MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 12:36 am
  

  Today’s session: “Bla bla bla”

  That is how one could describe the testimony of our ‘propaganda’ expert.

  The witness that showed up at the last few session could be described as a child who came to testify to add some more non-sense and confusion to this already horrendously flawed ‘trial’ of the century.

  This so called trial turned even further from the truth when the ‘accused’ presented and quoted a document from the prosecution in which a former advisor of Margaret Thatcher said in 1994 that Germany wants to break up Yugoslavia and then do the same in Kosmet-Kosovo and Metohija. Milosevic asked the witness if he considered that also Serb propaganda. Immediately after the question had been posed, the all-knowing Mister May jumped in to ensure that the witness does not answer since he does not have the document. Milosevic then suggested that the prosecution provide the English version of the document. The issue was then left alone until after the break.

  May was in his glory, cutting off Milosevic on numerous occasions. The ‘accused’ went on to quote from international papers like the New York Times, the German Die Zeit, Herald Tribune and Die Welt Woche.

  “Can you comment on this?” Milosevic then quoted a passage from a book in which the pre-word had a perfect summary on the demonization of Serbs, a passage that can also be found in Michael Parenti’s book Yugoslavia: To Kill a Nation (great book to read).

  It was a very confusing session, as it was very clear that our French propaganda expert was only able to waste more time. Milosevic then went on to put an overhead of the report, saying that it even states in the report that it was an ‘order that the prosecution had put in place’. The witness was able to explain that he-De la Brosee-gave the report the title!

  “You call it a project of all the Serbs in one state, what project are you talking about Mr. Brosse? Who made it, when was it made? Why did you put it as the main issue of the report? ”

  “This title explains the articles that were in the media; the spreading of fear. The plan was to make the Serbian people believe that they were being attacked/surrounded from all sides. It can be said that behind this systemization was a plan to instill fear and that was my conclusion that I came to through those articles.”

  “Very well, do you know, that all the Serbs except the Diaspora lived in one country?”

  “Yes”

  “It was in the interest of all to stay together.”

  “I believe that was the interest of Serbia.”

  And then came the slap from Milosevic, “What are you talking about when you say that Serbs wanted a country in which they all live in, we had Yugoslavia!”

  The ill-informed witness did not even attempt to answer the question. The answer was so irrelevant, but May, like many things said that it was relevant and that he had answered it, but clearly had not. The poor expert seemed to be in the wrong place, at least his facial expression was odd at times, suggesting that he was not really an expert, but rather a student that had become and expert on the Balkans over night. It certainly did not pay off, as his whole testimony was simply put “non-sense”.

  May had several fits and was throwing several tantrums, then again trial observers are already used to that. To be continued….
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 3:52 am
  I came across this website by an accident. What I have read for the first few minutes is beyond my comprehension. But, then again nothing should come as a shock from a Serbian nationalist. I don't intend to get into a debate with people of 'educational' backgrounds such as those of PM and co. However, I would like to inform those individuals that there is such a thing as history books, or evidence of 1000 years long existence of Bosnian people, Bosnian language and Bosnis itself. It is certainly recommended that PM and co do some research before they decide to express they Serbian 'superiority' and nationalism over a nation that wants and never will want to have anything to do with them. By the way, it is appauling to discover that each of you Serbian fascists are citizens of other countries for which you seem to feel no patriotism or belonging. Countires like US and others accept you and you return their generosity with by promoting the very core that each of these civlised nations is fighting against. Have a good day, 'gentlemen' and may God help the country you live in and the country you want to 'save'. M. Geir
  
  M Geir
  US

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 3:58 am
  
  
  HTML Correction
  Hopefully

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 4:32 am
  Bosnian language?

  Hah, need I say more. It is clear, M. Geir, that you are an ignoramus. Consult linguists to get down the basics before you delve into history and parrot media inventions.
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 9:14 am
  M. Geir, is it Bosnian or Herzegovinian language?
  
  Era Hercegovac
  Hercegovina

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 10:41 am
  M Geir, the country that you live in practices, “God helps those who help themselves” and than invoke”We are doing this in the name of God”. The American Messianic mission to civilize and democratize the world by the use of the new Sturmabteilung is evident for anyone to see and you sir like a good little “American” salute. You have been informed by the likes of CNN as its oratorical gifts promote the myth of American democracy. By invoking nationalism through parades, marches and God Save America, many of your community Der Volkische Beobachters sell into the consciousness of the American people the myth and outrage that you write about others who dare to question. Maybe you should read a lot more history rather than the annotated version presented by the “Howdy Doodys” on CNN. George W, however, does not click his heels as well and the salute is a bit limp.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 11:45 am
  I suggest that the recent decision on extending the time available for the Prosecution in the so-called trial against mr. Milosevic need to be countered. Uncertain as to how that should be done to have any effect at all, I´d be grateful for your comments to the form and contents of the below draft proposal for a "letter of protest" (which in the interest of brevity is referring to the principles of trial conduct previously outlined by the Trial Chamber, ref. Ian Davis´ posting of May 13, 2003 at 8:52 am and subsequent postings concerning the "trial schedule").

  While I make no apologies for my English language, I would welcome any suggestions for improvements in this respect as well.

  Actually I wonder whether it were feasible that (all) JURIST discussion participants join in some common action of protest?

  Now read on:

  (draft letter begins)

  ICTY, att. Presiding Judge Richard May

  P.O. BOX 13888

  2501 EW The Hague

  N E T H E R L A N D S

  Dear Sir!

  Re.: Unfair Extension of the Trial against Slobodan Milosevic.

  While sharing the Trial Chambers concern for ensuring that the trial is fair and expeditious and is conducted with due regard to the rights of the accused, I - as a member of the public - hereby protest the recent decision to give the Prosecutors 100 extra days to make their case against the former President of the F.R. of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic. Such an extension would probably delay a verdict until well into 2005, and appears to entirely destroy the Trial Chambers previous attempts to balance fairness to both sides.

  In fact it now would seem impossible to seriously believe, that mr. Milosevic will be getting a fair trial.

  With reference to the views of the Trial Chamber expressed at the session held on 10 April 2002, as reflected in the trial transcripts (pages 2782-84) I would entirely agree that no Prosecution case should continue for a period longer than was already the case on 10 April 2003.

  I wish to draw your attention to the fact that similar views are being held by many people, as can be seen for instance in postings to the JURIST Trial Discussion at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milosevic.htm.

  Yours faithfully

  (signed)

  (Name and adress)

  (draft letter ends)
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 12:13 pm
  
  Speaking with forked tongues

  While Cluster Bomber Blair and his New Labour cronies’ crow about their civilising influence on Serbia’s province of Kosovo - wrought by tearing the life and limbs from Serbian civilians with an illegal and cowardly bombardment from 15,000 feet - the facts reveal a different and far, far darker situation.

  Racism, threats, brutal assaults, robbery, abduction and murder are a common, almost daily, experience for Kosovo’s minority populations. Under Nato’s control this situation has been allowed to carry on for four year now - and how much longer?

  Apart from the recent bomb attack and the regular stoning of vehicles late last month an elderly Serb was lady beaten almost to death in order to drive her from her property. Yesterday a 90-year-old Serb man was also beaten within an inch of his life in another attempt to drive Serbs from their property. In a separate incident yesterday another Serb escaped with his life during an attempt to abduct him. Last week a Serb teacher was brutally murdered being riddled with bullets as he cycled to his home.

  Read the Source

  Unfortunately, this most recent attack on a 90 year-old man and the attempt to abduct another Serb took place in the aftermath of completely irresponsible statements by UNMIK and US KFOR representatives, who despite indisputable evidence that ethnically motivated crimes are occurring in this region, continue to hide the truth regarding the activities of Albanian extremists. If this attitude on the part of international representatives persists, it will be very difficult not to ask the question to what extent such statements amount to aiding and abetting crimes against the Serb people.

  When they leave the House of Commons New Labour members must walk about with paper bags over their heads: is there a more reasonable explanation for this huge gap between New Labour’s fanciful talk and the facts - remember ‘facts’: words which describe accurately the events they describe - in Kosovo?

  Is this trial fair? Was it not Milosevic’s duty to defend Kosovo against attacks by gangs of KLA terrorists? While New Labour members remain in denial the dreadful consequences of Nato’s intervention on behalf of the terrorists are plain for all - without paper bags over their heads - to see.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 12:17 pm
  M Geir,

  Only one who is an evident fool like you would make such an outlandish statement based on a "few minutes" of reading on this forum. You came here with an agenda, a prejudice, and a predisposition.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 1:31 pm
  Srdjan,regarding your ethnicity,maybe the closest one could be anti-serb....
  
  m. c.
  netherlands

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 2:24 pm
  April 5, 2001: http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m040501.html Was Ulemek Milosevic's or Djindjic's man? -Any ties between Ulemek and West?
  
  OZNA Dozna
  Sve

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 2:32 pm
  Would everybody please just give Srdjan a break.

  These attacks on him are entirely uncalled for. He favored YUGOSLAVIA, and he has repeated that numerous times. He also says that he OPPOSES Alija Izetbegovic.

  Would everybody please stop putting words into his mouth, and accusing him for the things that Izetbegovic did.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 2:43 pm
  Andy,

  Would you kindly make the same request to Srdjan -- to stop uncalled for accusations? Thanks.
  
  Anna P
  California

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 3:05 pm
  On another Forum a friend made a followeing statement:

  A (large) portion of Croatian society is living in a delusion in which Serbs are to be blamed for everything anything that has taken place in the Balkans. This is largely the result of fear and hatred of the Serbs. Serbs are too similar to the Croats for comfort, yet, in a typical syndrome in which the killer accuses the victim of the crime, the shadow of Jasenovac hangs over much of Croatian society, and, in an attempt to justify itself, instead of apologizing to the Serbs, it reinvents and negates history and attributes everything that was done to the Serbs, to the Serbs themselves.

  The most horrendous racism is exhibited when crimes against Serbs are exposed. This is not just a Croatian phenomonenon, but one embraced by many Western NGO's as well, such as Human Rights Watch. When such crimes are cited, it is somehow AGAIN the Serbs to be blamed, because "they started it all".

  I know the Croatians feel horrified by Jasenovac , I realize that. Any human being would. And Croats certainly are a human beings. The solution would be for Mesic to apologize to the Serbian people, to allow the Serbs to return to their 500-year old territories in Croatia, and to turn himself in to a court for the break up of Yugoslavia and subsequent war crimes. It does not lie in reinventing Jasenovac, minimizing the crime of genocide, and attributing it to the victims (the Serbs), who NEVER perpetrated it.
  
  D. Jovanovic
  USA

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 5:46 pm
  A important issue was brought forward by Kucan at the Hague a few days before and it is related to Yugoslavs and what nationalities believed by name Yugoslavia.

  What he said was for some Serbs Yugoslavia was a way for all Serbs to live in one state. This was their priority. For the non Serbs it was about a state based upon equality of nationalities. (He did miss out Croatian nationalists who doubted Yugoslavia from the begnining) but this is a fundamental issue and it would be interesting to know what people at the forum think of it, professional or amateur.

  Actually there is little wrong with either view. As we saw the problem came with the break up. Since Serbs felt that Yugoslavia was all about all Serbs living in one state the choice was laid to the rest. 'Slovenia go your own way there are not enough Serbs to be a problem but in the meantime lets make mock battle to satisfy the real Yugoslavs' - like myself. I supported the action against Slovenia foolishly believing that Yugoslavia would be maintained. Even when JNA soldiers died it was a price worth to pay because it could saved thousands of lives. Nobody really believes that JNA could not have wiped out the seperatists if they wanted to? The large majority of Bosnians took this view, although in this time none of us really thought the war would be brought to our doorstep. The Serb (and Croat) agenda / interest had won over the Yugoslav one. It is fantasy to think that Bosnians wanted Yugoslavia broken up. They had most to lose. Again ustase in Hercegovina were probably cheering Slovenians but they were small minority.

  Andy you know by now how bad this argument became. As far as I am concerned there are a lot of people who wear the badge of Yugoslavia whilst supporting the Serbian cause. Its not even dishonest, more like a pair of comfortable shoes that someone is used to. But to be Yugoslav is something else, or at least it used to be. Speaking personally I support Kucans theory about Yugoslavia if I interpret it correctly. Many Serbs had accepted both principles. When the conflict broke out however they sided with the Serb view above the Yugoslav one. Some of these people are calling themselves Yugoslav again. Perhaps historically speaking PM and others have a point about Bosnians really being Serbs or Croats (or Iranians, Bogomils, Vlachs, Turks etc etc etc) However those that changed sides from Yugoslavs to Serbs lost the right to call themselves Yugoslav now. They are Serbian. That is my honest view. All of us in former Yugoslavia have a great sense of betrayal. We Yugoslav / Bosnians felt this betrayal stuck between a declared enemy who outgunned us in a huge way and a so called friend that was busy sticking the knife in our backs. Today Yugoslavia does not exist so we are simply Bosnians, reigonal description or not. Even if I remain Yugoslav in the heart thats what call myself. Bosnjak means something else for me.

  PM Hertseg Bosna is a particularly emotional issue personally. Please dont tell me you really believe the Ustase should have been able to create a fascist style statelet in Bosnia. What about non Croats living in Mostar? Those poor ones had even worse time than Sarajevo.

  Mr Jovanovic. If you are suggesting that Mesic apologize for Jasenovac it could have positive effect. On the other hand a known holacaust denier in Tudjman should have apologized. Of course Serbs would probably be even more insulted if he did apologise since he would not mean it. However, the Catholic church could also apologize for their role. In fact religious leaders have done very little to help us come closer together. Quite the opposite. They could set an example by meeting and making joint statements. Very much agree that all refugees be allowed to return home. Although Sarajevo is little hopeless there are at least more Serbs coming back but Im not sure about the rest of Bosnia. The problem we have is that many people who have recently come to Sarajevo mostly non Serbs, have come from villages some of which saw really bad fighting. In total Sarajevo is not what it was but it is still most tolerant city in Bosnia.

  Mr Gier we have a Bosnian dialect or accent but no language. Most people call it Bosnian but Bosnians know it is Serbian / Croatian. I dont believe there are any fascists here but the way you end your post is shows you to be nationalist. You should be able to have better understanding than I do of some of Balkan nationalists around.

  Ana. Either you distance yourself from PM's earlier post or tell me what you believe to be a greater Serbia or greater Croatia. While you are doing that you should tell me why you think ustase rule over Bosnia would be a good thing. The first question is something other people might want to answer too. What is greater Serbia / Croatia? This question goes to heart of prosecution case against Milosevic.

  Walter for the moment I should take back the malicious comment. For now no access to computer but I will read replys soon.
  
  Srdjan Arnautovic
  Sarajevo

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 6:53 pm
  Srdjan: you are a true mensch! You seem a good soul, and I hope I have not come off as a fascist, as I am not.

  Regarding the Bosnian Serbs and Croats, my view is as follows. If Bosnian Serbs, Croats, and Muslims wanted to live together in Bosnia and to break away from Yugoslavia, that would be absolutely fine by me.

  That, however, is not what happened. Instead, you tried to use numbers to outvote an entire nation, the Serbian nation, which constituted more than 1/3 of Bosnia's people and owned more than 1/2 of the territory. It was a horrible crime to do that.

  As you know well, the Bosnia was part of the NDH in WWII, and the Bosnian Serbs (just like the Croatian Serbs), remember all too well of the Ustase-wreaked genocide against the Serbs and extensive Muslim collaboration.

  The Serbs always despised the Croats. However, that was not the case with the Muslims. The Muslims were always a bit peculiar, because the Serbs could not tell (when Yugoslavia was breaking up), whether the Muslims would swing to the Serbs or to the Croats. As it turns out, you sided with the Croats, who were already expelling Serbs out of Western Slavonia, Dalmatia, and other regions outside Krajina.

  That clinched the deal. We saw Sahovnice passing before our eyes, a renewed alliance between the revamped fascism of Croatia and the Muslims in Bosnia (as in WWII), and we feared the worst.

  You have to realize that Serbs, Croats, and Muslims are all people. I understand that Muslims probably had many legitimate and understandable fears. They are much smaller in number than Serbs and Croats, among other factors that could contribute to fear. But the Serbs also had their fears, of a repeat of WWII, for which we got no apologies, or even RECOGNITION. We were absolutely terrified. That explains the outbreak of hostilities.

  I will enumerate on Herceg Bosna later, when I have more time....
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Thursday May 22, 2003 at 7:58 pm
  PM Hertseg Bosna is a particularly emotional issue personally. Please dont tell me you really believe the Ustase should have been able to create a fascist style statelet in Bosnia.

  Please dont tell me you really believe the Ustase should have been able to create a fascist style statelet(Croatia) in Yugoslavia. Srdjan, do you see the problem here or better say the doublestandard?
  
  Aleks Stajic
  Germany

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 1:18 am
  Srdjan,

  What is wrong if Serbs saw Yugoslavia as a way for them all to live in the same state? Yugoslavia was also a way for all of the Croats to live in one state and for all of the Muslims to live in one state. Dosen't it benefit everybody to all live in the same state?

  I don't understand what you are saying when on the one hand you say that you agree with Kucan and on the otherhand you say that the JNA should have wiped-out the Slovenian separitists. Kucan was the leader of those separitists. Do you consider him to be right or was he wrong?

  As for Yugoslavia being a state of equals, do you consider that Serbia actually had an equal position within the SFRY? Would you consider the possibility that Kosovo and Vojovodina may have marginalized Serbia and put it in an unequal position in relation to the other republics?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 3:59 am
  [Part 2] When Milosevic started to cross-examine Kucan, the very first question brought the 'witness' to stumble, loose voice and stamina to directly and openly accuse the Accused according to the indictment. This was how the exchange went. M. mocked K., saying he used 3 different expressions, one after another, to describe what happened in Slovenia: 'clash, aggression, war. Had Serbia anything to do with that war in SLO?' Instead of promptly repeating the mantra of how Serbia, i.e. M., actually ruled the Army (as the Indictment would have it), K. got immediately confused, started to mumble, said that SLO 'was confronted with the JNA', and the other things 'will be decided by the Court, there are documents and books…My present conclusion…' And here K. completely stopped talking. M. prompted him: 'What is your present conclusion?' May stepped in nervously: 'Please, do not enter into quarrels. His conclusions are unimportant.' And this was the first sign of how things would go: M. aggressive and direct, K. timid and evasive. But, it got worse.

  M. read out 2 sentences from the minutes of the meeting in the Federal Government Building in August 1991, after the 10-day war: K. talking to the Federal Prime Minister, arrogantly and triumphantly, refusing to discuss the possibility that 2 Slovenian representatives return to the Federal Government 'because that Federal Government had attacked SLO' and 'there is nothing for me to talk about with the Federal Prime Minister, who lost the war'. K. had to confirm to have said that.

  M. then turned to the reasons for the war that SLO fought against the Federal Government: the revenues from customs duties. K. denied, saying that SLO was only reacting to being attacked. M. then quoted Warren Zimmerman, the former US Ambassador to YU, from his lengthy article in the 'Foreign Affairs', where it was plainly and brutally written that 'contrary to the beliefs, the Slovenes had started the war. There were no efforts to negotiate.' Zimmerman proceeded to explain why: the customs duties revenue generated from the only border crossings towards the Western European countries, Italy and Austria, which were in SLO, gained up to 75% of the overall federal budget. The Slovenes simply took over by force the customs offices, changed the insignia and started to collect, depraving the rest of the country of that revenue without negotiating it first. The Federal Government had to react by sending few light JNA columns to retake the customs offices and re-establish the status quo ante. Then the JNA was attacked. K. tried to minimize that by saying it is the opinion of the former US Ambassador. But, Robinson got interested and asked K. to comment on this piece of info that 'one of the consequences of your declaration of independence was the take-over of customs offices', so K. got mixed up in a lengthy explanation of money flow, which came to saying that SLO negotiated it at Brioni, but only after the fait accompli. M. then jumped in by asking: 'Brioni happened after the war. Why have you opted for violence? Why did you not act like Slovakia did? [in the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia] Why didn't you take the issue to the federal bodies?' K. tried to convince everybody that it was impossible, that 'as a member of a small nation we would have been outvoted'. M. reminded him that one of the Parliament Chambers voted by consensus, so there was no outvoting, and that SLO actually prevented the Law on Secession from being enacted, 'and you could have left peacefully'. He also reminded him that the federal Government intervened not at the internal borders of republics, but at the external border. K. got very nervous, started to answer not to M., but to 'Your Honours', pleading with them to understand how he 'had discussions with the Accused over many years' and that 'there were no reasons to defend the border', but M. cut him short: 'We are obviously switching the meanings here. I've quoted Zimmerman to you and the reasons why you did what you did.'

  Then, M. pulled out the case of a live TV show in SLO few years into their independence, with illustrious guests from CRO (Mesic, General Spegelj, Tomac), where K. also participated and they answered direct phone questions. K. tried to wiggle out, saying his memory is not that good anymore, but confirmed he was there. M. proceeded to describe what happened in that show and how in a celebrative mood Mesic got too relaxed and babbled about Genscher [the then German Chancellor] and the Pope who crucially contributed to the independence of SLO and CRO. K. confirmed that was said, but he added: 'My experience with these people was different.' M.: 'Which people - Genscher and the Pope?' K. tried to play dumb, saying: 'I don't understand what do you want from me.' M. then patiently explained: 'Mr K., for more than a half of your testimony you have been talking about the book by Mr Jovic. I'm asking you whether Mesic said that.' May jumped in: 'He has agreed to that.' M.: 'Very good.' Then he proceeded to quote Mesic, who said that 'Genscher and the Pope have given us a strong support in demolishing YU'. K. reluctantly confirmed this was said. May wanted to know whether these questions were put to Mesic during his testimony, and M. answered that he only got these info now, so he's asking K., who was present, to confirm it.

  Without the slightest pause and without a warning, M. asked: 'Why did you attack the JNA, killing 44 and seriously wounding 184 soldiers?' K. tried to give slightly smaller figures 'according to our data' and miserably concluded that 'these are the sad consequences of war'. But, M. couldn't be stopped: he proceeded to describe war crimes perpetrated by the Territorial Defence and the Police of SLO against the JNA and their families (killings, maltreatments, unlawful arrests, intimidations, expulsions, refusal of medical assistance causing death, cutting of supplies etc. etc.), quoting from the so-called White Book made by the JNA, from which he submitted precise lists with names, dates and descriptions. The Trial Chamber at first admitted one list into evidence (for identification, as they call it, until translated and decided upon), but when things became more and more terrible, they refused to admit the lists anymore.

  [For those who want to know a bit about these colourful events, I managed to locate 2 Reports by the Federal Government submitted to the UN Commission of Experts in pursuance of the UN Council Resolution No. 780. There were 7 such Reports covering the war crimes perpetrated on the territory of the whole ex-YU, but these 2 from November 1992 and May 1994 mention also the Slovenian pretty little war. Here are the links: http://www.balkanpeace.org/wcs/wct/wcts/wcts02.shtml and http://balkanpeace.org/wcs/wct/wcts/wcts04.shtml These are lengthy reports, containing crimes also from other parts of ex-YU, so my advice is to use Edit/Find, and then type 'Slovenia', so that you can search through these huge documents for the crimes related to SLO. And they are ugly, believe me, and comprise everything: inhumane treatment of civilians, killing and inhumane treatment of wounded and sick persons, ethnic cleansing, wilful killing of civilians, wilful killing of POWs, inhumane treatment of POWs…and names, dates, places. All the works, and all that in just 10 days. Not so bad for civilised gentlemen who refuse to be denominated as a Balkan country. Imagine what would they accomplish if the war had lasted longer.

  For those with even stronger stomach and thirst for info, visit the site http://www.balkanpeace.org, then go to the top left under WAR CRIMES SECTION, and click on WITNESS TESTIMONIES. There you will find all those Reports and plenty of other stuff.]

  So, K. was bombarded with questions about these atrocities perpetrated by his forces, under his command responsibility, for which questions he had been specially prepared, and what did he do? He failed miserably. He first tried to deny: 'Ne, tega nismo storili. = No, we didn't do that.' Then he admitted that 'perhaps it happened' that the private trucks in transit had been taken, that 'some civilians had been hurt'. Then he claimed 'I do not know about that', 'I have no data about that'. M. retorted: "I have all the data about that.' When the atrocities mentioned became more gruesome (killing of wounded and sick, preventing medical help), K. lost his composure, called the JNA report-book 'a propaganda brochure' and started to rant: 'I claim that this did not happen. And even if something like that did happen, it was in some extreme situations. What happened later on, in Vukovar, Srebrenica, Dubrovnik… it was a systematic thing…' M. paid no attention to K. anymore, simply leaving him to let off steam, and spoke to May: 'Very well, Mr May, you do not want to accept this last list. I have here also the list of violations of the proper treatment of POWs, 17 counts; this as well you'll not accept, I presume?'

  Then, M. turned to K. again, embarking upon the case of execution of 3 POWs on 28 June 1991 at the Holmec border crossing. K. said: 'If you're asking whether they have been captured and shot, the answer is no.' M. then produced a thick swath of documents from the Slovenian courts and some international NGOs, re that case. K. boldly stated that 'all this only goes to prove that SLO behaved as the lawful state'. May ordered the documents to be given to K. to read them, he briefly skimmed through some of it and timidly said: 'I've claimed that these soldiers and civilians were not executed as POWs, but it seems that they were.' Wow! These advisors have done a poor job preparing K. for this. May admitted the documents into evidence. [to be contd]
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 5:07 am
  [Part 3] Milosevic then summed up: 'I have given only a few examples, but it's obvious that in this so-called attack by the JNA were killed many times more JNA soldiers than Slovenes. [44 as opposed to 8] Jovic told you that if you want your independence, go on, but do not kill our sons. Why was this war necessary to you?' Kucan denied that Slovenia wanted the war. M. insisted: 'Isn't it true that you could have left YU without war and that you have started it only to facilitate the complete destruction of YU?' May tried to protect the witness by saying he already answered that.

  M. continued by reminding K. that SLO, while talking about legality and democracy was actually making decisions contrary to the YU Constitution. He said that they have promised to proceed into independence legally, and the Constitutional Court would be consulted ultimately, but then they acted against its rulings. M. submitted 27 such rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court, pronouncing as unconstitutional various resolutions, laws and Amendments to the Slovenian Constitution made by SLO. May woke up and wanted to know K's opinion on this, and K. tried to persuade him that these rulings were indeed stating these acts of SLO to be incompatible with the YU Constitution, but 'there were different opinions by the 2 judges who represented SLO in that Court', and 'the same method of voting was applied'. May inquired: 'When you say the same method, what do you mean by that?' K. answered: 'Well, as at the 14th Party Congress.' May: 'It means, the Slovenes were in the minority?' K.: 'Yes.' May: 'Were they joined also by some other judges?' K. couldn't confirm that, he said that he should 'look it up'. What that man does know? He was the President then, these were the crucial issues and decisions, and he was supposedly well prepared for his testimony. M. ridiculed that comparison of voting at the Party Congress and at the Court and pointed out this is the common practice in all courts in the world. He asked: 'Are you claiming that the Constitutional Court made his rulings in violation of its regulations?' K. kept on with his lengthy whining of how SLO was always in the minority, how the principle of 'one man, one vote' in the Parliament could have been amended, but M. insisted the question being about the legal rulings of the Constitutional Court, and that the Slovenes expressly said their changes will be done according to the law and Constitution, offering the Constitutional Court as a guarantee for that, and 'then you complain about your rights being violated because the Constitutional Court made his rulings'. May admitted these 27 rulings into evidence.

  If it was some real judge here, and not Dick May, I would be certain that this legal exchange had reminded him of the recent ruling of the Trial Chamber III re those 6 coded witnesses, whose trial transcripts were admitted into the M. trial evidence without cross-examination, and the voting was 2 to 1, leaving poor Robinson in the minority just like the poor Slovenes. He could have then cried foul, take the ball and go home, just like the Slovenes did.

  The next issue was illegal arms trade of SLO with Croatia and Bosnia&Herzegovina. When first generally asked about that by M., K. denied it existed at all: 'No, as far as I'm aware.' M. then produced documents, first from CRO, proving the opposite. K. then changed the tune, saying he couldn't see anything contentious here, these were 'legal channels, with competent authorities and you spoke of illegal trade.' To that, M. gently reminded him that at that time the UN arms embargo was in effect. K. then claimed that this was before the international recognition of SLO, 'therefore it did not apply to us.' But then, he realized the mistake, saying: 'Excuse me, it was in the period when both states were recognized; therefore, we took necessary measures to protect ourselves.' [Wow! So, the new statelets have the right to violate the UN embargo, just because they need to be able to protect themselves. That is a creative interpretation.] But, there is more. When asked whether the embargo applied to B&H, K. said it only applied to the arms sale. M. then produced the second document from Izetbegovic, proving exactly that. Both documents were admitted. M. concluded that SLO took part in the arming of B&H, to which K. said that it is hard for him to accept such a claim and that it has to bee seen first whether B&H was capable of defending itself on its own. He said: 'My answer is: why it was necessary?' [Great reasoning: you do something illegal, and when asked why are you doing it, you answer: Well, ask yourselves why it was necessary for me to do that?] Even M. was amused by that, smiling and muttering: 'Good, very good.' He further proved how well informed he is [Where is that announced drying-up of his sources?] when he asked about the Parliamentary commission dissolved before reaching any conclusions in its investigation of these UN embargo violations. K. confirmed, but claimed that 'this procedure is still unfinished'. How many years passed - 10,12? Indeed, a State of law and order.

  [The arms trading affairs, with all its dirty political games and enormous gains by various Slovenian politicians were all over the Slovenian press at that time. If you want to check one example, here's the link: http://www.aimpress.org/dyn/trae/archive/data/199805/80503-004-trae-lju.htm This is the article called 'War Diplomacy - Controversial Armament Trade' from 1998. Also check what K. stated on the subject in 1996 at http://www.hri.org/news/Balkans/yds/96-07-03-yds.html#08 in 'Slovenian President Says European Union Played Big Role In Breaking Former Yugoslavia'. You'll be able to better assess how the politicians of SLO were not at all squeamish to grab big bucks peddling arms while preaching to be so much more civilized and democratic than those Balkan barbarians to whom they were peddling arms.]

  The rest of the cross-examination went on debunking the games of Nice with misquoted speeches, which I already mentioned in the Part 1. There were a couple of highly amusing moments when M. found in the written summary of the talks that K. had with the OTP investigators some incredible and preposterous constructions. K. vehemently denied ever saying something like that. The thing is, the investigators didn't give his full verbatim answers, but instead prepared themselves a freely ad-libbed summary, which was at places so free that after M. quoted from it, K. had to say: 'This claim is incredible, however, I never stated that.' The first time, it was some minor stupidity, like 'the Serbs needed YU to be able to all live in one state, and the non-Serb nations saw in YU a country protecting its groups (?!). M. started to lead K. through questions about the control of the Army in 1989, making him to confirm that the Federal Presidency was in charge, and not M. who was then merely a Party chief, not even the President of Serbia yet. Then he read the second incredible construction from the Prosecution's summary, which was more sinister: the investigators wrote that K. told them, speaking about the pre-war events on Kosovo, when the miners went on strike, that this was 'connected with the use of the Army by Milosevic in the events around Stari Trg Mine'. K. denied saying this and again explicitly confirmed that the Presidency commanded the Army and that he 'never claimed otherwise or that you were the one to issue orders'. M. stated he's happy that K. said that 'just because of the manipulations of this Other Side.'

  Tapuskovic practically gave up his questions, after being allotted only 20 min. and warned by interpreters to slow down, so May recommended him to put his questions in writing. K. had to leave, he came only for 1 day. But, Tapuskovic nevertheless managed to establish one important thing by asking K. and then warned the Chamber that among the following witnesses will be one Ivan Kristan, who will pose as an expert on constitutional issues, and this is no other than one of those 2 Slovenian judges from the former Federal Constitutional Court who were outvoted re the constitutionality of that 27 secession documents of SLO. That would be one impartial expert witness, no doubt.

  Thus ended the ordeal of Milan Kucan. The only his attempt at repartee was when he referred to the famous sentence uttered by M. in front of the angry and frightened Serb peasants in Kosovo, who had just been clubbed by the Albanian police ('Nobody may beat you'). K. said that M. should have said instead: 'Nobody may beat anyone in Kosovo'. Interesting. A bit like something from the UN: 'The violence from both sides must stop.' And what if there was no violence from both sides at that time, as it actually was the case? So, the attempt at repartee by K. failed miserably, as did his information management and his usefulness as a witness.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 9:57 am
  The effect of Milan Kucan´s misquotation from the Kosovo Polje speech largely depends on the position of that single word "yet".

  I trust that Mr. Milosevic would be more correctly quoted for saying that :"...(these days) we (the people of Serbia) are not facing armed battles, - although such battles cannot be excluded yet..."

  It is revealing that Kucan´s "interpretation" is almost identical to that introduced by mr. Nice in his opening speech (Trial Transcripts, Page 27).

  Failing the ICTY´s transcripts what would one do without the inspired court reports of Vera Martinovic, - Bravo!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 10:42 am
  Vera,

  Thank you for your report on Kucan's testimony. Your great work is appreciated. Would you mind if I posted your report on my website?

  I was unable to watch the "trial" for most of yesterday and I was unable to see any of Milan Kucan's testimony, because domovina.net got a new server and it took me a while to configure my firewall and my real player so that I could access the feed.

  Could you fill me in on what the prosecutor was trying to prove with B-161? I only saw the end of his cross-examination and from what I could tell he was an employee of the Serbian Interior Ministry who found out about some atrocities in Bosnia, but didn't tell anybody at the Serbian Interior Ministry about the things he says he saw.

  When B-161 was asked about how the authorities of the Government of Serbia conducted themselves he only had good things to say.

  What was the prosecutor trying to prove that B-161 failed to do his job by not telling the Government of Serbia what he saw? I don't know how the Government of Serbia was supposed to react to something that it didn't know was even happening.

  I know that I didn't see all of B-161, so can somebody tell me if I am missing something important here. Or did his testimony just consist of some rumors that he heard. The only thing I saw him say that he witnessed for himself was one man being shot at in the Drina River.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 12:39 pm
  Just quickly Andy you did not understand. I didnt say I agreed with Kucan. I said I accpeted his interpretation of what Serbs and other nationalities saw Yugoslavia as. In your post you seem to accept it to when you say what is wrong with Serbs living in one state? As I said there is nothing wrong with that, until Yugoslavia brakes up that is where the problem comes. Kucan was wrong to break up Yugoslavia but right in that point he made about perception of what Yugoslavs thought in my opinion. JNA should have ended the rebellion to spare all of us what was to happen. Andy, surely you believe as I do that the JNA could have done this. Did you ask yourself why they did not do it? Can anyone give me an answer?

  A.S. No I dont understand what you are saying. You didnt want Croatia in Yugoslavia any more because of Tudjman and HDZ and perhaps at the same time you blame the Croats for the break up?

  PM you seem to also get more reasonable the more you post. However, the third paragraf you make about Muslums and majority in Bosnia can it not equally be aplied to Serbs and Yugoslavia? Can an argument be made that one by one Serbia became more powerful as the buraucratic revolution put Milosevic allies in positions of power in Kosovo, Vojvodina, Montenegro etc. The balance of power by the time of war in Bosnia meant if Bosnia was to remain in Yugoslavia it was become vessel of Serbia. In some Serbs opinion that might be a good or positive thing but that isnt what we wanted.

  Again please the question to Andy, PM and everyone else. What is a greater Serbia / greater Croatia? That is at the heart of prosecution case. It is very relevant to the topic here.
  
  Srdjan Arnautovic
  Sarajevo

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 1:42 pm
  Greater Serbia is a myth of Austrian propaganda, used to justify Austria's intervention's in Bosnia and attack on Serbia in WWI, because of alleged Serbian pretensions for expansion.

  Greater Croatia and Greater Albania are historical realities, exemplified by Croatia's annexation in WWII of Bosnia and Srem (part of Serbia), and the atrocities against Serbs that followed; as well as by Albania's annexation of Kosovo (Serbia) and western Macedonia in the same time period (and similarly the atrocities that followed, albeit incomparably minute compared to Ustase crimes).
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 1:54 pm
  Srdjane, I don't understand as well. It's ok for croat dominated Croatia to leave multiethnic Yugoslavia, but it's not ok for croat dominated Herceg-Bosna to leave multiethnic Bosnia. How come? And who's going to decide which seccession is good and which one is evil. You?! As far as I remember, Tudman did support Herceg-Bosna's seccession from Bosnia at the begining of the conflict. At the same time he was fighting 'seperatist' Krajina Serbs and suppressing their seccession from Croatia. And before that, Tudman was spearheading Croatia's seccession from Yugoslavia. Do you see doublestandards and contradictions here?

  Republika Srpska Krajina, Republika Srpska and Serbia unite into a Serbian Federation. Would you call that 'Greater Serbia'? I would call it the Serbian people's legitimate right to self-determination. Do you remember the word self-determination? It was a key-word during the destruction process and the wars of succession in the former Yugoslavia.
  
  Aleks Stajic
  Germany

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 3:25 pm
  Well, it seems to me (1), that:

  While Greater Serbia may be largely "a myth" (as PM is suggesting), it is also "an idea" with some (few) Serbs.

  Such myth/idea would not by itself constitute a crime? And hence it should not be seen to be "at the heart of the prosecutions case" in any trial (as Srdjan has it).

  Actually I wonder if it is "very relevant to the topic here", - given that the discussion is basically concerned with the question of whether mr. Milosevic is getting a fair trial or not.

  If I were in the seat of Judge May, I would rule myths to be "irrelevant"! Or I´d simply say: "We have already heard enough of that...now let´s move on to something else".

  Such as: How would the Trial Chamber make sense of the fact, that the Canadian general Maisonneuve, who headed the OSCE´s KVM entering the village of Racak in the afternoon on January 15th, 1999 after the withdrawal of the Serb police, "did not know, that any KLA had been killed and did not know in fact (untill the next morning!), that anybody had been killed at all?"

  Certainly I am not suggesting, that "nothing" happened at Racak on that day "in the early morning hours", - but the dramatic account given in the Indictment against Milosevic and Others (and repeated by the prosecution) is largely a myth, I´d say...

  In my mind that sort of things are truly "at the heart of the Prosecutions case"! Why do we not move on to that, then?
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 5:10 pm
  To Godfred, re. letter to ICTY

  I essentially agree with your draft letter, but with so much wrong with ICTY, it appears non-productive to spend time to collectively protest the procedural issue of "100 extra days". I believe that when letters are sent to ICTY or to the mainstream press, the most promising approach is to highlight the obvious weaknesses of the prosecution's case and their fraudulent tactics and to conclude by explicitly assigning to them malignant political goals.

  Kucan's testimony: victory for the defense and opportunity for letters to ICTY and media

  Kucan is a high profile witness and his testimony, as brilliantly analysed by Vera, provides excellent opportunities for letters. The punch line is that Kucan's testimony and documents submitted (mostly by Milosevic) during the testimony demonstrate that the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia started by a well calculated, foreign-backed decision of the Slovenian leadership to cecede without negotiations by attacking the Yugoslav Army. This can and should be rubbed into the noses of all those ignorant (or worse) journalists who parrot the line of "Milosevic attacking Slovenia". Besides, Slovenian forces demonstrably committed atrocities. In letters to ICTY and to media it should be asked why ICTY has not indicted Kucan for both his command responsibility for these atrocities and for ordering the attacks (the same goes for Izetbegovic, who started the Bosnian war by ordering such unprovoked attacks).

  Kucan's testimony also offers at least one example of fraudulent tactics of investigators for the Office of the Prosecutor: As noted by Vera, OTP investigators claimed that Kucan had spoken to them about Milosevic's role in the Stari Trg events. Kucan denied it. In letters to ICTY and the media, the incident can be mentioned with the suggestion that such manipulations by the prosecution be taken seriously and investigated as cases of contempt of the court. Although it is extremely unlikely that something of the kind will ever happen, such letters may make some of their recipients in ICTY or the press realize that their propaganda won't fly.
  
  Pythagoras Crotoniatis
  Greece

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 9:45 pm
  Srdjan,

  I think that Croatia played a big role in the JNA's decisions regarding Slovenia. Croatia was in a position to cut off JNA supply lines.

  At the time of Slovenia's succession it was already known that Croatia was hostile to the JNA. Remember the film of Martin Spegelj?

  What do you think would happen to the JNA soldiers in Slovenia if Croatia had cut them off from the rest of Yugoslavia? They would be massacred.

  We know that Slovenia was in a position to get weapons and we know that Croatia was in a position to make life hard on the JNA in Slovenia, and that Croatia was, in fact, hostile towards the JNA.

  I agree that it would have been great if the JNA could have put down the rebellion in Slovenia, but I'm not so sure, from a tactical standpoint, that they could sustain the ability to do so.

  As for "Greater-Serbia" it may in fact be true that Serbs who were outside of Serbia did indeed want to annex the areas where they constituted a majority to the FR Yugoslavia, or maybe even to Serbia itself, but only AFTER Croatia and Bosnia had separated from Yugoslavia. That is totally different from Serbia making an internal decision to expand its borders, and launching some sort of aggression to acheive that expansion.

  Those Serbs outside of Serbia were forced against their will to separate from the country they had been citizens of for their whole lives. Nobody had the right to tell them that they had to be cut-off from their compatriots.

  Croatia and Bosnia had no right to take those Serbs, or anybody else who wanted to remain in Yugoslavia, out of Yugoslavia against their will.

  I see no evidence that Serbia was attempting to expand its borders. In fact Slobodan Milosevic even went so far as to blockade the Drina River in 1993. To accuse Serbia or Slobodan Milosevic of the persuit of "Greater Serbia" is stupid. Nobody inside of the Government of Serbia had any ideas about expanding Serbia's borders.

  The prosecution's case seems to be that volunteers who came from Serbia to help the Serbs outside of Serbia were under the control of the Serbian authorities. This is a crazy theory. How could the Serbian authorities stop this, and why would they want to? Should they have said that you are forbidden from crossing the river to help your relatives?

  Thousands of Muslims from Sanjak went to fight against the Serbs in Bosnia. Does anybody think that this was the result of some decision by the Serbian government?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 9:54 pm
  >Thousands of Muslims from Sanjak went to fight against the Serbs in Bosnia. Does anybody think that this was the result of some decision by the Serbian government? Milosevic actually mentioned this in court, but May, throwing another tantrum, smashed his hand down on the button and silenced him.
  
  P. M.
  USA

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 9:55 pm
  

  I think it is far more productive to write directly to Slobodan Milosevic the man who is doing all the heavy lifting, from jail, with a failing health and now deprive of the support of his family. Showing to him that not only his trial is followed in Serbia but also by people of mostly good will is important for him and for all of us as a symbol of solidarity,

  Huis Van Bewaring Pompstationsweg 46a Den Haag 2597GXThe Netherlands
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Friday May 23, 2003 at 11:07 pm
  A NICE PIECE OF SHARP PRACTICE? The famous speech by President Milosevic at Kosovo Polje was indeed a call for unity as a key to democracy, peace and prosperity for Serbia.

  "The accused was the lead speaker," the Court was told, - as if merely speaking might be a crime on its own. Appearing for the Prosecution at the Opening Session in the Hague mr Nice recounted the rise of President Milosevic, and coming to the 28th of June, 1989 (when there was a grand celebration of the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo Polje) the Prosecutor was quoting the former President addressing his countrymen:

  "Comrades! Comrades! At this place, - at this place in the heart of Serbia, on the Field of Kosovo six centuries ago, a full six hundred years ago, one of the greatest battles of that time took place...."

  Suggesting that the Chamber might think of it as a skillful speech of great power, mr Nice promised to pay consideration to the speech in full in course of the trial. Yet there was one particular passage that would merit further attention right away:

  "Six centuries later - today - we are once again fighting battles and faced with battles. They are not armed battles, - although such are not excluded either."

  Gloomily mr Nice would conclude, that "armed struggle was not being excluded even at that stage..."

  Well, - considering the situation we might see such procedure by mr Nice merely as a piece of sharp practice!

  (Orig. in Danish daily INFORMATION, 22. marts, 2002)
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday May 24, 2003 at 3:36 am
  

  Few days ago Godfred Louis-Jensen criticized the article by Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser. Mr. Louis-Jensen claimed authors were not giving sufficient proof when arguing:

  "there has been a media campaign using lawyers who make public statements in which"

  "a) these lawyers falsely claim to represent Milosevic,"

  "b) these lawyers compare or otherwise link Milosevic in the public mind to the most monstrous criminals, and then"

  "c) these lawyers argue that even such criminals deserve a defense, thus cementing the media-created, false impression that Milosevic is, indeed, one of the war criminals.".

  Authors were claiming Mr. Ramsey Clark as example of above.

  Controversy concerns C-span TV program. Ramsey Clark was being interviewed by Tammy Lytle of National Press Club. Israel and Varkevisser claim Tammy Lytle was naming Mr. Clark as attorney for Mr. Slobodan Milosevic and also was associating Mr. Milosevic with terrorists. They also were blaming Clark for allowing such statements without dissent or even seeming to be supporting them.

  Mr. Louis-Jensen stated this was unfair because Miss Lytle never clearly was saying Clark was lawyer for Slobodan Milosevic.

  I watched Television program in question. I call Mr Louis-Jensen's attention to second article by Varkevisser and Israel.

  http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/ramsey2.htm.

  Authors quote statement made by Miss Lytle earlier in TV program:

  "In private legal practice since 1969, Mr. Clark has argued or briefed a number of First Amendment, peace movement, civil rights and criminal cases before the Supreme Court. In addition, he has defended a rogue's gallery of clients, including Yugoslavia's Slobodan Milosevic, convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirator Sheik Rahman and presidential fringe candidate Lyndon LaRouche."

  Varkevisser and Israel write:

  "Neither here nor at any other time did Clark correct Tammy Lytle's false statement that President Milosevic was his client. Thus of course viewers would assume it was true. Nor did Clark object to Lytle's linking of President Milosevic with these two odious characters, LaRouche and Rahman."

  I think this is simple truth.

  
  
  Branko B.
  Ohio

• Saturday May 24, 2003 at 10:10 am
  It seems to me that the people of former Yugoslavia did not really know each other, and because they did not know the other that is when their neighbors ceased to be real people and their wishes were not taken into consideration. In this atmosphere of ignorance it became very easy to encourage and manipulate misunderstanding. As a result as Lermontov said “the most fantastic of fairy tales can’t escape the reproach of being meant as some sort of personal insult.” To wipe away the memory of the past is not possible, to remind people of it is not nationalistic but to use it to foster animosity and prevent reconciliation is unforgivable. Vera thank you for your great post.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Saturday May 24, 2003 at 3:52 pm
  Dear Branko B,

  EN STORM I ET GLAS VAND!

  The main point of my posting (dated May 19, 2003 at 2:58 am)was, that there is no sense at all in claiming to be (or in "falsely accusing" someone for being!) mr. Milosevic´s lawyer in this socalled "trial" at the Hague.

  By choice as well as from necessity the former President "is doing all the heavy lifting" himself, as Gogol Charlemagne says (May 23, 2003 at 9:55 pm), - and in my view he is doing very well indeed.

  That is what matters most!

  Thank you ever so much for drawing my attention to the "second article by Jared Israel and Nico Varkevisser", - but No:

  In a world of real nightmares (and obligations for serious citizens!) I regret to say, that in this particular case I would regard "the impression created" as mere media propaganda on their part.

  It certainly seems to me too simple(minded) to be the "truth".

  Well, - although in Danish language the caption should be self-explanatory...
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday May 24, 2003 at 6:40 pm
  To Andy: yes, you can repost my reports on Kucan on your website. If you want, put the complete names instead of the initials (M, K, SLO, CRO, YU) that I used, to make it more readable; I only used initials to try to make my posts a bit shorter, they're too long for the forum anyway.

  Re the testimony of the protected witness B-161 on 22/23 May, I believe your conclusions were correct, judging by what I saw of the testimony and read in our press. I saw very little of it as well, because I gave up watching after the repeated private sessions started to be imposed during his examination-in-chief, so I was unable to make head or tail of it.

  Here are some quotations from our press, to help you figure him out a bit (sources: FreeSerbia and Vecernje Novosti, 22/23 May): 'During the testimony of B-161, several persons under coded numbers were being mentioned, whose identity was not revealed, and the Prosecution suggested to the witness not to talk about the nature of his relations to the persons he spoke with, for the purpose of protecting his own identity.' So, this anonymous witness spoke of his meetings with other anonymous persons, who had relations with him that remained unknown. It seems to me that way one can say practically anything about anybody and get away with it.

  This witness to the Prosecution was quite useful for the Defence, debunking those famous allegations that Arkan was organized by the Serbian authorities: 'When it was Milosevic's turn to cross-examine, he was interested first whether the witness had any knowledge if anybody from Serbia had been in any way connected with the Arkan's arrival to Bosnia - and he was very pleased with the negative answer. - You say that the local authorities invited him and that there was a total of 86 men who had "perpetrated the aggression against B&H" - the Accused established.'

  Another press quotation shows that B-161 dwelled in the region across the river Drina not in any official capacity, but privately: 'Milosevic was even more pleased when the witness said that he did cross Drina in a car bearing the official insignia of Serbia, but that he went there exclusively for private purposes and in addition to that he also confirmed that he never met any representatives of the authorities of Serbia there.' All other allegations by B-161 indeed boiled to 'I heard it from somebody', failing to even say who that somebody was.

  There was also an interesting piece of info re Arkan's attitude towards any crimes by his men, showing him to be indeed dedicated to running a highly disciplined unit, in spite of numerous unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary: 'Have you heard that Arkan's men perpetrated crimes? - the Prosecutor asked. - Yes - confirmed the witness. - When he found out that two of them committed crimes in the Bijeljina Hospital, he lined up his soldiers, convicted both men to death and removed them from the battlefield forthwith.'

  But, the most telling piece of info re B-161 was this: 'The cross-examination of the witness B-161, who is the former member of the Police of Serbia, was today partly closed for public, after the Accused asked the question related to the murder of Zeljko Raznatovic-Arkan.' This tells very much. First, it's unknown when B-161 had ceased to be the member of the Police. And, more significantly, he obviously knew something about that famous killing, which was allegedly perpetrated by no others than the former members of the Police (few of them are on trial for that). Was B-161 one of them? Very likely. To conceal that, he spoke well about Arkan. How twisted things can get.

  To Godfred: I would say that you should send that letter of yours to the ICTY anyway. If you ask for suggestions to improve it, here's one: let them know that even without the additional 100 days, it is way too much time for the Prosecution to prove it's case and that if they really had airtight evidence to prove it, no more than one month total would be more than sufficient.

  I see that Srdjan minds my showing less 'healthy cynicism' towards the Milosevic government than I do towards the NATO and DOS governments. Well, let me assure you I did show more than that when Milosevic government was in power, but that is a completely different story. I'll just say that I never was nor I am a member nor a supporter of any political party and I have never participated in anybody's rallies, nor did I vote for Milosevic. But now, when The Hague indictment against him contains such preposterous and all-encompassing accusations, practically blaming one side not only for all the possible crimes, but claiming that this side planned everything through that absurd 'joint criminal enterprise', I do feel compelled to defend him. He's simply not guilty as charged, that's all. All other allegations re the motives that might be ascribed to me just do not hold water.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Saturday May 24, 2003 at 6:54 pm
  http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/through.html reposted at http://www.tenc.net/ is worth the re-read.

  Vera, your posts are not too long. It is the trial which is too long -- not your posts.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario, Canada

• Saturday May 24, 2003 at 7:05 pm
  Vera,

  Thank you for letting me use your post on Kucan. I will post it later on tonight.

  Do you think that the prosecution may have called B-161, not so much to accuse Milosevic of anything, but rather to make Captain Dragan look bad, because Captain Dragan made them look stupid (not that they needed any help in that department).

  The only crime B-161 said that he personally witnessed was the shooting of a man in the Drina River. B-161 attributed that crime to Captain Dragan, saying that Captain Dragan was conducting training exercises and that his men were using that man in for target practice.
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Saturday May 24, 2003 at 7:37 pm
  Seems to me that if the other side had any sound evidence at all 100 days should have been enough for the entire trial!

  Everyone is just parroting nonsense about what they heard from someone else who heard it from someone else who heard it from someone else, etc, etc. Except for some of the mental defectives and lunatics "who saw things with their very own eyes" and who survived executions with anti-aircraft guns and similar, or who it turns out weren't even there to see them.

  Mr May, how long are you going to allow the other side to come up with irrelevant third hand "witnesses"? You know such evidence would NEVER be allowed in any court in the civilised world, not even in a British one in Middlesex! Why don't you issue an indictment against NATO on the basis of the evidence of their crimes presented to you so far? You won't need 3 years to hear that one!
  
  David
  Australia

• Saturday May 24, 2003 at 9:22 pm
  I noticed that some have referred to my piece on "The Freezer Truck Hoax." As some have commented, all 9 parts are now posted. For ease of reading and navigation, there are hyperlinks to each of the nine parts at the top of each of them. All of my pieces may be found at: http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/articles.htm#yugo And to go straight to the piece on the freezer trucks, visit: http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/freezer1.htm Also of interest to contributors of this discussion list may be my recently re-written piece: http://www.tenc.net/gilwhite/ranta.htm That piece documents that NATO's excuse to start the bombing, the allegation of a massacre at the town of Racak, was likewise a hoax. Like my piece on the freezer trucks, it hardly leaves room for doubt about my conclusions. However, I noticed that Srdjan Arnautovic remarks that "Then when you read it ["The Freezer Truck Hoax"] the same sloppy material from other Emperors clothes reports appear as new as 'the freezer truck hoax'." I am not exactly sure what this means, but it does appear to level the charge that Emperor's Clothes material is sloppy. Although for various reasons some people are not happy with us, the charge that we are sloppy is not one that is often leveled, even by our critics. Can Mr. Arnautovic point out any factual inaccuracies or logical flaws in any of the 9 segments of "The Freezer Truck Hoax"?
  
  Francisco Gil-White
  Pennsylvania