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

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 1:49 am
  John Marat,

  I agree with you completely. The ICDSM is aware of the threat posed by Ramsey Clark and we are taking action against him.

  See: http://www.icdsm.org/more/ramsey1.htm

  And we have only begun to expose this man for what he is.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 2:58 am
  Did Ramsey Clark really "pose as Milosevic's Attorney" (on C-SPAN "the other night". Reference to Andy Wilcoxson´s postings (May 17, 2003 at 12:13 am and May 19, 2003 at 1:49 am).

  I don't think so! I trust, that at the National Press Club luncheon on May 12, 2003, Ramsey Clark was speaking on "U.S. Militarism" with a question and answer period that followed.

  I fail to see from the transcript excerpts provided by Jared Israel et al., that a question like: "Why have you represented the war criminals like Milosevic?" would (necessarily) imply, that Ms. Lydel was asking Ramsey Clark "why he represented Yugoslav President Milosevic" or "why he is representing Milosevic?"

  Neither do I see from his answer(s), in which Ramsey Clark makes no mention of the former President of Yugoslavia, that he was at all "pretending to represent Milosevic."

  On the basis of the excerpts one cannot and therefore should not associate Ramsey Clark with this alleged "media campaign using lawyers who make public statements in which... (they) falsely claim to represent Milosevic".

  It is a (fairly) well known fact, that since mr. Milosevic does not recognize the Hague Tribunal's authority, the former President has consistently refused to appoint anything like a defense team (a stand, which for one thing lead to the appointment of the socalled amici curiae). Hence there can be no sense at all in claiming to be "Slobodan Milosevic's lawyer" at the Hague - nor is there, for that matter, any sense in "reporting" (as does in fact Jared Israel on the basis of research by Andy Wilcoxson!), that "Slobodan Milosevic rejected (whoever) as attorney and legal advisor".

  That is and was simply never an issue!

  In any case the work of Ramsey Clark (and of the IAC) concerning Yugoslavia, Serbia, the Serb, the Serbian etc. (as exemplified for instance by "The Complaint") carries a great weigth and deserves considerable respect (as does obviously the work of Jared Israel and others as well).

  Please handle with care! After all, with regard to the trial at the Hague the really extraordinary effort is that of mr. Milosevic! The former president, who stood up for his country, is currently representing himself in a most admirable way.

  Gentlemen, - may I suggest, that in the interest of peace and justice we join to secure, that mr. Milosevic is "getting a fair trial"...
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 4:16 am
  

  Something is not so bad in the Kingdom of Denmark after all!

  My Charlemagne ancestors knew what they were doing and I support Godfried Louis-Jensen's postings. This was my reaction on Ramsey Clark comments which I followed on TV.

  Tuesday May 13, 2003 at 8:15 pm

  Last night Ramsey Clark was on TV denouncing the excesses of American power. Ramsey had been the US Attorney General under the Johnson Administration from which he dully resigned.

  After this talk a few questions were asked, among then two I found interesting in showing how provocative and hardheaded the American public remains.

  If you're so dedicated to freedom etc., how come you are involved in the defense of a war criminal and dictator like Slobodan Milosevic? Interestingly enough Ramsey did not defended Mr. Milosevices reputation, except in saying people are demonized when it is convenient.

  Do you believe the State of Israel has the right to exist?

  He was a little warmer on this one, when he retorted so do the Palestinians, they have also the right to have their own state . . .

  American political scene is really a mixture of nazism and kindergarten infantilism.

  Gogol Charlemagne Shangri-La
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

  Monday May 19, 2003 at 4:28 am
  

  
  
  G C
  Shnagri-La

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 7:18 am
  

  I have an idea, just an idea, an hypothetical idea, what will be the answer if both Mr. Richard May (NATO) and Mr. Geoffrey Nice (NATO) would be asked the same question than Ramsey Clark was:

  Do you support the existence of the state of Israel

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 7:21 am
  JP WIS USA

  Sometimes you're spot on! Sometimes you're way off. I can't believe that you can be so spot on about Milosevic and so way off about W and the rest of the gang. LOL. You must be pulling our legs about the latter. LOL.

  BTW, the only tall poppy in Venezuela is Chavez, and he looks like he'll be heading the way of Milosevic and other "belligerents" too. Better watch he doesn't slip up in all that Venezuelan oil there. But then again, with Iraq in hand, the Kosovo and Afghanistan pipelines in hand... Maybe Chavez has a chance after all.
  
  David
  Australia

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 7:24 am
  

  Mr. Nice is examining a French expert on propaganda !!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 7:39 am
  

  Very interesting, the standards demanded by Mr. Nice (NATO) of Serbian, Yugoslavian actually, propaganda in the media are not met by any of the usual American media propaganda. Could this be another case of looking into your neighbors spec in the eye and not seeing the beam on one's own?

  Poor Mr. Nice (NATO) will have to face his witness melting down when the butcher of the Balkans (propaganda?) cross examines him.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 8:43 am
  PM of course Alija invited fundamentalists from Arab world and beyond. The Croatian army was attacking from one side and Bosnian Serb army (with equipment from JNA and some men from Serbia) on the other. The Bosnian government had no extra troops to count on.

  What would anybody do in this situation? They would use any help they can get.

  I dont care much for Silajdzic but you must know he studied in Belgrade also but it doesnt prove anything where he studied.

  Your freezer truck theory is full of holes. You are looking already for reasons why it cant be true. The bodies have been found and are being identified so it doesnt matter if you dont believe there is logic in putting bodies in the Danube or not. The same thing happened in police compounds near Belgrade where dead bodies were buried. Why there? Who knows? Who cares? The important thing is who killed them and the identity of the bodies. Bodies from Kosovo have been buried in Serbia and honestly who cares about whether they were transported by freezer trucks or not.

  We agree about the media to some extent. Part of the media that is emperors clothes that claimed that freezer truck hoax and provided nothing in way of evidence. The report was never finished because this was first part. Part 2 that was supposed to explain exactly how it was a hoax never appeared.

  The only suspicious thing about it is the timing of when it was found.
  
  Srdjan Arnautovic
  Sarajevo

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 8:51 am
  It's interesting that the propaganda expert can comment on "something someone wrote" but when Milosevic asks the same sort of question May dismisses it with "We're not interested in what someone wrote".

  It seems Nice's tactics are to establish that Milosevic was responsible for the propaganda or had the capacity to stop it and its effects, which no doubt implies he had the capacity to stop the war crimes by stopping the propaganda. On the other hand, Nice was very busy trying to show how the media was used as a weapon of war, obviously to cover the bombing of RTS by NATO and to legitimise it.

  All in all, I am amazed that May has not stopped this "expert" on propaganda from giving further evidence on the basis that he is not in a position to state whether much of the propaganda was in fact propaganda or genuine beliefs held by the makers of the comments. He would need to demonstrate the FALSITY of the comments in order to mark them up as propaganda.

  In any event, it's a blatant attempt to deny the validity of the Serbian position, so here again we have not only Milosevic on trial but the rest of the Serbs as well. That makes the Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia paranoid fools with no history and no lessons from history. They should have sat back and got slaughtered in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosov as they did in WW2? I don't think so. With a history and background of racial extermination by Croat, Muslim and Albanian fascists, they would indeed be fools to sit on their hands.

  I wonder if the current day Jews would have sat on their hands with the spectre of fascism, antisemitism and disenfranchisement looming large in the countries they live in. Hardly!

  That's why the evidence of the propaganda expert fails, even without Milosevic's cross examination. He simply knows too little of history and recent events to make such uninformed opinions which run so grossly contrary to human nature.

  Ultimately, did the media shape public opinion or did the public opinion shape the media? That's a chicken and the egg argument which shows nothing! Where are the actual WORDS, DEEDS and ACTIONS by which Milosevic behaved in the same fashion as Izetbegovic and Tudjman in propagating racial hatred in their own words? They do not exist, except in the prosecutions mind when they distort Milosevic's Gazimestan speech, a speech of which ANY statesman would be proud.

  They must be running out of witnesses to bring in a lackey like this propaganda jockey. Next witness please...
  
  David
  Australia

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 9:24 am
  Srdjan:

  Nice to see you justify the criminals. I am not proud of and don't justify the paramilitarists from Serbia who volunteered to loot and kill in Croatia and Bosnia. You, in contrast, seem to love the monstrous creatures who came from 5000 miles away to do the same as Serbian and Croatian paramilitarists, if not worse (cutting heads and such, if you get my drift!).

  Regarding the freezer trucks, it is a forgery through and through. And its sudden discovery and then disappearance is even more suspect. Where is it now?

  And even if it were shown to be true that one truck of bodies was dumped in the Danube, is their proof that the government of Serbia knew anything about it?
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 9:39 am
  David:

  Well according to tried-and-true of history, "as many as" 80,000 Jews, Gypsies and Serbs (Serbs last, mind you!) were killed in Jasenovac. Also, more Muslims were killed percentagewise that Serbs. Muslims were innocent victims in WWII. The Albanian Jashari clan is a hero clan because they resisted Tito's Communists. The Ustase were just "The People who Stood Up" to those nasty Serb communist swine, the Turkish occupation was a time of peace, tolerance, culture, and cooperation. It was actually the Serbs who ruined it all. Austria-Hungary was a civilized power for peace, and they should have stopped greater Serbia when they had the chance. The Serbs occupied 1/3 of Croatia. The Serbs grabbed 3/4 of Bosnia. They never lived there before at all. They just arrived as tourists in 1989, after the Madman Milosevic whipped the Serb ultranationalist marxist fascists at Kosovo/a Polje/Poja into a nationalistic frenzy/orgy of murder, pillaging, rapine, and torture. He also unleashed a genocidal fury on innocent ethnic albanians who were only seeking equal rights and the right to life and liberty and to go to schoolThe Serbs have no grievances at all. They need to be bombed into the stone age. They just have an irrational martyr complex and they like to rape Muslim women in Bosnia because they are trying to avenge themselves for the Battle of Kosovo, and how the Turks castrated them there and made them effeminate and unmanly, and that's why they try to prove they manliness by raping innocent Muslim women. The Muslim women are also very tolerant and secular, but its a lot worse for them to get raped than Christian women, because Muslim women find it hard to reveal to fellow villagers that they have been raped. The tactic was to implant dog embryos (Stefan Schwartz has revealed shocking stories of these horrors) into the Muslim women, then to rape them and make them have Cetnik babies. Then the Serbian effeminates will "prove" themselves they are real men. Also the Serbian Orhtodox chruch is worse than Milosevic. They spread a campaign of hatred and monstrous intolerance, destryoing everyithing. They are worse than Hitler. Also, the Serbs just use their mithomaniac martyr complex to justify many genocides they committ over the muslims and others balkan innocents. they also claim to have protected jews, they did not, instead they killed them all. they are bloodthirsty mongrels, it was actually the croats who founded the partizans, the serbs just tagged along and printed stamps of zionist masons and such, which is yet more proof of their villainy and judenrein, and Nedic was Hitler's favorite lapdog, and Draza was a monstrous fascist from hell, the Serbs have beards because they want to look like rasputins, also they need it to feel tough, but they are really just bloody thugs and murderes, and it also explains why they liked to rape women in front of the entire village, 60,000 of them, and to roast muslim children in srebrenica and dissolve all the missing bodies with chemicals. they also like to use freezer trucks.......

  The usual fare in Western reporting on the Serbs...
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 10:28 am
  

  PM USA

  No wonder I like them LOL

  At least the experts testimony opens up the door for Milosevic to get the facts out by disputing that it was propaganda but a genuine fear on the basis of historical facts.

  But hey, the way you just laid out the "facts", they're just a bunch of crazies no doubt. I'm surprised the civilised world let them survive for so long, let alone accepted them as allies in the last century or two, especially the British, the French and the Americans.

  The whole Serbian nation must have had a personality flip out in the 1990s. You just need to compare the pre 1990 editions of Britannica with the post 1990 editions to see the extent of the reversioned/revisioned history.

  On the other hand, it could be argued that the Serbs are pretty consistent:

  They said NO to the Ottomans and paid the price,

  They said NO to the Austro-Hungarians and paid the price,

  They said NO to Hitler's Germany and paid the price and

  They said no to America's New World Order and paid the price.

  Now for once they have a crowd that's saying YES. It remains to be seen if that works any better for them. In the meantime, Milosevic still seems to be holding the fort. And rather admirably as Godfred Louis Jensen has already pointed out!
  
  David
  Australia

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 10:35 am
  
  ”The Freezer Truck Hoax”

  “We agree about the media to some extent. Part of the media that is emperors clothes that claimed that freezer truck hoax and provided nothing in way of evidence. The report was never finished because this was first part. Part 2 that was supposed to explain exactly how it was a hoax never appeared.”

  That ‘Part 2’ “never appeared” is not true. After Part 1 Gil-White explained that there would be a delay in publishing Part 2 because he intended to revise his original article of two parts. In fact he expanded it to nine parts.

  You may read Part 2 along with the other eight parts of the revised article here: The Freezer Truck Hoax

  There are two facts about the incident, apart from the timing, that I would like to see examined. First: The Mercedes truck belonged to an ethnic Albanian who ran an abattoir near the border with Albania. The owner claimed that the truck had been stolen. When exactly was this truck stolen and who stole it so near to the Albanian border: Is it claimed that this happened during the Nato bombardment?

  Second: After Resolution 1244 there were complaints by UN officials about bodies being transported from Albania into Kosovo at a crossing near the site of the abattoir. Why were bodies being transported into Kosovo and what became of them?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 11:13 am
  The conclusion of Fadil Banjanovic was interesting. This self-professed friend of Nasir Oric testified about 1,822 Muslims (including him) left Kozlok and went to Serbia.

  Inspite of the fact that he didn't want to admit it the authorities in Serbia behaved in an admirable fassion.

  The Serbian Police protected the Muslim refugees from criminals who wanted to harm them. The Serbian Red Cross gave the refugees medical treatment and food. The municipal authorities issued passports to people in a timely manner, although it took up to 8 whole days for some people.

  In spite of Banjanovic's best efforts to the contrary, I would say that Milosevic benefited from his testimony.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 2:19 pm
  I predict that the cross-examination of Runo Delabros will be rather entertaining.

  Slobo is going to destroy this witness.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 2:30 pm
  PM you should cool down a little. Way I see it you have little reason to feel angry. If you were involved in war then perhaps I would understand.

  It seems you are not bright enough to realise that I never claimed to love anybody or anything except Yugoslavia. Neither do I defend interests of Bosnian government in way you defend the Serbian government at the time. That makes you victim of state policy not me. No wonder you want to deny the bodies. But deny or not bodies do not lie and time will tell who was big enough to admit what.

  Now Im expected to defend some fundamentalist or Oric. Too bad because I will not do it. Again we took all the help we got at the time. Maybe you wanted Bosnia to be eaten up by Serbia and Croatia who turned their back on Yugoslavia but some Bosnians didnt want it. But of course we were not supposed to defend ourselves were we?

  So after much delay they published 9 parts! about bodies in Serbia. Then when you read it the same sloppy material from other Emperors clothes reports appear as new as 'the freezer truck hoax'.

  The second point you raise Peter is valid. In addition to the question of timing it is worth more investigation. However, it is my understanding that identity cards of Albanians from Kosovo have been found on some bodies in Serbia. How is that explained?
  
  Srdjan Arnautovic
  Sarajevo

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 2:56 pm
  Srdjan Arnautovic,

  There is a bottom line when it comes to Kosovo. There is a finite number of dead and missing people. If you add the numbers of dead and missing you only get about 5,000 people for the whole war. There wasn't really that much for the Serbs to hide to begin with.

  Since you are a Muslim and you live in Sarajevo, and you seem like a reasonable person, I would like to ask you directly what is your opinion of Fikret Abdic?

  I would also like to ask you what it is that you believe motivated the Serbs to fight. Do you think that they felt threatened at all? Or do you think that they were motivated by some racist desire to live in an ethnically pure enlarged Serbian state? Or was it something else? I just want to know your opinion.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 4:09 pm
  

  Djindjic murder suspects involved in Sloba arrest | 19:13 | B92

  BELGRADE -- Monday - The three prime suspects in the assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic were all involved in the arrest of Slobodan Milosevic in March 2001, Deputy Prime Minister Nebojsa Covic said today.

  Covic revealed the information after being asked whether he was acquainted with former Red Berets commander Milorad “Legija” Lukovic.

  He told media that he had met the man believed to have masterminded the assassination on a number of occasions, including having seen him among the masked special police present on that occasion.

  Covic added that Dusan Spasojevic and Mile Lukovic, both of whom were shot dead while resisting arrest, were also present.

  Now we clearly see how criminals work with criminals. It is a perfect example of a justice minister working with the criminals. I wonder why Covic was not arrested, but then again is it a surprise? I guess not!
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 4:53 pm
  Nonsense Srdjan: you're talking pure nonsense. If Serbia and Croatia want to partition Bosnia, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT??!?!? WHY IS BOSNIAN TERRITORY HOLY?!? THERE WAS NEVER A BOSNIAN PEOPLE, ONLY SERBS AND CROATS AND THEN THE MUSLIMS WERE INVENTED AS A PEOPLE (THEY ARE NOT, THEY ARE REALLY JUST A RELIGIOUS GROUP) BY THE COMMUNISTS. If I could have it my way, Herceg Bosna would be annexed to Croatia, RS and Krajina and parts of Slavonia to Serbia, and northern Kosovo to Serbia as well. What I find bizarre, Srdjan, is that you start whining about how Serbs and Croats tried to break up Bosnia, yet you think its perfectly fine for Albanians to steal Kosovo and institute a reign of terror on the original (Serbian) inhabitants. And lastly, and now answer this question, because it's important: who do you think was the single most important factor in the creation of Yugoslavia? Who was the most important Yugoslav player in the destruction. I will give you the answer: YUGOSLAVIA WAS BUILT ON SERB BLOOD. Who do you think you Muslims are, that we, after losing 1.7 million people in WWI, HAD to live with you?!?! We COULD have taken all of Bosnia, sent you to Turkey, Krajina and a slice of Dalmatia, and Macedonia. That was what was offered as an alternative plan. Yet Serbia did not choose that....instead, she chose Yugoslavia. Second, did Serbia have to join with you and your fascist bosses the Ustasi after you massacred 1000000 of us? NO!! The communists shut everyone up, apportioned land, etc. and no one could so much as mention Jasenovac or APOLOGIES from the Muslims and Croats (which were really our due!). And lastly, who was the first to secede? Who was second to secede in 1991? Who was the first one to start disarming the police of majority-Serb municipalities, instituted WWII fascist insignia, symbols, names, etc., and actually sent police to kidnap and kill Serb civilians? Who was it? It was Croatia, and Croatia was the single most important domestic factor (always) in the destruction of Yugoslavia, whereas Serbia was its glue. You Muslims were totally insignificant. The major conflict was (and is) between the Serbs and Croats. I have seen the Croats have been very successful in cleansing Krajina, and so have you (in cleansing the Federation), perhaps you also want to annex Sandzak, Kosovo (to Albania), and Republika Srpska so you can cleanse that too and call it a unitary Bosnian state of the so called Bosniak people (which never existed).
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 5:24 pm
  Bravo, P.M.!
  
  Anna P
  California

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 6:49 pm
  Srdjan Arnautovic, you keep sneaking in all these little lies, with absolutely no proof.

  Obviously, the idea is to plant the lie and hope like heck it will grow. I realize that since you have chosen to defend the Muslim forces of Bosnia, you have nothing nice you can say about them. Trying to smear Serbians to make up for that fact just won't work.

  > However, it is my understanding that identity cards of Albanians from Kosovo have been found on some bodies in Serbia.<

  You don't have much of an understanding do you? Or are you referring to Identity cards for members of the KLA?

  ONE MORE TIME. In Bosnia, just over 1,000 bodies were found. In Kosovo, just over 1,000 bodies were found. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT ETHNIC GROUP THEY BELONGED TO, in either place.

  You sure are stuck on that freezer truck. Stop and think about something.....How many bodies could you get into a freezer truck? Just how long do you think it would take to clean a country of dead bodies using a freezer truck, if you were in the business of ethnic cleansing?

  I am not trying to be rude. It just doesn't look like you think out your posts any too well. We have all come to expect the Administration, Media and NATO to make up silly lies like this. They expect no one to see the idiocy of their lies.

  Even your pretending to fall for this does nothing for our perception of your intelligence. I would really help if you would stop and ask yourself, "Does this make sense?"
  
  Rebecka Justice
  Portland
  OR

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 6:56 pm
  Transcripts for each day of the hearings will be posted on the Website as soon as they are available, the ICTY claims...

  ...the latest transcript in the "Milosevic case" still being from 11 April 2003, however!

  Hardly fair to the public, is it?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Monday May 19, 2003 at 7:18 pm
  If the question is: How would one explain "that identity cards of Albanians from Kosovo have been found on some bodies in Serbia"?

  Then the answer is: By carrying out a proper (police) investigation.

  And failing that: Forget about the whole thing!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 12:27 am
  Although I had a hard time understanding what the participant from Sarajevo, Srdjan, is actually arguing about, he seems to be sufficiently open-minded to accept few corrections of his apodictic statements. Peter has already corrected Srdjan re his statement that there's no sequel to the Emperors Clothes report on the freezer truck hoax - actually there were 9 parts published, pointing unequivocally to the perpetrators of this hoax, our NATO-established and NATO-incited puppet government.

  His other incorrect statements on the subject are: 'as far as we can see the freezer truck case in Serbia was not phantom and nor were the bodies found' and 'the bodies have been found and are being identified'. Again not true. No bodies from that freezer truck have ever been found and therefore no bodies are being identified. The truck was a phantom, a story cooked up by the police, getting the idea from an actual illegal-immigrants-Kurd-smuggling traffic accident. Check the transcript of 23/24 July 2002, the witness being Bosko Radojkovic, the only person who allegedly saw those bodies, who confirmed there was no investigation, not even a single photo of these corpses (and him being a police technician, who photographed only the exterior of the truck). As for other bodies 'found' in the mass graves throughout Serbia, check the trial transcript of 22/23 July 2002, the witness being the Police Captain Dragan Karleusa, the supposed 'investigator'. He could produce not a single statement of a single witness, only the anonymous, unsigned report penned by the police, general in nature and less comprehensive than those press articles. The bottom line is: no investigation was done, only the media wrote about it, and even that only for a few weeks, to prepare the public for Milosevic's kidnapping. After that - nothing. Only once they tried to actually show on TV some corpses being allegedly dug up at Batajnica, and that was a mistake: those few bones shown were way too clean, dry and white to belong to people who died only two short years ago. More like it, these were the remains of people killed in the World War II, something that can be all too easily found practically anywhere in Serbia. That mistake of showing something was never repeated again. More significantly, no investigation was done since. Who needs investigation on anything, when Srebrenica case can be so nicely represented as 'genocide of 7-8,000 men and boys', without actually having 7-8,000 corpses, not even 7-8,000 names, for that mater? Well, there's no need to go to the Srebrenica example: do you know that the comprehensive list of Racak victims is still not completed (what are their names and places of residence, exactly how many bodies were there, where are their graves now)? Thus, it was obviously more than sufficient to put in an article that 'identification papers from Kosovo were found on some of the corpses'. Why not giving the list of those names from those papers? Because, when you actually give the list of names, the thing is final and verifiable. Anyone can cross-check such a list with all other lists (of those dead elsewhere or alive somewhere) and the danger is that some names might pop up on other lists, too! Therefore, no lists, please. It's so much safer to just allege.

  Peter, to add to your questions about the sinister transfer of bodies after the UN came to Kosovo, check the trial transcript of 3/4 July 2002, the witness being Ali Gjogaj, a simple street cleaner and grave-digger who made a colossal mistake of mixing up the dates of his assisting the 'Serb police' in digging up the corpses and transferring them away in April 2000. The problem is there was no Serb police in Kosovo after June 1999, only UN/NATO. Whom did Mr Gjogaj assist in digging up and transferring several real cadavers from Kosovo and where to? To Batajnica, perhaps, to hand them over to the OTP Investigator John Zdrilic, to be further transferred to the Spanish forensic laboratory, thus adding substance to the case? But, all that happened much, much later than the alleged freezer truck conveyor belt under the shower of bombs. I doubt that I'm very much off the mark with this, having in mind the panic of the Prosecution after that mistake and their desperate efforts to present all that as a simple mix-up.

  The problem is that even the Prosecutor, Ms Romano, when giving the recap of the statement, clearly said it was in April 2000 (3 July 2002, page 7390). When Milosevic asked the witness about it and why this was not included in his first written statement from February-March 2000, the witness explained that was because it must have happened later. Exactly! In April 2000, and not in 1999, as the Prosecution tried to retrospectively convince silly May, who tried to further muddle things by saying he doesn't 'understand the point that you're making'. Well, the point is that the 'witness' suddenly remembered in his second statement, given in June 2000, that he was assisting Serb police in digging up corpses in Kosovo and loading them up into a refrigerator truck. And the problem is that he stated he did that in April 2000 (it was not in his first statement from February-March 2000, because he said it happened after that). And the problem is that in April 2000 there were simply no Serb authorities in Kosovo, therefore also no Serb police with their refrigerator trucks. Check the transcript dated 3 July 2002, pages 7411-7414.

  Milosevic wanted to make sure all was clear: 'Have we cleared up when this other event occurred, in 2000 or in 1999?' And silly May cemented all that by stating: 'He's told you, in 2000. Now, let's move on.' The witness confirmed even further: ' It was written in my declaration.' Milosevic concluded this exchange: 'Please. If what he is claiming -- if what he is claiming went on or happened in the year 2000, in April 2000, then I'm not interested in it at all, because in 2000, there were no Serb authorities there at all.' After this, Tapuskovic got his questions and then it was adjourned for the day. But, check the transcripts for the next day, 4 July 2002 and see the panicky efforts of the Prosecution to minimize the whole giant awkward thing (after they obviously spent a sleepless night over it). So, once more: whom did Mr Gjogaj assisted in digging up corpses?

  In order to prove that their own popularity is soaring, our current rulers keep ordering favourable public opinion surveys from 'independent' agencies. Then, Carla Del Ponte decides to visit them and the real public opinion without the mediation of agencies appears on the walls, telling them how things really stand:

  [quote B92] BELGRADE -- Monday - Belgrade’s Knez Milos Street was this morning covered with posters of Hague suspects Radovan Karadzic and Veselin Sljivancanin, prior to the visit of Tribunal chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte. The busy downtown street is home to the foreign ministry, Serbian Government building, interior ministry and a number of international embassies. The ruins of the building adjacent to the former Yugoslav Army General staff, which was destroyed by NATO bombardment, is plastered with posters of the two, scribbled with various messages of support. The building faces the Serbia-Montenegro Foreign Ministry, where Del Ponte is to spend most of the day. Comments scribbled across the posters carry such messages as: “this is my country, I give out the orders here”; “no withdrawal, no surrender”; “he was honourably carrying out his military oath”; “Is defending one’s own people a crime?”. [unquote B92]
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 12:40 am
  I simply cannot believe what I am hearing. The transcript from Monday's session is not available, but if I'm not mistaken, seeing from the video, Nice said the following in the examination:

  ...He was able to go on to make this point: 'It comes of no surprise that the phenomenon has directly led to the perpetration of horrible atrocities on the fields of battle and throughout the entire territory.' Now that observation, does that underline, in any way, the distinction that you seek to draw, perhaps, between PROPAGANDA THAT MAY BE ACCEPTABLE AND PROPAGANDA THAT MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE?!?!?"

  Witness: YES! ABSOLUTELY!

  And they call themselves a court....
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 3:25 am
  n Canada we have two founding people a kind of Siamese Twins. On several occasions they attempted to separate but before the knife could be applied the law was applied. Doctors came from America, Britain and France and Germany and said no if you cut you will kill the patient.

  In Yugoslavia the patient was joined in six different places. I know a bit more difficult surgery but look at the specialists. In Bosnia in three places. Is there a medical term to describe this phenomenon????? The same doctors that saved Canada went to Paris where the patient went for medical attention. Helmut, Chirac, Clinton and Blair took out their scalpels and killed the patient and with it two hundred thousand and displaced four million others. The doctors hired lawyers and charged the one doctor that wanted the patient to live and blamed him for their mistake.

  These so called leader know full well what they were doing. These countries have a history of racial strife just like the Balkans the only difference is that the Balkans have a short fuse.

  You may hate Tito or you may love him but one thing is for sure he left a country worth saving. Those who came after him looked to others to save the country while they looked after their own interests.

  The Brits, the Germans and the French talked about reconciliation while they secretly separated the patient blaming each other when the patient died.. Why should the Yugoslav expect anything different? These countries have trampled their minorities over the last two centuries. .

  Where reconciliation was possible they encouraged separation. The Yugoslavs lived in relative harmony for fifty years until economic interference from the friendly doctors said to them you are different. You have the same blood but yours is Catholic, yours is Muslim and yours is Orthodox. Incompatible we must separate you.

  The tragedy of this is in the living and their loss of reconciliation and freedom. The four doctors (Blair, Chirac, Clinton and Kohl ) should be in the Hague not Milosevic.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops B.C.
  Canada

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 5:07 am
  

  Chirac? I think you should not forget the French change Presidents from time to time, the great friend of the Serbs was François Miterrand at the time. He at least put a flak jacket once and went to Sarajevo for a little chat and coffee when the bombs were falling.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 5:11 am
  

  I just read more from Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser on the Ramsey Clark accused of je ne sais pas quoi . It is really getting interesting. I wonder if the next the National Press Club should invite both Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser to talk about, let's see, antisemitism perhaps?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 5:27 am
  

  Srdjan Arnautovic

  Is your ethnic background (as opposed to religious background) Serbian or Croatian or mixed or otherwise? Muslim doesn't rate as an ethnicity, just like Jewish and Yugoslav doesn't cut the mustard either. The former rate as religious denominations and the latter rates as a citizenship denomination.

  Walter Trkla

  The 4 doctors who operated on Yugoslavia took the Hypocritic Oath instead of the Hippocratic one.

  PM USA

  Bosniaks? Those must be related to the Daleks or Dr Who! The people who live in Bosnia are predominantly either Serbs or Croats, of Orthodox, Catholic or Muslim religion. Mostly Serbs who converted to Islam, according to genealogy records. The rest is just post WW2 communist bull designed to make the country more manageable by Tito. Same goes for the autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo... bull#### creations in 1974 to keep Tito in power on the basis of the divide and rule principle.

  The problem is that now Tito is gone and we have the 4 doctors doing the division by vivisection. Again on the basis of the divide and rule principle. And ALL the ethnic groups in former YU are buying the same bull#### YET AGAIN! Some things never change.

  The Croats will be cleaning the Teutons' stables again, the Serbs will continue their struggle for independence against the "oppressors" and the "Muslims" will go about their business even if they have to convert to Hinduism. The Albanians will continue to eat rocks because that's all that will be left to them when the capitalists are finished with them, and they may even disappear like the ancient Illyrians. And the Macedonians will celebrate a Greek Xmas and an Orthodox Easter under some sort of Uniate arrangement courtesy of the Vatican. Sort of like an each way bet.
  
  David
  Australia

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 5:32 am
  But whay would Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser say about poor old and dead François who at one time after having escaped the KA Lager worked for Vichy before joining the resitance in a government department dedicated to repatriate from Germany French POWs.

  Propaganda, what a nice War Crime the ICTY has discovered!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 6:06 am
  According to the propaganda expert, when the US speaks of Muslim extremists, the US is referring to ALL Muslims. Nice one Slobo! Unless of course different rules apply to Serb and Western propaganda. LOL What a joke this propaganda fellow is! Judge May must be squirming in his seat, not to mention Mr Nice LOL
  
  David
  Australia

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 6:22 am
  

  The Brush is loosing all its hair!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 8:34 am
  

  May has considerable trouble understanding a number of Milosevic's questions to the propaganda whiz, eg..."Did you do a scientific analysis of the YU media?".

  Does anyone else have a problem understanding what that means in plain English? I don't think so. Either May is intellectually impaired or his English is very poor. Then again, maybe he doesn't want to understand.

  What a loser this senile old fart is! He's tried to rescue the propaganda expert on at least 6 different occasions, even at the cost of compromising his own integrity. He must be pretty desperate to expose himself so blatantly. Robinson on the other hand again managed to show some semblance of integrity in his question. Kwon is keeping a low profile. Just as well, as he couldn't get much lower than he got a few sessions back when he voted for no cross examination.

  Milosevic on the other hand keeps on showing what a gentleman he is in comparison to the rest of the clowns in the chamber. His patience and restraint are exemplary, his questions incisive and lucid. He certainly doesn't seem to have much to hide, certainly not as much as some of the witnesses and the other side.
  
  David
  Australia

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 8:36 am
  Wow whats wrong with wiping out a people because you dont believe they exist PM?! Surprisingly Anna the cetnik, supports you view. Bravo for your honesty. Do you think Sloba shares this opinion or does he hide it better than you?

  So lets get this straight you wanted Bosnia wiped out and joined to the Ustase on one side and Cetniks on the other. Except of course you want other people to die in this fight while you support them from confort of your own home. Thats courage for you.

  Its also brave of you to admit that Serbia and Croatia tried to break up Bosnia. Im glad you admit this instead of continuing to hide under the islamic fundamentalist argument that nationalists usually hide under. Great. So lets quit this rubbish about Alija and get to the real issue...

  Bosnians dont have a right to exist and should be exterminated, or change their religion to Orthodox or Catholic and become Serbs or Croats. Well you know you and your follower cheerleading cetnik friend Anna sound a little like nazis dont you?

  Your view in the rest of your post is so garbled I can hardly understand the rest. Again, you hate Croats but you wanted to give Herceg Bosnia to the Ustase? That makes sense! Bosnians dont exist yet we are to blame for the Croats crimes against the Serbs? You are confused.

  I would like for you to point out where I said yet that I 'think its perfectly fine for Albanians to steal Kosovo' or maybe you should refer these hallucinations to your phsychologist since I feel certain you have one. I have made no statement on Kosovo's status so you should keep your paranoia down at least for a little while.

  Vera I read your post sometimes. I am aware of your viewpoint. You do not apply the same healthy cynicysm to Milosevic government as you do to NATO / DOS government. Pity but lets wait little while longer. After all it took years just to find 1 body even though they knew where it was kept (Stambolic) and who did it. It isnt a surprise that bodies from Kosovo are also hidden and covered up by people in power.

  Walter you said 'Where reconciliation was possible they encouraged separation. The Yugoslavs lived in relative harmony for fifty years until economic interference from the friendly doctors said to them you are different. You have the same blood but yours is Catholic, yours is Muslim and yours is Orthodox. Incompatible we must separate you.' This question, how are you (we) supposed to deal with people who dont think you have a right to exist not just outside Yugoslavia but within it? Do you share the opinion of those who think that Bosnians dont exist or should be liquidated or converted? Do you agree with me that they and not the outside world are the primary cause of deep hatred among former Yugoslav's?

  David my ethnic background is mixed a little Serbian and a little Muslum. Yes its not the best thing to be defined by a religion after all I dont go to the mosq. As much as you are interested we now call ourselves Bosnjaks but I prefer Sarajevan. Bosnjak is like the slave name that misfortune gave us but we were always Sarajevans before and now.

  Andy my personal opinion of Fikret Abdic is that he is a criminal. As a self interested criminal he was non nationalist so better than Izetbegovic.

  Your question 'do you think that they were motivated by some racist desire to live in an ethnically pure enlarged Serbian state?' was answered well by PM and Anna. I hope their reply didnt shock you. They wanted this enlarged Serbia state and we had to defend against these people. If you are asking me a question about Milosevic I dont know. Does he (and some other Serbs, Croats) hold the same opinion as PM and Ana but hides it or did he just manipulate nationalists in order to be re-elected? Difficult question. In the end we were bombed week after week and we still dont know what for.
  
  Srdjan Arnautovic
  Sarajevo

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 8:53 am
  

  Srdjan,

  Why do you need to define yourself by religion as opposed to people in the rest of the world who define themselves according to their ethnic roots?

  Well, I'm a Sydney-an. Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?

  What's the point of inventing Bosniaks or Sarajevans or Muslims as an identity element in preference to ethnicity? Is there some sort of racial blockage or denial there or what? (No malice intended, it's a genuine question!)
  
  David
  Australia

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 9:14 am
  The following story gives some interesting background information about the Serbian Police Captain, Dragan Karleusa.

  No police officer in Britain could continue his career if it was known that his daughter dated a known criminal.

  In the new "democratic" Serbia, Karleusa's rise appears unstoppable.

  By the way, is Karleusa Serbian? His surname is certainly unusual.

  Turbo Folk Politics

  by Goran Tarlac 7 May 2003

  The arrest of Serbia's biggest pop star illustrates the marriage of turbo folk and the criminal elite.

  BELGRADE, Serbia and Montenegro--When the attractive and voluptuous Serbian folk singer Svetlana "Ceca" Raznatovic--Belgrade's biggest pop star--was arrested in connection with the 12 March assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, the public was indeed shocked.

  Ceca's arrest, the result of her close ties with the prime suspects in Djindjic’s murder, has brought to light the influential political role her genre of music, turbo folk, played in Serbia during the Slobodan Milosevic regime and beyond.

  Ceca, the widow of Zeljko "Arkan" Raznatovic--a notorious paramilitary leader who was murdered in January 2000--was no stranger to the underworld, but the love songs she sang, as opposed to the threateningly nationalist lyrics of other folk singers, were the hottest stuff on the Serbian music scene.

  In a high-profile operation on 17 March, only five days into the assassination investigation, police surrounded Arkan's Belgrade villa, where Ceca lived with her two children under the protection of numerous security guards. Inside in a hidden bunker police discovered all the tricks of the assassination trade: 21 guns, three boxes of ammunition, compasses, a laser rangefinder, a precision viewfinder for rifle sights, a bow, 20 arrows, silencers for Scorpio and Heckler guns, police batons, gas masks, protective hats, and the list goes on.

  Police searched the villa after learning that Ceca frequently played host to the chief suspects in Djindjic's murder: Milorad "Legija" Lukovic, former Special Operations Unit (JSO) commander, and Dusan "Siptar" Spasojevic, the boss of the so-called Zemun clan. Police say Ceca continued to entertain the two even after the prime minister's death, when arrest warrants had been issued for both.

  According to local media reports, Ceca was arrested by none other than Dragan Karleusa, a senior Serbian police officer and the father of Jelena Karleusa, Serbia's second-biggest pop star. But Ceca and Jelena Karleusa have much more in common than that--they both are known to mingle with the underworld. Karleusa is the former girlfriend of Zoran Davidovic Canda, a drug dealer and stolen car smuggler who was killed in March 2000.

  The political love story of Arkan and Ceca began in 1994 in a military camp used to train members of Arkan’s Serbian Volunteer Guard paramilitary unit. Ceca was invited to sing to the up-and-coming troops. Their glamorous 1995 wedding was a public spectacle par excellence. Both the ceremony and reception were broadcast live on national television and radio and sold on video across the country. The Milosevic regime’s newspaper, Vecernje novosti, dedicated its entire front page and two additional inside pages to the wedding.

  In an essay on Serbian culture during the war years, "The Culture of Power in Serbia: Nationalism and the Destruction of Alternatives," sociology professor Eric Gordy of Clark University in Miami says that Arkan and Ceca's wedding "symbolized the connection between turbo folk, state-controlled media, and the new criminal elite."

  If Ceca's involvement in the assassination of Djindjic is proven, that symbiosis could finally be put to rest. Although Ceca's songs are love songs, there are theoreticians in Serbia, such as media historian Ivana Kronja, who argue that Ceca and her late husband were regarded as national heroes after Milosevic was sent to trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague.

  "In that context, Ceca is Serbia's model mother, Arkan the beacon of nationalism, and the two together represent the focal point of retrograde patriarchy," wrote Kronja.
  
  Michael Thomas
  London
  UK

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 9:41 am
  David there is no invention. New Yorkers are New Yorkers. Parisians are Parisians. Londoners are Londoners. Sarajevans are Sarajevans. The word Bosnjak I have trouble with because it is worn because of our misfortune. It also hints at claims of similar ethnicity to people from Sandzak some who say they are Bosnjak but are not Bosnian. In addition to the above there it is good to be proud of city you are from (even if some people tried their best to level it to the ground).

  Ones ethnicity is not the primary factor anywhere. One's value as a human being is much greater. The way that some humans believe that some nationalities or races are less worthy than others has to be seen for what it is - racism.
  
  Srdjan Arnautovic
  Sarajevo

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 9:46 am
  Runo Delabros is a wind bag. I couldn't help being reminded of sitting in art class in college, where I listened to seemingly endless prattle from a bunch of pot smoking hippies talking about what their "work of art" represented and how it spoke to "their version of the truth."

  Delabros was the same way as this bunch of drug-addicted hippies. He had the ability to run his mouth for long periods of time and still never quite manage to answer the question he was asked.

  President Milosevic asked him if he regarded his report as a scientific report produced for the prosecutor. The answer to this question is either yes or no. This witness went on and on for almost 10 minutes about how he didn't speak Serbo-Croat, and about how some team of people in Belgrade fed him the data that he used in his report.

  Milosevic's next question was if this witness had done a content analysis of the Serbian media. Judge Richard "Dick" May got all pissed off with the question because "the trial chamber didn't understand it."

  Judge "Dick," is just playing dumb here (or maybe it isn't an act) because the answer to the question is so obvious. How could this witness, who didn't speak the language, and who had all of his data fed to him by some team, have done any content analysis on the Serbian media, and having not done a content analysis how can his thesis in any manner be considered scientific or valid?

  The witness tried to claim that the terms like "Ustasha fighter," "Muslim extremist," and "Albanian terrorist." were terms designed to degrade Albanians, Muslims and Croats as entire ethnic groups.

  I don't know how this could be the case since those particular terms suggest individuals and not entire ethnic groups. In fact I can cite numerous examples from Slobodan Milosevic's speeches where he specifically points out that those criminal elements do not represent the ethnic groups to which they are members.

  During the examination in chief this witness claimed that memorials held for Serbs killed by Ustashas was "propaganda." Apparently Slobo is guilty of letting Serbs remember the sacrifices they made during World War Two ... what a sick bastard! Nobody has the right to be proud of their history. Everybody should be uniersally ashamed so that people who's ancestors did bad things won't feel bad.

  This witness claimed twice not to be an expert on the Yugoslav conflicts. The logical question arising from this would be how does he know what is propaganda and what is the truth. What was the Serb media supposed to do if Serbs were attacked, not report on it lest they be accused of making propaganda?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 10:38 am
  Srdjan Arnautovic,

  I don't think that you deserved the type of accusations that P.M. made against you.

  There was truth in some of the things he said about Serbia's position, but he had no right to accuse you of anything. It was wrong for him to do that.

  I want to ask you what type of criminal do you consider Fikret Abdic to be? He is sitting in a jail cell in Croatia right now because the powers that be in Zagreb say that he's a war criminal. Do you consider him to be a war criminal or just some petty criminal, and why do you think that?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 12:43 pm
  P.M. was correct in his description of Serbia's role as the "glue" of Yugoslavia, contrary to that of Croatia. He's also correct in saying that the so-called "muslims" in Bosnia are an artificial ethnic group.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 12:54 pm
  "The way that some humans believe that some nationalities or races are less worthy than others has to be seen for what it is - racism."

  Certainly, that's racism. It is also what I as a Serb experienced, being regarded as less worthy or being pittied for being Serbian, whenever I was in Croatia or Slovenia and responded to being asked by a Croat or a Slovene what my "ethnicity" was. Also being ridiculed behind my back in a bakery on the Dalmatian coast for buying "hleb" instead of "kruh." That kind of blatant prejudice is not part of the Serbian culture.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 1:12 pm
  Well, Srdjan, I believe our differences are due to a misunderstanding.

  While the historical-cultural reality, that the Bosniaks nor the Bosnians exist as an ethnic group, is very different from the political reality. Million(s) of Muslims (I will not mention their true ethnicity here) consider themselves to be a separate ethnic group. I realize that this is a consequence of Communist manipulation and also because Islam calls you to consider yourselves brothers. I realize also that for Muslims, their beliefs supercede their ethnic connections.

  It would be horribly wrong to negate the right of the Muslims, on the political scene, to have independence, if so they wish. When I said that I would have not problem with Bosnia being partitioned, I did not say that it should be partition just two ways and that the Muslims should be destroyed. As I see it, it could have been partitioned three ways, Muslims getting the most valuable towns and cities, because they were the majority in them (Tuzla, Sarajevo, East Mostar, Zenica, part of Brcko, etc.). I don't think, howver, that you had the right to elect Alija Izetbegovic and then break away from the federation, and then he would rule over all three peoples in Bosnia and represent them to the outside world. He never represented Serb or Croat interests and the only Muslim interests he represents are fundamentalist.

  The choice was yours. You could have remained in Yugoslavia and lived together with the Serbs, and the Bosnian Croats would not even dare (with only 17%) to break away. However, you did not choose to do this and a fiasco resulted. What you DID NOT have the right to do was to assert your mere 44% over the ~37% Serbs (many declared Yugoslavs were ethnically Serb, probably half of them or more), and 17% Croats, bully other nations in Bosnia, and then present a Muslim fundamentalist (Alija) as President of all three peoples, who would act in the interests of all. That's absurd. And its criminal to bully people in that way. That is why war resulted.

  Next points. Bosniak is a new political fabrication designed to make a nation out of a religious group. It is totally illegitimate and to be rejected. If Muslims want political rights of independent ethnic groups, lets be direct and call them Muslims, which is what they are. Furthermore, calling yourselves Bosnians is really something that requires arrogance and gall. You are, in fact, usurping the regional identity of the other two Bosnian peoples. Bosnian is merely a regional term, not an ethnic one, and if Muslims are the only Bosnians and the only people who care about "their" country, then the implication is that the Serbs and Croats are invaders and that their political rights are less than those of the Muslims. I won't go into historical analyses, but this is particularly galling if you take into account the fact that, not only are the Muslims not an ethnic group in Bosnia, they are also the most recent religious group in Bosnia and their existence there is to be dated some 1000 years after that of the pagan (and a few centuries later), Orthodox and Catholic Serbs and Croats.

  And finally, there you go again, spewing your "enlarged Serbian state" etc. I repeat, there is no difference between Bosnian and Serbian Serbs. Their separation is a consequence of the geographic boundary, the Drina, and also of the political division (very recent, mind you), between the newly independent Serbia and Austro-Hungarian annexation of a province with no Austrians (or Hungarians) living there. Bosnia is a regional term, not a people term. There never was a unitary state, and even the small statelets that did exist were ruled by kings who made clear their Serb or Croat identity, such as Kulin Ban and Tvrtko Kotromanjic. Never was there a Bosnian ethnic group, nor will there ever be.

  Well, that's about it....I hope you understand my viewpoints Srdjan.
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 1:39 pm
  Regarding Delabros, I think the whole thing was scandalous. He is calling anything where Serbs are reported as victims "propaganda." I guess the prosecution must have told him that the crimes against Serbs were so "miniscule", "isolated", and "incidential" rather than systematic, that his platform is that reportage on ANY crimes against Serbs constitute railery and attacks on Croats, Muslims, and Albanians as entire peoples.

  Nevermind the fact that prestigious newspapers such The Times made broad statements about "the Serbs" rather than "the Serbian army/JNA/BSA, etc." and that the Western media also showed photos of Trnopolje and Belsen side by side.

  But I guess that according to the witness, such propaganda is "acceptable", whereas crimes against Serbs are "unacceptable propaganda."

  Disgusting!
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 1:41 pm
  I would like to distance myself from the views of the above people. I understood their viewpoint very well although they try now to go back.

  As far as I can see these outrageous statements about Bosnians do not represent Serbian view as whole. Do not listen Srdjan to this as representative of Serbs, although I understand you know Serbs much better than they do.

  But it is disapointing the way people here are attacked by nationalists of one kind or another. In last few months here good contributos like Jari, Aranjdjel, Kathryn and Milan left because of these kinds of people? I would ask for these people to come back because we dont want to hear about some Serbian cetnik nationalist view. We want to hear about trial and holes in the trial. It is also disapointment for me that more people have not put distance as Andy rightly does above.

  Why dont the racists leave us in peace?
  
  Sasa Kapor
  yug

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 1:53 pm
  PM what people like Srdjan were supposed to live in Yugoslavia when you dont even recognise him as Bosnian. No wonder he didnt want to live with you.

  It is really amazing to hear the theory about Bosnians also. PM obviously does not know that Serbs call Bosnians Bosnians never mind if they are Croats, Serbs or Muslums. If those who call themsefs Bosnians are arrogant then you count all of us Serbs and Croats who also call them Bosnians arrogant also. PM you really have some stupid believs and should stop to make insults of all former Yugoslavs for your own chauvanistic ideas.

  PM you are the arrogant one telling people what they are and who they can be. Who the hell you think you are anyway? God?

  Yugoslavia died before Bosnia left it. Why do people have such trouble being honest about that point?
  
  Sasa Kapor
  yug

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 2:04 pm
  You are mistaken Gapor:

  I did not say Bosnian was not a legitimate geographical term. It is. And, of course, Serbians and Croatians call the people of Bosnia, Bosnian, regardless of ethnicity.

  However, a region does not a nation make, and thus, for the Muslims to call themselves Bosnians, and to present the interests of Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats as nationalist (whereas the Muslims (=Bosnians) are only for a multiethnic peaceful harmony!), is wrong. The Bosnians are not Muslim, they belong to any of two peoples and three religions. Was it OK for Bosnia to break away if only two of the three religious groups (Muslims and Catholics) wanted to break away? Mind you, the remaining people we are talking about (the Serbs), were not a paltry 3 or 4%. They were actually between 30 and 40% (unclear due to census mistakes), and owned more than half of the land of Bosnia (for historical reasons). So was it OK to force a sessesion of Bosnia against their will?
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 2:46 pm
  Sasa,

  You don't really understand what you are reading here, do you? Try to read more carefully and analytically. You're completely off base in calling SERBS racists -- P.M. hasn't made one racist remark.

  P.M.

  It also irks me that the term "Kosovar" is allocated to Kosovo Albanians whereas the long-standing Serbian population that has been now forced out of its Kosovo homeland is just called Serbs. It's an outrageous arrogance and usurping of geographical identity.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 3:01 pm
  I sent the following letter to the editor of New York Times this morning:

  Sir,

  In your editorial of: May 20, 2003 you stated: Diplomatic Bonfires

  "This is not what the White House wanted as President Bush starts pointing toward next year's election campaign. Iraq is in a state of near anarchy. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is escalating again, and Islamic terrorists are on the attack in the Middle East."

  To this list I would add the mess Clinton created in the Balkan: Kosovo, Bosnia and a ruined country of Serbia.

  Not to be forgotten are other “do-gooders” of America:Afgaanistan Somalia, Haiti and few others.

  Do not make this only one president’s fault. It is endemic to American foreign policy of late.

  D. Jovanovic

  Senior Physicist, Emeritus, Fermilab

  Visiting professor UIUC, retired
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 3:08 pm
  Well done, Mr. Jovanovic. We need more like you.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 3:36 pm
  Dear Sasa Kapor! This is a forum.

  I have given up reading some of the posts, signed by known names, in their entirity

  Most of them are beautiful souls, and I cannot help loving them although I am full of the shit they are trying to communicate to us (I learned of it in the media!)

  What makes me real sick is people who believe they are in possession of the truth. And you seem to be the one. Otherwise I cannot explain your speaking about "stupid believs". And I do not mind if you label the following as one too: I believe you and Srdjan are here with a purpose.

  I have to end this post by your sentence, but modified:

  "Why dont the racists and professionals leave us in peace?"
  
  Ozna Sve
  Dozna

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 3:57 pm
  Anna:

  All people are susceptible to racism. But to portray the Serbs as some sort of people which historically engaged in fascism is very wrong.

  Regarding Kosovo, it irks me even worse when they called them the Kosovars and us they call "the Serbs." And then they say that Serbia INVADED Kosovo.
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 4:00 pm
  Perhaps I should make an analogy to the Bosnian situation. It is a poor one, but I will try:

  Imagine a scenario in which, in the 1960s, the Germans of southern Germany said that they were Catholics. Then in 1991, they said that they were Suddeutsch, whereas the Protestants were Germans. Then they declared independence of Bavaria, and said that the Germans were waging a genocidal war against the Catholics. Once they one independence (with foreign help), they decided to call themselves the Bavarian ethnic group.

  That is a little bit like what happened in Bosnia.
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 6:06 pm
  By the way, Srdjan, I would appreciate it if you did not slander me with your unfounded and absurd accusations that I backed this imaginary idea of a Greater Serbia. Not only did I never back it, I do not back it and neither does anyone I have ever met. As a matter of fact, I think the idea of a so-called Greater Serbia comes from people like you, not the Serbs themselves. It's another propaganda ploy in the ever-ongoing demonization ploy.

  For your information, I was born in Yugoslavia and considered myself a Yugoslav, always. It was Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia that declared me to be a Serb instead.

  When you call yourself part Serb, part Muslim, you're saying nothing that makes sense. The Muslims in Bosnia were Serbs who converted to Islam under duress, unless possibly you had some Croatian heritage. What is this "part Muslim" nonsense?

  I understood you to say that you had moved into Serbia (forced, as I understand it, by the circumstances of war). Isn't it nice, no matter how much you appear to be disgusted by the Serbian people, that you were able to go there, no problem.

  
  
  Anna P
  California

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 7:17 pm
  

  Second Bosnian Serb pleads guilty over Srebrenica massacre
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 7:18 pm
  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 7:21 pm
  

  Milosevic trial may run to 2005 after prosecutors win more time

  Read this stuff, it is incredible!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 7:24 pm
  

  "Presiding judge Richard May said the court had to "strike a balance" between allowing the prosecution enough time and ensuring an expeditious trial."

  This must a principle of very common English Law , certainly not Roman Law!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Tuesday May 20, 2003 at 7:26 pm
  

  But May said the judges would not allow any more extra time for prosecutors because their case would become "excessively long and oppressive to all concerned, in particular the accused."

  Really Mr. May (NATO)? I heard you saying that last year!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 12:35 am
  The extension is a very calculated move by the court. There is money in the budget to be spent by the prosecutor. When the money are gone the prosecutor will wrap up the case,and judje May will tell Milosevic to hurry up with the defence . Is just a matter of jobs for the court employees. Nobody wants to go back to traffic court.
  
  Vasile Ianos
  NJ

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 3:09 am
  Srdjan Arnautovic writes “This question, how are you (we) supposed to deal with people who dont think you have a right to exist not just outside Yugoslavia but within it? Do you share the opinion of those who think that Bosnians dont exist or should be liquidated or converted? Do you agree with me that they and not the outside world are the primary cause of deep hatred among former Yugoslav's?”

  Srdjan, I am not sure what you are asking in the first question? Are you asking about persons from inside and outside of Yugoslavia who say Bosnia has no right to exist or that they say that you don’t have a right to exist inside and outside of Yugoslavia? Bosnia has every right to exist and so do you but so does your Serb and Croat neighbor. Your neighbors have every right to exist inside of Yugoslavia and outside of Yugoslavia if they so desire

  Srdjan, what you want for yourself you must grant that to your neighbor. That goes for the Croats and Serbs as well. The old adage individual rights override the collective good, a nineteenth century view, and dear to America and sold to you as democracy. Democracy can’t exist without compromise. It can’t exist, in America or Bosnia, with rigged elections and referendums. I believe in the collective good.

  Do Bosnians exist? Yes they do but so do Serbs and Croats. You are all Bosnians and no one should “liquidate’ or ‘convert’ any of you. You should live like good neighbors and not impose your views on others.

  If you are asking me should Bosnia exist as a Nation State, to that my answer is NO! It may be viable but it is not practical. You may say but look at Switzerland and Belgium they are viable. You are not Switzerland nor are you Belgium and Belgium did not fair well in the last century. You are like a sack of horns “rogovi u vreci” and if you saw no sense in your past you will see no sense in your future. I agree with what Mehmedbasic and Andric stood for, you may not but that is OK.

  You know full well that if Yugoslav wide referendum was held , prior to the war, on the future of Yugoslavia the mess you are in now would not exist. Those that had an agenda caused this war. Serbs did not have an agenda; they reacted to the agenda of others. We know very well the agenda of Isetbegovic, Tudjman and Kucan.

  Srdjan, who are they the primary cause of hate? Gogol, David, Anna, Peter or Mr Jovanovic? I would be proud to know each one of them and have them as friend. I attribute the main portion of blame to the Croatian community abroad and the leaders of international community (France, Britain, USA and particularly Germany). They wanted small controllable client states in the United Europe and they aided and abetted Croatian nationalism and Serbian demonization.

  Bosnia nation state in theory is OK in practice it is ridiculous. As Mr. May would say “The facts Mr. Milosevic speak for themselves” and when Milosevic examines the facts Mr. May shouts irrelevant. Look around you Srdjan, are you better off today than you were ten or so years ago? Do the facts speak for themselves? Is Bosnia (Muslims, Serbs and Croats) better off outside of Yugoslavia or are they both worse off? Do the facts speak for themselves or are they irrelevant?

  Sasa Kapor are you from Bileca? Cedo’s Relative? Met him once in my back yard. Great man! Just interested! Sasa, Yugoslavia did not die a natural death it committed suicide assisted by several Dr. Kevorkian’s.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 4:20 am
  I can see Milan Kucan, but I can't hear Milan Kucan. Is anybody else having problems getting the English audio?

  I can get the Serbian channel, I can get the French channel, I can get the Albanian channel but I can't get the damn English channel.

  The only courtroom I can't get the english from is courtroom 1. I can get the english audio from courtroom 2.

  Is it just me, can anybody else get the english audio or is the ICTY's shitty equipment breaking down again?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 4:25 am
  I'm getting it right now. Go to: http://domovina.xs4all.nl/eng/room1v.ram
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 6:01 am
  

  Why on earth is this May (NATO) allowing this Nice (NATO) using this Kucan (QUISLING) to judge the Serbian Nation?

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 6:08 am
  

  Srdjan Arnautovic and Sasa Kapor

  What a lot of illogical baloney you two guys are spilling! Consider the following:

  The Muslims in Bosnia wanted to leave the larger multi ethnic state of YU. That's fair enough in principle and is now a historical fact. But they insisted on dragging with them the Serbian population of Bosnia in recreating a so called MINI YUGOSLAVIA in Bosnia because they couldn't survive alone. Now, we have a situation where YUGOSLAVIA couldn't exist, but a mini replica is being FORCED to exist! The Serbs AND Croats in Bosnia do not want to be a part of that mini state.

  Question is who is denying the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia the SAME RIGHT TO SECEDE from the current Bosnian State on the same basis that the Muslims and Croats were apparently entitled to secede from the larger YU?

  No one is denying the Muslims the right to their own state but it seems to me that it is somewhat unreasonable for them to insist that the Serbs and Croats MUST be captive in it because the Muslims cannot survive in such a state by themselves. And all in the name of their so called desire to live in a multi ethnic state! As if Izetbegovic's funadmentalist sympathies were inclined to equal rights for non Muslims. Let us not forget that the majority of the Muslims (ethnically Croats and Serbs) became Muslims because the Muslim occupiers of Bosnia, namely the Ottomans had a low tolerance level for them as Catholics or Orthodox citizens.

  Apart from that, no one is asking you or forcing you to participate in a discussion if you don't much care to because it's not running to your agenda. No one has been uncivilised to you so get some cogent arguments if you really feel you have a point to make. You might take a note of Walter Trkla's post above as an example before you shoot off with your overly sensitive sentiments.

  Furthermore, you might remember that some of us participants here are not necessarily Serb nationalists or Cetnik sympathisers, NOR Muslim haters for that matter!
  
  David
  Australia

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 6:23 am
  Walter Trkla

  Just a minor correction! YU was not killed by Dr Kevorkian types. Dr Kevorkians are much more humane than the killers of YU. Dr Kevorkians don't kill people for their own self interests and ambitions. If the killers of YU were so humanitarian in their intentions in killing YU, they would have killed it's carbon copy mini state... Bosnia... as well, and for much the same reasons they killed YU... Unsustainability because of foreign interference!
  
  David
  Australia

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 7:32 am
  Am I seeing things or what?

  In the above post PM supports the creation of a greater Croatia and greater Serbia at the expense of Bosnia. Anna cheers from the side.

  Then PM withdraws from this view, Anna claims never ever not only to have supported greater Serbia but never to have known anybody who did.

  Walter turns the question onto me as if I had questioned the right of Serbs, and Croats to exist when he knows I did not question that right. The right of Bosnians to exist was put in question but Walter failed to address that point. Walter I believe you are intelligent so when you start asking malicious questions placing names of forum participants its only to muddy the waters. As I see it Gogol has not even expressed an opinion on the subject as to whether Bosnians exist or not nor has Mr Jovanovic. You know very well Walter what the point is about. I ask you Walter do you agree that Bosnia should have been divided between Croatia and Serbia as Anna and PM believe?

  Do you believe that the statelet of Boban should have been able to rule Mostar?

  Anna you did back the annexation of Bosnia to Croatia and Serbia by cheering on PM's post. If you dont agree with that you should have said so. As for your comment about my background being nonsensical. What about yours? A cetnik that supports Yugoslavia. I dont belive that for a second, just as I would not believe an ustasa who said the same or even some follower of Alija.

  PM I appreciate your attempt at trying to justify you earlier post but the end result is the same. Somehow Bosnian Muslums are lesser people and as such dont count as much as the Serbs or Croats. Is that right?
  
  Srdjan Arnautovic
  Sarajevo

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 7:35 am
  
  Supercalifragilisticexpialidotious!

  Gogol: thanks for the quote from Judge May regarding his extension of the prosecution case so that the trial will now run for some four years: “… ensuring an expeditious trial”.

  According to my dictionary ‘Expeditious’ means: speedy, immediate, instant, prompt, swift, quick, rapid, fast, brisk, nimble, hasty …

  No four-year trial can be described as expeditious. Indeed, appeals apart, its very long duration is without precedent.

  Whether May’s judgement is based upon English Common Law I know not but ‘English’ it aint.

  Is this trial fair? Ha, ha, ha …. Excuse me while I die laughing.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 7:49 am
  Srdjan:

  Nations are usually defined by distinct languages, not religion. Many nations have several adherents of several religious faiths. The Germans are a case in point (Catholicism and Protestantism), the Ukrainians (Orthodox and Catholics), and many of the Arabs (Orthodox, Catholic, Suni and Shiite Muslim). However, they are still German, Ukrainian, or Arab. That remains their ethnicity.

  Religious groups do not define nations, or at least they shouldn't in the modern day and age, and thus the Muslims do not have a historic right to a country. If they massively desire political rights, then that's fine, but they don't have a right to usurp power over a region and rule other nations (which together form a majority).

  #1: "Bosnian" is a regional identification. It is not ethnic, nor should it have been political.

  #2: "Bosniak" is an ethnic identification attributed to the Bosnian Muslims, which were defined as an ethnic group, but are in fact a religious group. Their ethnicity is largley Serbian or Croatian.

  #3: The Muslims had a right to break away, but if they had this right, the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia had the same right. Of course, the whole secession was insane, since Bosnia was so ethnically mixed, but the Muslims took the decision to side with the Croats against the Serbs, and the Serbs simply could not tolerate living under the rule of a Muslims fundamentalist in Sarajevo. Consequently, they rose up, with the goal of remaining in Yugoslavia and the Croats expressed similar wishes with regard to Croatia.

  #4: Let me be clear on this Srdjan. The administrative borders within a federation are disputable structures. The AVNOJ borders were not created by the free will of all peoples, but was rather imposed by the Communists. This explains why Krajina was given to Croatia. Historically, Krajina formed a distinct region in Austria-Hungary, and the people who lived there, mostly Serbs, never considered themselves a part of any Croatian state. That was the state of the region for over 500 years. And then, only 50 years ago, the Communists decided that these people would have to become a part of Croatia.

  #5: Last point, related to AVNOJ and later border changes. It is interesting to note that the Communists created a Croatia that included Krajina and other majority-Serb regions not historically part of a Croatian state. It did not, however partition Bosnia along ethnic lines. Macedonia, called Southern Serbia before WWII, was declared a separate state (which I think was absolutely correct and just), but then, and here is the crucial point, ONLY SERBIA WAS DIVIDED INTO THREE REGIONS. The provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina were declared to be autonomous. Kosovo was roughly 50% Serb before WWII, only after the war did the Serbs abate. And Vojvodina has been 2/3 Serbian for a very long time. Why were these regions made into autonomous units, yet Krajina, much of which was 90% Serbian, was not? Is this just? Also note, that there were several times in which these two regions voted AGAINST Serbia (that is, Serbia minus Kosovo and Vojvodina).

  Can you think of any state tolerating two of its own provinces voting against the interests of the entire country? I can't, and I think it was right to reintigrate them as parts of Serbia.
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 8:25 am
  The Schedule A listing "Persons Known by Name Killed at Racak - 15 January 1999" and appended with the original Indictment of May 22, 1999, never seemed (to me) to support NATO's claim of a "massacre" (on villagers fleeing "in the early morning hours..."). As a member of the public (not yet prepared to die laughing) I'd say, that whatever happened at Racak most certainly did not happen as described in the ICTY's Indictment against mr. Milosevic and Others.

  Now, in her posting of May 20, 2003 at 12:27 am Vera Martinovic is suggesting, that "the comprehensive list of Racak victims is still not completed".

  While I am waiting for the answer of Srdjan may I confess, that I did not "know" that. Well, I've had my doubts about the Schedule A, - but how on earth could the court possibly accept the Prosecutions case concerning "Kosovo" if not even a list of alleged victims in Racak has been "completed"?

  In fact how could "we" possibly even attempt to try mr. Milosevic and others without "final and verifiable" information on the alleged victims in what is by way of its implications the key incidence in the entire "case"?

  How can the ICTY conduct any trial without proper (police)investigation?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 11:05 am
  Srdjan if you make your point clear, without using platitudes and name calling, I will address it. You have obviously divided the posters into cetniks and others, intelligent and stupid , but what is most unacceptable to me you have divided us by ethnicity. The names I mention are not to muddy the water, you do that very well by innuendo without answering my questions. What malicious question did I ask? Malice is defined as spite, hate, cruel mean.. What question did I ask that fits any of these adjectives?

  BOSNIA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIVIDED BETWEEN SERBS, CROATS AND MUSLIMS but since you obviously support the Nation State of Bosnia you DID NOT support the Nation State of Yugoslavia while I did and still do.

  Since I support the Nation State of Yugoslavia, I CAN’T SUPPORT THE NATION STATE OF BOSNIA as a separate entity. As David said “Now, we have a situation where YUGOSLAVIA couldn't exist, but a mini replica is being FORCED to exist!”

  I find it difficult to understand how any person can advocate a state of Bosnia but support the breakup of Yugoslavia? How can you Srdjan want to live outside of Yugoslavia in a multi ethnic Bosnia but deny your neighbor the choice of living where he wants to live? You advocate that Bosnians should “enter into definite and necessary relations which are independent of their will”. For you that is Bosnia for me that is Yugoslavia.

  David I like Dr Kevorkian. People should have personal choice on issues of life and death. Those who believe in an independent Bosnia do not believe in choice. A paradox I think?
  
  Walter Trkla
  kamloops BC
  Canada

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 12:38 pm
  
  Srdjan: In answer to your question:

  The second point you raise Peter is valid. In addition to the question of timing it is worth more investigation. However, it is my understanding that identity cards of Albanians from Kosovo have been found on some bodies in Serbia. How is that explained?

  First let me say that I was not surprised that you missed ‘Part 2’of Gil-White’s article. I too might have done so. Having read Part 1 I was anxious to read the sequel which never seemed to appear. Eventually it did so, I found by accident long after the promise, on another site.

  My information is similar to yours. In particular among some Albanian bodies found in Serbia were with documents, one in KLA uniform. There are many possible explanations and not all of them involve war crimes by the Serbian security forces. They may have been murdered but equally for example, as prisoners in transit, they may have been the victims of Nato bombs? I could guess at many more possibilities but the likes of you and I - who have been lied to time and time again by the KLA/Nato alliance and now the current Serbian authorities - will never know the truth. Allow me to demonstrate just one of these relevant lies by the current Serbian authorities.

  In this article dated February this year Nebojsa Covic, Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia, Kosovo claims that 936 Kosovo Albanians have been recovered from three mass graves in Serbia.

  In contrast this April 2003 report by UNMIK claims:

  A total of 4,300 people have been reported missing since 1999, most of them ethnic Albanians, said chief of the UNMIK department for missing persons, Jose Pablo Baraibar.

  The article also claims that 4,000 bodies have been exhumed in Kosovo.

  According to these authorities we have ‘a total of 4,300 missing persons’, 4,000 exhumed bodies which leaves 300 bodies to be located. Spot the problem?

  On the basis of these figures of Covic’s 936 Kosovar victims in Serbian mass graves 636 are surplus to requirements! Missing: 4,300, bodies. Found 4,000 in Kosovo plus 936 in Serbia: Total: 4,936 minus those missing 4,300 equals 636. A macabre description of the situation might be ‘overkill’.

  There are other figures published which do not agree with these. I find it hard to establish the facts. But one fact is certain: the KLA/Nato alliance killed more people than the Serbs since the commencement of the bombardment of Serbia. Why then are there no indictments of their leaders by the ICTY? Is this trial fair: the answer is self-evident!

  In the name of humanity and justice: After four years of Nato’s control is it too much to ask that a comprehensive list of all the missing people be established and the DNA identification of bodies found rapidly achieved.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 12:45 pm
  
  Statement by Nebojsa Covic, Deputy Prime Minister of Kosovo - missing above.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 1:30 pm
  Srdjan,

  Do you always categorize people this way? Is that how you grew up? I did not.

  For your information, I am not a Cetnik. I had an uncle who worked for Mihajlovic, and, yes, I am proud of him. Had I been there at that time I would have supported the Cetniks -- who would you have wanted me to support, instead -- the Fascists or the Communists? No, thanks.

  There is no call for Cetniks now. There ARE NO Cetniks now. That issue you keep bringing up is just more evidence of your own prejudices. I have mentioned Cetniks out of historical interest. They were very valuable and appropriate in their time. I see no Cetniks today and you have an utter gall to call label me as anything. All I see in you so far is hatred against Serbs, but although you are entitled to hate us if you wish, you have yet to justify that hatred.

  For your further information, I harbor no hatred for any other ethnic group -- yes, for some of their evil leaders, but I was born in YUGOSLAVIA, not Serbia, and that makes all the citizens of the former Yugoslavia my countrymen.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 1:47 pm
  
  Counterbalance

  How much longer will Americans (and Brits) permit our rulers (Me-too Tony) to create foreign enemies -- and then passively swallow the lies our rulers tell us to manipulate us into useless, senseless, destructive foreign wars?

  
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 3:58 pm
  
  Expert Witness: ICTY style

  In the Journal expose, Pearl and co-author Robert Block described the propaganda efforts of KLA functionary Halit Barani, "a former actor with a Karl Marx beard who summarizes Serb war crimes by showing a photo of a baby with a smashed skull. [He] spent the war moving from village to village with his manual typewriter, calling in reports to foreign radio services and diplomats with his daily allotment of three minutes on a KLA satellite phone."

  Barani’s fertile mind and antique typewriter were the primary source for many of the lurid atrocity accounts cited by official sources during NATO’s assault on Yugoslavia. When Pearl and Block asked about the reliability of his stories, Barani replied: "I told everybody it was supposition, it was not confirmed information.... For the Serbs, anything is possible." Significantly, Barani has been tapped to serve as an "expert" witness for the prosecution in the UN’s war crimes trial of former Serbian ruler Slobodan Milosevic.

  And this is a fair trial?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday May 21, 2003 at 10:31 pm
  Milan Kucan, former President of Slovenia, made a huge mistake by testifying at the ICTY at all. The only excuse for him would be that he had been actually summoned, therefore unable to refuse. But, if he did volunteer, it was a wrong thing to do, because he contributed nothing to the Prosecution's case and only brought into the limelight the 10-day 'war' in SLO. Equally questionable were the motives of the Prosecution to have Kucan as a witness: gaining nothing from him and addressing by his testimony the time-span and the topic never covered by any of the ICTY indictments. Be as it may, Kucan spoke today, contributed nothing and instead enabled Milosevic to shed light onto this dirty little war with its financial and political motives and incentives and its own war crimes, the role of SLO in breaking up of YU, aiding and abetting of other separatisms, busting the UN arms embargo etc. etc. Kucan also managed to tarnish his own personal image of a well-spoken, well-informed politician.

  He proved insufficient the dedicated work done by the whole team of advisors and lawyers, as well as top members of the Slovenian military, who all frantically prepared their ex-President for The Hague in the last couple of days, as our media reported having as the source the Slovenian media. They also reported that the Government held a special meeting re this testimony, that Kucan asked for the confirmation from the Defence Minister on the 'chivalrous behaviour' of the Slovenian TO [Territorial Defence] during the war, and that his advisers actually rehearsed all kinds of possible questions with him. But the result was that the not-so-well-spoken Balkan ruffian Milosevic was wittier and far better informed. All that Kucan managed was to exude at all times the exaggerated vocabulary of 'democratic community of peoples', 'democratisation of life', 'European solutions' and 'different concepts'. It was just as a Slovenian journalist in front of the Tribunal building said when she was briefly interviewed by the TV B92 correspondent this morning before the trial transmission began: 'He's well prepared, he'll explain why Slovenia went its own way, he's a good speaker, very intelligent; if he comes across gentlemanly [gospodski], he'll show that Slovenia has nothing to hide; but, all depends on what kind of questions will Milosevic ask…' Well, Kucan did behave like a gentleman, but an ill-informed, at times a confused gentleman, surely regretting now that he was involved in this at all. And Milosevic asked the expected unpleasant and to-the-point questions, but more significantly, he had all the possible info and even documents available, unlike Kucan, who at times made few serious blunders.

  Nice tried to squeeze Kucan for the background of the YU breakdown and the sinister role that Milosevic played in it, but all he managed to get were bits and pieces of 2 of Milosevic's speeches that he made Kucan to comment, totally out of context and not even the whole sentences, but parts of sentences and even individual words that were highlighted with a marker on the overhead projector. The case in point was the 'non-institutional means', which Kucan interpreted as the 'non-constitutional means for changing things in YU', while it was obvious from the context that it simply meant that the institutions in Kosovo in 1989 were not responding to the problems, so the Serbs had to protest peacefully in the streets against the abuses of the local Albanian government, outside the institutions, forcing thus the institutions to act, which is the legitimate right of any citizen. It was even slightly embarrassing for Kucan to be thus publicly instructed by Milosevic in his cross-examination about the meaning of the words 'institutional' and 'constitutional'.

  Would you believe that Nice even pulled out that unfortunate Kosovo Polje speech again, wanting Kucan to 'make a connection', so Kucan joined the club of those who vaguely misquoted and took out of context from that overly-misused speech. Even May was sick of that threadbare 'trump card', so he quite rudely interrupted Kucan, saying that the Chamber has already heard enough on that speech from others. Kucan got a bit offended, saying: 'Let me finish my thought' and proceeded with his broad misquote: 'It was said that the Serb people is not yet in armed battles, but that this could not be excluded and that the changes will be made by any means.' (?!) That was NOT said anywhere in this famous speech. BTW, Kucan 'explained' that the speech was given at the 500th anniversary of the Kosovo Polje Battle, missing it only for a 100 years (the battle happened in 1389, the speech in 1989). Milosevic, of course, took the opportunity to quote whole paragraphs from both speeches later on, demonstrating that the free interpretations and impressions simply don't stand.

  The other tackle by Nice was to urge Kucan to give his opinions and interpretations on the 'real' meaning of certain events. So, many of his answers boiled to 'it actually means', 'Serbia actually opted for', 'nobody believed that', 'this is how we understood that'. Again, such interpretations were either exaggerated or totally opposite to the true meaning. At times, he even went wild in his assumptions, like when he read the intentions of 'the Serbs', who refused the Slovenian 'concept of dissolution' of YU. 'This is how I understood it', Kucan bravely plunged in: Since the Serbs thought the internal borders of the republics to be merely administrative, they 'implied that the borders could be altered by force'. Quite a broad implication. Nobody said that, nor written that anywhere, yet Kucan knows that they actually meant that. Could it be that they meant the administrative borders should be simply renegotiated? No, those barbarians are incapable of such a gentlemanly concept, so the gentleman assumed they actually implied violence. Still, I don't understand how assumptions can constitute a testimony.

  Nice then resorted to his favourite illustration for practically everything - the BBC documentary 'The Death of Yugoslavia', this time showing that notorious 14th Congress of the League of Communists of Jan. 1990, when the Slovenian delegation demonstratively left the meeting after 'almost all' their amendments were rejected 'because we had been outvoted'. Kucan explained that was done deliberately to oust them, and 'the Accused was the first or among those who first lifted his voting card, and the others followed'. Well, Kucan is aware that he's talking to the Westerners here, who know zilch on how the Communist Party apparatus function and could easily swallow such an explanation. But, Kucan is the old Communist cadre, so he should know better. In brief: at the full meeting, so-called plenum, where all the Congress delegates are present (3-4,000 of them), nothing is ever decided and nothing ever happens that is not already prepared and agreed upon. So, if the Slovenian delegation started out of the blue to put to vote outrageous proposals, which were a surprise to everybody, not discussed and agreed upon previously in the inner Party circles, this could only mean that SLO deliberately organized such a coup de theatre to force the unprepared delegates to vote against such proposals and thus form a pretext for their leaving the meeting, this signifying the beginning of the end of YU. Instead of such a perfectly logical explanation, consistent with the functioning of the Party mechanism, Kucan concocted a Westerner-friendly accusation against the Serbian leaders, who allegedly deliberately voted against the Slovenian proposals just to force them out of the Party and out of Yugoslavia. But, how could they possibly vote for such proposals? One of the proposals was 'to make the connections among the Federal units different', as Kucan vaguely put it, in other words - confederation. The other proposal was 'to introduce the political pluralism', or the multiparty system. And all those 'tiny' changes were proposed in the form of innocent little amendments to the Party Congress conclusions, at the plenum, without being previously agreed upon at the top, as is the Party practice. And what's more, as if the Slovenes needed to be forced to leave Yugoslavia! This was their intention and their plan, and they were cunning enough and supported enough to perform it. What's best, this way they could blame others for what they wanted to do in the first place. So, Nice dwelled on that Party Congress footage with relish, Kucan explained and interpreted, BBC voice-over boomed - a real testimony.

  The remaining 'issues' that Nice raised were even more feeble or else already chewed up by others. There were the amendments to the Serbian Constitution, allegedly depraving Kosovo and Vojvodina of their autonomy (Milosevic quoted the Constitution, proving that the autonomy in fact was not revoked, and Kucan had to admit that).

  Then, there was the grudge of SLO that the Slovenian language was not 'used within the Army', as was allegedly promised them at the end of WW2. When cross-examined, Kucan had to admit that it was logical the Army would need one command language and it was OK for them, but what they actually wanted was the Slovenian to be used in the Army somehow. I failed to understand the well-spoken gentleman, I have to admit. What other usage of language is there in any Army, if its not to issue commands? You can speak while on your R&R whichever language you prefer, but when an officer speaks, one language has to be accepted for everyone. Or, should they perhaps hire translators?

  Then, Nice quoted profusely from the book-journal by the former President of the YU Presidency, Borislav Jovic, asking Kucan to comment certain highlighted passages. Again, the relevance and the veracity were dubious, which even Kucan himself confirmed, saying that the description of one meeting where both Jovic and Kucan were present was 'pretty accurate', but 'for the rest, I cannot confirm it'. Nevertheless, Nice continued to quote from the journal, skimming that way through the tumultuous events in 1990 of taking away the armaments from the TO in all republics by the JNA, steps towards the secession of SLO, their elections, referendum for independence, 6-month suspension of its implementation, negotiations between Presidents of all republics, where SLO kept 'seriously' proposing confederative status (after they already opted and voted for independence!).

  The only piece of real testimony from Kucan was when he spoke of his walk with Milosevic in the lull of one of these futile travelling-circus meetings. According to Kucan, Milosevic told him that if SLO wants to leave the Federation, Serbia could not and would not prevent that, but there are some preconditions to be agreed before that. CRO is a bigger problem, there everything is an open issue, even the borders.

  Then, Nice skimmed further on through the declared independence of SLO in June 1991 and said: 'We know that a short clash occurred', whereupon Kucan corrected him: 'The aggression occurred, done by the JNA.' He literally applied only 2-3 short sentences speaking of that 'aggression', stating that it happened 'right after the celebration, at 2 or 3 a.m.', that the 'units came out of barracks and headed towards the state border'. He offered a choice of descriptive nouns: 'That clash, aggression, war was ended on 7 July by the talks on the Brioni Islands, with the participation of the Ministerial EU troika, led by Van Den Bruck, who intervened in a certain way in that period between 27 June and 7 July.' So much about the 'war'. Eloquent and full of detail. Nice glided on through the final retreating of the JNA from SLO by 26 October.

  The only remaining issue until the end of the examination-in-chief was the book by the former JNA Chief of Staff, General Veljko Kadijevic, again amply but selectively (mis)quoted. Kucan appeared confused, asked Nice 'What do you mean by that?.. Yes, I've read it…but which part of it do you have in mind?' Nice was really desperate, trying to make Kucan confirm that Kadijevic meant to divide YU along the infamous line Karlobag-Virovitica, the alleged quotation dragged along before with other witnesses and which was simply a misquote, because the General wrote in this particular paragraph about the lines of retreat for the JNA, after it was attacked in CRO and it had been decided to pull it out. Kucan clumsily confirmed that 'this coincides with the borders of the diminished YU, without SLO and CRO' and that 'we had such statements even before'. By whom? When? Which statements? A precise testimony, indeed. And that was all the evidence Kucan gave, believe it or not. But, then came the cross-examination and a lot more was said. [to be continued]
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia