  Just goes to show how they shape public opinion with lies and untruths as most of the public wouldn't have seen the evidence live! The guilty verdict by Goldstone is indicative of the "we don't care what the evidence is and we don't really care about the defence evidence.

  A kangaroo trial, equivalent to a lynching, that's what we're looking at here, no more and no less. The latest witnesses coming as a result of the Martial Law purges in YU by the "democractic" camp no doubt will testify under pressure to avoid lengthy sentences themselves. May will no doubt also extend the time allowed for the Prosecution until they can get the same people to agree to talk "freely" . In other words, we hold a gun to your head and you tell us what we want to hear.
  
  David
  Australia

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 11:20 pm
  Vera Martinovic concluded her comments on the evidence offered by protected witness B-129, the former secretary to Arkan, by suggesting that "she was simply coached to tell the story" (Thursday April 17, 2003 at 9:17 pm and Friday April 18, 2003 at 10:33 pm).

  However the one to convince Chris Stephen - an "outgoing project manager" for the British Institute for War & Peace Reporting - that "the war crimes prosecutors have finally produced the smoking gun evidence", would be protected witness C-48. IWPR Online articles refer:

  http: //www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_310_1_eng.txt)

  (http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_310_2_eng.txt)

  Andy Wilcoxson had a comment on the quality of the former casino manager in Novi Sad (Monday April 28, 2003 at 8:57 am).
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Sunday May 11, 2003 at 11:25 pm
  Vera,

  I did not mean to critizise your or Andys standpoint on this. I wanted to direct you to that lengthy 'debate' over it on the 28th of April.
  Because May mentioned this in passing, so it was difficult to link it up to the previous discussion.
  Where, for instance, Kay said this was against the right for an accused to be tried in his presence and see and hear the evidence agaist him. And also he pointed out the right to crossexamine in respect to his own case that is very different to these other cases.

  Well, the decision will hopefully be published on the ICTY page so we can find out about the reasoning and on what point Robinson differed.
  My own thought related to this and the '92bis-Rule' is that this phrase 'which goes to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the accused as charged in the indictment', must have been initially meant to get evidence of a more circumstancial nature into cases where the accused is charged with committing a crime himself in person. So it shouldn't apply here at all. Because here the accused is indeed charged with the crimes in the testemonies. But as he wasn't there, he is not mentioned of course. So Abra Cadabra, vital evidence are slipped in under these rules.
  Note also how the words 'as charged in the indictment' always are left out when 92bis is discussed.

  About the more than tragic case of Dokmanovic. In the closing arguments on the 25th of June 1998, Toma Fila (his lawyer) told the court that they had killed him, already a month before he died !!
  He said: 'This person, he is just the form of a man. Whithin a year, he has been killed. Look at him today. Look at what he looks like. Look at the McFadden report. You have killed this man over this one-year period of time. You have killed the man in him.'...
  And that became even more true when Dokmanovic was found hanged before any verdict was reached.
  
  Ann.Marie Laios
  Sollentuna
  Sweden

• Monday May 12, 2003 at 7:29 am
  Attention! Next week we are having former Slovenian president Milan Kucan as a witless in the shameful rooms in The Hague.
  
  j m
  s

• Monday May 12, 2003 at 7:35 am
  Nicole

  This wasn't the first, nor will it be the last time the war party has announced
  stunning !
  shocking !
  amazing !
  !!!!! NEW !!!!!
  E V I D E N C E

  but each and every time one can note, not one direct quote, not one lengthy passage cited........only a sketchy analysis and description........plus with a bit of misinformation (lies ?) thrown in.

  This time the new lie happened to be that the "waiter" served whiskey to President Milosevic "while he was giving orders to murder innocents in Bosnia".

  Fact of the matter, the hearings uncovered nothing of the kind. A part owner of a Novi Sad gambling house did testify that he overheard Milosevic on such and such a date, but it was established byond a shadow of a doubt that Milosevic had been 200 miles away on the date in question....the "waiter's" credibility vanishing in a wink of an eye.........

  Chris Stephans the war party propagandist has also destoyed what little credibility he had by writing his little article based on half-truth, misinformation, and lies.

  However, what we did confirm from his article is that the War Party needed the assasination of Djindic to intimidate witnesses and so forth. That is the real shocking new evidence of war part guilt.
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Monday May 12, 2003 at 7:40 am
  ."Could it be that you hold the same position as most of the Arab world?

  "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs."

  Joel Aksamit

  Cleveland MO

  USA

  Sunday May 11, 2003 at 12:41 pm

  Could it be that you hold the same position as most of the Arab world?

  And if I did Joel Aksamit what will you do?

  Gogol Charlemagne Shangri-La

  Sunday May 11, 2003 at 1:12 pm

  I'm thinking you already did it.
  
  Joel Aksamit
  Cleveland MO
  USA

• Monday May 12, 2003 at 10:53 pm
  Don't tell me anyone with half a brain takes what the IWPR (Institute for War and Peace Reporting) says as serious commentary! Chris Stephens is in the same category as Mirko Klarin... yet another stooge paid by George Soros and co.
  
  David
  Australia

• Monday May 12, 2003 at 11:29 pm
  Do you know why there are no sessions this week? It is not some UN holiday strangely coinciding with Ramadan, nor a Dutch royalty day honoured by the supposedly ex-territorial institution. It is a time-out granted to the 'accused'. When May was wrapping it up last week on Friday, he said that the witness who has just started his examination-in-chief would have to come again on Monday within a week, this being 'a pause intended to give time to the accused to get prepared'. Now, before you jump to any conclusions on how fair the trial is becoming, just remember how much material has been unloaded onto the 'accused' recently: some 400.000 pages + hundreds of hours of video tapes. One week will surely be more than enough to read all that. Why, he will even have plenty of time to consult his legal advisors on the strategy concerning the material read, to devise and write down detailed questions for the next dozens of witnesses after sorting out the research on them… I bet the New York Times will come out once more with an eulogy on the painstaking fairness of the Milosevic 'trial'.

  Speaking of the media, here are some facts that should help you decide re Chris Stephen and his 'smoking gun' invention in the Observer. Chris Stephen is the employee of the IWPR (Institute for War and Peace Reporting), the notorious London-based and Soros-funded NGO with an agenda. Check http://www.iwpr.net, and then click on ABOUT IWPR - STAFF. Under the caption IWPR THE HAGUE there are two names: Chris Stephen, Tribunal Project Manager and Emir Suljagic, Reporter. So, the 'opinion' quoted at the very end of the Observer piece ('This isn't the smoking gun. It's a howitzer.') as being from a 'Bosnian journalist and leading war crimes commentator Emir Suljagic', was actually from Chris Stephen's own IWPR office underling. Both men are distinguished among the IWPR staff, known for its dubious journalistic quality, as a pair constantly producing the lowest-quality reports, brimming with material mistakes and ludicrous conclusions. Check the link TRIBUNAL - ARCHIVE. Comparing their pieces with those by, say, Mirko Klarin from IWPR or Judith Armatta from the CIJ and the IWPR, one can comparatively appreciate the latter pair, because no matter how closely they follow the pre-written script, they at least check their facts and try to refrain from silly constructions. For example, writing about the 'Casino Manager' testimony, Armatta said in the CIJ article 'Serbian Security Service Used Assassins, Engaged in Drug Trafficking' dated 29 April that 'knowledgeable observers expressed disbelief that Milosevic would reveal so much in a meeting of ten associates, regardless of how close they might be to him'. But, she concluded with 'Even if C-48's testimony is exaggerated, he's left Milosevic much to answer', remaining true to the agenda of her employer (yes, you've guessed right: even the CIJ - Coalition For International Justice is funded by Soros).

  It is interesting to compare the Observer piece with those two articles from the IWPR that Godfred gave links for. Chris Stephen is the author as well and the subject matter is the same, but his conclusions for the Observer are bolder: 'the roof has fallen in on the world's most infamous defendant', 'the first direct evidence that he ordered war crimes', 'it is hard to see how he can escape a life sentence', 'the sense of relief is palpable'. However, Mr Stephen was more cautious when writing for his own IWPR twenty days earlier: 'prosecutors have finally produced what they hope will be the smoking gun evidence' and 'how important this evidence will be will depend on whether it is believed - Milosevic has denied being at the meeting, or even in the same city. For the moment, it is one man's word against another'. Writing immediately after the C-48 testimony, Chris conveys the hope of the Prosecution and the questionable believability of the testimony. Writing weeks after that, in the Observer, he is happy to report the relief over the fallen roof and the smoking howitzer. What happened between those two articles to make Chris Stephen so bold? Well, he undersigned his IWPR pieces as the 'outgoing Project Manager'. Is he the 'incoming Observer's reporter' now? We say: Nova metla dobro mete = A new broom sweeps well. Chris had to come out with a bang, so he just rehashed his old articles from the IWPR, gave it a louder, more vulgar spin and voila - not one, but two breakthroughs, the 'secretary' and the 'whisky provider'.

  BTW, where is Mirko Klarin? His name is no more on the IWPR staff list. He was the Tribunal Project Manager before Chris Stephen, I believe. (See, they have the Project to advertise and support the Tribunal, those at the IWPR; it figures, having in mind that both institutions share the same source of funding). I miss Klarin's efforts to sound dignified while merely writing at a dictation. Could it be that Klarin was 'outgoing' as well and now gone? I want to believe he got stuffed up with all that dictation. Or was it just the lack of funding from Soros that drove both of them away?

  The other fact I'd like you to ponder is the lack of trial transcripts for both of those 'breakthrough witnesses'. The last available date is 11 April, so they are one month behind (why?). The 'secretary' (B-129) testified on 16/17 April and the 'Casino Manager' (C-48) on 28/29 April. I really need to read those transcripts, because the 'quotations' given by those few reports vary considerably. And, remember how the electrical installations suddenly broke on 17 April, so the public was denied the cross-examination of the 'secretary'.

  Both those people were anonymous and their faces were hidden, so are they really who the Prosecution claimed them to be? The 'secretary' was debunked by Giovanni di Stefano, and the 'Casino Manager' by Miodrag Isakov. The mistake both witnesses made was to mention and accuse people other than Milosevic, and those people reacted strongly the next day in the press, ruining the credibility of the respective witnesses in toto. Isakov called C-48 'punk' and his testimony 'rigged' (see my post on Saturday, 3 May), and the London-based Italian businessman (and the best man at the Arkan's wedding) Giovanni di Stefano, accused by B-129 to be one of the major sponsors of the Arkan's Tigers, said 'had Zeljko ever asked such help from me I would have undoubtedly agreed to it', and 'the personnel working in the Party of Serbian Unity Headquarters were small in number and I knew all trusted secretaries who worked for Zeljko' and 'they were never in a position to ever find out anything about the financial circumstances of any of Zeljko's businesses. Their role was strictly limited to answering the phone and seeing the guests to Zeljko's office.'

  Another obvious fact, the 'testimonies' of both those witnesses relied heavily on what could be read in the press of that time. It was in the public domain that Di Stefano was Arkan's best man and a rich businessman - so a 'secretary' could make her story more believable if she should say that the money she personally distributed in the headquarters came from him. Her mistake was to tell that she got this info from Arkan, because the secretaries working for him were never privy to such info. Isakov was known to love gambling, and in a separate development there was some heroin found in some vaults (albeit years later) so to make a 'Casino Manager' more reliable, let's say Isakov gambled himself into collaboration with the State Security and the heroin was used by the Service to corrupt the 'Croatian youth' and undermine their war enthusiasm. Please! To quote Di Stefano a bit more: 'accusations based upon rumours, gossip and hearsay were very dangerous and had no place at The Hague Tribunal'. Should be so, but it's not. On the contrary, such accusations are admissible exclusively at The Hague Tribunal and nowhere else in the world. Such accusations are all that we have heard so far.

  When the transcripts for those two 'breakthrough witnesses' finally come out, I'll be happy to check what was really said. For now, I have to be content with what I managed to see while the electrical installations were not broken and what the likes of Chris Stephen write. Here's a parting gem of his: the 'Casino Manager' was allegedly providing whisky to Milosevic and his henchmen and listening in to their war-crime plots, but he couldn't say when exactly did it happen. The closest he could come up with was 'in March 1993'. Milosevic denied being in Novi Sad that month of that year at all. Chris was unhappy with that glitch, said 'it is one man's word against another' and cleverly concluded that 'thus far he has not provided an alibi of where he was at that time'. At what time? The whole of March 1993? Perhaps in the defence stage of the process Milosevic should produce 62 separate witnesses, 2 for each day, to provide him with the alibi and confirm his whereabouts on each day of March 1993? Maybe 2 per day would be insufficient, having in mind that Novi Sad is an hour's drive from Belgrade, so Milosevic could have slipped away and come back quickly? Maybe he should bring 2 witnesses for each hour of each day? The outgoing brilliant analyst Christ Stephen would be sorely missed at the IWPR.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia