 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.
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
- Sunday May 25, 2003 at 10:24 am
Mr. White, it seems to me that all those who see the Tribunal as justice see the actions of the Serbs as IRRATIONAL. The media portrayed the JNA and later the Serbian forces as the only ones acting irrationally. The media and the Tribunal see them as devoid of human awareness and forseeability. Thus, they presented to the world an image and justification for NATO’s action; breadline massacre justified NATO bombing of the Serbs, Trnopolje justified occupation of Bosnia, Srebrenica justified expulsion of Serbs from Krajina, Racak justified NATO attack on Serbia and occupation of Kosovo, the freezer truck justified charges against Milosevic. Those who believe otherwise need to examine their own rationality
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Sunday May 25, 2003 at 6:42 pm
Is it just me, or do others find it wonderously insolent that the U.S. should now be requesting a bilateral agreement with Serbia-Montenegro re the Permanent International Criminal Court?
M Wallis
Canada - Sunday May 25, 2003 at 8:49 pm
M Wallis
Not only is it insolent, it's wonderously hypocritical! Just as in Rambouillet, an ultimatum at the point of a gun is no agreement. Witness the war crimes "trials" the US is going to subject Saddam Hussein to. That's not going to be before the ICC, it's going to be before another US kangaroo court.
The US will dispense "justice" as it sees fit, and no one need ever suspect that it will ever place itself in the accused box. So much for international law and order and the UN! If the UN plays ball, well and good. If it doesn't, who cares, the US will do as it pleases. So who is becoming the rogue state in the New World Order? It seems the US can go into any country, round up whoever it likes, send them to Guantanamo or wherever and hold them there without legal hearing or basic human rights for as long as it likes. Now that's democracy and rule of law in action for you. And the people of America it seems think it's no problem at all, or at least they don't seem to be protesting about it. No doubt, in the end, they'll plead the German syndrome in WW2... "We didn't know!"
David
Australia - Monday May 26, 2003 at 12:19 am
To Andy: As I said, I haven't seen the whole testimony of B-161, but it could be that he was intended to smear Captain Dragan, because from what I've read, it seems the only thing this witness actually saw was 'some soldiers shooting at a man who was in the river Drina'. The point is, our witness allegedly said he saw that scene from quite far away, so he was unable to identify these 'soldiers' and only later on he came across Captain Dragan's training camp, so the story of them using civilians for their targeting practice was purely his speculation.Do you know that the great benefactor and staunch supporter of ICTY and its sidekick NGOs, George Soros, surfaced again? Here's a short quotation from our press.
'Athens, 23 May 2003 - THE SUMMIT ON THE SOUTHEAST EUROPE STARTED - The Summit on the Southeast Europe, with a title 'The European Prospects' started this morning in Athens, organized by the World Economic Forum with its head office in Geneva, attended by the heads of states and governments of the countries in the region and some 300 leading business and political figures from 31 countries….' 'Athens, 23 May 2003 - SOROS: KOSOVO CAN NOT REMAIN PART OF SERBIA - The American businessman of Hungarian descent George Soros estimated today at the two-day meeting on the Southeast Europe in Athens that the efforts of Belgrade to join the European Union will be futile until its connections with Kosovo are severed formally as well. "Serbia can not progress towards the accession to the EU until its borders are defined," Soros stated at the meeting which started today in the capital of Greece, in the presence of the heads of states and governments, as well as the leading businessmen from the countries of the Southeast Europe. "Kosovo can not remain part of Serbia and it is better for everyone to understand that as soon as possible", Soros said.'
As you can see, wealthy Georgie was one of those '300 leading business and political figures' and among those 'heads of states and governments' were the Serbian Prime Minister Zivkovic escorted by 4 of his most loyal Ministers, plus the Montenegrin Prime Minister Djukanovic. And you see what the benefactor Soros had to tell them? What's worse, this is highly likely to happen, because money talks, and quite openly. I wander what the naïve people who see no evil in those Soros-funded NGOs and the ICTY itself will say to this quite blunt command of money.
The last session this Friday was quite significant, not by the witnesses presented (B-161 finished being cross-examined and another anonymous guy B-124 started testifying), but by what happened in between. There was about half an hour of B-161 at the beginning of the day and half an hour of B-124 at the end, and all the remaining time between them was dedicated to administrative issues. But, there was no dull moment and I'm quite glad I happened to catch that. It showed the sad state this 'trial' is in, the total chaos in its organization and the incompetence of almost all involved. And it was full of flashy courtroom showmanship that we usually see only on TV or in Hollywood films. Steven Kay and Robinson starred, Nice was a villain incarnated who took the beating, Kwon had a line or two but otherwise was a silent extra, May was again the slowest and the dullest of all but couldn't refrain from giving few punches to the villain already down, and Milosevic gladly expressed his disdain to the whole show, but also enjoyed the obvious popularity within the legal guild that his own courtroom style has gained him.
First, Nice tried to explain the messy situation with his witnesses: B-161 was not finished today at all, he is likely to return at some unspecified time. Dr Ivan Kristan (the Slovenian 'impartial constitutional expert') is here today, but he can not start testifying, because the interpreters for the Slovenian language were dismissed yesterday, after Kucan left, so they are trying to talk him into testifying in Serbian (this is how Kwon called the language!), pardon, in B/H/S (as Nice put it with all the PC required). The man is reluctant, because his Serbian is not that good… Anyways, Dr Kristan will be unable to reschedule his testimony because he has to be in Ljubljana on Tuesday, to receive an EU-granted award for something. Also, there's another witness who hasn't finished being cross-examined: the 'propaganda expert' Renaud de la Brosse, who is also unable to specify when he will be able to resume, because of his lectures… Robinson lost his patience and gave a heated speech about this being, after all, an important court, a UN-established Tribunal and 'we can not keep working thus to make it convenient only for the witnesses'. He pointed out that this causes problems for the Accused as well. He instructed Nice to 'make your witnesses aware of the importance of testifying before this court'. As for the reasons for their absence that some of the witnesses gave, 'it seems to me some of these reasons are quite banal'. Nice grovelled in front of 'Your Honour', saying he would certainly make his witnesses familiar with the points stated by the learned man on the bench, but that 'we, naturally, have no means of coercion'. May cut that snivelling short by stating the main issue now is whether that new witness, Dr Kristan, is an appropriate witness at all for the issues on the Kosovo autonomy. And here started the lengthy and amusing exchange which was announced during the Kucan testimony (remember how at the end Tapuskovic asked Kucan about that Ivan Kristan and it turned out this was one of those 2 Slovenian judges from the former Federal Constitutional Court, and that he was announced as an expert witness for the Prosecution for constitutional issues).
May complained they were only now made aware of certain info, and this through a motion submitted by amici curiae. Nice embarked upon a lengthy beggar-speech, trying at all costs to salvage his 'expert'. Yes, these info may be used as a disqualifier, but the man is surely an expert, and it is so hard to find people 'in these countries' who are willing to testify on constitutional law. The man has spent so much time preparing his report. Yes, there is this question whether he had some interest of his own there, but we can surely separate these sections from others, where he had no such interest. Of course, the man is a Slovene… May cut in that the real issue is his admissibility as an expert and gave the floor to Milosevic, who used it to emphasize the overall chaos of the proceedings. He said they can put whomever they want on the stand and he'll cross-examine him, but what is extremely rude is this constant switching and changing of the sequence of witnesses. He described a case in point: 'You said yesterday that today Kristan is to testify. Late last night you brought into my cell this thick binder on Kristan and constitutional issues, which I read all through the night. Today you say that B-124 will testify instead. There is another witness who was interrupted today and would have to be resumed; there's another one interrupted from before, de la Brosse. The detention officer had to wait last night well after his working hours to give me that new Kristan binder. This is rude. There was an agreement here that 7 days in advance the witness schedule is to be disclosed. I ask you to at least introduce here some order which will respect common courtesy.' May listened to this grilling in total silence, without his usual rude remarks and interruptions, and responded dryly: 'Very well. We've heard it and took notice.'
Then Kay started to explain why Dr Kristan can not testify as an expert witness: being the judge of the Constitutional Court deliberating the same issues as this case is a background that disqualifies him here. And Kay gave the first of many picturesque examples of that day, triggering a competition of similar little parallels between himself, Robinson and Nice. Kay compared this case with a hypothetical inventor of, say, breathalyser, invited as an expert to the court to explain how the device works. And this here is not a technical matter, we have a judge with his legal opinions, who took part in the process of deliberation and who disagreed with the rulings made. Robinson took over the brush with relish and tried to paint an even more colourful picture: can this be compared with, say, a respectable surgeon who operated on a patient, the surgery went bad and ended up in court; they call the witness…. Then Robinson realized he's in a dead end: 'No, no, it's not a good example.' So, he amended his original painting with new colours: two doctors, two operations, the second one went bad and ended up in court. The first doctor was called as an expert…
What do you think: is the patient Yugoslavia, is the first doctor Slovenia? Robinson demonstrated he's quick-witted. He proceeded to argue that Dr Kristan had a separated opinion on the issue of autonomy, and he gave advice on the issue of self-determination and secession. Kay caught the ball in mid air and said:' The first doctor could be indicted himself as well, therefore he can not be an expert.' Indeed! The operation/amputation that Slovenia performed on Yugoslavia really deserves an indictment. Kay went on that Dr Kristan was directly involved in the events, thus having no distance whatsoever. If this is some other country in question here, or if this happened after his term of office, he could be an expert.
Kwon put a question to Kay: 'You do not object him coming here as a simple witness, but only as an expert?' Kay: 'Yes.' May wanted to know what would be the implications of his coming in different capacity, what would be the difference for the case. Kay quipped: 'Well, let me paraphrase somebody else here: "This is not my problem!" This is something that the Prosecution has to solve.' [And the remarkable piece of TV work occurred: while Kay paraphrased his famous line, Milosevic was shown in a close-up, smiling contentedly. Remember how he answered similarly at the very beginning of the 'trial', when he wouldn't plead neither 'guilty' nor 'not guilty' and May asked him what is he to do then, and got the answer: To je vas problem. = That's your problem. This was almost as good as the exit-line of 'Gone With The Wind', when Vivien Leigh all flustered asks Clark Gable where will she go, what will she do, and he answers perfectly deadpan: 'Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.']
All the participants took alternate shots on the issue, Nice first explaining 'why we need him', then begging, then disagreeing 'with all due respect', then himself trying to get into the game of 'make up an example', but his parallels seemed always to go astray (being unable to make his own story, he took one of the aborted examples of Robinson, the one with a policeman testifying as a witness and as an expert, and the witty Robinson said: 'Yes, I did give that example only to renounce it. It was a policeman, but this is highly unusual for a judge'). Nice was desperate: "Even if it is unusual, it is not incorrect.' But, nothing worked for Nice, May skimmed through the papers submitted by amici, slapped them shut and said with a definite air: 'He did participate in deliberation on the amendments to the Constitution, he opposed the ruling, therefore he expressed his opinion on this issue which was different from others.'
The upshot of the whole thing was that May just said judge Robinson will announce the ruling. And he said that, although Kristan's qualifications are not disputable, there's a conflict of interest or rather the insufficient level of disinterest required for the court expert. So, Kristan may testify as an expert, but out of 7 points in his report, the first two will be deleted: the autonomy of Kosovo and the right to self-determination and secession. This being the issue in the present case, the Court can not be assured that there is a necessary distance involved.
Nice just dryly said: 'Thanks', and moved to the explanation of his blunder with prematurely sending away the interpreters for the Slovenian language (he personally took all the blame, he remembered that only in bed at 4 a.m.!). May acidly remarked: 'It seems you did a lot of work, but with no results.' Nice also announced some further reshuffling of future witnesses (some are sick, some gave reasons at the private session), so Milosevic insisted to receive the next week witness schedule today, because so far he only knows for de la Brosse on Monday, and all the rest is vague. May lost all his patience and sharply asked Nice: 'Yes. When can we get that list?' Nice answered in small voice: 'In half an hour.' Then, the next anonymous guy, B-124, was brought in.
Only when I read the piece in the CIJ by Judith Armatta titled 'Court Finds Former Constitutional Court Judge Not Sufficiently Disinterested' did I realize how serious this blow for the Prosecution must be. Armatta never even mentions in her piece that the panel allowed Kristan to appear as an expert witness, providing this doesn't include those first two issues. According to her, Kristan is completely rejected as an expert, which she bitterly laments. This proves that these first two disputable issues are essential (this expert should have supported the secession with fancy expert talk) and that without them Kristan's testimony would be worthless to the Prosecution.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia - Monday May 26, 2003 at 6:03 am
Professor Gil-White: Let me say how much I admire the work of the relatively few professionals like yourself, the British based journalist John Pilger, a handful of lawyers and a few politicians such as Britain’s Alice Mahon who have attempted to counter the dishonesty of this trial of Milosevic. But where are the vast majority of sociologists, journalists, lawyers, politicians and in particular mathematicians - to counter Ball’s testimony that Milosevic’s security forces murdered 10,356 Kosovars? Combined these professionals could so easily demonstrate the incredulity of the justice of this ICTY trial of Milosevic and the consequent social damage of not challenging this injustice which you have so rightly pointed to in Part 9.Apart from a host of other incredulous facts presented I believe your argument of implausibility, that given the circumstances Milosevic would never have ordered the forces under his control to commit war crimes, is unanswerable. Milosevic must have had in mind the consequences of being beaten by Nato. The disparity between the numbers claimed slaughtered and those actually slaughtered bears out this fact. Of the 5,000 or so victims the KLA or Nato bombs killed most.
There are two matters upon which I would welcome your comments as a professional psychologist:
First: The recent report by Covic, Serbia’s current Deputy prime Minister, which claims to have uncovered the bodies of 936 Kosovar victims in Serbia proper. Note this claim brings the total number of bodies claimed to have been found to many hundreds more than those required to satisfy the number of missing victims claimed by UNMIK!
Second: What is your psychological understanding of Britain’s Prime Minister Blair who has taken a dominant and pivotal role in the wars on Serbia and Iraq: whose forces were second only to the US, played a major role in the invasion of Kosovo and stood by while the KLA murdered and ethnically cleansed the minority populations in Kosovo - upon which matter Blair remains tight lipped -: whose lawyers play a principal part in this judicial farce at the so-called ICTY: the trial of Milosevic.
A young Blair claimed to be a pacifist and was a CND campaigner yet now justifies the deployment of cluster bombs 15,000 feet above civilian areas and the flying of bombs into public buildings: for example the RTS in Belgrade. He is on record disseminating massive pre-war lies about the situation in Kosovo: The mythical tens of thousands slaughtered by Serbian security forces, the mythical rape camps and death camps. Over Iraq a dossier was prepared which was in part plagiarised and in part fabricated. Thus a reluctant British people were led to these two wars on the basis of statements made by Blair which he ought to have known were untrue?
PS. In case you are unaware of the fact: To create paragraphs on this forum you need to place the following group of three characters at the beginning of each sentence you wish to start a new paragraph: <P>
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Monday May 26, 2003 at 9:01 am
David! On your reasonable question (May 24, 2003 at 7:37 pm) may I suggest that:He already told you that! Mr. May is going to allow the other side to come up with irrelevant third hand "witnesses" for another 100 days!
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Monday May 26, 2003 at 10:06 am
DavidSober up. This is war. The Islamist have no rules, only executions of their enemies in and out and everywhere.
Be gratefull the US is not Nazi Germany. Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, or North Korea are not Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, or Norway.
It's amazing you have no critizism of 'terrorists' but a lot of BS concerning the only entity left between total world chaos and order.
What would you do mate, if you were W. Hopefully not sell out like Chirac.
J P
USA,Wis - Monday May 26, 2003 at 10:58 am
Great, the ICTY continues to infinity while the architects of pure propaganda criminal events like Racak and the weapons of mass destruction are free to destroy the world piecemeal at will and with impunity.
No legal high priest of International Law has reap his robes yet. Aha, Soros asks the world to understand Kosovo can't be part of Serbia. How so Mr. Soros, what argument would you like to use, can the west Bank of the Jordan River be Part of Greater Israel? Soros logic remains to be understood.
Yes, as Godfred logically states NO BODY CAN CLAIM to be defending Mr. Milosevic because Mr. Milosevic is defending HIMSELF, all by himself!
And what is wrong with using the word defending in regard to his case? I also defend Mr. Milosevic and in more than one way, do I need Mr. Israel's permission to say so?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Monday May 26, 2003 at 11:24 am
THE RACAK HOAX WAS WALKER´S CREATION!With all respect for the work of professor Gil-White and others, may I point out that it is not just through the investigations by "correspondents" or by human rights and peace groups (or,say, by Emperors-Clothes for that matter), but mainly through the admirable work of mr. Milosevic himself, that an incident like the Racak "massacre" now can be widely seen as "an enormous hoax".
May I briefly refer you to Milosevic´s cross-examination of Canadian general Maisonneuve on 29 May, 2002 (Transcripts, Page 5841):
Quote begins
Q. So already in the afternoon when you arrived, the village was under KLA control yet again. You do know, I hope, that the entire world public has been informed by your boss, the head of KVM, Walker, that there was a massacre in Racak, that civilians were killed, and that a reaction followed from all quarters. Mr. Nice actually --
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it's very difficult to follow if you're not asking questions. Now, what is the question?
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. So if that kind of assessment was made, although an on-site investigation had not been carried out and the results of the post-mortems had not come in, why was such an assessment given without the data that you obtained or that you could have obtained from the KLA and its commanders?
A. Your Honour, that's a question that I can't answer because it was done by -- by Ambassador Walker. That was his assessment. Is that what you're asking me, whether -- why was the assessment done?
Q. I'm asking you, Mr. Maisonneuve, in view of your obligations as a verifier - and I assume that there is also your obligation to tell the truth - you had to know, on the 15th when you entered Racak that it was KLA members who were killed there. Isn't that right or is that not right?
A. On the 15th, I did not know that KLA members had been killed. In fact, I did not know that civilians had been killed either. It was on the 16th that we discovered the bodies...
Quote ends
On 12 June, 2002 the former head of KVM, ambassador William Walker, was to confirm in Court that the crucial statement of a "massacre" was indeed based merely on his own assesment. In fact, questioned by mr. Nice on whether anybody else contributed to or caused him to use any of the words or whether they were his own "choice" Walker declared that:
"My statement was totally my creation." (Transcripts, Page 6805).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Monday May 26, 2003 at 1:58 pm
My sentiments exactly:“I am ‘pro-Serb’ only if that means that I consider the Serbs to be human beings like everybody else, neither better nor worse. I have no personal connection with any party to the Yugoslav conflicts. The only thing that may have inspired a special sympathy for Serbs is the fact that they have been subjected in recent years to an altogether extraordinary campaign of racist calumny by commentators and politicians in NATO countries. The slander of an entire people is an injustice for which there is no court of appeal other than public opinion.”
Quote from the book: FOOLS’ CRUSADE by Diana Johnstone.
Does this book throw any light on the question: “Is this trial fair?”?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Monday May 26, 2003 at 4:43 pm
To Peter Taylor,Thank you for the tip about the paragraphs, and the nice things you said about my article!
You ask: "But where are the vast majority of sociologists, journalists, lawyers, politicians and in particular mathematicians - to counter Ball’s testimony that Milosevic’s security forces murdered 10,356 Kosovars? Combined these professionals could so easily demonstrate the incredulity of the justice of this ICTY trial of Milosevic and the consequent social damage of not challenging this injustice which you have so rightly pointed to in Part 9."
Where are they? Indeed.
Unfortunately most academics pride themselves as "intellectuals" on the fact that they read the New York Times. You begin to see the problem... They _trust_ the mainstream Western media, and most of them know nothing about Yugoslavia. I used to be one of those academics. What changed my mind? Emperor's Clothes. And the effect was so strong that I went from being a reader to becoming an investigator. Before that, I was not in journalism.
I am afraid that my training as an anthropologist/psychologist does not allow me to explain individuals at a distance. I cannot presume to know what goes on in the depths of Mr. Blair's mind. But your question suggests that you are shocked that he could have become so different from what he once was. Well, perhaps he never was really like that.
Many things are not what they seem.
Francisco Gil-White
Pennsylvania - Monday May 26, 2003 at 8:06 pm
Jovica Stanisic was to undergo a thorough checkup to determine whether he needs surgery before he is handed over to the tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, said Rasim Ljajic, the human rights minister.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Monday May 26, 2003 at 8:08 pm
The Angel of Death is called the Human Rights Minister, very clever!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 3:42 am
Dear Webmaster, We are currently producing a 50 minutes documentary for VPRO Dutch television on the Milosevic case. I would be very happy if I could get in touch with Vera Martinovic, becuase we would like to use her contribution as she shows in your discussion site. We are travelling to Belgrade next week (June 1st 2003) so hopefully you will be able to forward this request to her as soon as possible. with best regards, Olaf Oudheusden
olaf oudheusden
amsterdam
the netherlands - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 4:00 am
President Milosevic is sick today and he'll probably be sick tomorrow as well. They say he has a feaver.There is no "trial" today and they will decide later about the rest of the week.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 4:23 am
Gogol Charlemagne,There is nothing wrong with claiming to defend Milosevic. A problem only arises when one falsely claims to be Milosevic's lawyer.
It is obvious to anybody who is following the case that Milosevic is defending himself, and doing a damn good job of it. However, somebody who isn't following the case (i.e. most people) will see Ramsey Clark or Jacques Verges on TV and they will beleive these men when they lie and falsely claim that they are Milosevic's lawyer.
Moreover, Clark and Verges carry a lot of negative political baggage around with them. They are well known, but they are also widely disliked.
I don't care if Clark and Verges say things in defense of Milosevic, I think that's great. What I object to is them claiming to be Milosevic's lawyer, because that associates them and all of their negative political baggage with Milosevic in the eyes of the uninfored masses.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 4:42 am
How many more false promises:Vladimir Bozovic, the head of the Coordinating Committee for Kosovo and Metohija's justice bureau, said that the Hague tribunal will soon indict several former commanders of the Kosovo Liberation Army.
I*Net News report 26 May 2003.
Between three and five thousand killings, some one quarter of a million of the minority populations exiled and only one commander indicted in four years. If commanders are to be indicted then the senior commanders must be implicated - as in Serbia - yet they are leading members of Nato’s puppet government in Kosovo.
How is this justice when the crimes of the KLA are cogent to the trial of Milosevic but will not conclude until well after Milosevic’s conviction?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 5:34 am
Andy,
I think you're putting the cart before the horse blaming Ramsey Clark for what people believe about him ready for his lynching based on assumptions. You yourself if I remember correctly believed erroneously that Jacques Verges was an Algerian communist. I saw Ramsey Clark on TV, and I can say it was not the impression I was giving, representing himself as Mr. Milosevic lawyer. The questions asked were the trap, the usual traps I am so used to see in America to discredit any opposition to the established order of things, to keep the public in the dark and that his what people like Ramsey Clark have stood against for most of their lives.
Ramsey Clark was talking on the subject of the violation of the US Constitution by President Bush, he was arguing for his impeachment as he is collecting the necessaries signatures to impeach him out of office, he was talking about the illegality of the war on Iraq and and the deception used to sell it, he never brought up the subject of Mr. Mlosevic, the public did by asking if you're so good why do you associate with criminals, dictators like Mr. Milosevic . . .or do you believe the state of Israel has the right to exist? and isn't that what you are referring to when you say: because that associates them and all of their negative political baggage with Milosevic in the eyes of the uninformed masses.
That kind of thinking my friend is one step away from censorship!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 6:41 am
In response to Branko B.'s statement supporting Nico Varkevisser and my article, "More on how Ramsey Clark Attacked Milosevic [on Televsion] at the National Press Club," Mr. Louis-Jensen writes:
"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."
To which I say, first, President Milosevic must be defended from slander precisely because is doing a great job defending the Serbian people. That's what Nico and Francisco Gil-White and I try to do: counter lies about the Serbs and Slobodan Milosevic. The liars must learn: no more open season on Serbs.
Second, you say we're wrong because there would be no sense in someone falsely claiming, or being falsely "accused", of being President Milosevic's lawyer. But there's an obvious purpose, which we stated: to lend credibility to the supposed attorney when he links Milosevic to monsters. Ms. Lytle *did* explicitly state that Clark was President Milosevic's lawyer and she and Mr. Clark *did* both link President Milosevic to monsters. Ms. Lytle said:
"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."
Note that Lytle separated Clark's alleged client's into two groups. One group was the normal assortment of clients. The other was the rogues gallery: Rahman and LaRouche (who are rogues!) and President Milosevic (who is thje opposite!).
Clark should have a) corrected the lie that he represents President Milosevic and b) more important, objected to placing President Milosevic in a category with Rahman and LaRouche.
He did neither. Therefore of course, people got the impression that Lytle spoke the truth.
Lytle's statement served the obvious purpose of linking President Milosevic to Sheikh Rahman in the public mind. Clark assented by his silence, and later strengthened the impression that Rahman and Milosevic are of a similar type.
So, who is Sheik Rahman? He is the head of Gama'a al-Islamyya, the worst terrorist group in Egypt. They are the ones who boastfully claimed responsibility for the 1997 attack on tourists in Luxor. 58 foreign tourists and 4 Egyptians were slaughtered. Noses and ears were hacked off. They carved a hole in a Japanese tourist's chest, and in that hole they put a note praising Sheikh Rahman. And the next day, Gama'a al-Islamyya officially took responsibility for the attack which, they explained, was a failed attempt to take hostages in an effort to secure Sheik Rahman's release from a US jail. By the way, Gama'a al-Islamyya fought the Bosnian Serbs as part of the mujahideen terrorist force sponsored by Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Pentagon.
That is the man to whom Lytle linked Milosevic. And Clark not only did not set the record straight, he furthered strengthened this false impression, as follows.
Later in the TV broadcast, Lytle brought up Milosevic again. She asked Clark why he represented war criminals like Milosevic. Clark answered by talking not about Milosevic, but about Rahman, praising him as an intellectual of achievement. As people may or may not know, Muslim terrorist groups always have Islamic scholars as their leaders - the scholars tell them what actions the Koran requires or allows, and what actions it prohibits. So by praising Rahman in this way, Clark was sending a terrible message to Muslim people, putting his prestige behind this "scholar" of fanaticism and terror, who has the blood of the Bosnian Serbs on his hands.
President Milosevic does *not* stand for terrorism. He stands for *fighting* terrorism. In the fall of 2001, after he was kidnapped to The Hague, I spoke to President Milosevic on the phone. He said, "They should have given me a medal instead of putting me here. It was we who fought these terrorists. It was NATO who sponsored them." He has made the same point quite effectively in The Hague.
By linking President Milosevic to Sheikh Rahman, Ramsey Clark was smearing him before an audience perhaps in the millions. Coming from a man whom Lytle had explicitly identified as President Milosevic's lawyer, this was far more harmful to President Milosevic and the Serbian people than any slander from the mouth of an obvious enemy. Can anybody spell Trojan Horse?
Jared Israel
USA - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 6:43 am
Gogol Charlemagne,All that Ramsey Clark and Jacques Verges have to do is say 6 words to make me happy.
They have to say: "I am not Slobodan Milosevic's lawyer."
I don't care what Verges and Clark think about Iraq, Israel-Palestine, or whatever else. Their politics are their own business, and I support their right to speak their minds on any issue they wish. If they want to defend Milosevic then that's great and I would welcome that. What I object to is them claiming to be Milosevic's lawyer when they are not his lawyer. That's it.
I have no desire to lynch anybody. I repeat that Clark and Verges have every right to speak out on any issue they wish, including the issue of Slobidan Milosevic. However, they don't have the right to go around and say that they are Milosevic's lawyer.
Ramsey Clark was appointed by the tribunal to act as a sort of legal counselor to Milosevic, but this arrangement was rejected by President Milosevic. Therefore, Ramsey Clark does not have the right to represent himself, or let himself be represented as Milosevic's lawyer.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 6:44 am
I wonder what is the meaning of this:
Ramsey Clark: Milosevic To Defend Himself With Legal Help
THE HAGUE, August 2, 2001 (Reuters) - Slobodan Milosevic will mount his own ''very powerful defense'' against war crimes charges in The Hague but wants lawyers to assist him in court, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark said on Wednesday. ``He is a person who is used to speaking for himself and he will speak for himself, but he wants to have the assistance of counsel, Clark said after visiting the detained former Yugoslav president for a third consecutive day in The Hague.
Milosevic, in a show of contempt for a court he has branded an ``illegal instrument of his NATO enemies, made his first appearance in court last month alone after opting not to appoint a defense lawyer. Milosevic's unorthodox wish to have lawyers assisting him both in court and in the U.N. detention unit while declining to follow the standard practice of granting power of attorney has proved a headache for tribunal officials. ``There is no precedence for this. Any proposals like that would have to be looked at by the judges and the court registry, U.N. tribunal spokesman Jim Landale said.
If he indeed represents himself during the trial, expected to start next year, he would be the first defendant at The Hague tribunal to do so. Legal experts have suggested such a strategy would be foolish. But lawyers supporting Milosevic, including Clark, have said he wants to seek expert legal advice without actually granting power of attorney. ``He will not be represented...He will have the advice of counsel on a whole range of things...He is going to mount a very powerful defense, said Clark, a member of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic.
Milosevic, accused of atrocities in Kosovo in 1999, was whisked out of Serbia in late June to face war crimes charges at the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Milosevic is being held in isolation from The Hague's other 39 detainees. The U.N. court said the former leader wanted to be kept apart from other detainees, but Clark said Milosevic did want to mix with other detainees. Clark, 73, a campaigner for causes often at odds with U.S. authorities, served as attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson in the late 1960s. He condemned the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia during the conflict over Kosovo.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 6:52 am
I have the impression that a lawyer like the present US Attorney General Mr. Ashcroft may be the suitable defense adviser to Slobodan Milosevic, he is well respected in many main stream quarters, has no problems tearing the US Constitution to pieces and has the approval of most of the US (albeit a little ignorant) masses.
Is that it?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 6:55 am
More unralted information:
AP, November 18, 2001 Ramsey Clark to Be Milosevic Adviser
By Associated Press
THE HAGUE, Netherlands -- The U.N. war crimes tribunal is allowing a former U.S. attorney general to be a legal adviser to former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. The tribunal said Ramsey Clark, a civil rights activist who was attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson, and British attorney John Livingston will be granted full privileges of defense council to meet and advise Milosevic, who is awaiting trial on war crimes charges in Kosovo and Croatia.
The decision, adopted Thursday, means Milosevic will be able to hold unmonitored conversations with the two lawyers, and that the tribunal cannot refuse to let them meet "without reasonable grounds." Milosevic has refused to appoint an attorney to represent him in hearings before the tribunal, saying he considers the court illegal and doesn´t recognize its right to try him.
But during his four months in detention, Milosevic was visited by several lawyers, including Clark. Some of the meetings were not monitored by U.N. authorities. The appointment of the two legal advisers followed a request from Milosevic "to meet with them," the tribunal said.
However, Milosevic´s Belgrade lawyer, Zdenko Tomanovic, was quoted as saying Saturday by Dutch national television that Milosevic was rejecting the tribunal´s appointment of legal advisers. Milosevic, who was ousted from power last year, was transferred to The Hague by Serbian authorities in June to face charges of persecution in Kosovo in 1999. Prosecutors subsequently charged him with war crimes in Croatia, and last week submitted another indictment for genocide during the 1992-95 Bosnian war.
Clark, who has taken part in rallies in support of Milosevic, has also represented a former Rwandan pastor charged with five counts of genocide, complicity in genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide and crimes against humanity.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 6:56 am
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 6:56 am
- Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 7:17 am
As Reuters stated on the 18th, quoted by "Gogol Charlemagne"(?) a) The Tribunal "allowed" Clark to be Milsoevic's advisor but b)"However, Milosevic´s Belgrade lawyer, Zdenko Tomanovic, was quoted as saying Saturday by Dutch national television that Milosevic was rejecting the tribunal´s appointment of legal advisers".
The lawyers in question were: Clark and Livingston.
That was Reuter's on the 18th. Here's Reuter's on the 19th, after the statement was issued in Belgrade *on this issue* by the President's attorney, Dragoslav Ognjanovic:
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has rebuffed an International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia effort to assign him two attorneys who he can meet with confidentially as manipulation by the system, defense attorney Dragoslav Ognjanovic of Belgrade said yesterday. Milosevic has previously refused to appoint a defense team because he does not recognize the tribunal's authority.
"Milosevic's stand is that this is a new manipulation by the court," Ognjanovic said. "The court has never asked Milosevic if he wants these two people to be appointed as his advisers."
Milosevic has been indicted by the tribunal in connection with atrocities committed in Croatia in 1991 and 1992 and in Kosovo in 1999. The tribunal named former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and British lawyer John Livingston as the advisers, but Ognjanovic says the ICTY move restricts the number of other people who would be able to hold meetings with Milosevic without being monitored.
"All other persons will not have this privilege," he said. "This is not what he wants" (Reuters/ABCNews.com, Nov. 19).
Jared Israel
USA - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 7:30 am
olaf oudheusdenVera can be contacted through Andy Wilcoxson and or via this site. By the way....the webmaster of this site isn't exactly a Vera loyalist.....:)
Vera
Great job again on your latest report !
AP V
NY
NY - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 9:08 am
Olaf,I don't have Vera's contact information. If you want to contact her the best thing for you to do would be to post your e-mail address here and then ask her to e-mail you.
Gogol Charlemagne,
The fact that Ramsey Clark was handpicked by the Hague Tribunal to be Milosevic's "legal advisor" should cause you to see a big red flag.
Do you think that the Hague Tribunal was trying to help Milosevic? Or is this an indication that Ramsey Clark could be on the other side?
Do you really think that this leopard has changed his spots? Do you believe that the U.S. Government would allow a former Attorney General to oppose them and accuse them in the manner that Clark does? If he is honest in his critique of U.S. policies, then the U.S. Government would surely see him as a security risk. Why then hasn't he been liquidated?
The FBI was carrying out its infamous COINTELPRO while Ramsey Clark was the Attorney General. Dosen't it strike you as just a little bit odd that the man who was in charge of spying on antiwar activists and civil rights leaders is now the man who leads the antiwar movement?
What better way is there to spy on a movement than to be the leader of the movement? Maybe COINTELPRO lives.
I do not trust Ramsey Clark. He can speak and say anything he likes, but I see him as suspect.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 9:35 am
In response to his comment (May 27, 2003 at 6:41 am), I would say, that there is no need for Jared Israel to illuminate his efforts to "counter lies about the Serbs and Slobodan Milosevic."Mr. Israel is indeed wellknown and widely respected for contributing to the truth about NATO´s crimes in Yugoslavia.
However, - this is certainly true of the former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, as well.
Hence I strongly resent mr. Israels seemingly unfounded notion, that Ramsey Clark is one among the "liars (who) must learn (that there is) no more open season on Serbs."
hONESTLY! In my opinion Ms. Lytle (of whom I have no other knowlege) is certainly to blame for her unwarranted assertions at the said luncheon - and I would fully understand, if mr. Israel has a go at her (and at other liars and traitors in this connexion).
But for all the words already spend on this (side-)"issue", there seems to be no support for the implied allegation, that Ramsey Clark was conspiring to give "ordinary people/viewers" in the U.S. the false impression, that he "was President Milosevic´s lawyer."
Ladies and Gentlemen, - may I suggest once again that in the circumstances we cannot possibly afford to waste time on such artificial "questions". The real challenge for us would be to join and help, however modestly, in securing that the extraordinary effort made by mr. Milosevic will also be fruitfull.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 9:42 am
Anyone wishing to contact Vera Martinovic can leave an email address here for her to do so. Or as I have done in the past email me and I will relay the message to her.
gogolc@hotmail.com
Andy,
Everybody is a suspect in the world of conflict and deceits. Why has he not been eliminated? May be he is more useful this way than dead. Why is not all opposition eliminated for that matter. Still, the program I watched and what came out of Ramsey Clark does not in any way amounts to him claiming to be representing or defending in the legal sense Slobodan Milosevic. Do I have to be eliminated?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 9:48 am
Slobodan Milosevic should be out of the detention center and as the amiciand himself have asked the court he should be given a full year to recover his health and prepare his defense.
What the Tribunal is doing under the prosecutors pressure is tantamount to murder.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 10:49 am
Godfred Louis-Jensen,A fox in the hen house is not exactly a trivial issue. The critical question here is: What if Ramsey Clark is still an American agent?
Do you think that Jared Israel should remain silent if he thinks that somebody endeavoring to do harm to President Milosevic?
I, for one, would loose respect for Mr. Israel if he accepted to just be quiet when he knew that somebody was trying to hurt President Milosevic. How could anybody trust him if he did that?
Since you "strongly resent Jared Israel's unfounded notions" I would encourage you to explain to the group exactly what you think his motivation for doing this is. Do you think he is doing this to defend Milosevic, or do you believe that he has another purpose?
Gogol,
Why is not all opposition eliminated?
Because other opposition didn't hold a position in the highest echelons of the U.S. Government.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 1:39 pm
Lest we forget: lest the vast majority never find outSee below an alternative version of the truth as distinct from Phony Tony’s Kosovo world of make-belief which he be-smirks upon the British people, courtesy largely but not entirely of the BBC.
This man supported Islamic terror against the Serbs. Yes you did read it correctly and to prove it here it is again: Blair supported Islamic terror against the Serbs in Kosovo. Incredulous but true. I urge those who doubt these statements to watch a recording of the BBC - yes the BBC - programme ‘The fall of Milosevic’. In the first part of this three-part BBC TV broadcast you will see glimpses - for a second or so - of two unmistakable scenes of Mujahedin marching and then training with KLA regular forces in Kosovo.
In order that al-Qaeda and the Mujahedin should prevail Blair also deployed cluster bombs over Serb civilian areas thus tearing the life and limbs from innocent women and children. Blair - he who deplored al-Qaeda’s flying of bombs into buildings in New York - sanctioned the flying of bombs into building in Belgrade in support of al-Qaeda!
No wonder the vast majority do not believe any of this its seems too surreal to be true. Only Tony Blair could do this - because the majority let him get away with it. When its their turn to be the victims of his ntuple-standards they cannot claim they were not warned. And so to the aftermath of all his nonsense in Serbia:
Four years ago NATO waged war against Yugoslavia in what was billed a "humanitarian" war. The lofty motives proclaimed by Western leaders had the hollow ring of hypocrisy for those on the receiving end of NATO bombs. In order to destabilize the last remaining socialist nation in Europe, the United States and Great Britain supported and armed the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a violent secessionist organization. The KLA embodied the very worst ideals. Deeply involved in the drug and prostitution trades, this organization routinely murdered and threatened non-Albanians, as well as those Albanians who desired to live in a multiethnic society. Its highest ideal was secession and the creation of an ethnically pure Albanian state. Before the NATO war, any Albanian who held a public job was a target of the KLA, and very often such individuals were simply killed. Similarly, Serbs, Roma (Gypsies), Turks, Gorans and others faced murderous attacks. Western aid built up the KLA into a formidable guerrilla organization that plunged the entire province of Kosovo into chaos.
Source: ‘Interviews with Kosovo Serbian refugees’ by Gregory Elich, Jeff Goldberg and Iman El-Sayed.
Is this trial fair? No: Its purpose is not justice but to mask the continuing crimes on Kosovo of Tony and his cronies.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 5:19 pm
Regarding Peter Taylor's point, that in fact Blair supported Islamist terrorists against the Serbs, Roma and others, he is right on target. While pretending to oppose these Islamists, the US *and* British Empire sponsors them, conspires with them and lends them respectability.
I recently found out about a conference pushing Sharia (Muslim religious law) on 'developing' countries. The conference involved the cooperation of Iran and the US State Department. The Emperor's Clothes article on this is now posted at Top Law Organization Pushes Islamism
Jared Israel
USA - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 8:48 pm
A very telling storyNaomi Klein,Thursday May 22, 2003
The Guardian
Jessica Lynch and Rachel Corrie could have passed for sisters. Two all-American blondes, two destinies for ever changed in a Middle East war zone. Private Jessica Lynch, the soldier, was born in Palestine, West Virginia. Rachel Corrie, the activist, died in Israeli-occupied Palestine.
Corrie was four years older than 19-year-old Lynch. Her body was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza seven days before Lynch was taken into Iraqi custody on March 23. Before she went to Iraq, Lynch organised a pen-pal programme with a local kindergarten. Before Corrie left for Gaza, she organised a pen-pal programme between kids in her hometown of Olympia, Washington, and children in Rafah.
Lynch went to Iraq as a soldier loyal to her government. Corrie went to Gaza to oppose the actions of her government. As a US citizen, she believed she had a special responsibility to defend Palestinians against US-built weapons, purchased with US aid to Israel.
When that Israeli bulldozer driver looked at Corrie's orange jacket and pressed the accelerator, her strategy failed. It turns out that the lives of some US citizens - even beautiful, young, white women - are valued more than others. And nothing demonstrates this more starkly than the opposing responses to Rachel Corrie and Pte Jessica Lynch. When the Pentagon announced Lynch's successful rescue, she became a hero, complete with "America loves Jessica" fridge magnets, stickers, T-shirts, mugs, country songs and an NBC made-for-TV movie. According to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, President George Bush was "full of joy for Jessica Lynch".
Her rescue, we were told, was a testament to a core American value: as West Virginia senator Jay Rockefeller said to the Senate: "We take care of our people."
Do they? Corrie's death, which made the papers for two days and then virtually disappeared, has met with almost total official silence, despite the fact that eyewitnesses claim it was a deliberate act. President Bush has said nothing about a US citizen killed by a US-made bulldozer bought with US tax dollars. A US congressional resolution demanding an independent inquiry has been buried in committee, leaving the Israeli military's investigation - which cleared itself of any wrongdoing - as the only official investigation.
D Jovanovic
USA - Tuesday May 27, 2003 at 10:44 pm
To Olaf Oudheusden: Thanks for your interest. Kindly send an e-mail to a participant here, Gogol Charlemagne (gogolc@hotmail.com), who will forward it to me (he was kind enough to post his e-mail address in this forum and to resend the messages intended for me also on previous occasions). I'll answer you forthwith.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia