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 16, 2002 at 6:51 am
  David put it well. The psychiatric scam allows the tribunal to appear humane, which it wants pretty badly for some unknown reason. Second, while Milosevic is out on bail some unknown assassin may well put a bullet to his head. I am sure the tribunal folks also have brainstorming sessions, and they have gone through all the scenarios.

  However, the tribunal has put itself in a desperate situation. There is no easy way out. Maybe there is no way out at all any more.

  First of all, the tribunal watchers have developed almost an uncanny ability to see through all the prosecution bull even before the prosecution issues it.

  The problem with the first point is that people who have not been following the trial can still put the question: Why did Milosevic become a headcase so late? Some might even see it against the background of the terrible state of the prosecution case. And then some might ask if the prosecution really had so much power as to consign Milosevic to the nuthouse just because the case didn't go so well. If it had, what kind of tribunal was that?

  The problem with the second point is that some might start asking who was behind the previous mystery assassinations. Until now the theory went that Milosevic killed them. If somebody puts a bullet to Milosevic's head, that brings the Milosevic connection behind these mystery killings into a bad light. So maybe they have to stage it as a suicide. The trouble is that Milosevic maybe crazy but he's not stupid. I am sure he knows how to watch his back in the future.

  Then the residual bull, to which David referred. People shouldn't get too smart, which is why this trial shouldn't be allowed to go on. There is enough bull still coming up. But even here the tribunal may have waited too long. The fatal problem here is that maybe the bull-resistant tribunal watchers have already reached the critical mass.

  I suggest another possible explanation in Del Ponte's almost hysterical interest in Milosevic's defense attorney. The explanation is that the ICSDM had manoeuvred behind the prosecution's back and appointed a defense attorney almost out of the blue.

  Del Ponte must have thought: "Fine! You start next week". Which meant that Milosevic had to got rid of first, and quickly. Del Ponte knows that the defense attorney is prepairing for the next phase, beginning May 2003, but that is something Carla won't have. In order to distract the preparation of the defense, she has her own solution. She wants to show that she can move quickly too, which was something that some people might have doubted. The beauty of the quick appointment of the defense attorney would be that the rest of the prosecution's case would make a better impression with the defense attorney totally unprepared.

  Of course, the deadlines are fierce, so it is out of the question that the trial would be halted if the defense needs some time to prepare. The trial can be suspended only at the request of the prosecution. That is called equality of arms. Art. 21(4) of the Statute even uses the phrase "in full equality".

  Someone less enlightened could ask: "What the friggin' business is it of the prosecution what strategy the defense chooses?" Is Carla going to put Milosevic's head between her breasts and say that he had a mother too?

  Let me remind you that Art. 21(4)(b) says that the defendant shall have "adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing."

  Let me also remind you that Art. 21(4)(e) says that the defendant has the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing.

  And as to Gogol's question where the luminaries are, the answer is simple. They are at the ICTY. The ICTY staff is the very highest standard in legal thinking.

  Universities? You may have romanticized the universities these days. The highest legal education aims at producing the best-equipped bullshit-generators able to function in any bullshit environment, like the ICTY. I am not trying to show off with terms like deconstruction. This is the stuff what the legal professionals are made of.

  Of course, the best lawyers are so clever that they fool even themselves. They don't call their business bullshit. The word deconstruction sounds a lot more convincing, almost flattering.

  But they bullshit themselves even more. They don't call it simply destruction. They call it de-con-struction. I guess that means that in the destruction there lurks a reconstruction there somewhere: Tearing the picture to pieces and then reconstructing it any way you like.

  I was stupid enough to ask why they do this. The answer was that they do it because it is "fun". So they bullshit even themselves. I think the real reason is that law has been used for social engineering. Once you look back what this social engineering has produced, the result is nothing but a heap anti-intuitive crap, which you have to rename deconstruction. Or maybe that is just my antirationalist, Taoist, paleoconservative fallacy?

  How do you recognize a deconstruction buff? Sometimes it can be difficult, because they are so good at bullshitting everyone, including themselves, but I can give you the following hints. First, you recognize them by their abrasiveness, unless they happen to be unabrasive. As one of them says, he is like a cameleon. But even here they fool themselves. A cameleon adopts the colour of its background. The deconstruction buff adopts a different colour from the background.

  This interesting contrast is called a binary opposition. A more colloquial expression would be "criminal record". A slightly more scientific term would be "schizophrenia". But of course, even here they bullshit themselves and everybody else, so it is they who decide who is crazy and who is not.

  Often this schizophrenia goes together with megalomenia. So another characteristic is that a deconstruction buff feels superior to anyone who has stuck to the level of construction. In a word, the deconstruction buff's feeling of superiority is accompanied by the frank admission that he knows nothing. However, even here the line is fuzzy. What is knowledge? If you know that you know nothing, isn't that knowledge too?

  Back to the topic of the upcoming bull about Iraq. Blair is in a pretty dismal situation. He cannot wreak any more havoc without making Kosovo look good first. Of course, he is not stupid either, so he knows that there are some problems in Kosovo. But he also knows how to turn a minus into a plus. For instance, everybody knows that there are no Serbs left in this multiethnic society. Fine. Let's have Michael Steiner say that he supports Kosovo independence, which Steiner did this week. So all the bad things in Kosovo served a purpose. What would be loftier goal than self-determination, i.e. Kosovo independence? It even accords with the initial promises made to the Kosovars, so there is continuity, which is otherwise so totally uncharacteristic of Blair & Co.

  Of course, the Serbs are the rogues again. Serbia and Montenegro won't be accepted as members of OSCE, before they have sorted out their future constitution. As it happens, the greatest hindrance is the future status of Kosovo. And what is the greatest hindrance to sorting it out, if not the chronic waffling of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (no matter what's his name is)?

  It is interesting that one of the "pillars" of international administration of Kosovo is OSCE, which is responsible for the reconstruction (I almost said deconstruction). So in a way, OSCE is partly responsible for the obscurity of the future status of Kosovo, which slows down the conclusion of the constitution, which prevents the membership of Serbia and Montenegro in OSCE. Which means that Serbia and Montenegro is a rogue state. Which means that Steiner supports Kosovo independence.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday November 16, 2002 at 10:32 am
  Picking up on something that Jari mentioned earlier re ICDSM and possible game playing.

  I try real hard to warm to TENC and the ICDSM but just as I do they knock me back with what are IMO ICTY/western media type games.

  In their recent article they claim that there is a secret ICTY procedure to apply for AC status that the ICTY told them about when they got their application wrong. Pleeease!

  Why did their people not contact the Registry at the ICTY to check the procedure prior to submiting an application. The energy spent on this type petty *Brownie point* accumilation would be better spent getting it right and actually offering a defence of sorts to Mr Milosevic and not attacking a paper trail that have not taken the time to learn. This is very ICTY like, blaiming the other side for thier failings, and I do see this as a failing of what is a commitee packed full of international top notch lawyers.

  Come on ICDSM, Milosivic has shut the door on your defending him in court, the Tribunal is NOT going to allow your brief, and why would you force more AC's on a man who does not want them, even I can see you've been side lined at the Hague. We need a defence for Milosevic, but we know this will ot take place in the Hague court, are there not other courts where you can force the truth out and in doing so bring this ICTY tragedy to an end?
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Saturday November 16, 2002 at 4:13 pm
  ...they are considering releasing him on bail...dead or alive ? before or after they kill him ?
  
  arnold jong
  netherlands

• Saturday November 16, 2002 at 7:58 pm
  Vasile, neo-politicos here were overjoyed to help sending Milosevic to The Hague: he was too potent a presence, even as a mere president of the Socialist Party, now in opposition. I remember how Djindjic, in his usual cheeky, blunt style, declared to all the media that he did read the indictment, but that he's aware the Prosecution has no case against Milosevic. Yet, he gladly organized his kidnapping and delivering. This lot is still mortally frightened of his possible miraculous phoenix rise into the prominence once again, regardless of the slim chances for such a scenario. They would be completely reassured only after his death, I think. They had been in opposition against him for too long (still calling themselves the Democratic Opposition of Serbia, for crying out loud!), with their Lilliputan parties, that they've developed almost uncanny awe of him, I should say even stronger than his own supporters ever have. Therefore, it was so much safer to have him far away, preferably disgraced by the trial (although "there's no case against him", the almighty International Community will find something to convict him).

  I remember the hysterical TV panels for months into the trial, when our national TV (RTS) still broadcasted it, when DOS politicos whined about the devastating impact on our public of Milosevic's opening statement and his cross-examination: he was accused of turning this trial into his political pulpit and of addressing primarily the local public; they even published some surveys showing his personal popularity and that of his Party starting to rise. Next month, RTS stopped broadcasting the trial. The official explanation was that it was too expensive to pay with their depleted funds. And you know what I found on this very discussion archive, under August 1, 2002 at 6:58 am, courtesy of our own Frank T: "The courtroom-feeds the ICTY supplies may be used by the media free of charge , whether for direct broadcasts (as RTS did before Djindjic Government stepped in and B92/ANEM still do every session day...)" Thanks, Frank, for the info! True, B92 still broadcasts the trial, but it is almost a local TV, covering not nearly the same area as RTS (the whole country + diaspora via satellite).

  What you've heard about some politicians supporting Milosevic's release is a Declaration adopted 2 days ago in the Federal Assembly, which "demands from the Hague Tribunal to enable the medical treatment in Yugoslavia for the former FRY President Slobodan Milosevic, on account of his endangered health." The motion for this was jointly submitted by the Socialist Party (SPS) and the Radical Party of Seselj (SRS), and it was voted for also by the Socialist National Party from Montenegro (SNP) and the Yugoslav Leftist Party (JUL). The position of the Montenegrin Party here is interesting: they are now in coalition with the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS) at the federal level, yet they have voted for this Declaration. They used to be in coalition with Milosevic once, so they're now accused of being turncoats once again, but they argue it is only due to the "humanitarian concerns". The MPs from DOS naturally voted against the Declaration, considering it to be of "a pure political, rather than humanitarian character". My guess is that SNP voted contrary to their coalition partners DOS just to show some independent leverage, useful for their struggle in the difficult negotiations on the new Constitutional Charter between Serbia and Montenegro. So, you see, Milosevic is still useful to all of them, either as a bogy-man or as a leverage opportunity.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Saturday November 16, 2002 at 8:08 pm
  Ivan and Walter seem to be in a debate which has no end. Firstly, we cannot know all of the facts about the Croats, the Serbs and the Muslims as regards WW2. To be sure, one would have to assume that there were atrocities perpetrated by all sides. The question is whether they were perpetrated ad hoc or were they part of a wider, formally organised objective. Sure the Serb "Chetniks" slaughtered a lot of Serbs, mainly communists. But there were various "Chetniks", including renegade bandits who called themselves Chetniks. Draza Mihajlovic's Chetniks were distinct from those, as even though many Chetnik bands were supporting Mihajlovic under the leadership of local warlords, Mihajlovic's Chetniks didn't have it as their policy to slaughter Serbs who were not Royalists. There was no official policy to that effect, neither with respect to Serbs or Croats or Muslims. At least I've never come across any indication of such but I stand to be corrected. On the other hand, the Ustasha policy is well documented, and is rooted in what was going on in the "Habsburg province of Croatia" even in the 19th century after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

  The question is whether historically there is any evidence that any of the parties were exterminating another party as an organised objective. Whereas the leaders of Croatia in WW2 are on record as to their objectives, I have not been able to find any such record regarding Milosevic. Sure, it may have been done on the quiet and that no records as such exist, but that is not as clear cut. People use Milosevic's speech at Kosovo in 1989 to suggest that what Milosevic was doing is the same as what the Croat Ustasha were doing in WW2, except there is a substantial difference. Milosevic's speech contains absolutely NO SUCH INDICATORS! Read the speech or anything else Milosevic has ever said publicly. I'm pretty sure you won't find anything remotely resembling what the Ustasa leaders were saying in WW2.

  That does not mean that covertly Milosevic did not want to do the same. The ICTY is supposed to prove that he did. How successful they have been is clearly visible from the current proceedings which are not looking good for the Prosecution which, by virtue of its masters' stake in this (NATO et al), simply has to get a conviction by hook or by crook.

  For the Prosecution to quote Milosevic's speech in Kosovo in 1989 as being "inflammatory" one would have to assume that they are clutching at straws as no reasonably INTELLIGENT person could interpret it that way. In fact, one has to assume a huge dose of BAD FAITH on the Prosecution's part.

  Add that to the shockingly, pitiful quality of the testimony and the woeful calibre of the Prosecution witnesses, so far, and you cannot escape the conclusion that the Prosecution is trying to hang Milosevic for any reason it can find, along the principle of "throw as much mud as possible and at least some of it will stick".

  But hey! Who ever said lynchings are a thing of the past? Just look at the principals behind this whole story in the Balkans... Britain and US... who have a glorious history of colonialism, genocide, lynchings, slavery, etc., in the MODERN age.

  These are the same people who now lurk behind the much expounded humanitarian concerns for the poor people of former YU. Where were they in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Korea, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, Kurdistan, Guatemala, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc., to mention only a few of the places where they have already greatly contributed to human rights issues. What's wrong with fighting for justice for the people of those countries? If it was good enough to have a rush on justice against Nazi criminals in the late 1980s and early 1990s for the slaughter of the Jews of WW2, why isn't it good enough to have the same for the much more than 6 million dead, mutilated and orphaned human beings in the above countries.

  Well, yes... the ICC is supposed to take care of that from now on but guess who objects to the ICC and for what reason? The same people who so boldly stand behind the ICTY and human rights principles. Now doesn't that demand an international inquiry of some sort, at least by our FREE and INDEPENDENT western media? Or at least an inquiry as to what difference there is being blown up in a bus by a suicide bomber or being blown up in a train by a missile from a more conventional bomber!!

  Something stinks, probably because "something is 'Rotten-dam' around the Hague".

  Ivan, please do not make any insignificant comments, that's not what it's about. Share your views genuinely and although many may not like them, some people will at least use them to review their own ideas. There are elements of TRUTH in what both you and Walter have to say, and only those elements will keep us honest with ourselves.
  
  David
  Australia

• Sunday November 17, 2002 at 2:39 am
  Thank you David. My sentiments
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Sunday November 17, 2002 at 3:30 am
  Besides legal questions on legality of ICTY that are not debated, there are additional question of President Milosevic´s "transfer" or "kidnap" according to the Yugoslav law,that are not answered. Could any one with legal expertise debate those issues.It is important to consider 1. powers wested in UN SC for establishment of ICTY thus itslegality.2. Yugoslav law does not allow extradition of its citizens. Therefore, legal question begging for an answer is, aws Mr. Milosevic legally "transferred" or "kidnapped"?
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Sunday November 17, 2002 at 3:36 am
  Besides legal questions on legality of ICTY that are not debated, there are additional question of President Milosevic´s "transfer" or "kidnap" according to the Yugoslav law,that are not answered. Could any one with legal expertise debate those issues.It is important to consider 1. powers wested in UN SC for establishment of ICTY thus itslegality.2. Yugoslav law does not allow extradition of its citizens. Therefore, legal question begging for an answer is, aws Mr. Milosevic legally "transferred" or "kidnapped"?
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Sunday November 17, 2002 at 7:34 pm
  Carla, I'm not someone with legal expertise, but the Federal Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court of Serbia presumably are. And they ruled the Decree of the Government of Serbia to deliver Milosevic to The Hague to be "contrary to the Constitution of the FRY and to the Crominal Procedure Act".

  The first such ruling, that of the Federal Constitutional Court, was made in March 2002. The motion concerning the same issue was recently submitted to the Constitutional Court of Serbia by a NGO, Democracy Development Fund, in vain hope that the ruling would be different (notice how our "democratic" rulers are deeply aware that they acted as simple gangsters, so they desperately need an a posteriori imprimatur ). But no, 3 days ago the Constitutional Court of Serbia just refused to judge the constitutionality & legality of Djindjic's Decree, on the grounds of the existing ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court, by which "the disputed Decree has ceased to be effective, thus it is not the part of the existing legal system".

  But of course, these are only the rulings and the courts of an "outlaw state", "failed state", "rouge state"...
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 2:23 am
  Milosevic never agreed to ICTY jurisdiction over his country. The Dayton treaty only mentions ICTY rights in Bosnia-Herzegovina, including the provision that those indicted by said ICTY cannot run for office. The claim that Milosevic must accept the Tribunal was not that that he agreed to it at Dayton, but that he had to because the Security Council had created the Tribunal and he must obey any order given by this body created by the Security Council. This is what Albright spoke of all the time in 1997 and 199; she never said that he should co-operate with the Tribunal because of the Dayton agreement.

  It would seem that this new claim was made later; this John Shattuck claim of a "trap" at Dayton with the Tribunal is false in that respect, though ultimately true in that Dayton represented a phase of the war against Yugoslavia that would ultimately close on Milosevic himself; the trap would close. It is no coincidence that within days of both Republika Srpska and Montenegro's governing authorities falling under total US control,(Mid-January 1998) the KLA began its first sustained action.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 2:49 am
  Leave that kid alone.He doesn't know,he doesn't care,we should live in peace,clean water and air.That is fair.He is naive in addition.Proud of his country-AUS he can't blame it for arresting his uncles. That was the policy of that time,not some corruption incident. Across the ocean Mr Trkla is angry on Croatian terrorists who were only doing their job, but not on his democratic Canada which gave them shelter in favor of the future plans of the neighbour.Mr Trkla, you can find enough misery much closer,past or present.It's time for you to come here where you can yell as much as you want.Poor is that democracy. Ivane,giving up is good decision.If you want to tease your father I can help.You say that your uncle's name is Ilija.That's bad,very bad.
  
  milan masic
  serbia

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 4:10 am
  Carla Berg, I have the judgement made by the Federal Constitutional court on March 26, 2002 in English. Since it is obviously too long to quote in full and since there is no hyperlink as far as I know, let me just quote the how the Court summarizes the objections made to the transfer decision:

  "The proposal filed and the initiative have substantially alleged: that the contested Decision is contrary to the Constitution of FRY and the Law on Criminal Process ("Official Gazette of FRY" Nos.27/92 and 24/94) because the Government of the Republic of Serbia has no competence to: prescribe the process of criminal prosecution, and consequently to prescribe the cases and the procedure of apprehension, because theConstitution of FRY explicitly provides that no one shall be deprived of his freedom, except in cases and under the procedure stipulated in the federallaw and that illegal apprehension shall be punishable; prescribe the process for criminal prosecution of individuals under the procedure provided for under the Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal despite the fact that those acts were not duly publishedin the corresponding official papers, either; prescribe the procedure for extradition of the Yugoslav citizens, in spite of the fact that the Constitution of FRY and the Law on Criminal Process prohibits such extradition; prescribe the procedure for extradition, prosecution,apprehension and extradition of foreigners whose rights and obligations are stipulated through the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia andprescribe that the provisions of the mentioned Statute and Rules ofextradition or transfer of the indicted or witnesses to the Hague in the Netherlands prevail over any legal barriers existing in the national legislation or the international treaties on extradition signed by theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia."

  I haven't read the judgment in full, but as we know, the Court basically accepted these objections.

  The last objection is interesting. You know, you could circumvent this last objection, which I have italicised, by using such fancy terms as "direct effect", "monism" and "jus cogens".

  For instance, you could argue that the ICTY Statute etc. have a direct effect. In other words, the documents do not have to be "transposed" to the domestic legal system in order to have any effect. However, such a direct effect hasn't been evoked in criminal cases before, so why now? On the other hand, in cases where direct effect could presumably have some bearing, it doesn't, because the ICTY frustrates it, as we have seen in the cases before national courts concerning the bombing damage.

  The reference to jus cogens, in turn, is a handy "carte blanche". Bonnie and Clyde, a.k.a. Bill and Madelaine, had undoubtedly jus cogens in mind, as they concocted the term "humanitarian intervention". It was thought that compelling humanitarian concerns should prevail over state sovereignty. To mystify this a bit more, it was argued that we should get rid of the "Westfalian model". The problem with this reasoning is that the two areas that have been awarded a jus cogens status (as it were) have been state sovereignty and the prohibition of genocide. And state sovereignty was what was infringed upon!

  But on the other hand, the jus cogens is in such a constant flux that it seems to vary according to the actual US administration. When it doesn't, Bonnie and Clyde knew how to handle it. They aimed at the jus cogens status of the humanitarian intervention by claiming that there was a genocide going on in Kosovo. In retrospect, it seems that the only genocide was inflicted by Nato.

  And that is why they now have shifted the genocide charges to Bosnia: firstly in order to deflect the attention from the Nato-inflicted genocide. The second reason for the Bosnian genocide charges is to justify the revoking of a head of state's immunity. The international community hasn't warmed up to such flimsy grounds for abolishing the immunity as we have witnessed in Milosevic's case. What the international community normally approves of as a sufficient justification for revoking immunity has been genocide. So the genocide charges had to be especially tailored for Milosevic to keep him behind bars.

  The "monism" part is much more interesting. This means that international treaties should take precedence over national law. Monism is pretty much the same as direct effect, but from a somewhat wider angle.

  However, there are three problems with this one too. First, the ICTY statute was not a treaty. Second, the immunity rules which Art. 7(2) of the ICTY Statute derogates from are enshrined in international treaties! Third, as David pointed out, why should Yugoslavia change its legal system into a monistic one, while the US is going into a quite contrary direction? Besides, if you go this way, it means that jus cogens would be pretty much everywhere. It would indeed become a "carte blanche" for demolishing any rule of domestic law that the more powerful states don't like.

  It may be interesting that the Netherlands has such a totally monistic system. It is equally interesting that Yugoslavia obviously doesn't. Even if the Dutch courts cannot scrap any rules of domestic law which are contrary to the Dutch constitution, they can scrap any rule of domestic law that is against international law! Maybe that is now held up as a standard for Yugoslavia to emulate.

  That leads to a nutty situation. Last week, I received a reply to my letter to the Dutch Justice Minister. In my letter I had raised a number of points. One was that since Milosevic's case had bounced back from the European Court of Human Rights, because the local remedies hadn't been exhausted (i.e. the plea for release hadn't been taken further than the first instance in the Dutch judicial system), that meant that if the ECHR decision were taken literally, the Dutch courts should have jurisdiction over Milosevic's release or otherwise, according to the ECHR!

  However, in the reply I got, it was stated that the Headquarter Agreement between the Netherlands and the ICTY limited the Dutch jurisdiction to the transfer and "security" of the persons.

  Maybe the idea was that the since ECHR requires that all local remedies be exhausted and these remedies be exhausted no matter how slim the chance of success (in this case non-existent), the fact that Milosevic's case bounced back from the ECHR doesn't widen the Dutch jurisdiction at all. Sure, the Dutch jurisdiction was very limited to begin with, but the fact that Milosevic could take his case through the Dutch courts through all the instances didn't seem to bother the Dutch Ministry of Justice at all.

  And why should it? The courts are not blind to what the Ministry of Justice wants, and if the Ministry says that Milosevic's release doesn't belong to the Dutch jurisdiction, then most likely it won't, no matter how high in the judicial hierarchy Milosevic will take his case. That is of course called the separation of the executive and judicial branch of government.

  Not that there would not be some things in the ICTY worth straightening out. Now we know that the Trial Chamber scrapped Milosevic's statement concerning the "future conduct of the trial" from the official transcripts. Doesn't that mean that the prosecution's statements are now the only official ones? And doesn't that mean that the Trial Chamber cannot rule on a statement which it doesn't make public?

  Isn't this an eloquent demonstration that the whole business of Milosevic's health is only to make him shut up? He cannot even say anything official about his own health! On the other hand, the prosecution is strangely silent about holding any closed sessions any more. Obviously, they are not needed, because Milosevic will be gagged anyway.

  These are medical matters. Normally, such documents would remain confidential. In some cases even the term privileged information has been used, but obviously that is history too. At least, the "privileged information" is applied selectively, so that only the Prosecution's views will be heard.

  No doubt Milosevic would have all the ingredients for a madman, and the Prosecution will be desperately hanging on to them. His both parents committed a suicide. So maybe suicide is running in the family. Undoubtedly the doctor's awareness of these hereditary suicidal tendencies also explains the round-the-clock halogen lamps. In fact, it certainly does, if one thinks back at the reporting from the time Milosevic was taken to his cell.

  What I find interesting, now that we are on the subject, is that he is an orphan. Nothing strange about an orphan being a politician. The Swiss psychologist Paul Tournier, who was himself an orphan, wrote that a lot of great statesmen in history have been orphans. He even attributed his own drive up the social ladder to his being an orphan. Maybe this is a case of the famous inferiority complex, which has often been used in a context where it wasn't meant to be used.

  Obviously, the world doesn't want exceptional individuals any more. They are diagnosed as nuts. And those nuts that are not diagnosed become ICTY prosecutors. Could Del Ponte be suffering from some mental illness too? Megalomania? She seem to think that the defense counsel has to come to her for a job interview first! Now that the defense counsel was arranged behind her back, her feelings are hurt, and she will take her revenge, by sending Milosevic to the nuthouse, if necessary.

  Or do you think nothing fishy is going on? Nice first complains that it is so difficult to get good witnesses, referring to those witnesses he's got, and a couple of weeks later, the prosecution goes on with the same old crap that the number of witnesses cannot be reduced. The motive isn't too hard to hit upon. We have seen evidence of it recently.

  And the academia has a theory for all this misconduct (or should I say a rationalization?). In my previous post I may have made a mistake, but I am glad I did. I said that OSCE is responsible for reconstruction in Kosovo. The OSCE is responsible for the civil society in Kosovo, while the EU is responsible for the financing of the physical reconstruction.

  But it is good that I made that lapse. Reconstruction is only one side of the mongrel term "deconstruction". So if you think that deconstruction is just for academic ladida's, think again. Kosovo and the whole damn "regime change", "nation-building", "failed state" rhetoric is how far the deconstruction thought patterns have taken us. I prefer the powerful English monosyllable "bull".

  As to the lack of any elaborate plan for atrocities on Milosevic's part. I thought this was a powerful argument, until I read the ADL's reply to the Holocaust-denier's argument that "the Holocaust did not occur because there is no single "Master Plan" for Jewish annihilation. You can read it at http://www.adl.org/holocaust/response.asp .

  Back to Carla's post. It is true that the ICTY has no legal basis in the UN Charter. You may find it interesting that the legal basis that has been used, for the lack of a better one, is Art. 41 of the UN Charter, which is a provision on the non-military means to make a state comply. Ahtisaari makes an intersting lapse in his memoirs "Mission in Belgrade". He says that this article allows the Security Council to take action against a member state. As we now know, Yugoslavia was not a member state at that time, because it has now been admitted as a new member to the UN. Actually, article 41 doesn't say that the state against which these measures can be taken has to be a member state, but I think that is what it means, read in the context of the principles of the UN in Art. 2.

  Besides, as we know, the indictment of Milosevic was meant to give the bombing campaign some appearance of legality, even if the Security Council authorization was absent. So the non-military means (Art. 41) sanctified, as it were, the illegal use of force. Surely, one "knows" that something "is going in the wrong direction".
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 7:36 am
  If one is to go strictly by the International Law as it stands at present,is it clear that NATO acted illegally, meanning without UN SC sanction.That is clear in law.However, NATO proponents claim that it was impoerative to act in order to prevent "jenocide".Morality is NOT LAW, it is a concept, that differ in various cultures.Therefore morality is not legally defined concept.In my study of legality of the ICTY, I tend to agree that the short cuts in law are not compatible with legal principles guiding the private or international law.From my perspective main problem is the LEGALITY OF ICTY.If the ICTY is an illegally constructed court, question is what should be done to restore legal order?That is why I am dwelling on legality of ICTY as well as "enforcement" of its order.If an institution exists on questionable legal grounds do we have remedies to combat such an institution.??As for polotization of Milosevic´s trial, it appears that problems are much deeper.As for double standard of indigments it is self evident, that ICTY is primarly concerned with one ethnic group - Serbs.That is not compatible with the - legal order - of yesterday, even less for today or the future.I vould appritiate if ypou could post URL for the Yugoslav Court decicion on extradition.
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 12:39 pm
  I don't know exactly what the Nato proponents have put forward to justify the bombing, but I am familiar with the fake distinction between legality and justifiable, or whatever it is called. However, if the supposed justifiability rests on the existence of genocide, then I rest my case. There was no genocide, so there was no justification for the bombing! Maybe that became evident to Nato by May 1999, so they had to come up with this preposterous (and fake) justification in the form of the indictment of Milosevic.

  As to the legality of the ICTY, one has to refer to the the report of the Secretary-General of 3 May 1993. This can be viewed at the ICTY's website www.un.org/icty. There is no direct link. From the that page you have to click to the basic documents, then click to the Statute of the Tribunal and then click to the report.

  This report comments on the legal basis (§ 18-30) that in ideal circumstances a multilateral treaty would have been necessary. In this instance, however, no delay, which a treaty would suggest, could be tolerated, which meant that the Security Council had to create the organ by a fiat.

  The Secretary-General makes short work of the problems relating to the fact that an executive organ creates a judicial organ. He says in § 27:

  "The Security Council has on various occasions adopted decisions under Chapter VII aimed at restoring and maintaining international peace and security, which have involved the establishment of subsidiary organs for a variety of purposes."

  True. But how about a judicial organ?

  In § 28 he raises the specific problem of the tribunal's judicial character. I think this is pretty relevant:

  "This organ would, of course, have to perform its functions independently of political considerations; it would not be subject to the authority or control of the Security Council with regard to the performance of its judicial functions. As an enforcement measure under Chapter VII, however, the life span of the international tribunal would be linked to the restoration and maintenance of international peace and security in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and Security Council decisions related thereto."

  So here we have three criteria for the existence of the tribunal: 1) non-political character, 2) independence from the Security Council, and 3) limited life span.

  All of these have been broken. The first needs no comment. As to the second, the tribunal seems to be too independent. Russia and China have complained that they have no say in the functioning of the tribunal, which is of course an undesirable state of affairs as some other SC members are in effect running the whole show. As to the third consideration - the life span - SC resolution 827 said that the Security Council should set an expiry date to the activities of the tribunal, but this decision was never made. The Secretary-General links the life span to the restoration of peace, which I would interpret as the Dayton Agreement! By no means was this an excuse for starting another war, as in Kosovo in 1999!

  So it seems that this outlandish legal basis - Chapter VII - could be used only if these three conditions were met. If they were broken, the legal basis seems to be null and void! What should be done about it? Your guess is as good as mine. The UN organs can turn to the ICJ for an opinion. But what organ is going to stand up to the Security Council?

  In the Dutch judgements the lack of a clear-cut legal basis is condoned using the excuse that in the international organizations, the tradition division into legislative, executive and judicial organs is non-sense.

  This is not true, however. The ICJ Statute calls the ICJ in Art. 1 the "principal judicial organ" of the UN, so there is no question that at least the judicial organs should be separated from the rest. The Secretary-General's optimism that the ICTY would be non-political and independent is rubbish, because as long as the tribunal is a subsidiary organ of the Security Council it is going to be neither.

  So I think this separation of the judicial organs is one more reason to turn to the ICJ for an opinion. But again: which organ is going to stand up to the Security Council? On the other hand, it is this question in itself which gives lie to the supposed non-political character of the tribunal and its independence from the Security Council! Which in theory should be all the more reason to turn to the ICJ. And so on...

  So there are no clear answers to anything, but anyone who has stayed on board this long must have got used to it. I think it was Andre who said that the tribunal uses its spearhead position in the international institutional law to cut all the corners that it can find (my paraphrase).

  As to the decision by the Federal Constitutional Court, to my knowledge it is not available on Internet. If you have an e-mail address, I can forward it to you.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 1:17 pm
  The main issue is American tyrrany over the world. This is why the ICJ hasn't the guts to act as a judicial organ of the UN, stating this clearly a while back, and this is why the Security Council, having done the US's bidding, now is considered a supreme organisation with full rights to create an illegal tribunal free of any judicial oversight. The US can, if it wants, ignore the Security Council. It used this to force the Security Council to pass the latest Iraq resolution against the will of its members. It did ignore the Council in 1999, though for a few days after March 24, the US pretended that it had Security Council sanction, a pretense that was quickly dropped. The final decision on Milosevic and the Tribunal shall be, sadly enough, the decision of the world's supreme tyrant. No one in Europe is willing to stand up to that tyrant.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 1:24 pm
  International law is only enforced the times the US wants it. In all other cases, it is as if nothing illegal had happened. The latest theatrics at the UN about it proving its "relevence" through enforcement of severely interpreted resolutions against Iraq, as Israel is in violation of more resolutions, as Israel has systematically shredded the Fourth Geneva Convention, is a statement along those lines. The US says "I make the laws. I say that Israel is never, ever, ever in violation, therefore UN relevence is not affected by Israeli non-compliance. I say that Iraq is in violation, therefore UN relevence is affected by Iraqi non-compliance. I also rewrite the laws to my satisfaction, as I have in the Iraq resolutions, as I have rewritten Resolution 1244." The truth of the matter is that any effective international law today comes from the barrel of a gun.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 2:20 pm
  It is correct that the international law is in crysis.However, so is the UN as the only international political organization.Perhaps "the only supperpower" end game is to render the UN ineffective, thusto dismantle the institution in the simmilar fashion the League of Nations wasdismantlled.It is correct that the UN needs restructuring, question is how?On the resolution 1244 I shall provide more information in my next post.I you vant private conversation on this issue my e-mail iscarlabergd@yahoo.com
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 4:58 pm
  Swis research group involved in research and advise on Yugoslavia and Iraq could be found at http://www.solami.com/ac.htmRegarding partition on Yugoslavia this group gave legal advice, it has very usseful legal and political arguments on Yugoslavia as well as on Iraq,particularly Iraqi oil.Many answers to SC Resolution 1244 originate from this legal advise.They quote and reffer to United Nations document E/CN.4/367Study of the Legal Validity of the undertacking concerning minorities.This document is not easy to obtain, but is avaliable at the UN repositories.Jari,my private e-mail is on above post.
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Monday November 18, 2002 at 8:40 pm
  While the Christians fight amongst themselves the Muslims continue to blow up their churches in Kosovo; at a rate of almost one each week for the past three years!

  Boom, boom

  ‘Who will rid me of these meddlesome English priests?’

  “Strategic and political judgements couched in just war language – such as those advanced in recent months by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor and Archbishop Rowan Williams – are not just war reasoning in the classic sense of the term.”

  Catholic theologian George Weigel justifies war by returning to classic or medieval codes of morality. His sermon relates to Iraq but let us apply to Kosovo some of these moral laws conjured up by Weigel for US Presidents:

  “As a tradition of statecraft, the just war tradition recognizes that there are circumstances in which the first and most urgent obligation in the face of evil is to stop it.” Why did the west not help stop the KLA terror in Kosovo? Why was Milosevic wrong to campaign against KLA terror, including Mudahedeena and al Qaeda elements, in Kosovo?

  “In eradicating global terrorism and denying aggressive regimes weapons of mass destruction, the United States and those who walk this road with us are addressing the most threatening problems of global dis-order that must be resolved if the peace of order, the peace of tranquillitas ordinis, is to be secured in as wide a part of the world as possible in the 21st century.” Come again? Who was it supported Islamic terror in the Balkans: And before that supplied Iraq with the components for WMD’s and encouraged Iraq to use them against Iran?

  “Legitimate authorities have a moral obligation to defend the peace. This peace of tranquillitas ordinis, this peace of order, is composed of justice and freedom. The peace of order is not the eerily quiet and sullen “peace” of a well-run authoritarian regime; it is a peace built on foundations of constitutional, commutative, and social justice. It is a peace in which freedom, especially religious freedom, flourishes. The defense of basic human rights is thus an integral component of “work for peace.”” This is the kind of “peace” the “legitimate” Anglo/US forces have created in Kosovo – surely you’re joking?

  “So the proper role of religious leaders is to help clarify the moral issues” Now I know you’re joking.

  “What is immoral is war itself” An air warrior not a priest.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 4:04 am
  Now that it is clear that the Secretary-General's report supposed that the tribunal should be non-political, it is interesting to read the amici curiae's statement in the transcripts of 29 October 2001, which Gogol quoted:

  "So in this approach we feel that the Court should allow the accused the broadest possible room to manoeuvre to argue his case, and as we have said in our brief, that also may include reasons which, on the face of it, might not directly be legal reasons but, more or less, political reasons, because the establishment of the Tribunal, his main challenge, also includes, as we have set out, possible political reasons."

  So now that we have the amici curiae, who pleaded for "the broadest possible room to manoeuvre" for the accused to argue his case, because there might be some political reasons for the establishment of the tribunal, it seems plausible that as long as Milosevic has that room to manoevre, it is admitted that the reasons for the establishment of the tribunal might have political reasons. This conclusion about the political character of the tribunal seems to hold good even if the amici curiae were abolished. It is the establishment of the tribunal that has been admitted as being political, not the proceedings.

  RB, where has the ICJ admitted that it is not a judicial organ of the UN? I am asking this out of curiosity. Now that the tribunal has been recognized as a political organ, how many judicial organs do we have left? There is still some organ that deals with the staff disputes.

  What should be done? I think that in a situation like this, where everybody hides behind the organizational authority, one must target the individuals. I have entertained the idea that the immunity of the prosecution should be revoked. I have proposed that some government should ask the Secretary-General to revoke it. He has the power, and none of us single individuals are not going to get his attention. I think the suit against Del Ponte in Yugoslavia for an attempted murder is a step in the right direction (if the reports were correct). Even if it will fail as long as the prosecution enjoys immunity, there will be no more powerful signal that the immunity should be revoked.

  Since I am pretty certain that the Dutch government won't budge, it is a hopeful sign the Yugoslav upper house has demanded that Milosevic be released on bail. Maybe the pro-Western Yugoslav government now has a say in the "future conduct of the trial". But of course, all this is how it should work in theory. The practice is that Del Ponte can now play out all her perversions on Milosevic.

  I don't have any news of the Dutch parliamentary inquiry, but I just wonder how on earth the anti-Karremans coalition expects him to have acted. I have made a point of the failure to demilitarize the safe aread, which was the root cause for the violence. If the Muslims had been unarmed and Mladic had marched to the town, then the Dutch could be blamed for not defending the Muslims.

  But that is not all. Mladic had taken part of the Dutchbat soldiers hostage. When Karremans requested air power, Mladic threatened to kill the hostages. What do the Muslims think Karremans should have done? Get his own soldiers killed so that the Muslim militants could carry on their armed attacks from Srebrenica?

  I put forward that Mladic's actions might be qualified as reprisals. And in fact, reprisals must be behind the idea that everything is allowed in war. It is impossible to isolate one single act and say it was bad. Every act is either a pre-emptive strike or a response to the enemy's previous strike. You must always judge the act by its whole context. And that is simply impossible. Everything belongs together with everything else. Then mistakes are made. The military acts with insufficient information and sometimes makes technical mistakes. There is no way one can read some logic into the combat situation.

  And this is what the war crimes prosecution does. It isolates the acts of a single party and evaluates them against the international humanitarian law. This is of course entirely wrong-headed. It is important to think what went though Mladic's head when he took Srebrenica. Was it his intention to commit a genocide? To begin with, there is a much more plausible explanation: he wanted to stop the attacks from Srebrenica. Besides, it seems that he had little time to commit a genocide in such a hectic battle. Soon after they had taken Srebrenica, some of the troops were already heading for Zepa.

  On the other hand, it seems unlikely likely that Nato could have set a trap for Mladic in Srebrenica. It seems Mladic outwitted even Nato. Thanks to the dual-key system Nato was not able to use air power, as long as the UN was unwilling to risk the lives of the Dutchbatters that were taken hostage.

  And against this background we should also evaluate the stories about the French-staged massacred near Zvornik. It is possible that Nato was so pissed off by Mladic's tactics that they decided to stage him as a genocidal maniac. As the air power was stalled, there would have been enough time to plan and carry out such a sham massacre. It just amazes me that none of the other indictees beside Milosevic have referred to the French. Erdemovic was there! Did he say something about the French?

  On the other hand, if he did, it would be easy to understand why the Trial Chamber was so eager to send him to the shrink. In fact, it is now that Milosevic referred to the French that he is undergoing a psychiatric evaluation as well. Only, two nuts saying the same thing would be too good to be true.

  The misuse of power by the lawyers is bad enough, but what makes the story so gripping and elevated it to the epic heights is the "dual strategy" of doctors and lawyers. The likeness to the film One Flew over Cuckoo's Nest is striking. And this is why the fiasco of the Milosevic trial is not something that goes on only in the international legal sphere. It touches on everyone of us. Everybody understands how terrible it is to be terrorized by doctors for a crime you didn't commit but get accused anyway because you're different.

  And to rationalize this terror there is no shortage of legal theories. I think all theories that go bad start with the question what is justice. That is something you cannot answer. The sense of justice is inbuilt in the human being. Once you start analyzing justice, you end up in injustice. I think this is what the Romans had in mind when they said: Summum jus, summa inuria.

  Some kind of obsession in the legal research at lest in this country is the distinction between facts and norms - the way things are and the way things ougth to be. That is again such a phantom distinction. The human mind doesn't make that distinction. Law is just a construct of the human mind. I think it is here that Soros's term reflexivity is at its best: the way we see reality influences reality. Of course, we know that some acts are bad, but even these bad actions are not facts but the way we like to see the reverse side of "good" in the world.

  This kind of rationalism gone really awry is called deconstruction. It sees oppositions where none exist. Even if the starting point is rational, the result defies human reason. Such fancy pairs as ascending and descending are used, as if legal system went up and down like a yoyo. Well, if you see it that way, it certainly does. And breaks everything that still stands.

  I think the opposition is not between ascending and descending but between centralization and decentralization. The descending arguments are in fact an excuse for centralization, and that is what we are now seeing in the form of the US tyranny. But before this tyranny is achieved, one has to do some destruction first. In comes the descending argument, or decentralization, as its proper name would be. This is what we see in all kinds of self-determinations around the world, notably in Kosovo. After the destruction, construction can take place. Sound familiar? This is the old saying Divide et impera in a new garb.

  The legality of the ICTY is easy to evaluate. It was established on an ad hoc basis tied to three conditions, none of which were met. Even apart from this legal basis, the tribunal is diseased throughout. Fraud is everywhere, and the proceedings are null and void. The Trial Chamber has even admitted the possible political character of the organ!

  The illegality is one thing. The way the legal pundits rationalize such a fiasco is another.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 11:26 am
  

  The most interesting ruling about admissibility of evidence in today's session:

  The chamber does not have a clue about the legality of collecting telephone conversations "intercepts", the prosecutor has not produced proof of such legality altough it was some time ago requested by the judges. Further the chamber as no clue about the authenticity of the "intercepts", 52 of them, nevertheless the chamber rules to admit them for identification and allows the examination of C 31 to go on talking about the "intercepts" !

  What ever mate Nice (NATO) asks chap May (NATO) grants!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 1:37 pm
  

  Some observations:

  - To the list of the reasons why the Tribunal is illegal I am always adding funding. Any private funding or funding that is coming directly from the governments that have vital interest in the final results of proceedings is unacceptable. Simply said only the UN can fund the Tribunal. From the moment when the first payment of this kind was accepted by the Tribunal it work became illegal.

  - On the issue of the Dutch battalion, I am wondering who was controlling Srebrenica Dutch or Bosnians. According to some sources there was up to 15.000 Bosnian soldiers in Srebrenica. Compared to this number the Dutch battalion was a small force. It looks that Dutch were hostages of the Bosnians. One of the key figures in the Srebrenica is commander of the Bosnian Battalion Mr. Naser Oric. Has ever anyone called him to testify about what was going on in Srebrenica and what his mission and relationship with the Dutch and the UN were?

  - Acceptance of telephone conversations "intercepts" may become a big problem for the Tribunal once when the Defense part of the trial starts. It seams that the rules for admitting this type of evidence are loosened every day. Nobody knows how much of this kind of intercepts Mr. Milosevic has in his sleeve. It is hard to believe that the Yugoslav army or Serbs in Krajina or Bosnia have not made any compromising intercepts too.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Canada

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 2:43 pm
  The Western powers consider to be either criminal or insane for a leader in that part of the world to refuse to repeat the ritual slogans about a "Euro-Atlantic future", about "Euro-Atlantic norms", about the great future in the "Partnership for Peace", and so forth. Milosevic's position on this was that Yugoslavia can only approach the European Union as an equal (he must be mad!) and that it is illogical to say that Yugoslavia is not part of Europe. Nothing about his country being a small, unworthy aspirant to a great club that can only be joined through harsh preparations and a gruelling initiation.

  Vojislav Kostunica is, despite his alleged nationalism, talking like that, and it's interesting to note the roundabout way that Vuk Draskovic has asked his supporters to back Vojislav Seselj in the presidential election. With all the leaders of the region acting like they are zombies hypnotised by the Euro-Atlantic masters, it's about time that one country is led by a someone not so mesmerised.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 2:43 pm
  The Western powers consider to be either criminal or insane for a leader in that part of the world to refuse to repeat the ritual slogans about a "Euro-Atlantic future", about "Euro-Atlantic norms", about the great future in the "Partnership for Peace", and so forth. Milosevic's position on this was that Yugoslavia can only approach the European Union as an equal (he must be mad!) and that it is illogical to say that Yugoslavia is not part of Europe. Nothing about his country being a small, unworthy aspirant to a great club that can only be joined through harsh preparations and a gruelling initiation.

  Vojislav Kostunica is, despite his alleged nationalism, talking like that, and it's interesting to note the roundabout way that Vuk Draskovic has asked his supporters to back Vojislav Seselj in the presidential election. With all the leaders of the region acting like they are zombies hypnotised by the Euro-Atlantic masters, it's about time that one country is led by a someone not so mesmerised.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 2:56 pm
  About the French and Zvornik, there is a mention of this at the Krstic trial, pages 4327 and 4348. It involved an alleged intercepted communication involving Lt Col Popovic at Zlatar, intercepted by a Muslim described here as "Witness X".

  Popovic allegedly called up Gen. Kristic at 16:22 hours on July 16 "or immediately after the 16th" and said.

  Hello, it's Popovic ... boss ... Everything's OK, that job is done ... everything's OK ... everything's been brought to an end, no problems ... I'm here at the place ... I'm here at the place where I was before, you know ... I'm at the base ... at the base, the base. Can I just take a little break, take a little break, take a shower, and then I'll think again later ...basically, that all gets an... an A ...the grade is an A, everything's okay ...that's it, bye, take care. "

  The prosecutor then said, "Then at the end of the conversation there is a note: 'French is heard in the background.' Now, you made this note at the end. Do you remember making the note about hearing the French language in the background?"

  Witness X replied, "In the background you could hear the French language, yes."
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 3:01 pm
  The cross-examination of Witness X, pg 5187. "Let's go to Exhibit 666A, 17 July, 1622 hours; Popovic on one side of a conversation and Y who is inaudible. What can you tell us about this?"

  X replied that "For the most part, Popovic reporting back to somebody that he sees as a superior figure, or it's inferred by him. Letting whomever that is know that the job is done; it's all completed. Letting him know he's at the base. In that respect, the base I believe he's talking from is the headquarters of the Zvornik Brigade. The last line is letting it know that the job gets an A, a grade A, that everything is done."X was asked, "A little mystery line at the bottom. 'French is heard in the background.' You don't know anything about that, I take it."X replied, "I cannot explain that at all."X was asked, "Why they're speaking French in the Zvornik Brigade. All right."
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 7:20 pm
  For your convenience, we have updated the way messages are posted to this discussion. When you go to post a message, you will first be taken to a preview screen. Here, you can take a quick look over your message and how it will look. From there, you will be able to post your message. Your message will appear without having to reload the page. We hope these changes will enhance the discussion board experience. Please send comments to us at JURIST@law.pitt.edu.
  
  JURIST Moderator
  USA

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 8:16 pm
  “By coining the phrase ius ad pacem, I was trying to prise out of the just war way of thinking a concept of the peace that could and should be sought through the instruments of politics – including, if necessary, the use of armed force. Like the just war tradition itself, this concept of peace finds its roots in Augustine: in The City of God, peace is tranquillitas ordinis, the “tranquillity of order,” or as I preferred to render it in more contemporary terms, the peace of “dynamic and rightly-ordered political community.” George Weigel Catholic theologian and critic of England’s Archbishop Elect Rowan Williams over his just war claims.

  “With 110 churches destroyed after the war, under the UN and NATO rule, Kosovo has become a part of world in which Christianity is severely discriminated against and Christian clergy and the faithful do not enjoy a minimum of religious freedom. Similar examples can only be found in some Moslem fundamentalist societies which makes the example of Kosovo a shame of the civilized world and Europe.” ERP KIM Info-services 18 November 2002.

  Prizren, Nov 18 (Tanjug) - UNMIK police officials said on Monday that the Church of St Vasilije Ostroski in Ljubovo Selo near Istok had been destroyed and the Church of All Serbian Saints in nearby Djurakovac had been damaged in explosions on the night between Saturday and Sunday. According to KFOR commander Gen Fabio Mini, the attacks had been carried out in a professional way, since the explosives had been planted at sensitive spots with the aim of completely destroying the buildings.

  Gracanica, Kosovo November 18, 2002 Today at approximately 12:00 hours unknown attackers with sniper rifles opened fire on a hospital vehicle driven by Dr.Jelica Krcmarevic, a physician from the village of Klokot, near Vitina.

  See and read here these facts for yourself

  Such evil events have been going on for almost four years under Nato’s overall control in Kosovo. Hundreds murdered, thousands injured, tens of thousands dispossessed, hundreds of thousands driven out of their centuries old homeland and the remainder confined to ghettoes: Frequent political murders, massive human trafficking, the destruction and sequestration of property, the destruction of Christian Churches and Monasteries, the desecration of their cemeteries.

  This is Nato’s Kosovo: “This (is the) peace of tranquillitas ordinis, this peace of order, is composed of justice and freedom … it is a peace built on foundations of constitutional, commutative, and social justice. It is a peace in which freedom, especially religious freedom, flourishes.”?

  This is Weigel’s tranquillitas ordinis for which Blair and his fellow Christians were justified in demonising the Serbs with massive lies? For which they were justified in supporting a reign of Islamic terror including elements of al Qaeda. For which they were justified in subjecting Serbia to an aerial bombardment: including the indiscriminate or high altitude deployment of fragmentation bombs: including the deployment of radioactive weapons. Decapitating priests, killing and mutilating women and children, destroying hospitals, schools, prisons, housing estates, trains, buses, bridges, water and electricity supplies, factories …

  Does Weigel not know of these things: does he push them from his mind: does he pretend like Steiner that “things are getting better”: does he not care that these contradictions reduce his pen or keyboard to nothing better than a bullshit generator?

  As to the moral standing of the ICTY over Kosovo:

  “The authority of the government to protect the law-abiding and impose penalties on evil-doers is not a reward for the government’s virtue or good conduct...The protection of citizens and the execution of penalty on peace-breakers is the commission which constitutes government, not a contingent right which it must somehow earn. In the mystery of God’s providence, many or indeed most of the institutional bearers of governmental authority are unworthy of it, often flagrantly so, themselves stained with crime. But this does not make it any less the vocation of government to protect the innocent and punish evil-doers. A government which refused to safeguard citizens and exercise judgment on wrong out of a sense of the guilt of past crime would only add the further crime of dereliction of duty to its catalog of offenses.” David Yeago quoted by Weigel.

  Surely the words quoted by Weigel above, if they mean anything, mean that Milosevic was morally right and Albright, Blair and Clinton morally wrong in Kosovo?

  “What is immoral is war itself” and principally those who start wars without just cause
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 9:17 pm
  C-061, an ex-official of the Serbian Democratic Party from Krajina (SDS) spent most of his first 2 days in the court in lengthy background recaps of the political situation in CRO back in 1990. Talking about the political nature of the trial! He is to testify "at least 3 days", as announced. Through this witness, the Prosecution intends to introduce some 75 documents. If judged by those presented so far (the registration of SDS, the draft of its Statute, the Statute...), these are going to serve nothing but further exhaustion of everybody concerned, and intentionally Milosevic most of all.

  I took a good look at him this time, and he really looks unwell: pale, disfigured, with tired eyes, in a word - ill. So, few more days of this completely unnecessary witness will just aggravate that. And then there will be many more.

  C-061 has been already indicted by The Hague (or will be/could be, I don
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 10:00 pm
  MODERATOR, MY FIRST EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR UPDATED WAY OF POSTING WAS AN UNHAPPY ONE: MY CONNECTION BROKE IN THE MIDDLE, SO ONLY A PART OF THE MESSAGE WENT. BEFORE, I COULD RETRY AND IT WOULD GO AS A WHOLE. NOW, I HAVE TO TYPE THE SECOND PART AGAIN. COULD YOU RE-INCLUDE THE RETRY?

  (part II)C-061 has been already indicted by The Hague (or will be/could be, I don
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 10:37 pm
  THIRD TIME LUCKY?

  C-061 has been already indicted by The Hague (or will be/could be, I don
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 11:10 pm
  (part II) C-061 has been already indicted by The Hague (or will be/could be indicted, I don
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday November 19, 2002 at 11:25 pm
  SORRY, I WILL TRY TOMORROW.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 3:49 am
  Well, if we suppose that the Bosnia charges were concocted to nail Milosevic for genocide, because no other charge would appear enough to keep a former head of state behind bars, then the ICTY is in trouble.

  First of all, genocide is referred to in Art. 4 of the Statute. Then the genocide is defined in paragraph 2 of that article.

  Anything familiar? Well, all of it, actually. Paragraph 2 only reproduces the definition given in the Genocide Convention!

  And this goes for all the crimes in Art. 2-5 of the Statute. Either they are not defined at all, in which case the definitions must found be in some treaty, or the definitions just reproduce the definitions given in treaties, like genocide. It is obvious, for instance, that the "grave breaches of Geneva Conventions of 1949" only refer to the definitions given in the Geneva Conventions!

  My point is simply this: The ICTY Statute is not a treaty, and when we take a look at it, it doesn
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:01 am
  I lost most of my message too. I give a summary of what I had to say. Art. 7(2) of the ICTY Statute has to be read in light of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which enshrines the existing immunity rules. Art. 7(2) says nothing about the transfer and indictment of Heads of State. Genocide seems now the only legal ground for convicted Heads of State, which shows that Art. 7(2) adds nothing new to international law, because genocide has been recognized as a sufficient ground for indicting Heads of State.

  Intercepts, who have not been ruled admissible, are part of the same stalling tactics as Nice
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:03 am
  Still too long? Krstic was convicted of genocide in August 2001, after Milosevic was taken to The Hague. The genocide charges against Milosevic came after that. If genocide is now the only legal ground for suspending the immunity of the Head of State, then the transfer of Milosevic was illegal.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:09 am
  Intercepts are now being used, even if their admissibility has not been ruled upon - contrary to Krstic where they were ruled inadmissible. This part of prosecution
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:12 am
  The relaxation of the rules will not benefit Milosevic, because they are now relaxed for the prosecution, so Milosevic will die before the defense phase.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:14 am
  Is the international administration in Kosovo illegal? How about no-fly zones? Or the ICTY? Well, there are problems. But once yet get two of every one of them, they become law. International administration in Kosovo and East Timor. No-fly zones in Bosnia and Iraq. ICTY has its replica in ICTR.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:19 am
  Will the people who grew up in the socialist system be deterred by psychiatric evaluation? With the upcoming elections in mind, this kind of rubbish will only boost Seselj
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:22 am
  Why was Erdemovic, a nut case, long time the only one convicted of Zvornik massacre? To set the backround for later indictments, like Milosevic?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:25 am
  Russians have taught bears to play hockey. Chimpanzees could be taught to play Nice and May.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:27 am
  Mladic was staged a genocidal maniac, the way the "Yamashita" doctrine (Art. 7-2 Statute) was developed to appease MacArthur, who was jealous of Yamashita
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:29 am
  Dear moderator, this new system would make anybody sound like a lunatic.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 6:59 am
  Pera. § 133 of the Secretary-General
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 7:00 am
  "Dear moderator, this new system would make anybody sound like a lunatic."

  I was begining to wonder if the pressure of the trial had got to you Jari :)

  Looks like Nice & May have a new monkey on the team,Uertz-Retzlaff...a new bent on "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, the not-so-wise-monkeys maybe?

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Milo_debate
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 7:32 am
  

  ....close session, open session, ...close session, open session, ...close session, open session, ...close session, open session, intercept now: rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb click brbrbrbrbrbrbrb, OK ...close session, open session,...close session, open session,...close session, open session,...close session, open session,
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 7:36 am
  

  Can
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 7:37 am
  

  gavnoh
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 10:41 am
  At least Geoffrey Nice doesnt require closed session umpteen times a day.Thank God also from yesterday or the day before we (Serbo Croatian speaking viewers) can actually understand what the protected witnesses are saying - up to now it has been so garbled that its easier to log on to the net to listen to the English translation.
  
  A Petrovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 11:46 am
  Sorry for the glitch, everybody. Apostrophes/single quotes were causing some problems with the preview page. We have taken that out, and we're working on a solution to the problem. You should have no problems posting now, and your posts should still show up without having to reload the page. Thank you for bearing with us through some minor technical difficulties. As always, any comments about the discussion and the site can be sent to us at JURIST@law.pitt.edu.
  
  JURIST Moderator
  USA

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 12:21 pm
  Pera. I was trying to say that you are right about the finances. Art. 32 of the Statute says: "The expenses of the International Tribunal shall be borne by the regular budget of the United Nations in accordance with Article 17 of the Charter of the United Nations."

  However, in Security Council resolution 827(1993) in § 5 we read: "Urges States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to contribute funds, equipment and services to the International Tribunal, including the offer of expert personnel."

  This resolution was adopted on the same day as the Statute of the ICTY, on 25 May 1993. However, the Secretary-General's report, which I have been quoting, was presented three weeks before, on 3 May 1993.

  And this report said in § 28 that the tribunal "would not be subject to the authority or control of the Security Council with regard to the performance of its judicial functions".

  So how would the Security Council resolution be compatible with this report? The report says that the ICTY should be independent of the Security Council. Yet, the Security Council urged any outside contributors to finance the tribunal. Wouldn't that be meddling in the judicial functions of the tribunal by the Security Council?

  What I was also saying was that in the final analysis the Statute doesn't seem to create any new law. It is just an implementation agreement. The material rules are somewhere else.

  This is obvious from Article 2 to 5 of the Statute, where the crimes are defined (or not). The definition of genocide, for instance, is a copy of the definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention. The "grave breaches of Geneva Conventions of 1949" of course refer to the Geneva Conventions.

  So what I am hoping for is that this "implementation" approach would also apply to Art. 7(2). Art. 7(2) says: "The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment."

  This would seem to be contradictory to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, according to which the traditional rules of immunity apply, guaranteeing the immunity of Heads of State. At least Art. 7(2) has been interpreted in a way that would contradict this convention.

  But it doesn't have to be that way. The revocation of immunity doesn't have to be automatic - according to Art. 7(2). Special arrangements may be needed, just as in the case of the revocation of the immunity of the prosecution! In fact, the article only speaks of "the accused", but doesn't say how a Head of State can become "accused". Besides, it says nothing of transfers or abductions.

  So the old rules should apply even to Art. 7(2) of the Statute, which means it should be interpreted restrictively. Traditionally (perhaps) only genocide has been considered grave enough breach to merit the automatic revocation of the immunity of the Head of State. This seems to be the case in Milosevic's indictment as well. The world hasn't warmed up to the flimsy revocation of the immunity as has been witnessed in Milosevic's case. So the courts are more prone to allow revocation of immunity only if genocide is involved (and maybe not necessarily even then).

  So I suspect that the prosecution is catering to the tastes of the world capitals which is why Milosevic had to be indicted for genocide. To be sure, after his transfer. No lesser crime would have justified the revocation of his immunity. No lesser crime would perhaps have justified laying charges on him after the transfer.

  On the other hand, it was not clear that Srebrenica would qualify as a genocide unless the Krstic judgment was handed down in August 2001. The problem is that Milosevic had already been transferred to The Hague. So his transfer was illegal. This would seem to be true even if he could be charged with genocide after his transfer.

  Perhaps one had the precedent of the abduction of Eichmann in mind. But the analogy doesn't impress me. People tend to think that Israel abducted Eichmann because of "crimes against humanity". I have been told otherwise. Eichmann was kidnapped by the Israelis for crimes against the Jewish people! This could hardly be the case in the ICTY, let alone in the case of Milosevic. There are just limits to how far you can apply analogies in criminal law!

  But let's see this from the viewpoint of the ailing Nato. The Nato masters are between rock and a hard place. They had no authorization for the bombing campaign from the Security Council. So they had to concoct the indictment of Milosevic in order to make the bombing sound better. However, this indictment labours under the same problem as the lack of authorization from the Security Council. The Security Council authorization wouldn't have been needed, if there had been a genocide in Kosovo. There wasn't any genocide. Likewise, it now seems that a Head of State, especially when he is still in office, cannot be indicted, unless he is involved in genocide. But we just agreed that there was no genocide in Kosovo. Which means that Milosevic shouldn't have been indicted at all. Which means that the genocide charges, which would be devised after the transfer of Milosevic to The Hague as well as after the Krstic judgment, seem contrived.

  The current mental disturbance hubbub is going to mess things up pretty badly. Somebody might remember, for instance, that the Kosovar violence against the Serbs after the bombing was excused with post-traumatic stress disorder or some other mental disorder. That meant that we had to "understand" the Kosovars.

  For some reason the same kind of reasoning doesn't apply to Milosevic! Neither does it seem to apply to the Serbs that left Kosovo. No matter how hard KFOR encouraged the Serbs to stay, they were crazy enough to leave the province. Now that they won't come back, they have only themselves to blame for their madness, which is why Michael Steiner can now say he supports Kosovo independence. Or maybe the Serbs were so crazy that they even saw through the KFOR bull to begin with and knew that it all would come to the Kosovo independence some day. What is really unacceptable is that the Serbs won't come back even if the Albanians are doing their best to eradicate any religious violence from the province by turning Kosovo into a completely secular society, where no Christian places of worship would be left to incite people to violence.

  Del Ponte met Kofi Annan in Belgrade yesterday. She complained that Mladic was free to move around Belgrade. So there seem to be some traces left of "full equality": The blood-thirsty Carla is also free to move around Belgrade, even if somebody sued her for attempted murder. Apparently, she doesn't even have to worry about the notorious mystery killers, which suggests that they might be on her side.

  On the other hand, if she had any sense left in her, she would compare the nuthouse that she is running in The Hague to Serbia and conclude that Mladic is not so crazy after all to prefer to stay in Serbia.

  And then the latest news from The Hague. Now that May and Nice could be replaced by chimpanzees, it is no wonder Milosevic is going bananas.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 1:14 pm
  I am still confused, as far as I know,at the time ICTY was "Created" or mandated by the UN SC, Yugoslavia was NOTmember state of UN. However, Yugoslavia was NOT expelled by UN, because there is no Charter provission for suchpunishment. Threfore Yugoslavia was in a legal limbo.Extradition of Yugoslav national is guided by existing international laws. That is clear.The problem as I see it is that UN SC "created" ICTY with-out a treaty agreement, in Imposed IT" or legislated it.Even "Nürenberg Tribunal" as the "Tokyo Tribunal" vere consented to by the German and Janan´s government after the war.Rwanda tribunal was created on reequest by the government. Additional problem in law of Treaties is how could Yugoslavia be non-member state and member-State of the UN at the same time.It is correct that Treaties superceede or are incorporated into National law, but there was no treaty between Yugoslavia and UN sinmce Yugoslavia was NOT UN member.Yugoslavia applied for "NEW MEMBERSHIP" under President Kostunica.From what I could conclude is that the ICTY is NOT constructed by LEAGL ORDER of the UN Charter.Therefore all orders arrising from that body are questionalbe - may be not politically - however, there is no legal basis to claim legality of the ICTY.
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 3:37 pm
  HOPE THIS TIME WILL BE OK. HERE'S THE COMPLETE POST.

  C-061, an ex-official of the Serbian Democratic Party from Krajina (SDS) spent most of his first 2 days in the court in lengthy background recaps of the political situation in CRO back in 1990. Talking about the political nature of the trial! He is to testify "at least 3 days", as announced. Through this witness, the Prosecution intends to introduce some 75 documents. If judged by those presented so far, (the registration of SDS, the draft of its Statute, the Statute…), this is going to serve nothing but further exhaustion of everybody concerned, and intentionally Milosevic most of all.

  I took a good look at him this time, and he really looks unwell: pale, disfigured, with tired eyes, in a word - ill. So, few more days of this completely unnecessary witness will just aggravate that. And then there will be many more.

  C-061 has been already indicted by The Hague (or will be/could be indicted, I don't know which; all 3 versions appeared) and he's accompanied by his lawyer to keep an eye on what he'll say so as not to implicate himself. Could you believe his testimony to be truthful in such circumstances? How much will he add in order to exonerate himself? Plenty, I would say, judging by his input when a section of and incoherent supposed telephone conversation between Karadzic and Milosevic was played in the courtroom.

  Karadzic was heard saying that "we should stick to Yugoslavia defending its own territory" and Milosevic said that "we must defend the people at the territories where they live; we ask for nothing that does not belong to us". Obviously, this was nothing incriminating, so C-061 was asked by the Prosecution to explain and he did so by spinning the story of evil Milosevic plot to break up Yugoslavia and create Greater Serbia. The second conversation Milosevic-Karadzic wasn't even played, but instead read by Mrs Hildegard as the "transcript of the alleged second conversation (?!)". Milosevic allegedly said they should go and do what they planned. Asked again for an explanation, the "witness" readily proffered the same plot story. Well, anybody could testify like that!

  Another piece of "explanatory evidence": the famous expression supposedly uttered by Milosevic, that all Serbs shall live in one country, was conveniently explained by C-061 again as the Greater Serbia plan. This was not just explaining, this was also misquoting: Milosevic actually never said that; he spoke many times that all Serbs are now living in one country (which was ex-Yugoslavia at the time when he spoke), which is the best solution for them and it should be preserved. The wonders of a bit of misquoting and explaining! Truly a revolutionary court: not only hearsay, but also explaining is admitted as evidence.

  These 2 days of the examination-in-chief were again sprinkled with closed sessions, sometimes only for one question, sometimes for 10-20 minutes. This is all getting really creepy.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:18 pm
  

  Carla:

  Nüremberg and Tokyo trials, actually quite independent from each other were conducted by a Military International Tribunal under a military army of occupation. There was no German government and in Japan despite the exonaration of the Emperor's crimes there was no government either only a Military Occupation. Wheter the Germans or Japanese liked it or not it was irrelevant: it was imposed on them.

  Yugoslavia was suspended from the United Nations, meaning their voting rights were removed: it is important to note the ICTY explicitly says for crimes commited in the "former Yugoslavia" and was never intented to prosecute institutions and governments.

  Extraditions are observed under extradition treaties and these are bilateral treaties between two nations, usually on equality and reciprocity of terms. It just happens Yugoslavia had no such treaties and therefor under Yugoslavia Law and Constitution none of her citizens could be extradited.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:41 pm
  Erdemovic the Croat did seem to serve to produce background for future cases. His story also, by the way, fits in with claims made by Milosevic and Goran Matic about Pauk and the French. It is interesting how little time he actually served in prison for what is supposed to be a serious crime, being rewarded of course for his good work in building a propaganda edifice.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:50 pm
  The Security Council does, according to the Americans, serve as an occupation authority would. It imposes things on others. James Rubin arrogantly told a briefing that America was happily safe from such impositions thanks to its veto as he denounced the ICC plan. Specifically, the denounced as "perversity" a prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states and condemned its plans to include aggression as a crime as well as that under its rules, Israel's occupations would be considered a war crime. The pillars of US foreign policy would fall one by one!
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:54 pm
  By the way, Israel recently annexed some territory to its own. This passed with almost no comment as they chose to do this on Sept 11 2002, to exploit yet again this event as they have done mercilessly. Now imagine the reaction if Yugoslavia were to do something like that...
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 4:57 pm
  In the area of the annexation, th Israelis plan to destroy 120 homes where Orthodox Christians live. They claim these were built without an Israeli permit, which makes sense considering that it was under Palestinian administrative rule. The folks at The Hague would have had a field day had Milosevic ever played such a trick.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 7:03 pm
  It's not quite clear to me...is it Carla or...Carlo ???
  
  arnold jong
  netherlands

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 7:43 pm
  If ever anyone required an indication of what theis supposed "trial" is all about, now they have it! The secret tapes are not entered into evidence because their provenance is unknown and their accuracy is suspect. That's fine as far as it goes.

  But May then turns around, and despite not allowing the tapes to be entered as exhibits because of the question marks surrounding them, he actually allows them to be played and used in the examination of the witness. Never mind if the tapes are subsequently found to be inadmissable, they will have served teir purpose.

  The validity of any legal proceeing can always be assessed by the evidentiary standards such proceedings follow. Imagine any court in the US or UK allowing such nonsense!

  But then again, their standards only apply to US and UK subjects. The "neanderthals" and "mediaeval savages" from the Balkans and other countries merit an entirely separate set of standards, such as admissability of hearsay, opinions and personal interpretation of evidence by witnesses, illegally obtained "evidence", etc, etc. Note how May interrupts Milosevic when Milosevic asks a witness for his/her views on an issue but seems to have no such problems when the Prosecution solicits a personal opinion from a witness.

  Now that's a double standard of sorts, supervened only by the double standards of justice displayed by the US and UK rejection of the fledgling ICC.

  If the Balkan's are a hotbed of mediaeval savagery, then the current situation in the World smacks of an even earlier era of civilisation where the motto was "Might is Right". What next? Trials by ordeal? There's plenty of those going on right now! Not to mention the ad hoc "detention" concept in the US and Guantanamo, the suspension of the Bill of Rights, the suspension of elements of the US Constitution, of the International Covenant on Human Rights and other little gems our noble politicians have been putting into place in the fake war on terrorism.

  Now that's some progress we're making! Makes me almost nostalgic for the Middle Ages.
  
  David
  Australia

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 8:02 pm
  I did not mean that Tokyo or Nürenberg were part of governmenet. There were MILITAER TRIBUNALS. However,It was by agreement from the government of Japan and the German Government after the end of War, to do so.I am avare that they vere SEPARATE. Trials. One in Tokyo Japan, and the Other in NürenbergGermany.OK if the Former Yugoslavia rights were suspended, why did Former Yugoslavia had to apply as a NEW Member of United Nations?
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 8:26 pm
  

  Carla,

  The first (1945) Nüremberg trial where the top leaders were tried, Göring, Dönitz, Frank, Keitel, Speer, etc., 24 or so of them (in 6 months compare this to Mr. Milosevice's 2 years!) were conducted without any German participation and the only government in Germany at the time was the Allied Military Occupation Government. Remember both Germany and Japan had unconditionally surrendered.

  Yugoslavia had to apply (under a quisling government) as new UN member, the argument as the great power(s) claim, Yugoslavia now is different since it only has two republics, instead of the previous six. The EU under Solana has negotiated a new union, "Serbia and Montenegro" which the Yugoslavs have luckly failed to ratify. This, if approved will eventually end with the name, symbolically important name of Yugoslavia.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 10:00 pm
  My belief in the Western media has been somewhat restored (at least in comparison with ours). While our docile press reported that "few hundreds of Milosevic supporters" rallied yesterday in the main Belgrade square, demanding his release for medical treatment, some Western outlets (AP, VOA) spoke of the "significant public protests" and "thousands of supporters of former YU President". I tend to believe they're closer to the truth. The only dissenting voice was REUTERS ("about one thousand Milosevic supporters"), but the person reporting has a Slavic name (Beti Bilandzic), so there's another example of excessive grovelling and sucking up to our Western lords & masters.

  Wouldn't everyone just love to have some real reporting for a change, instead of fulfilling someone's agenda?

  Among the speakers at the rally were Velko Valkanov (Co-Chairman ICDSM), bishop Filaret of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Simonovic (one of our most famous former basketball players and now a lawyer), a lady from the Association to Defend Milosevic based in Montenegro and Vojislav Seselj ("given ovations from those present"). Milosevic's wife, daughter-in-law and grandson were present.

  Few dozens of our most prominent academics, scientists and professors signed a petition addressed to the visiting UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and another petition was signed by a group of our medical doctors. Now, I'm sure this would all come to nothing, of course, but it is nice at least to have such protests and petitions, after 2 years of total silence.

  If you want to see another proof of the Western media accuracy (albeit 3 years late), go to www.antiwar.com and to the article at the bottom of the home page: "Tactics employed by the Yugoslav army to limit NATO air strikes effectiveness". Here AP gave an overview of simple and cheap tactics, which led to "wildly inflated destruction claims by NATO" (dummies, decoys and antiquated but highly effectual equipment). NATO destroyed large part of our industry, bridges, buildings - but not our army. And, "a few" NATO planes got hit as a consequence. (Maybe this is what the US delegation is now searching here, related to the Iraq arms trade: we must have sold them some wooden tanks, a truckload of microwave ovens, ancient electronic jammers, old rags & tyres...) The beauty of this is that it was widely known here even during the bombing, not by our media, of course, because of the secrecy required, but by people talking to each other, spreading the good news from those who worked on such decoys. And now when I read all that neatly listed by AP, I can only smile.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Wednesday November 20, 2002 at 10:17 pm
  Keep up the good fight my brothers in justice. I read your posts and revel, that there are people with as much passion as I feel.

  There is however little hope. US media is starting to call Hugo Chavais a dictator. Lula has no chance if he talks to the World Bank, and will be killed by the CIA if he dos'nt. Canada will fall if it tries to leave NATO giving the Yanks all the oil they need.

  I think Russia let Slobo down. Kosavo shoud have been as important as Chechnea. I will start to learn Cantonese as the Chinese seem to be the last hope for the world.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada