MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Saturday November 01, 2003 at 12:04 am
  Slober should be released imediatley,the KLA deserved much worse than it actually got.I dont support terrorism and the KLA should be fronting the Hague not the victim of there terroristic ways
  
  The Haunting
  Canberra
  Australia

• Saturday November 01, 2003 at 3:49 am
  Hello, Mr. Howard, ol' cobber, how're yer didgereedoin'? Got some probs at the mo I understand. (Course, you could just be a pissed up David ;-)
  
  D R
  EmU (not DarnUnder)

• Saturday November 01, 2003 at 4:03 am
  Dear Peter Taylor (October 31, 2003 at 8:17 am),

  Do I know of some abducted 'ambassador' of Denmark?

  No, I have no such information!Reportedly 'grabbed' as he went down the drain in Slupchane, - well, in my very own opinion he was probably involved in the Macedonian construction industry?

  I think the sensitive person quoted for asking the media guys "not to publish this case...because it would present a great shame for Albanians," might be the Shipkovica boss, Ali Ahmeti, a nephew of Fazli Veliu, - who according to Swiss authorities is generally known to have split some 800,000 CHF from the Fund of the Albanian National Liberation between Ahmeti, Shefket Xhaferi and himself, - instead of buying weapons for the terrorists.

  Whether that was good or bad I do not know? I think it depends on which way you look at things. In 1992 Veliu and Ahmeti together with Gafur Elshani and Emrun Dzemaili in a meeting with Ramush Tahiri, a self-called minister in the so-called “Kosovo Govermant in Exzile”, reportedly decided in the “Prpalimi” club in Zürich that the Albanian question in Macedonia is 'to be solved only by war'...

  Wow! I think that Osama bin Laden had no part in this at all, - but again, considering, - what do I know?

  Further info may be obtained from a Senior Military Representative to FYROM, Major General SP Army Bernardo Alvarez Del Manzano who 'facilitate the exchange of releasable information and data'...as deemed appropriate by NATO.

  Have a nice week-end!
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday November 01, 2003 at 4:52 am
  FOR FREEDOM, TRUTH AND JUSTICE!

  TO SAVE THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC!

  INTERNATIONAL DEMOS OF SERBIAN DIASPORA AND ALL PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE

  IN THE HAGUE, 8 NOVEMBER 2003

  14:00 - 15:00 Protest Rally at The Plein (City Center)

  15:00 - 16:00 Protest March to the Scheveningen Prison

  16:00 - 17:00 Protest Rally in front of the Prison

  To join or help this struggle, visit:

  http://www.sloboda.org.yu

  http://www.icdsm.org/

  http://www.free-slobo.de/

  http://www.icdsm-us.org/

  http://www.icdsmireland.org/

  http://www.wpc-in.org/

  http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/

  Please find detailed instructions at:

  http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm

  (relayed by)
  
  Godfred Louis-Jensen
  Copenhagen
  D E N M A R K

• Saturday November 01, 2003 at 7:39 pm
  “You will ask the questions that we order you to ask or else you won’t be able to ask any questions at all.”
  
  i will remember
  forever

• Saturday November 01, 2003 at 9:26 pm
  “You will ask the questions that we order you to ask or else you won’t be able to ask any questions at all.”

  I've often seen trials where the Judge tells a lawyer that he may not ask questions about certain subjects. I don't know if Judge May would get away with using this as his excuse for that power play. The fact is that he must be exhausted with the non evidence that the prosecution is presenting and it looks like he has to take it out on the only powerless party in that room, Slobodan Milosevic. And again, wouldn't the press have a field day with that quote if they were reporting this trial in the old days of the Soviet Union???

  What is the legality of what the Judge said? Can a lawyer or an informed person tell me?
  
  Nikole J
  Canada

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 7:02 am
  
  Mistrial: ICTY Making a mockery of Justice

  Can you believe the arrogance of this New Labour associate of not-yet-indicted-for-attacking-Serbia war criminal Blair: Presiding Judge Richard May:

  On April 1, 2003 (Page 18300 of the ICTY transcripts starting on line #6)

  Slobodan Milosevic: I see. We'll come to that later. Now, tell me, please, is it true that you went to the Radojka Lakic elementary school?

  Witness Alija Gusalic: Yes.

  Slobodan Milosevic: [redacted]

  Mr. May: That is totally irrelevant. That's a most improper question.

  Slobodan Milosevic: [Interpretation] Mr. May --

  Mr. May: No, it is not a proper question, and the witness will not have to answer it. Now, kindly confine yourself to what is relevant and proper.

  Mr. Nice: May that passage be redacted from the transcript.

  Mr. May: Yes. Now, go on to something else.

  Witness Alija Gusalic: [Interpretation] You, Mr. -

  Mr. May: Mr. Gusalic.

  Witness Alija Gusalic: Shame on you, Mr. Milosevic.

  Mr. May: Mr. Gusalic, I can understand that you'll be annoyed, but try not to be. You will be protected from questions of that sort. You're not here to harry the witnesses or bully them, Mr. Milosevic. Now you'll confine yourself to proper questions.

  Slobodan Milosevic: Mr. May, I think that this is proof that Mr. Nice is abusing this witness. He is obtaining statements from him which are not truthful.

  Mr. May: You can ask the witness proper questions. Now, get -- move on to that.

  “Proper questions” being those decided by Blair’s chum Richard May.

  From the opening scenes of this trial where one can see on video Madam del Ponte laughing in the face of Milosevic as he enters the court through the persistent bias and rudeness of May we have a measure of the contempt for Justice this Trial of Milosevic represents.

  A court financed by Serbia’s enemies: A court presided over by May an associate of Blair who committed war crimes by ordering his forces to bomb Serbian civilian areas with cluster bombs: A court which does not punish all the many perjurers that the prosecution has presented: A court that has altered its principles and procedures according to convenience from ‘bottom up’ to ‘top down’: A court which does not recognise the defendants rights especially to equal resources: A court which ignores the hundreds of thousands of victims of Islamic terror in Kosovo.

  Yet such is the concern of the mass of those purveying jurisprudence that their response - with a communal shrug of shoulders - seems to be: ‘So what’.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 5:25 pm
  Nicole, my dear,

  I am neitner a lawyer nor an informed person but I think I can give you an answer: Dutch people will be, rightly, ashamed people for "the trial of the century" took place in their neighourhood and they were just quiert.
  
  ivko rig
  USW

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 5:32 pm
  P WP, I would like to put my thing right into your mouth.
  
  ivko rig
  blow jobbing

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 5:47 pm
  

  ----And you will only fight for the causes and against those we want you to fight against, or you will not fight at all---

  Seems like there is no right to defend your own country at home, but if you're lucky enough to invite yourself to Afghanistan or some other place thousands of miles from home to enforce the diktats of the NWO that's OK.

  And WE won't ask any questions about that at all!
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 5:58 pm
  A NEW ICTY is being established.

  See: http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2003/p797-e.htm

  Lord Paddy Ashdown presiding! LOL

  These people have no sense of the ridiculous!

  "You will provide the verdicts we want you to provide or you will not be able to provide for yourself at all".

  As for the eminent jurists keeping silent, that's on the basis of: "You will provide the opinions we want you to provide or you will not have any opinions to provide at all".

  As Mr Kwon might say, 'tis better to have the right to an opinion, but not the right to provide it, than to have no opinion at all'.
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 6:06 pm
  Where the hell have all the Voltaires disappeared to?
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 7:27 pm
  

  ...the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death.

  Voltaire
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 7:29 pm
  

  It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

  Voltaire
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 7:32 pm
  

  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

  Voltaire
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Shangri-La

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 10:26 pm
  Interesting news: In a written statement submitted to the court in September, Owen said he thought that Bosnian Serb leader and war crimes suspect Radovan Karadzic distanced himself from Milosevic in 1993. Before that time, Milosevic treated the Bosnian Serb leader "as someone largely under his control". "After May 1993... I felt a change in Karadzic. He progressively became more independent of Milosevic," Owen said in the statement.

  Owen wrote that in August 1993 it was "obvious that Milosevic's influence among Bosnian Serbs had waned... and (Bosnian Serb military leader Ratko) Mladic was increasingly difficult to control".

  http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6EF57EA9-3E87-4A3A-9209-F61403CFFC81.htm

  His testimony could bolster Milosevic's claims that he had no influence over the Bosnian Serb leadership at the time of the slaughter of thousands of Muslims in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in July 1995.
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 10:51 pm
  I think Mr.Owen can be Mr.Milosevic guarantor so Mr.Milosevic can be released from prison to prepare for his defence. Nothing lost if asked . I wonder who is going to be the prosecutor tomorrow and what questions will he or she ask. Are judges becoming a third party and are they going to ask questions
  
  Vasile Ianos
  NJ

• Sunday November 02, 2003 at 11:36 pm
  

  Gogol: Down Under here, we tend to read Voltaire upside down, hence...

  "Those who can make you believe ATROCITIES can make you commit ABSURDITIES".

  Whichever way you turn it around, Voltaire had them pegged!

  Could someone please send these quotes to Messrs May and Kwon?
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 1:18 am
  The Return of the Hague Tribunal and the West's dilemma in Kosovo.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 6:59 am
  Carla , last night we had a beautifu celebation even Sir Sean Connery was with us on our first 100 years as a free nation , I come back to look for some news in the forum , and what did I find . You can't "discover" your ass with both hands as far as "evidence"against President Milosevic , the monkey judges (no offense real monkeys) have started to "suggest" what can or can't be asked , seems the door is to heavy and the hinges have started to collapse . All this The Hague bullshit is getting more and more pathetically surrealistic .
  
  M P
  Rep de Panama

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 10:19 am
  
  The Missing Link:

  General Goran Radoslavljevic current head of the Serbian Special Police Force

  No: this is not a discourse on anthropology. I have not discovered a significant set of fossilised bones. This anthropoid still had flesh on his bones when he was fighting New Variant KLA terror in Southern Serbia earlier this year. More recently he was to head a peacekeeping force to help Nato in Afghanistan if required. If you can’t beat them join them is not always the worst policy.

  The principle on which the ICTY tribunal went about its work was explained by the inaugural Chief Prosecutor Richard Goldstone: ‘the procedure was to create a pyramid to the top, focusing on lower-level war criminals first in order to build the chain of evidence to the top’. Radoslavljevic is the missing link in the chain pertaining to The Trial of Milosevic as I shall explain. His discovery is just as important to The Trial of Milosevic as mankind’s links in the chain of evolution are to Anthropology.

  It has not been possible to bring this matter to the fore before today because of the possibility of the release of more sealed indictments. However following the recent bizarre indictments of four Serbian Army and Police Generals - still no KLA leaders - a categorical statement has been issued by the ICTY that allows us to expose a fraud which is being perpetrated in the name of justice at The Hague:

  BELGRADE, Oct. 26 (Beta) - The prosecution of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is no longer conducting any investigations regarding the involvement of ordinary Serbian police officers or soldiers of the former Yugoslav Army in crimes committed during the wars in former Yugoslavia, Florance Hartmann, the ICTY chief prosecutor spokeswoman, told BETA on Oct. 26.

  "The indictment we have raised against four Yugoslav Army and Serbian Interior Ministry generals is the last one pertaining to police and the army. When criminal responsibility of military and police forces for crimes committed in Kosovo is concerned, we have completed our work," Hartmann said.

  Note that General Goran Radoslavljevic of the Serbian Special Police Force has never been indicted for war crimes in Kosovo and is never going to be indicted for war crimes. Why is this so: simply because he has not committed war crimes in Kosovo: Why is this so astonishing? Read on:

  Major - as he was then - Goran Radoslavljevic was in command of the Serbian Special Police Force unit that was ordered to destroy the KLA stronghold in Racak in January 1999. This order followed the murder of three policemen, the serious injury of one other and the injuries to several Kosovars caught in two ambushes. This was clearly a legitimate counter insurgency operation. By not indicting General Radoslavljevic and stating that he never will be indicted the ICTY has tacitly accepted the fact that: There was no massacre in Racak

  Indeed only one member of the Serbian security forces at Racak has ever been indicted, Zoran Stojanoviæ, and then only in a local Kosovar court where at his trial witness statements did not match forensic evidence. One of the three judges was Albanian. Following his sentencing to 15 years, UN legal advisers and the human rights group Amnesty International accused the UN mission in Kosovo of continued ethnic bias in its judicial system and making "politically driven decisions,"

  It is recognised universally that the “Racak massacre” alleged by Nato was pivotal in the recent affairs of Kosovo. ‘Racak’ led to the ultimatum that led in turn directly to Nato’s attack upon Serbia. It is the only event prior to the start of the Nato attack for which Milosevic is accused of crimes against humanity by ordering the murder 45 persons at Racak.

  Enter Topsy Turvey Arbour: Arbour overturned the courts original and manifestly sensible principle of procedure ‘build a chain of evidence from the bottom of the pyramid to the top’. Her modus operandi for the two “pyramids” in Kosovo was: ‘Our side is bombing Serbia so Milosevic at the top of the Serbian pyramid must be guilty: we don’t need any proof. The KLA are our allies so we can’t indict them.

  Enter Partial Eclectic del Ponte: Top of the Serb pyramid, bottom of the Serb pyramid, middle of the Serb pyramid: anywhere will do as long as its not the KLA pyramid.

  Which ever way you approach the evidence: Bottom up according to Goldstone and those who laid down the principles of procedure for the ICTY, top down a l’ Arbour or ‘take your pick’ with del Ponte the necessary link in the chain of evidence is broken. Bottom up: Only one member of Radoslavljevic’s unit has been charged with crimes at Racak and this did not implicate anyone else. Top down: Radoslavljevic commander of the special police unit was ordered to destroy the well-defended terrorist stronghold at Racak: He has never been charged with war crimes over his actions so how is it possible to convict Milosevic for allegedly issuing orders to murder people at Racak? Del Ponte and her ‘ignore the KLA and take your pick anywhere in the Serb pyramid’ policy: She’s been sacked from one job already need I say more?

  How can the ICTY get away with such an obvious fraud: How can history ignore such a glaring contradiction?

  In summary we have an alleged massacre at Racak which was pivotal in the destruction of Serbia and the early indictments against Milosevic over Kosovo. In contrast the police commander in charge of the operations at Racak never committed any war crimes, has never been indicted for war crimes by the ICTY and never will be.

  So the Racak massacre never was and the living proof of this is The Missing Link in the chain of evidence: former Major Goran Radoslavljevic commander of the special forces unit ordered to destroy the KLA terrorist stronghold at Racak: Now General Radoslavljevic, Head of Special Police Services in Serbia..
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 12:55 pm
  Im sure that the Serbian government is quaking in its boots if it ever comes across the Naked Empreror. Branko V (who surname is strangely missing) gives us an update on the march on parliament. EC misses the fact that some of these workers protesting were the very same who protested and brought down the government in the October revolution. So are or were these men coup plotters, western lackeys or coup d'etat organisors? Now they suddenly have seen the light, understand that bringing down a government by force isnt the way? Or are they a bunch of primative fools that dont know a thing about democracy that reckon that every time they dont like their elected government they can bring it down by gathering in the streets? I remember revisionists of the Yugoslav 'story' and their attitude toward anti government protests during Milosevic. They were forever saying that one must not bring down an elected government. They always underestimated the numbers of those who gathered on the streets (until the million plus protest shut them up). I do hope that EC and all others who support elected governments support the DOS government as they should. Personally speaking I dont have much time for any governments but for those that do, you must abide by your own beliefs
  
  B Brisk
  UK

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 1:21 pm
  Peter Taylor who said Radosavljevic has not been indicted for war crimes? His indictment was sealed by the Hague as a favour to the DOS regime in Belgrade.

  I hope Mr Taylor you and others have not forgotten who Mr Radosavljevic is? He was the traitor promoted for his co-operation in the coup d'etat of October in Serbia. He was in charge of a brigade of officers that supported the revolution. Loyal? Who cares for loyalty? Its just important to support the majority to save your own hide / job.

  This is a man who swore an oath to defend his elected government only to change sides for personal gain. For such an immoral character who is to say what scruples such a man would have when it comes to war crimes?

  Plus should a man who supported the deportation of Milosevic to the Hague not receive the same 'opportunity' to defend himself? Mr Taylor you cannot say that the man did not committ war crimes. You simply dont know. Nor do I. But we can both make a judgement as to what kind of person he is.
  
  B Brisk
  UK

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 3:18 pm
  Whether Radosavljevic committed crimes is irrelevant at this point. The point is that the ICTY said IT'S NOT GOING TOISSUE ANY MORE INDICTMENTS AGAINST ANY MORE SERBIAN POLICEMEN AND MILITARY MEN!

  That means they're either lying or are serious. In any event, the most senior officer in Racak, we are being told, is not going to be dragged off to the Hague. The question is why would that be if there actually was a massacre at Racak? Are they de fact implying/suggesting Milosevic used some other means to commit the massacre rather than his police/military apparatus?

  Note that the Kosovo phase is FINISHED. They've had plenty of time to bring Radosavljevic to Milosevic's hearing but they didn't. Makes you wonder why not? It's too glaring an omission even for "missing links" like Del Ponte and Nice, let alone the rest of the team (May etc).

  Bravo Peter Taylor! Could you by some chance pass on some of your astuteness to your countryman Mr May so we can get to the bottom of this comedy? And while you're at it, could you also give him a few hints about British gentlemanliness and ordinary manners. He seems to have forgotten those in Britain when he left for the Hague! His treatment of Milosevic doesn't even approach ordinary civility, let alone plain, ordinary manners. What a disgrace he is to the British people! I'm sure even Lord Owen must have winced at the disgraceful treatment May afforded Milosevic.
  
  David
  Oztralia

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 3:47 pm
  

  ICDSM-US

  U.S. National Section of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic

  Press Release #2 November 2, 2003 Telephone: 212-726-1260 Email: info@icdsm-us.org Website: www.icdsm-us.org Yahoo group: icdsm-us

  For Immediate Release:

  1. U.S BASED DEFENSE COMMITTEE TO JOIN PROTEST OVER TRIAL OF MILOSEVIC IN THE HAGUE ON NOVEMBER 8TH

  2. THE ICDSM-US ALSO ANNOUNCES ITS NEW WEBSITE AS EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATION RESOURCE

  1. ICDSM-US TO DEMONSTRATE AT THE HAGUE NOV. 8TH:

  The U.S. section of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic announced on Nov. 1st that it supports the demonstration called for the following week, Nov. 8, in The Hague, Netherlands. The protest is directed at the illegitimate NATO frame-up of the former Yugoslav president. The ICDSM-US also announced that it will be sending one of its members, John Catalinotto, to represent them at the protest.

  While the ICTY purports to be concerned with crimes committed in Yugoslavia, the ICDSM-US concurs with the many legal experts who say the ICTY was illegally established and conducts itself in violation of all judicial norms. Worse still, its actions and barbaric two and a half year detention of the former President of Yugoslavia have so severely damaged Milosevic's health that his very life now hangs in the balance. The Hague Tribunal is tantamount to a calculated murder.

  The Hague rally in defense of President Milosevic coincides with a massive upsurge of political protest in Serbia. Over the last several days there have been demonstrations of thousands of workers and trade union activists in Belgrade demanding that the pro-NATO government step down. The government then ordered vicious police attacks on the protesting workers, who call for an end to privatization of state companies. This comes in the wake of the Western takeover of the Serbian economy following the ouster of Milosevic three years ago.

  The ICDSM-US comprises a team of more than two dozen writers, academics, attorneys and peace and human rights activists, all of them long and prominently associated with the issue of Yugoslavia and now determined to win the freedom of the imprisoned President. The ICDSM-US also sees Milosevic's defense as part of the struggle of the people of Serbia and of the former Yugoslavia to resist being turned into a colony of the West and that is why we consider this defense important.

  The Hague protest, initiated by the Sloboda organization in Belgrade, is supported by organizations of Yugoslav and Greek immigrants living in Western and Central Europe and by the national sections of the ICDSM in Europe, the U.S. and Canada. It demands that Milosevic be released from prison and be given a minimum of two years to prepare his defense. The prosecution has presented its case, which many have commented is rather weak, over the past 18 months.

  A similar demonstration last June drew several hundred people to The Hague.

  For more information, write to info@icdsm-us.org

  2. ICDSM-US LAUNCHES A NEW WEBSITE: WWW.ICDSM-US.ORG

  The ICDSM-US also announced on November 1st that it had established a website at http://www.icdsm-us.org/ to provide information about the trial, ongoing protests, and a selection of news and analyses about developments relating to the defense work in the U.S. and around the world. The site currently features an archive of over 130 speeches, interviews and statements of President Milosevic relevant to the trial and recent events in the Balkans.

  The central purpose of the ICDSM-US website is to publicize the struggle for truth and justice that characterizes the career of the world's most famous political prisoner - Slobodan Milosevic. The site will in time include all of Mr. Milosevic's most important public statements since 1987. The site will also contain a well organized collection of ICTY transcripts (soon available with a search engine).

  This website is a unique resource for anyone interested in the history of the Balkans over the last 15 years. The documents speak for themselves. They dispel the myths about the conflict in Yugoslavia and reveal the massive falsification of recent history by NATO governments. Indeed, the government and media demonization of President Milosevic has been so filled with lies and calumnies that it is revelatory to read Milosevic's own statements. And since the demonization of Milosevic extends to both Yugoslavia and the entire Serbian people, the ICDSM-US hopes that its website serves as an antidote to combat this type of racism.

  The ICDSM-US in its founding statement last September wrote that it "rejects the legitimacy of this trial and that of the International Criminal Tribunal on the Former Yugoslavia as well. But at the same time we cannot stand by without protesting the gross violations of fundamental legal, democratic and human rights visited upon Mr. Milosevic by this court."

  Again, for more information, write to info@icdsm-us.org
  
  George Szamuely
  New York
  NY

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 4:25 pm
  
  Mr Brisk

  I say that General Radoslavljevic has not been indicted by the ICTY: it is a self-evident truth!

  Furthermore Florance Hartmann, del Ponte’s spokesperson states, by implication, that he will never be indicted by the ICTY.

  You are quite right to state that I do not know whether or not Radoslavljevic committed war crimes in Kosovo so I withdraw the following two statements:

  1. ‘Why is this so: simply because he has not committed war crimes in Kosovo:’

  2. ‘In contrast the police commander in charge of the operations at Racak never committed any war crimes’

  And replace them with what I should have stated:

  1A. ‘Why is this so: simply because the ICTY does not have convincing evidence that he committed war crimes in Kosovo:’

  2A ‘In contrast the ICTY does not have convincing evidence that the police commander in charge of the operations at Racak ever committed any war crimes,’

  Incidentally how do you have possession of details of deals made between the ICTY and DOS: or is it the case that you are guessing?

  I hope there is no misunderstanding: it is not my case that Milosevic should not appear before a court to account for his role in the manifest crimes that occurred in the former Yugoslavia. What I ask is that the court should be a true court of justice - which the ICTY is manifestly not - and that all the other factions’ war leaders too should appear before it to account for their actions.

  If as a policeman Radoslavljevic believed that Milosevic had committed a crime it was his duty to arrest him.

  I did not know that he was involved in Nato’s abduction: if he was then that was wrong.

  None of this alters my contention and demonstration that there is no evidence that Milosevic ordered his forces to commit war crimes in Racak.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 4:26 pm
  David, far more serious than any question of May being a disgrace to the British people, is the issue of May being a disgrace to his own profession. He is bringing justice itself into disrepute.

  Could someone explain the following . May claimed that his court had been over-ruled by the ICTJ regarding the submission into evidence of witness statements without the need for proper cross examination. How could May's own ruling in his own court be over ruled here, when May is one of the three official chief judges of the ICTY. Is there any factual information on the role Judge May played in assisting as a chief justice in over ruling his own earlier rulings.
  
  Ian Davis
  Waterloo
  Ontario

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 6:38 pm
  To B Brisk:

  The first part of your first post, which finishes when you start to remember, rests on the following:

  "EC misses the fact that some of these workers protesting were the very same who protested and brought down the government in the October revolution."

  Dear B, you are wrong: EC doesn't miss the fact.

  EC speaks through the mouth of Jared Israel: "These workers, demanding that the DOS government step down, includes the miners whose support for DOS was morally decisive in October 2000."

  The fact that you are wrong does not make EC right, if it is better believe Branko V "whose surname is strangely missing" than Jared whose knowledge of the real situation in Serbia is still second hand.

  Speaks Branko: "There are still some struggles inside those unions, will they join the movement or not, because the DOS people are losing control of those unions, as we speak." If they are still thinking of joining the movement or not than they cannot be part of it and you simply do not know if they will be. Neither do I. In the last two sentences of the same paragraph Branko says: "And basically the whole opposition is supporting this and the people are helping. Some members of the parliament have left the parliamentary session and have joined the demonstrators. These are the Socialists, the Radicals, some members of Democratic Party of Serbia [Kostunica's Party] but mainly the Socialists, the Socialistic Party of Serbia."

  Back to you dear B: you say the "some of these workers". Afterwards you refer to them as "these men" and a couple of times as "they". Both these expressions can refer to all protesters or only to "some" of these workers depending on the context. But you created an ambigous context: "they" can refer also to "who protested and brought down the government". Sure, you cleared it up by your comparison to "government protests during Milosevic" in your memory. By doing this you made a mess out of your post but the fact that you use two expressions with different meanings when speaking of the same concept speaks about your manipulative nature or ...

  I will be quiet about other things I have read from you because I still do not know how I should deal with you.
  
  ivko rig
  deserted land

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 6:44 pm
  What is this , some kind of world "hijos de puta" united manifesto ? . are we going to start with this semitism bullshit again ? .
  
  M P
  Rep de Panama

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 7:57 pm
  Owen started today and will finish tomorrow. In the meantime, first things first. Andy, TV B92 did stop broadcasting live the “trial” for a week, and their laconic explanation was that their equipment enabling their link from The Hague had suffered a technical failure; for the whole following week they were airing pre-recorded sessions and a week after that they’ve resumed live transmissions.

  BTW, they showed also some other cases, so I managed to catch a glimpse of one of Seselj’s pre-trial status conferences - hilarious stuff; he’s fighting them with their own weapon, making a mockery of it by being perfectly serious and by choking the system with enormous amount of documents. Among other things, he had submitted 80 of his books to the Prosecution and to the Trial Chamber as a basis for his defence, in addition to the flood of his almost daily hand-written submissions, each at least a hundred pages long. He announced that some of these books would serve to demolish the charge of the ‘joint criminal enterprise’. Otherwise, he’s just plainly enjoying himself. For instance, while submitting that truckload of books, he calmly instructed his two guards to go and carry that over to the Prosecutors, saying ‘Don’t worry, I won’t attack anybody in the meantime.’ Everyone was so confused that they actually obeyed his instructions. The ICTY officials are at pains to figure Seselj out. The German Judge, Schomburg, treated him at first as a buffoon, then got confused by his obvious legal knowledge (he has a PhD in law), then got offended by his offhand remarks, and finally stepped back, leaving another Judge (one from Malta) to chair the Chamber. The new official is clearly baffled, but keeps trying to follow the rules to the letter. The problem is, that way you can come out silly and stupid, and this crazy but intelligent and cunning Seselj is clearly exploiting it and having fun in the process, which is totally beyond the comprehension of the Maltese. How can anyone ridicule an institution that has in its power to put you in jail for life? Well, some choose to strike a deal with it by “admitting” and accusing others and in return getting only 5 or 11 years instead of 20 or 40; others choose to ridicule it, as it deserves. People are different, more so when under pressure.

  But, Seselj’s antics aside, there was another recent witness in the Milosevic case qualified as important, Dobrila Gajic-Glisic. [BTW, I forgot to put a date while reporting about Milan Milanovic - he testified on 8,14 and 15 Oct; Ms Gajic-Glisic testified on 21/22 Oct.] I will not go to all the details of her testimony (Andy made a good report), instead I’ll only try to give you some background and clarifications. She was a former chef de cabinet of General Simovic, the Minister of Defence of Serbia. But, this employment of the witness (lasting only a few months) could be deceiving when characterising her; one has to bear in mind her previous job which characterizes her much better - a journalist, more precisely a small-time journalist in a Party paper at that. And not only did she use to be a journalist (she interviewed her boss before she became part of his cabinet - ‘General Simovic told me this in his interview in 1984’), she has remained one throughout her short tenure with the Ministry. She has never stopped acting a journalist and as such she constantly hunted for scoops, or when these were lacking - hunted for raw facts and then gave them a bit of massage. Her short brush with high politics served her only to collect as much material as possible, only to publish as many “books” as possible thereafter - her complete bibliography includes 17 to be precise. The term books here has to be taken in a very narrow, literal sense - these writings are books only insomuch as they have covers and printed pages. Otherwise, such publications are better known as pamphlets. She claimed that General Simovic (the protagonist in most of these writings) checked everything for accuracy, but she had to admit later on that he denied some of her most colourful depictions; she simply dismissed this as his tendency to ‘very often change his statements’. Strange dismissal of source, having in mind that her complete testimony was based almost exclusively on ‘General Simovic told me’.

  One of our anti-regime weeklies at that time (NIN) was quick to publish her writings immediately after she left the Ministry (this subsequently became another “book” called “The Serbian Army”). They were hoping this could cause some potential embarrassment to the “dictator”, disregarding the poor quality and dubious credibility of the material (note that the regime calmly let them print whatever they wanted, unmolested). Here’s one comment from May 1992 by the editor of another anti-regime weekly (VREME), revealing the low esteem in which they really held this screed: ‘The most important information revealed is that regarding the intended talks between General Veljko Kadijevic and Mr Slobodan Milosevic concerning the “President’s assumption of supreme command” (beginning of December 1991). The talks were never held.’

  The additional problem with the woman was her psychological profile: her trouble to keep her own importance in perspective. Her claim that ‘Comrade President’ had saved her life was more than slightly ridiculous; Milosevic had trouble keeping a straight face. After her boss was no longer a Minister and she lost her job, some Generals allegedly told her that there were accusations against her of having connections with foreign intelligence services, but Milosevic personally came to her aid this way: ‘they also told me that you defended me vehemently and that you pensioned off 40 Generals for my sake.’ Wow! After the Serbian Prime Minister resigned, the whole Government fell, including the Minister of Defence, who moved back to JNA being a General. Who could possibly think of an insignificant office staff, let alone plot against her, when much bigger fish were busy trying to place themselves?! Whatever story she was telling, she always put herself at the centre of events. She was practically doing everything alone and independently, to everyone’s endless admiration, including writing speeches for the Minister, his contribution being only in minor changes, starting with his inaugural speech (‘You say that this speech was a page and a half long and that it fascinated all of Serbia?’ ‘Yes.’). She claimed the General gave the total of 170 interviews while in office; Milosevic quickly calculated this amounted to 3 interviews per day. When he asked her how could the man have any work done giving so many interviews, the almighty Madam Dobrila answered: ‘I was very expeditious there.’ She loudly scolded her boss when he didn’t do what she thought was the best. As Milosevic summed it up: ‘you were, as you said, angry’, telling the General that the ‘nation expects you to create a Serbian army, to be their commander’.

  She did explain at length, with expressive gestures and mimic, the plight of Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia she saw in the corridors of the Ministry; she tearfully retold the horrors of the atrocities against them and against the JNA soldiers she saw on the photos or heard about. But even when telling about these terrible things she could not hide her less-than-refined behaviour. The way she told it revealed poor taste and poor literary skills as well. In addition, her looks added to the vulgarity of her prosody: she’s a mature woman, but with heavily rouged valentine lips, constantly pouting and bulging her eyes and mimicking anyone whom she was allegedly quoting, so she was at times quite pathetic to watch.

  She considerably changed through elaboration or completely withdrew some of her previous claims when Milosevic cross-examined her. The only claims from her testimony that she stubbornly stuck to were a) that her boss General Simovic was forced to retire at gunpoint, allegedly by a Milosevic-controlled man from JNA, Military Security General Tumanov and b) that Krajina military Commander (appointed by Milosevic) came to the Serbian Ministry of Defence and took over a suitcase full of cash from the Serbian Minister of Finance (she was allegedly told by Simovic himself about the first event and was present at the second, but never actually saw any cash, only a suitcase). Here is the translation of a recent article from our daily VECERNJE NOVOSTI that deals with this:

  [start quote] LIES OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS - Belgrade, 1 November 2003 - The former Minister of Defence in the Serbian Government Tomislav Simovic, and retired Generals Ilija Djujic and Simo Tumanov denied for NOVOSTI the claims made by Dobrila Gajic-Glisic, a witness in the Slobodan Milosevic trial at The Hague, on the financing of the Krajina Army and on their retirement. - Simovic, who was the Minister of Defence of Serbia from August through December 1991, points out that it is not true that he and the then Minister of Finance Jovan Zebic witnessed the opening of a suitcase of money: - ‘This never happened at all, it is her concoction. I do not know the purpose for such a statement, but I maintain this is a lie.’ - Simovic also disputes the statement of the witness Dobrila Gajic-Glisic that he was allegedly forced to retire. - ‘Without any pressure, I sent a request for retirement, in my own handwriting, to the then Chief of Staff. The then Deputy Federal Secretary of Defence Aleksandar Spirkovski suggested that I should not hurry into retirement, but rather take a holiday to think over that decision. But in spite of that I never changed my decision and on 29 February 1992 my colleagues made me a formal retirement farewell. Therefore, it is utterly incorrect that Tumanov allegedly put a gun against my forehead and ordered me to sign a request for retirement’ - says Simovic. - He sent a message to the competent authorities in the country to make public, if the document is indeed in their possession, the written information provided by the witness Dobrila Gajic-Glisic on the alleged plans by the US Administration of breaking up communist countries, including the USSR and Yugoslavia. ‘If indeed the claim by the witness is true, that back in 1983 she was in possession of the information from, as she said, Reagan’s entourage, that the establishing of Greater Albania was being prepared, then such documents should be made public.’ - The retired Lieutenant-Colonel General Ilija Djujic also disputes the claim of the witness that he allegedly came to ask for money. ‘The truth is that on 30 September 1991, by a decree from the then Prime Minister of the Government of SAO [Serbian Autonomous Region] Krajina, Dr Milan Babic, I was appointed the Commander of the Territorial Defence [TO]. But, I was not assigned to the position by Slobodan Milosevic at the suggestion of Minister Simovic. I was born in Knin and I had returned to my homeland as a retired JNA General. During my term of office, which was less than two full months, I was even sleeping in my father’s house. I had neither the escort nor the ‘gorillas’, as the witness said, nor did I come for money. I went only twice to see Simovic in Belgrade, and of course not once did I carry any suitcases with money, although we did speak about the financing of TO Krajina, since the financial flows of the SFRY had been already broken. I did offer, through Simovic, to The Hague investigators to clarify the issues, but it seems I was not interesting to them. I don’t know why’ - says General Djujic. - The retired General, Deputy Chief of Military Security Administration Simo Tumanov, opines that the Military Security never interfered with personnel issues and retirements. ‘It is a senseless claim by the witness that I forced general Simovic to retire at gunpoint. After all, not a single General was retired that way and retirements were decided by the then Presidency of the SFRY’ - points out Tumanov. - I TOLD THE TRUTH - The Hague investigators were questioning me between 3 and 5 June of this year, among other things also on the financing of the Krajina Army and on my retirement’ - says Simovic. ‘I told the truth to them as well, not knowing that my former chef de cabinet will appear as a witness in the court at The Hague. It seems they were not very pleased with my answers.’ [end quote]

  It seems indeed that ICTY avoided first-hand witnesses whose stories they disliked and rather took second- or even third-hand one to tell the story they need. Why, one may wonder?! Well, after questioning all involved, the investigators must’ve concluded that a slightly hysterical and prone-to-exaggeration Madam Dobrila will certainly spin a juicier story with her parroting ‘Simovic told me’ than Simovic himself would do. After all, the rules of ICTY allow hearsay testimonies, and the Milosevic case clearly depends on them.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 8:33 pm
  

  LORD OWEN in THE HAGUE

  Slobodan Milosevic made a mistake by not using his influence in Bosnia and Croatia to support the peace which he always spoke in favour off. Sounds odd? Yes, it is!

  Another Day at the War Crimes. To be exact, Day 263.

  Prosecutors argued once again that Mr. Milosevic masterminded ethnic cleansing and genocide, but today, Lord David Owen, former former British Foreign Secretary and UN envoy to the Balkans concluded at the so-called ‘trial of the century’ that Milosevic is not a racists and was not in support of the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the RS. At several points, the testimony of this witness proved to be damaging to the prosecutions case as Mr. Nice received answers which he was clearly frustrated with.

  At first the witness blamed Milosevic for not using his influence enough to stop the war and for not forcing the Bosnian Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen plan. In a cross examination that showed respect from both men, Milosevic asked: “Do you believe we Serbs should have attacked Bosnian Serbs?”

  Mr. Owen’s answer was astonishing. “Yes, I believe you should have tried military, economic and political ways to decrease any help, except humanitarian.”

  While Mr. Owen solely based his testimony on the assertion that Milosevic did not do enough, he was willing to support the ‘Accused’ on several occasions. Unlike Milosevic, said Owen, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman openly demanded the annexation of a significant part of Bosnia to Croatia, saying that Bosnia could not survive as an independent state.

  Lord Owen also gave support to Mr. Milosevic's claims that he had less control by the time of the massacre of thousands of Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995. Owen at one point called Mr. Milosevic, President Milosevic.

  Lord Owen told the tribunal Mr Milosevic appeared to have had power to stop fierce fighting and implement peace, but failed to do so. "I believe he did have that power," he said.

  "I know at times he felt he didn't, but at that time his power and influence over the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs was strong.

  Lord Owen clearly, even in his own testimony, stated that there is a difference between command responsibility, which he believes Milosevic did not have, and influence-which is not considered a crime.

  So Milosevic sometimes felt he did not have that power. How can we blame him for not knowing that he had that influence, assuming he had it, which he clearly did not.

  Once Mr. Milosevic started the real cross examination, one could see that Mr. Nice’s witness was about to say things the Court would not like to hear and would rather keep hidden.

  After Mr. Nice hurled a question that sounded like “Was the Accused a nationalist and if he considered it impossible for Serbs, Croats and Muslims to live together” Lord Owen answered, "He is not fundamentally a racist," he said. "He is a nationalist, but that he wears lightly. He is a pragmatist. It is true that all Serbs are nationalists, but they cannot be blamed for the things that happened. The accused was not a democrat. He did not want the cleansing of Muslims from the RS, because they lived peacefully in Serbia. Not even his wife is a nationalist."

  Mr. Nice, not happy with Owen’s answer, wanted to take another risk, and once again, the answer he got was not a happy one. “Only he can answer that. I believe that he understood that the world will not allow for Bosnia to be divided and that the RS formally joins Serbia, but he was aware that the RS would have strong links with Serbia.

  At one point, Mr. Owen dealt a major blow to the prosecutions case. The prosecutor stated that Muslims in Srebrenica cannot be guilty of anything. Mr. Owen used this opportunity to speak a little and add some salt to the story. “There was a civil war and a large number of local fights and a small number of people who were innocent. Before my arrival in Sarajevo, I perceived the Muslims as innocent victims, but I have changed my mind, because I have seen how they were shooting at the International Red Cross.” At this point Mr. Nice decided it was enough for him.

  Milosevic proceeded to ask a question on the alleged control Serbia had over the RS. He cited a classified report from the UN, written by Butros Butros Ghali. The report was written on 30.05.1992. The report states that the RS is NOT under the control of Belgrade.

  This report was for obvious reasons not made available to the members of the Security Council and the General Assembly. The UN in that session imposed sanctions on Serbia. Three years later, the UN Secretary General, Butros Butros-Ghali complained in his Report to the Security Council - 6 weeks before the "fall of Srebrenica" that Muslim government armed forces were intensifying their attacks against Serbian forces in the surrounding area with "unprovoked attacks" launched from the safe area jeopardizing UNPROFOR's defense of the civilian population. See The Secretary General adds, “The Bosnian Serb forces' reaction to offensives launched by the government army from safe areas have generally been to respond against military targets within those areas, often at a disproportionate level.” Security Council document, S/1995/444 (May 30, 1995)

  Once the cross examination came into full gear, Milosevic became more aggressive and the witness was willing to even add some things which were not even in his book. After the accused inquired whether the Muslim’s main factor was to play the victim in this war and get the US government to intervene, Lord Owen answered, “Mr. Ganic tried that as he believed that he was familiar with Americans. He was correct in predicting that the United States would get involved for those reasons.

  Lord Owen, whose testimony is expected to last two days, is an independent witness as he wanted to be called by the court so as to preserve the impartial position of international negotiators.

  Finally, the accused pointed out that even UN soldiers did not know how they should behave. “Commanders had every right to take military action against Serbs, but when they had to take the same actions against Muslims, they had to seek special permission from Washington. Was that not an incentive for them to continue the war? Is that not so Lord Owen?”

  “We all made mistakes in that war and nobody can be proud. I stand by everything I wrote in my book.”

  The trial was adjourned until Tuesday

  TO BE CONTINUED-90 MINUTES LEFT FOR CROSS EXAMINATION
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 8:38 pm
  Does anyone here know where one could watch any taped coverage on the internet on Seselj?
  
  Dan B
  Canada

• Monday November 03, 2003 at 9:02 pm
  

  The Scotsman, UK:

  But yesterday, in testimony likely to be controversial, Lord Owen insisted Milosevic supported his drive for peace.

  The prosecutor, Geoffrey Nice, asked him: "Do you accept that the accused was someone capable of telling untruths and misleading people when it suited him?"

  "There was a certain amount of knowing lying," said Owen. "It was not quite the same as a straight lie. I just want to qualify the word. Lie is a rather savage word."
  
  Dan B
  Canada