 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
- Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 7:52 am
Ramsey Clark = The Jesse Jackson of the antiwar movement.
Joel Aksamit
Cleveland Mo
USA - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 10:11 am
Andy Wilcoxson is asking (27, 2003 at 10:49 am), whether I think, that Jared Israel should remain silent?My answer is: No, most certainly not! On the contrary I do appreaciate and even admire the work already done by mr. Israel in order to defend Milosevic against U.S. and NATO allegations (for one example he was the first to point out the true nature of the speech by Milosevic at the Kosovo Polje; and we should be grateful even if mr. Israel had done no more than that, - which in fact he has).
All right, then: Do I think that Jared Israel is now attacking former U.S. Attorney, Ramsey Clark, for "posing as Milosevic´s lawyer" in order to defend the President?
Well, yes, - maybe. However, while I did not watch the television program in question, it is still my impression from his two little articles on the subject, that (Gogol Charlemagne, who did watch the program, is quite right in suggesting that) "what came out of Ramsey Clark (on that particular luncheon) does not in any way amount to him claiming to be representing or defending Milosevic in the legal sense."
As I regard mr. Israel to be an intelligent and dedicated man, I am forced to believe that he had "another purpose" with these allegations against Ramsey Clark (than to defend Milosevic). What such purpose(s) may be I have no idea, but I watch with dismay, that little irresponsible "words" are now spreading (ref.: Joel Aksamit, 28, 2003 at 7:52 am).
Look: If there were really "a fox in the hen house" as Andy Wilcoxson is hinting, then surely mr. Israel (or someone else) would be able to come up with evidence rather more substantial than this mere reference to "what Ramsey Clark did not say", - or even "failed to correct" at some televised luncheon.
However, I would welcome (and even expect) appropriate action to be taken to counter the ignorance and/or ill intentions exhibited by Ms. Lytle on that occasion.
Now, as I sincerely believe that we should work with facts (rather than with assumed impressions of "ordinary people" in the US), may I conclude by turning to "something different" (as Judge May so often says at the "trial"):
Four years ago today, on 28 May 1999, at 12:30 a.m., the area of the town of Aleksinac (in Southern Serbia) was attacked from the air. Fourteen missiles were fired at the wider area while 7 missiles hit the center of the town Aleksinac; one missile struck the area of Svrljig Municipality. In the attack on downtown Aleksinac, at 12:40 a.m., the family houses at Nos. 23 and 25 Niska St. were totally demolished. Branislav Mitrovic (1920), Dusanka Savic (1951), and Predrag Nedeljkovoc (1962) were killed, and 5 citizens were severely injured. Fifteen other family houses as well as many cars were also damaged.
That is a fact! With evidence documented by the FRY Ministry of Foreign Affairs (ISBN 86-7549-134-4) I once paid a visit to the town of Aleksinac to ascertain the incident; and I am convinced, that what happened there on 28 May 1999 constitutes one of numerous war crimes committed by US/NATO during their campaign over Kosovo.
In my view the purpose of the prolonged "trial" against Milosevic is indeed, as suggested by Peter Taylor, "to mask the crimes of Tony and his cronies", - American agents among whom regrettably are also the Danish then Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Niels Helveg Petersen and the then Minister of the Defense, Hans Hækkerup, - as listed in "The Complaint" prepared and signed by Ramsey Clark.
My point being, that in fact Ramsey Clark has made a remarkable contribution in order to defend the former FRY President and the nation, for which he stood up.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 10:17 am
DJA very telling story? Yes, but not your way. Corrie 'joined' a 'foreign army', got zapped fighting along side them, that's life as she wanted it. So she's a 'kook', as is Johnny Walker Lindh.
The people elected W, not Corrie.
J P
USA,Wis - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 10:43 am
Yet another abject failure:As Blair flies to Iraq, like a vulture off to pick the bones of the Alliance of the Killing’s victims, it is announced that Nato’s Proconsul in Kosovo, Herr Steiner, is to be replaced: although Serbia’s province under his rule is in state of terminal disarray.
We all remember Blair’s triumphal visit to Kosovo in 1999: Then as now this visit to Iraq signifies nothing but an ego trip for one who has left in his wake a trail of death and devastation in a series of disastrous foreign adventures.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 10:45 am
Godfred Louis-Jensen,Perhaps you are being too quick in your condemnation of Mr. Israel.
As you know from reading the end of Mr. Israel and Mr. Varkevisser's first report regarding Ramsey Clark there is more material to come on this subject.
The two upcoming articles mentioned in the first report are: "Ramsey Clark Publicly Smears the Bosnian Serbs" and "Ramsey Clark: Once an Intelligence Operative always an Intelligence Operative?"
This issue is much bigger than just some remark made by some woman at the National Press Club. If that's all this was about then nobody would particularly care. This was only, "the straw that broke the camel's back," so to speak.
Maybe you're right that the case against Ramsey Clark is thus far incomplete, but rest assured that more information is on the way.
If you want to watch the TV program in question you can view it at the following link:
http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/odrive/iraq051203_clark.rm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 10:59 am
Gogol,"Like you, I had thought Clark was with the 'good guys'. Then after reading Jared Israels' articles, it became obvious that all was not as it seemed.
When Lytle asks Clark why he represents war criminals like Milosevic, Clarks whole 'good guy' image goes down the drain, when he (in effect) agrees with her.
What would YOU say to someone who asks you "Why do you defend a War Criminal like Milosevic"??? Would you just let the 'Implication' stand, knowing it would be circulated world wide? Or would YOU CORRECT Lytle?
Apparently Ramsey Clark doesn't mind being known as someone who will stand up for inhuman acts. His willingness to INCLUDE Milosevic in their company is deplorable. No one held a gun to his head to make him agree with Lytle did they?
A really sad fact about this exchange is that, once again, the Spin Doctors were at work. We receive so much information in the course of a day that it is really difficult to separate fact from fiction. Ideas can be slipped in that we just don't have the time to question.
Thanks to Jared Israel and EC, this one didn't slip by. Maybe Lytle and Clark should be brought before the 'court?' to answer propaganda charges?
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 11:58 am
Andy Wilcoxson!I certainly did not "condemn" mr. Israel, - and I think you know that. I was merely questioning some particular "idea" of his (and I guess that I was defending (the work of) Ramsey Clark with regard to "Milosevic´s case", - though obviously not "in the legal sense", of course).
Now, a really sad fact about Rebecka´s sense of justice may be, that she did not take her time to question the very "idea" that Ramsey Clark was "posing as Milosevic´s lawyer".
One good question to ask your inner "Spin Doctor" would be this:
Why would Ramsey Clark want to convey this false impression (as suggested by Jared Israel)?
Taking anything from television to be "the simple truth" unless it is instantaneously corrected, appears to be very American, - yet a bad habit (the same applies to Rebecka´s notion of "good guys"). It´s disturbing for a citizen in "old Europe" to have these little signs that "politics" of the all-dominant U.S. superpower is based on mere hear-say.
Even if more information were on its way in I wouldn´t necessarily follow this "case against Ramsey Clark", - which is at best a side-issue to the question of whether mr. Milosevic is getting a fair trial (he is´t!).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 1:29 pm
The transcripts for April 14 - May 2 are now avaliable.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 1:52 pm
Arkan's alleged secretary was cross-examined on April 17. None of us has seen this before since this was the day that the power went out at The Hague and they had to move to a different room.Much has been made of this witness too. So it could be beneficial to read this transcript:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/030417ED.htm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 3:19 pm
This is a major problem:Last night the BBC programme Newsnight broadcast a discussion between six New Labour luuvies who squabbled over the rights and wrongs of military intervention in Iraq and incidentally other countries.
Discussing with Dianne Abbot MP the massacres in Rwanda, Guardian columnist David Aaronvoitch said this “You would have to intervene before the GENOCIDE started: as we did in Kosovo”
What GENOCIDE in Kosovo?
This is unbelievable! David Aaronovitch is a ‘reputable’ journalist with a ‘reputable’ newspaper, The Guardian. You may ask what is The Guardian guarding: obviously not the truth as we might suppose.
Is David Aaronovitch so ill informed that he does not know that even the ICTY has not indicted Milosevic for the crime of GENOCIDE in Kosovo? Does he not know that it is actually the KLA which has ethnically cleansed Kosovo?
Or is Aaronovitch in denial because he supported Nato’s illegal attack upon Serbia?
Either way Aaronovitch and his like - and there are so many of them - need to be exposed for the incompetence and/or duplicity which they demonstrate.
What chance of a fair trial has Milosevic when misrepresentations like this are the daily fare served up by the world’s media?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 5:29 pm
Dear Peter Taylor!1: Is it not an indication of some form of justice, that Milosevic is NOT indicted for genocide in Kosovo, - whatever is said by ‘reputable’ journalists like David Aaronovitch (and Ms. Lytle and the like)?
2: The verdict eventually is neither for the world’s media nor for the generally ill-informed (and often careless) public, but for the Court to decide!
We must accept this, - even if we agree that the ICTY is a "false tribunal" and that mr. Milosevic is not guilty as charged.
3. There may be little else, we can do. However, - the situation is not hopeless: It may be a good idea for you to ask this David Aaronovitch directly, whether in fact he does not know that it is the KLA which (under the NATO/UNMIK regime!) has ethnically cleansed Kosovo?
Why not send a letter to the Editor of The Guardian...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 5:37 pm
I repeat, Ramsey Clark was speaking and denouncing President Bushes policies, his war on Iraq, his violations of the US Constitution and was making the case for his impeachment as President Clinton was for much lesser, albeit of a more pleasant nature, crimes.
It is an old biblical way to when you don't like the message to attack the messenger and that was what was done by asking the two questions, one why do you defend war criminals, dictators which incidentally is the very same argument Jared Israel uses to discredit Ramsey Clark for having defended a Muslim intellectual, involved allegedly in terrorism. The second question, had to do with the right to exist for the state of Israel. Not the place or the context, I would expect to initiate a discussion on the trial or the merits of the Milosevices and Israel case.
I once met a well known Jewish criminal lawyer months before his death, he had been barred by the US Government from defending a notorious Muslim clergy, I briefly touched the subject as he was signing his latest and his last book. He said:" Everybody is entitled to a defence lawyer, I would always regret not to have been there to defend Eichmann in Jerusalem"
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 8:40 pm
Dear Godfred1. The reason why the intended charge of Genocide was dropped by the ICTY prosecution was because there is no evidence to support such a charge. Incidentally I believe this is why other charges for other regions for which Milosevic - as President of Serbia - was not responsible were belatedly and absurdly tacked onto the Kosovo indictments thus making a ridiculously long trial. I say absurdly because not only did these latter events take place more than four years before the charges were dreamed up but also Milosevic was applauded, at least by some, for his part in achieving peace agreements over them.
Justice to me means principally truth and impartiality. When the facts do not correspond to the words that describe them we have nothing but non-sense: Where the rules are not applied equally to all there is no fairness. Not proceeding with a trumped up charge because there is no chance of rigging the evidence to support it is not any form of justice I could recognise.
2. In England we sometimes have a ruling in major cases that the media is not allowed to comment upon some aspects of the case during the trial: In order that such comments do not prejudice the course of the trial. Thus I do not agree with you that we must accept that journalists should be allowed to claim that Milosevic practised Genocide in Kosovo when there is no evidence to this effect.
Also I believe a journalist should not comment upon matters unless he is properly informed. If I as a layman can know - from UN sources - that there were some 5,000 missing victims in Kosovo following Nato’s attack and that most of these were the victims of the KLA and Nato bombs then there is no excuse for a journalist not to know - if he decides to comment upon the matter. The same reasoning applies to the facts about the quarter of a million or so internally and externally displaced minority populations in Kosovo.
3. Before I came upon this site I sent hundreds of letters to senior people in politics, the church, the broadcasting media, the press and many other civic dignitaries without any effect whatsoever.
Sure we all - except it seems the current administration in the USA - want an International Court of Justice that will punish political leaders who indulge in war crimes. Those for example who deploy cluster bombs over civilian populations, those who support terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda, those who fly bombs into public buildings …
But let us return to the real and ugly world of ad hoc courts: “The Butcher of Belgrade” is already convicted by this so-called court of justice: its very purpose is to find excuses to find him guilty. Let us recognise that those who kill people on false pretexts - “The mythical tens of thousands of slaughtered Albanians, the mythical Death Camps and Rape Camps” and the Dodgy Dossier on Weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq (part plagiarised and part fabricated) - are capable of literally anything. And so are their hacks.
Our only purpose here is to try to ensure that those who have a mind to have a means whereby they may eventually discover the words which do represent the facts.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 8:48 pm
Well. well, now so much pussy cat, so much cautiousness, who are you, how many are you, how conventional a protest, has daddy approved or perhaps a list of participants need to be pre-approved, or perhaps Carla del Ponte needs to give her approval?
Read here!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 8:56 pm
Ramsey Clark did not have so much trouble getting 100,000's on the streets of New York, San Francico, Washington, Chicago etc., anti-war demonstrators, even a in country which fashions itself at war !
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 9:59 pm
Godfred,>Now, a really sad fact about Rebecka´s sense of justice may be, that she did not take her time to question the very "idea" that Ramsey Clark was "posing as Milosevic´s lawyer".<
The REALLY sad fact was, it made no difference to me if he wants to pose as someone's Lawyer. What I am concerned with was the way he was allowing Milosevic to be protrayed. (Of course, a real Lawyer would have corrected the statement)......
> Taking anything from television to be "the simple truth" unless it is instantaneously corrected, appears to be very American, - yet a bad habit (the same applies to Rebecka´s notion of "good guys"). It´s disturbing for a citizen in "old Europe" to have these little signs that "politics" of the all-dominant U.S. superpower is based on mere hear-say.<
I notice you chose not to answer the question I posed??? IMO, we have a few too many "simple UNtruths" on Television. How very unkind of me to expect that this not be the case. Following are just a few more examples:
1. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Baghdad bunker which the United States said it bombed on the opening night of the Iraq (news - web sites) war in a bid to kill Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) never existed, CBS Evening News reported Wednesday.
2.Saving Private Lynch story 'flawed', from the BBC report, making it more than obvious that the story was made up.
There was another little scenario in the Lynch story that slid right by most people. Mohammed said, in the beginning that his family was most likely murdered by Saddam in retaliation for him helping on the rescue. It must have looked bad in the PR department because later it was reported that his family had been with him the whole time.
Poor guy! Didn't even know his family was with him when he made the original statement???????
Just how much UNtruth are you willing to accept Godfred?
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR - Wednesday May 28, 2003 at 11:01 pm
Andy, I took your advice and read the transcripts of the testimony of Arkan’s secretary. I stopped reading at page 19510. I am not sure what you expected me to get from reading this transcript. Is hearsay evidence and leading the witness something I should be surprised at? I am not. Should I be surprised at May’s arrogance? I am not.The prosecutor does not ask questions, he tells the witness the whole story and asks if that is true. This in law is leading the witness. He should ask the witness questions to which the witness must provide an answer rather than providing the witness with the answer. May, in any other court of law would have admonished the prosecutor and told him to ask his question in such a way so that the court is provided with information from the witness rather than from the prosecution.. Questions such as, what do you know about this? Or Can you tell me how the Tigers treated the Muslim civilians they captured are questions to which the witness must respond without the prosecutor leading her on in the direction of what he wants to hear.
The witness testifies about events that took place four years before she started working for Arkan’s group. All the evidence that she provides is of this version “he said she said” and MR. May accepts it all. Obviously this court accepts hearsay evidence that would not be allowed in any other court of law.
This trial becomes even a bigger joke when May tells Milosevic not to pick fight and than he picks a fight wit Milosevic over the amount of time the prosecutor had and the amount of time that Milosevic should have. Rather than verifying the time May throws a tantrum and goes on one of his many power trips and tells Milosevic that he has three hours to cross examine the secretary when in fact the prosecutor had over three hours to do a direct.
Mr. Lois-Jensen, as Peter Taylor stated we can write letter until we are blue in the face no one will publish them. In the case of the Economist and the Guardian Weekly I just cancelled my subscription because they refuse to even acknowledge the receipt of the letters. The only paper that will publish my letters is the local nothing because they know me in the community.
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 12:45 am
Regret It should read Louis-Jensen
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 3:45 am
Walter,Nothing is exactly what I intend for people to get from that "secretary's" testimony. So many fradulent articles were written in the media about her "damning testimony" against Milosevic. You can see for yourself that there was nothing there.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 9:46 am
Dear Peter Taylor! Point taken, - I believe that we hold very similar views on this "trial" and its entire background.You may have noticed when during a cross-examination the other day Milosevic said something like:
"The only advantage that I do have (in this "trial") is, that I am telling the truth..."
(Right now I can´t locate this statement in the trial transcripts, - but) I believe, that Milosevic was thereby highlighting the very basis for his eventual aquittal: With no evidence to support the charges against him no judge will have the nerve to convict Milosevic for war crimes.
Again: To my mind the Prosecution "lost" its case entirely today one year ago, exactly when the Canadian general Maisonneuve, who was in charge of the KVM, as a witness was admitting that "on the 15th of January I (Maisonneuve) did not know, that...anybody were killed (in the village of Racak)". This statement obviously and very directly contradicted the NATO allegations of a "massacre", - which were to become the very basis for NATO´s war of attack on the FRY.
Yet in a Danish daily (POLITIKEN) Jens Holsøe wrote, that "Milosevic is desperately fighting a shower of accusations" (Milosevic slås mod en byge af anklager. Politiken, 30. maj 2002). Jens Holsøe quite erroneously reported, that "Maisonneuve insisted, that what happened (at Racak) was indeed a massacre", and listfully went on to quote Milosevic for remarking, that "they (KLA) fled like rabbits".
I have countered mr. Holsøe on this particular point about Racak, which I consider to be crucial. I trust, that other people (such as yourself) have contributed at your quarters, - and that eventually all of our little efforts will be seen to support "some form of justice" (in Denmark today the general public anyway appears to understand, that the reason why so little is heard of the "trial" in the Hague, is simply, that US/NATO is loosing their "case").
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 9:53 am
Two 92-bis witnesses were examined and cross-examined today.The first witness to testify was "B-1775." This man was a Serb mortician from Zvornik who had the unpleasant task of collecting the dead bodies and bringing them back to the morgue to undergo examination by pathologists.
There was no connection between this witness and Milosevic or between this witness and any official from Serbia. That being said, this witness was interesting none the less.
The witness was tasked with bringing in Serbs and Muslims who were killed in the war and those who died of natural causes. This witness testified to the professionalism of Zvornik’s Serbian authorities. He testified that pathologists were brought in and that they conducted examinations of the cadavers and that the cadavers were marked for identification and that the records were kept in a professional manner.
The witness didn’t see anybody being killed or any crimes being committed. The only time the witness saw anybody being shot at was when the Muslims were shooting at him.
The witness testified that Muslim corpses were taken to Muslim cemeteries, and that they were given proper burials.
The witness also refuted the prosecution’s so-called “propaganda expert’s” claim that thousands of Muslims were killed in the fighting in Zvornik. This witness who worked in the morgue, and therefore was in a better position than some Frenchman to know how many Muslims were killed in Zvornik stated that during the heaviest fighting (April and May 1992) that 50 Muslims were killed, and not thousands.
Because the witness was in Zvornik he was in a position to know what happened there, and in the area surrounding it. He stated that it was the Muslim extremists who initiated the fighting in those parts. He said that Muslim extremists attacked and killed Serbs at night and that they looted their houses and burned them down.
Because this witness had the job he had, he was in a position to know about some killings and this gave President Milosevic the opportunity to read out lists of crimes that had occurred. Milosevic readout numerous lists of crimes giving detailed information, including: the dates, locations, names of victims, etc…. Milosevic read out the lists of crimes and then the witness confirmed whether or not the crimes had indeed occurred. Unfortunately, for the prosecution’s pathetic joke of a case, their own witness confirmed that most of the crimes had in fact occurred exactly in the manner described by Milosevic.
In the cross-examination by the Amicus, Tapuskovic the witness spoke about how both Serb and Muslim refugees left Zvornik of their own free will and how great numbers of them all went to Serbia in order to escape the civil war that was going on in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The re-examination by Prosecutor, Groome was humorous. Groome was obviously kicking himself for bringing this witness to testify, since he had done so much damage to his case, so Mr. Groome made a crude attempt to discredit his own prosecution witness. Mr. Groome pulled an individual name out of his hat and asked the witness what the circumstances surrounding that death which had happened 10 years ago was. Groome didn’t give any other information besides the name, he didn’t give the location, or the date, or anything else. Mr. Groome thought that by giving incomplete information and asking the witness about one out of hundreds of cases that in this way he could discredit his own witness. Well, it didn’t work and Mr. Groome came off looking like a repugnant ass.
The next witness was a secret witness testifying under the pseudonym “B-1455.” He was a Muslim who was the victim of abuse at the hands of some paramilitaries who he didn’t clearly identify. At any rate, he tried to tie those criminals who killed and abused him and other people to the JNA, but the ties he alleged are unlikely since the JNA was withdrawing from Bosnia on the very day (May 30 1992) that he said the crimes were being perpetrated by those unnamed paramilitaries on.
Again this is another witness who’s testimony has absolutely nothing to do with anything concerning Slobodan Milosevic. I have no idea why the prosecution should be given any more time to present its case when it brings these witnesses who have nothing to do with the man that they are accusing. It is witnesses like this who prove that the only agenda that the prosecution has is to demonize the Serbs.
This pathetic farce they call a “trial” has nothing to do with Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic is just the fall guy. The real agenda is to demonize the Serbs and provide a retroactive justification for all of the crimes that the NATO alliance has perpetrated against the Serbs.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 10:09 am
Mr. Louis-Jensen makes a very good point when he writes "that the reason why so little is heard of the "trial" in the Hague, is simply, that US/NATO is loosing their "case""
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 10:41 am
Godfred Louis-Jensen,I believe that the quote you were looking for was contained in a letter from Slobodan Milosevic.
I don't remember him saying that at the Tribunal (although he may have), but at anyrate he says that in the letter he wrote and you can read that at the following link:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/sloboda042503.htm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 10:52 am
Regarding the 'little' articles on Ramsey Clark by Emperors Clothes, it seems Godfred missed most of the gist.....He TWICE allowed the contention by Lytle that he was defending Milosevic to go UNcontested. Not ONCE during a 3,000 word speech, OR during the Q & A Session, did he in any way DEFEND Milosevic. NOT ONCE.
Instead he allowed reference LINKING Milosevic to the WTC bombing organizer, Rahman. In fact, his praise of Rahman was all the more highlighted by his LACK of ANY praise for Milosevic.
>"One thing I do, is if no one will represent someone, I will insist on their being represented. That's how I got into Sheik Omar Rahman's case. He had no lawyer. I couldn't stand the idea that an Islamic scholar, a Ph.D. from Al Azar University in Cairo, who spoke no English, had no legal background, would go to trial without a lawyer." <
>Clark's televised speech was 3000-words long. His supposed theme was the harm done by US military power.<
>He never once even mentioned the US bombing of Yugoslavia.<
Possibly Godfred missed the articles? http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/ramsey2.htm (The first article can be accessed from the second.)
Incidentally, Godfred, hopefully you will note my attempt to talk ABOUT you, and not TO you as noted above. Actually, I consider that form of communication to be quite rude, but felt you needed a dose of your own medicine.
Rebecka Justice
Portland
OR - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 11:24 am
Hi there Milosevics'people! I thought spring would have help your interests focus in more productive arenas of life, but unfortunately you are still stuck. Just like your new shining country "Srbia and Montenegro", just like your sick leader Milosevic and all the rest of serb society. I have a new name for the serb nation "The frozen nation". Enjoy the day ;-)
Rita Rita
USA (of course) - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 11:26 am
Hi there Milosevics'people! I thought spring would have help your interests focus in more productive arenas of life, but unfortunately you are still stuck. Just like your new shining country "Srbia and Montenegro", just like your sick leader Milosevic and all the rest of serb society. I have a new name for the serb nation "The frozen nation". Enjoy the day ;-)
Rita Rita
USA (of course) - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 12:40 pm
Why does it not surprise me that the above person lives is from the USA?
B Bogdanovic
Ju - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 1:08 pm
Rita Roter,Still haven't learned spelling or grammar?
Have a nice DAY -- as we SAY, in our banal WAY, in the U.S.A.
Anna P
California - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 3:02 pm
"...THE ONLY ADVANTAGE THAT I HAVE IS THAT I´M TELLING THE TRUTH."President Milosevic at the Hague, statement during cross-examination of mr. Lazarevic, 30 October 2002.
Ref.: Trial Transcrips, Page 12539, line 23.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 6:05 pm
Mr. Bogdanovic RR belongs to a special club of Americans called KUKLOS. They are organized in Dens and speak to each other in codes called KLONVERSATIONS. Their book of rules is called the KLORAN. They wear white hoods and burn crosses and in the past have also burned Jews and Blacks just for fun. KIGY Rita.
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 7:39 pm
What is it with Guardian (UK) newspaper journalists?Two nights ago on Newsnight (BBC) it was Aaronovitch spouting on about Milosevic’s Genocide in Kosovo. In yesterday’s Guardian Jon Henley tells us the following in his ‘Everything is more or less hunkey dorey in Blair’s new Kosovo’ article:
Kosovo, it is true, is more or less safe now … and there have been no ethnic killings so far this year.
Last week alone a Serbian teacher died when he was riddled with bullets while cycling to his home. An elderly Serb was badly beaten, while his wife was tied up, in an effort to force them to vacate their home. The last report I have is that he was desperately ill in hospital. In a third attack known to me a Serb man evaded abduction attempt which if successful would surely have cost him his life.
Search records earlier in the year and you will find many more examples ethnic attacks so let’s have no more Guardian double speak. Milosevic did not practice ethnic cleansing is Kosovo and it is not true that Kosovo is safe even for KFOR troops. Also it is not true that “there have been no ethnic killings so far this year”.
Please tell it as it is. Why it appears to be “safe now” is because only a few Serbs remain in Kosovo and those that do survive in ghettoes where it is difficult for KLA style gangsters to get at them. Even KFOR troops are increasingly at risk whilst guarding Serb enclaves as exemplified by the attack on the Gorioc Monastery two days ago.
Perhaps when Guardian journalists tire of polishing Saint Tony’s halo and are thus relieved of its magical powers blinding and binding them to his spin they may find some time to investigate why Steiner has been suddenly pulled out the Hell-hole aka Kosovo. For instance: was it because his life has been threatened by the KLA as was his predecessor’s as some have claimed?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 7:41 pm
Re genocide in Kosovo..The UN supreme court in Pristina examined the evidence some years ago now, and ruled that Serbs did not commit genocide in Kosovo. How many times does this have to be repeated?
Re war crimes in general:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/
Ian Davis
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 8:23 pm
Prosecution Case Continues to crumble
The last time the prosecution had a witness turn against them and tell the truth was when Captain Dragan testified. Before that, observers of the trial will easily remember the testimony of Radomir Markovic, the former security chief of Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Markovic is still in jail and let us not forget that he claimed that he was tortured in Serbia, yet ‘Judge’ May ruled it was irrelevant. Very well, let’s move onto the testimony of witness B-1775. For a long time now, the prosecution has tried to build a strong case against the ‘butcher’ of the Balkans, but if anything has come out of this ‘trial’ is that many of the witnesses are either not ready, not telling the truth or simply are not witnesses for the prosecution, but rather the defense. As it turns out, the latter was the case once again.
The day started like many other. The prosecution had once again changed the order of witnesses from B-24 to B-1775. The cross examination of B-24 was supposed to finish yesterday; due to the heath concerns the cross examination did not take place.
With B-1775 in court, Mr. Milosevic ready to cross-examine him, the day was about to begin, and what a show it was. B1175 agreed with almost all of Mr. Milosevic’s statements even forcing the ‘respectful’ Mr. Groome to interfere and save/destroy this witness’s testimony. It was like a nice game of I say ‘yes’ you say ‘yes’ and it could be clearly said that this witness was actually telling the truth, and not pausing to think about their prepared answers. “Yes” “yes” “yes” B1175 agreed to every passage Milosevic read out, even that he had seen mutilated bodies and that those had been killed by Bosnian Muslim forces.
Then, came the reexamination of the witness by Mr.Groom who attempted to confuse and destroy the truth that had been established during cross examination. But again, to no avail due to Milosevic’s objection that he is “intentionally asking the question in a way the witness can't remember.” The witness confirmed Milosevic’s assertion about the prosecution’s claims regarding Zvornik and stated that he had not seen any murders in that city, but that he had only collected and driven the bodies to a location. In those five years of his work, he had buried 500 bodies, and transported 5000 Serbs and Muslims.
When Milosevic asked the witness a number of poltical questions, May cut him and told him to ask questions related to the event, but Milosevic shot back “You are bringing witnesses from different countries who are speaking about events of which I had no idea of knowing.”
to be continued…B1098 and C58 are next.
Dan B
Canada - Thursday May 29, 2003 at 9:00 pm
It is the year 2012, the trial of Slobodan Milosevic the Butcher of the Balkans continues, the prosecutor bringing his C-1111111 witness, C stands for Corsica for in 2008 as Mr. Milosevic was going to begin his defense, Carla got information from the Clinton administration (Bill Clinton has managed to do away with term limits and is automatically reelected by the TV networks, many Levinskies are involved in helping his popularity) intelligence agencies which after overcoming the crisis of the not founded weapons of mass destruction have found Slobodan Milosevic was helping the Corsican separatists movement in hiding the victims of Kosovo, about a 100,000 of them and all the rest. Digging in Corsica is under way using new satellite technology detecting corpses by their credit card numbers, a technology vastly superior to DNA.
The International Criminal Court has been dissolved by using an obscure US Law not used since the Battle of Wounded Knee which allows the US government to arrest judges in foreign lands if it shows US currency is used in payment for the defense lawyers. The international association of Lawyers and Judges has drafted a letter of complaint, but the letter has not been sent lacking any suitable addressee. Instead the association members have engaged in a campaign of unlimited coughing on the streets of Den Haag, there are doubts such a campaign is legal since no official permit to perform mass coughing has been granted even if there are no rules requiring one.
(to be continued)
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Friday May 30, 2003 at 1:56 am
Just found this site. Amazing. After buying the party-line in 1999, I began reading and have become obsessed with what happened in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, etc since 1989. I've read everything I can find, though it's hard know who to trust and hard to keep all the facts straight. Have some catching up to do on this board. I have some question for anyone/everyone here about the origins of the Yugoslav breakup/war. My understanding is this: In general, the great powers want to buy the world on the cheap - otherwise known as globalization. After the cold-war ended, or perhaps even before, the Great Powers took aim at Yugoslavia and saw much potential. The 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law (101-513) signaled the intentions of the Great Powers to divide and conquer Yugoslavia. Rabid nationalism was encouraged and supported in the non-Serbian FYR while all things Serb were demonized. Conflict, war, occasional atrocities (on both sides), lies, lies, lies, NATO bombing, KFOR-"peace". Germany got Croatia, US got Bosnia and Kosovo. My questions are: 1. Is this all-too-brief summary of the real-politik history correct, and if not, what have I left out and where am I wrong? 2. How important was the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513 in starting the process of the dissolution of Yugoslavia? 3. Has anyone seen pre-1990 intelligence analysis documents (ie. CIA) which verify the stated intentions of the Great Powers to exploit supressed historical ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia? (I thought I had seen, but can't find anymore). 4. People like us here are described as apologists for Milosevic. I hear all the time the line of reasoning: "well, Milosevic was a thug, but Serbia didn't deserve to be bombed" So what's the truth? Was he a "thug"? If so, what did he do? In short, was he any more corrupt than your typical politician? 5. What are the chances the truth gets revealed to the masses about what happened in Yugoslavia? (ok, I don't expect an answer) Thanks in advance, Joe
josef crow
New York
NY - Friday May 30, 2003 at 4:23 am
5. What are the chances the truth gets revealed to the masses about what happened in Yugoslavia? (ok, I don't expect an answer) ThanksYes. We probably won't be alive then, but yes. It will certainly take decades for the forgeries to come out.....just as the Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq incubator babies, and Spanish-American war forgeries finally came out, these will as well.
Of course, the truth about WWII Yugoslavia is STILL not fully out, largely due to efforts of the Catholic church, but even this event is known by many well-informed people....
P. M.
USA - Friday May 30, 2003 at 5:46 am
Josef Crow,
It is an old affair, but reading Lenin and Leon Trotsky, actually this Balkans War may give you a little more depth. The New York Public Library has it all. And you know who used to hang around there at one time!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Friday May 30, 2003 at 10:07 am
Imagine the sight as she goes bottom over bosom.For the rug is about to be pulled from under del Ponte’s feet.
In spite of the continuing tirade by tarnished politicians and western media hacks tarring Milosevic with Genocide in Kosovo the legal ruling is that there was no genocide - at least not by the Serbs - and the ICTY recognises the fact by not indicting Milosevic on such a charge over Kosovo: As for Phony Tony’ and his friends in the KLA that is a matter yet to be tested by the courts. Someone is responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. I mean of course the real ethnic cleansing - of Kosovo’s minority populations - as opposed to the fairy stories of Phony Tony and his media hacks’ which they tell as they go around kissing Iraqi children. And of course while stealing Iraq’s oil.
However back to the point. What do we make of this:
Strongest evidence of winds of change blowing through the Balkans is the persistent rumor in Belgrade that the Serbian government is prepared to agree to the dissolution of the Republika Srpska if Bosnia withdraws charges of aggression and genocide at the International Court of Justice and agrees to an out-of-court settlement.
View the Source
Does this mean that there was no Genocide in Bosnia also: that this charge was simply a ploy to force the Serbs in Belgrade to abandon their kith and kin in Bosnia?
If the Bosnian government withdraws the charge of Genocide then clearly it is recognising that there was no Genocide. So how can Milosevic be charged with the crime of Genocide by the ICTY and what are all these witnesses to Genocide doing perjuring themselves in the Hague court?
This trial becomes ever more absurd.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Friday May 30, 2003 at 10:10 am
Josef, you forgot the reunification of Germany, and the willing participation of Germany in transferring its own collective guilt for WWII on to the Serbs. I think http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/html/johnstone.html a must read for anyone interested in the historical record.
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Friday May 30, 2003 at 1:37 pm
Forwarded by Professor J Peter Maher of Northeast Illinois University, March, 1999Alija Izetbegovic: his background and philosophies
This is a briefing paper produced for Members of the 1992/3 Session of Australian Parliament;
Monday, 21 December 1992.
The report downplays the Young Muslim Nazi angle but the movement was also modeled on the Hitler Jugend, and supportered by Baldur von Shirach.
ALIJA IZETBEGOVIC - BRIEF
ALIJA IZETBEGOVIC, leader of the SDA (Muslim Party of Democratic Action), is currently the President of the Presidency of Bosnia-Hercegovina. He was born in Bosanski Samac in 1925, went to school in Sarajevo, and eventually completed law school; he had no schooling in religion within the Islamic school system.
Izetbegovic’s Early Years.
From his early youth, Izetbegovic dedicated himself to Islamic work. At 16 he ecame part of the group that founded religious-political organisation "Young Muslims" in Sarajevo, in 1940. From the very outset the "YM" was modelled on fundamentalist formations in the Islamic world, such as "As-subban al-muslimun" and "Al-ikwan al-muslimun". One of the five points of the "YM" programme insisted on the unity of the Muslim world through the creation of one large Muslim state. During the Second World War, the "YM" grew and become part of a network of Islamic religious groups headed by the highly conservative theologian of the Mehmed Handzic (1906-1944). The "YM" were not officially pro-fascist in orientation, though they were pursued for this by the Communist regime after 1945. There were, however, many individual examples of active collaboration with the Ustashi government.
Izetbegovic was arrested in 1946, for his significant participation in founding the Muslim journal MUDZAHID. He spent the next three years in jail for promoting hatred. At the same time, his friend Nedzib Sacirbegovic was given a four year prison sentence. Sacirbegovic is now Izetbegovic’s personal representative in the USA and his son Muhamed, is Bosnia-Hercegovina’s ambassador to the UN. Izetbegovic has systematically promoted to top positions in the SDA people who were political "cadres" in the original "YM" movement.
In February 1949, the "Young Muslims" started an open revolt. This was short-lived. During subsequent trials held in Sarajevo in 1949, four members of the "YM" were sentenced to death and many were given prison sentences. After this lesson, Islamic activists stopped creating illegal groups and started working on Islamisation "from underneath". This meant penetrating the very pores of the system’s institutions, including the formal Islamic community, because the activists considered their leaders to be traitors to the authentic Islamic cause. From the beginning Izetbegovic preferred Shiite Islamic radicalism in comparison to the Sunni.
Izetbegovic’s doctrine - "The Islamic Declaration"
Izetbegovic published many articles in Muslim journals (TAKVIM, GVIS, etc.), discussing the sad state of Islam and the necessity for its universal regeneration. In 1970, he wrote and distributed to people of confidence, his specific manifesto or programme for radical pan-Islam - the ISLAMIC DECLARATION.
In this booklet, similar to many of the same type circulating in the Islamic world, but the only one of its sort in Yugoslavia, Izetbegovic advocated:
- general Islamic moral and religious regeneration;
- a return to true Islamic values;
- (re)Islamisation of Muslims;
- creation and strengthening of different types of Islamic unity; struggle, up to and including Political and armed war for the creation of an Islamic order in countries where Muslims represent majority, or near majority of the population.
In line with his pan-Islamic and anti-secular thinking, Izetbegovic stated in the ISLAMIC DECLARATION that:
- there should be the establishment of "a united Islamic community from Morocco to Indonesia";
- with reference to the Turkish model - "Turkey as an Islamic country used to rule the world. Turkey as an imitation of Europe represents a third-rate country, the like of which there is a hundred in the world.";
- "there can be neither peace nor coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions";
-"the Islamic movement must and can, take over political power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the existing non-Islamic power, but also to build up a new Islamic one".
The ISLAMIC DECLARATION is imbued with a deep-set intolerance towards "the values of western civilisation", both capitalist and Marxist. It was re-published in 1990 in Sarajevo, testifying to the fact that its author, in the meantime, had in no way gone back on his positions, one of Islamic fundamentalism.
Muslims who gathered around the re-published ISLAMIC DECLARATION, were former members of the "YM" and new activists. They tie their activities to those of Muslim centres abroad - religious, political, propaganda and economic - above all with specific groups in Iran.
In his book ISLAM BETWEEN EAST AND WEST, published first in the USA (1984) and then Turkey, develops his views on the superiority of Islam over all other religions, cultures, ideologies and philosophies. This book was published in Serbo-Croatian, only in Belgrade in 1988; the Sarajevo authorities used all means to prevent it getting published at all.
Izetbegovic - leader of Bosnia’s Muslims
With a group of Muslim activists, Izetbegovic was arrested in 1983 for activities against the state. As the chief defendant, he was sentenced to fourteen years. In 1988, he was released after less than six years of prison.
After the fall of Communism in Yugoslavia, Izetbegovic became one of the leaders in the creation of the SDA party (1990), as a Muslim political party. He was elected President with the support of his old fellows from the ranks of the "YM" and the support of the young radicals. Izetbegovic gave his new, nominally national and civilian political party, a deeply-set religious connotation. As the first president of the collective Presidency of this young state, and by far the most influential Muslim politician on the soil of former Yugoslavia (having ousted his more popular rival Fikret Abdic), the strength of his position allows him to pursue his youthful (pan)Islamic dreams.
His internal and external policies changed tactfully as per the power struggle both inside and outside of Yugoslavia. But, from a strategic standpoint Izetbegovic has not budget an inch from his early conception that "every good Muslim, through his formal engagement, including the political one, at all times and all places, must above all serve Islam, by force if necessary". Because of Izetbegovic’s anti-Communism, the fundamentalist radicalism of the political programme contained in the ISLAMIC DECLARATION, went virtually unnoticed in most western countries.
As such, the rise of a native and authentic Islamic fundamentalist movement in Yugoslavia, was for the West, up until recently, an incomprehensible and inconceivable idea. For some, it remains so today.
This fanatical conviction of Izetbegovic - namely that the highest motive justifies every move, every decision, (including that of disposing of his predecessors), has definitely helped plunge Bosnia into the midst of an ethnic and religious war.
Commentary added by Balkan Research Center:
Only after one carefully considers the foregoing does it become understandable why, recently, Izetbegovic signed an agreement for the "cantonisation" of Bosnia with representatives of the European Community in Lisbon [in 1992], and cancelled it two days later. Izetbegovic will accept any kind of deal in order to get his way, he is not ashamed if it is proved that he lies, because he says "all is allowed for Islam".
Now it seems logical why Izetbegovic visited only radical Muslim countries during the first nine months of his presidency. Izetbegovic is a man who is willing to sacrifice half of the population to achieve his religious goals, to be the first president of an Islamic state in Europe, however small.
In the light of above facts one can better understand Izetbegovic’s statements of sympathy for the "Islamic Revolution" in Iran. Only Izetbegovic and Ayatollah Khomeini, out of all presidents who officially visited Turkey, did not pay respect to the grave of Ataturk, for them he was a traitor to fundamentalist Muslim principles.
-----------------------------------
Today, USA published official “black list” of the people from former Yugoslavia. Alia Izetbegovic is NOT on the list. How many more 9/11 need to happened for US Administration to wake up and smell the coffee?
Dakic Anna
Serbia - Friday May 30, 2003 at 3:08 pm
In connection to the P.M comments I offer this letter I sent to NYTimes today:Mr. Kristof,
I congratulate you on your bold , courageous OP-ED article in the today’s Times. You quote:
"The American people were manipulated," bluntly declares one person from the Defense Intelligence Agency who says he was privy to all the intelligence there on Iraq.
And I must agree. However a statement further down in your article caught my attention:
"While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes," the letter said, "never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war."
Here I beg to disagree. The bombing of Yugoslavia/Serbia was an event equally well camouflaged in a blanket of lies and fabrications. Although it is water over the dam, four years have passed, it behooves you newspeople to recognize a pattern which started with that war and is now continuing wit Iraq.
D. Jovanovic
USA - Friday May 30, 2003 at 3:49 pm
To Joe CrowSome answers to your questions from one of the good guys:
“Why? It's all about the transportation of massive oil resources from the Caspian Sea through the Balkans, and maintaining U.S. hegemony in the region.” Read on
Writes Marjorie Cohn, Associate Professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.
I don’t know exactly when during the past two years this article was written so it might not take into account the fact that the Anglo/US alliance has now grabbed Iraq’s oilfields so may not now be quite so interested in Caspian Sea oil. You do know that Britain and the US are beginning to run out of home produced oil.
Camp Bondsteel and the US based AMBO are still in business. It may also be significant that during the past few days the AMB troika have been calling for finance to begin the construction of the Trans-Balkan road and rail link known as Corridor 8 that is also the route approved for AMBO’s oil pipeline.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Friday May 30, 2003 at 10:32 pm
To Josef: I believe you've summed all up nicely, all the factors and the steps, and your understanding of what happened is pretty much accurate. Also, add what Ian suggested (the role of Germany). In fact, it was hard to imagine what factor was not involved in the bloody demise of Yugoslavia and all this ugly aftermath, part of it being the whole ICTY and this particular absurd 'trial'. There was so much in favour of our doom that I simply cannot see how we could have avoided to perish.This is how I understand one facet of this complex issue: it's the fact that Yugoslavia was a European country. It was not just another unfortunate South American place that the US could violate almost without reaction from the world. It was a country in Europe and all other European countries let the US take the lead into attacking it and, what's even more deplorable, involve all of them into joining the attack. This is something unforgivable for me. One could expect the US foreign policy to be that of a bully, but all those supposedly cultured, civilized European nations behaved like a pack of wolves, grabbing the pieces of action and not pausing to think about the long-term consequences. Nothing new about that, the history is full of similar nearsighted behaviour. But, this served to show who's the only real boss in the world from then on. And my thinking is that the US weren't even interested into getting involved until they realized how useful it could be in disciplining the EU by showing them who's in charge.
And, there's another, more simple reason: it was doable, so they did it. It was a nice training and a precedent. The boss was just flexing its muscles on a defenceless opponent, spending outdated ammo, testing new equipment, practicing live target shooting. This boss has one serious flaw, though: the arrogance mixed with ignorance is a heady combination.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia - Friday May 30, 2003 at 10:36 pm
Peter Taylor,The dissolution of Republika Srpska, and independence for Kosovo & Metohija is one of the core aims of this so-called "trial."
This is all a set-up. They will use their predetermined verdict to justify Kosovo's independence, because how can you force those "poor Albanians" to live in a state that systematically slaughtered and expelled them.
Then they will use their predetermined verdict again to say that Republika Srpska was created on the basis of genocide and that because it was created by genocide it has no right to exist.
Serbia and the Serbian people are under one of the greatest threats in their history, this trial is only part of the larger attack on the Serbian people.
After the trial is over and the so-called "verdict" has been handed down nobody will be able to dispute that Serbia systematically expelled and killed Albanians in Kosmet, and nobody will be able to dispute that the Serbs committed genocide in Bosnia. Afterall, the judges listened to evidence for 5 years, rendered their verdict, and people will say "who can know the truth better than them?"
The only way that the Serbian people can defeat this aggressor is to discredit it, and to expose it for the illegal kangaroo court that it is. This is a political fight.
If the Hague Tribunal is discredited and put to shame in front of the world then it's so-called "verdicts" will be politically irrelevant, and nobody would dare to use the tainted "verdicts" as a justification to do anything.
The Hague Tribunal is PERSECUTING an innocent man for purely political purposes. Every patriotic Serb, every friend of the Serbs, and everybody with the desire to fight against injustice has an obligation to attack the Hague Tribunal, and support Slobodan Milosevic in his struggle there.
Even if you wouldn't vote for Milosevic or his party, even if you hated Milosevic as a politician; you still have to support what he's doing at the Hague, because the real issue has nothing to do with him. He is only one man, albeit a great man. The real issue here is the very survival of the Serbian people. Will they be slaves to an empire, or will they be free? That is the question and that is what's at stake here.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Friday May 30, 2003 at 10:37 pm
P.S.: When I said "attack the Hague Tribunal" I meant it in the political sense, not by blowing it up with dynamite or anything. :)
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Friday May 30, 2003 at 11:48 pm
Friday May 30, 2003 at 10:37 pm ( ... shucks ... )
Dennis Revell
USA - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 4:46 am
Yes well, the Monroe doctrine for Latin America has been extended to apply to the rest of the world now that there is no viable opposition to such expansionism of geo-political and economic interest.Milosevic's trial will whitewash the NATO assault, revise the Dayton plan, the Kosovo plan and establish a controlling/monitoring role against the Serbs (who are so historically recalcitrant and influential in the Balkans). No doubt, there has to be an official reason to keep them under the thumb and that reason will be a guilty verdict against Milosevic and, de facto, against the Serb people. Much like the Treaty of Versailles did to the Germans and the post WW2 arrangement for Germany, on the basis that they were responsible for crimes against humanity and expansionist policies and aggression.
Now that the Serbs are classified as fascist/nazi types, it would be quite simple to make sure they are disarmed, rendered "harmless" and kept that way. That's where the organised Serbian conspiracy of a Greater Serbia comes in and where Milosevic as the head of it needs to be found guilty. De facto, the judgement actually will be against the Serb people in order to control and cower them into submission and servility for the greater interests of the masters of the New World Order. We will wait and see whether it takes them another 500 years to drag themselves out of the latest "occupation", this time not by the Ottomans but the very people on whose behalf they fought the Ottomans... the democratic, freedom loving and enlightened West!
David
Australia - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 4:46 am
no obligation of serbian people to support milosevic. the serbian people do not exist as a group of people because they all defend each other's rights in a nation vs nation world. the serbian people exist because they can identify and recognise what makes them distinct from their neighbours, and in today's world, from the entire globe. the serbian people are not at risk of annihilation, however there is something called pride, which a lot needs to be said for.
ivan kokotovic
australia - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 6:59 am
The Wall Street Journal had a couple of articles in the past few days putting in perspective the world economy since the mid nineteen century. The longing for a playable world full of divided people, divided and incompatible by religion, ethnicity, race, history or anything is so blatant. No more Soviet citizen, no more Yugoslav, no more Iraqi, no more Pan-Arabism, no more Non Alignment Movement, no more diversity in unity, but only diversity the old fashion way, as if the reconstruction of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were underway under the American single and hard headed eagle.
The clock is been set back at big strides as if history had two parallel lines never affecting each other. The old specter of inter imperial powers conflicts is showing its face again. The birth of a United Europe has so far in its two or perhaps three previous attempts failed and in not a slight way, each time striping civilization of its meaning, for war is insanity.
Versailles had many different and opposing results, some still unsettled, and no wonder the neo-conservatives utterly despise it, the flower of Yugoslavia lives in my mind!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 6:59 am
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 7:00 am
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 7:58 am
Rebecka Justice, - thank you for the "medicine".Now, what would I say to someone refering to "a War Criminal like Milosevic"?
I would probably point out, that so far there is no verdict! Rather than "correcting" anyone I seek to counteract the 'implication' by asking:
What (on Earth!) is leading someone to believe that mr. Milosevic were guilty as charged? Why would the President of F.R. Yugoslavia (and /or Serbia) commit or support such crimes?
Specifically I might ask anyone: Why would mr. Milosevic order a massacre of villagers in Racak on 15 January, 1999?
(I note that the Prosecution has so far failed to produce the evidence required for conviction, - but even before the NATO air war on Serbia I saw it as incriminating for US/NATO, that no credible asumption was ever presented on a motive on part of mr. Milosevic).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 10:12 am
I have been wondering -- how, when,and why did 'Emperors-clothes' take over 'ICDSM'?
About everybody ganging up on Serbia -- the most heart-wrenching words I have ever heard are those of a bewildered Serb saying: "Canada? Canada is bombing us?". I have never felt so ashamed or so helpless in the face of my government's actions.
M Donne
Canada - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 11:55 am
Ivan Kokotovic,There is a difference between liking somebody, and supporting what somebody is doing. All I'm saying is that everybody who cares about what happens to the Serbs should support what Slobodan Milosevic is doing at the Hague.
I don't say that you have to like Milosevic. You are free to have any opinion of him that you wish. However, what I am saying is true. He was the President of Serbia and the President of Yugoslavia -- When the predetermined "guilty verdict" gets handed down it is the Serbian people who are going to pay the price, unless the Hague Tribunal gets politically discredited.
-----------------------------------
Godfred Louis-Jensen,
I agree with what you're saying. Milosevic is innocent and any fairminded person who looks at the evidence can see that quite clearly.
The problem here is public perception. This is a political fight and the key to winning the fight is discrediting the tribunal.
-----------------------------------
M Donne,
Emperor's Clothes didn't take over the ICDSM. Jared Israel is the editor of both websites and he always has been. Nothing got takenover by anybody.
There was some debate recently in the ICDSM about some issues, but those issues have all been settled in a manner that everybody agrees with.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 12:23 pm
M Donne, there is no shame in being one of those Canadians ashamed of how we betrayed not only Serbs but also ourselves.I am an immigrant to Canada, arriving from London England in 1976. I believe passionately in Canadian values, as perhaps only an immigrant can, and was appalled to discover that we as a nation could so easily become that which we were so confident we would never be.
Are we Canadians who stood on guard for truth and the very meaning of what it meant to them to be Canadian to be dismissed out of hand, simply because we were small in number, and deemed mad by those nearest and dearest to us.
For myself I am deeply troubled, and will always be so, by the hurt and harm we needlessly caused a people with whom we had no just quarrel.
Out, damned spot! out, I say!--One: two: why, then, 'tis time to do't.--Hell is murky!--Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?--Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him.
Macbeth
Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario, Canada - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 12:58 pm
Indeed, I have sensed for a long time that this trial, ridiculous and pathetic although it is, is attempting to rewrite history and f*ck up Bosnia once again (I don't think Kosovo is so much a concern at the moment). When RS is declared to have been "built on genocide" then it must be destroyed.I'm prepared to see over a million Bosnian Serbs flee for their lives to Serbia, when the NATO swine, backed by a "Milosevic is guilty for genocide" verdict, release the Muslim-Croat attack dogs on them.
That's why these proceedings are particularly insidious. Also, they are attempting to make Serbia shut up, to cover up the WWII genocide against the Serbs (largely engineered by the Vatican, also a player in the demise of Yusoslavia), and finally to clamp up Serbia's strident voice against imperialism (whether it be Austrian or Turkish) in the Balkans.
P. M.
USA - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 3:49 pm
Vera,Can you e-mail me at: andywilcoxson@hotmail.com
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 8:19 pm
"...we have decided that the Prosecution should have one year from today to conclude their case. That will give them a total of 14 months in which to finish the case, their case. In the view of the Trial Chamber, no Prosecution case should continue for a period longer than that!"(Judge May on 10 April, 2002. Ref.: Trial Transcripts, page 2784, line 3-7).
Hence time has run out. As the Prosecution continues anyway in blatant disregard of what was decided, it seems to me that discrediting the tribunal may well be left to the Trial Chamber...
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Saturday May 31, 2003 at 9:08 pm
"May (NATO) proposes and Nice (NATO) disposes."
Torquemada
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La