MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 3:23 am
  Tha fact remeins that the Nürenberg Tribunals were condition accepted byGerman government for peace with the Allies.That the Military occupation,Military tribunal have had right to prosecute and rule over the "civilian government" of the day in Germanyis vell established under the law. Not a perfect law, since it was called "victores justice".Dbeates on creation of civilian International Criminal Court came as a result of the Tribunals. That is not the problemThe problem however, is that Former Yugoslavia was NOT member state of UN, also it was NOT at WAR or LOST the WAR with the Allies,yet ICTY was IMPOSED in simmilar namer to the Military tribunal.ICTY is NOT a TREATY law or a law that would qulify as a primary law.What was the legal status of Former Yugoslavia when the SC "created" civilian Tribunal? (ICTY)Does the CS have powers to impose law on a NON MEMBER STATE?The GA just autorised the creation of the ICC after so many years of negotiations, ICC is therefore a legal court.
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 3:59 am
  I think Yugoslavia was not expelled from the UN. That would have been based on Art. 5 or 6 of the UN Charter, but there was no such procedure. On the other hand, it is true that the Yugoslav activities in the General Assembly were suspended. There was a General Assembly resolution to this effect, but in it, it was expressly stated that this measure did not amount to expulsion according to the UN Charter. Yugoslavia was given the opportunity to apply for UN membership as a new member, but Yugoslavia refused. Instead, it insisted that its representatives could sit in the General Assembly sessions behind the tag "Yugoslavia". The General Assembly OK'd this until the state succession of Yugoslavia was sorted out.

  This is the first time in about a week that I hear about closed sessions. Last week the sessions seemed to be open. What is going on? Is Milosevic having the psychiatric evaluation, and if so, isn't it delivering the results the prosecution was hoping for, or why is the prosecution resorting to closed sessions once again?

  By the way, the psychiatric examination has a basis in the Rules of Evidence. Rule 74 bis says:

  "A Trial Chamber may, proprio motu or at the request of a party, order a medical, psychiatric or psychological examination of the accused."

  A problem with this Rule is that it doesn't say what happens after the examination. Maybe that is why the prosecution now has to use the closed sessions, until they find out. At this point, the Rules of Procedure would definitely be worth amending. As it is, the Rules only allow the tribunal to demonstrate its humaneness, without any benefits accruing to the defense.

  By the same token, could it be that the circus revolving around the tapes is attributable to a backlog in the amendments of the Rules of Procedure? Maybe the Trial Chamber listens to the tapes in anticipation of a later amendment of the Rules? What is strange that this time, however, the tapes don't seem to "speak for themselves", which should be compared with Nice's earlier argument that the "documents" speak for themselves. No, now somebody has to conduct the exegisis - as if anybody hostile enough to Milosevic could not.

  Maybe this listening-just-in-case has a (provisional?) basis in Rule 93 bis, which says:

  "Evidence of a consistent pattern of conduct relevant to serious violations of international humanitarian law under the Statute may be admissible in the interests of justice."

  The phrase "in the interests of justice" seems to mean simply: what the prosecution and the trial judges say! Actually, it is a reference to article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which allows the restriction of a public hearing to "the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice".

  However, the consistent pattern of conduct is where the psychology of the outside observers becomes the question mark. I think this discussion has shown that an alternative explanation for the "pattern of conduct" involved in the takeover of Srebrenica would be possible. Pera suggested that the Dutch troops were hostages of the Muslims in Srebrenica. With this in mind, the hostage-taking by Mladic should be seen in a proper perspective. And indeed, there are some clues to suggest this interpretation. There were thousands of Muslim fighters in Srebrenica. On the other hand, there were only a few hundred lightly-armed Dutch peace-keepers. As we remember, one Dutch soldier was killed by the Muslims. And indeed, the situation was quite similar to a hostage crisis. The Dutch had an armored vehicle, but still, the Muslims thought that they could give orders to the Dutch. The Muslims wanted the Dutch to fight the Serbs together with them. When the Dutch didn't warm up to the idea, one Muslim fighter threw a handgrenade in the armored vehicle, killing one Dutch soldier. Doesn't this basically amount to a hostage situation? Since the Muslims must have been heavily armed at this point, judging by the handgrenade, it seems that the Serbs, who opened fire, were anticipating a future attack. When one puts these things in perspective, it is not such a surprise to see Karremans having a toast and a cigar with Mladic afterwards. Obviously, he thought that the hostage-taking by Mladic only broke the deadlock created by the hostage-taking by the Muslims.

  But back to the legal sphere. I think Carla Berg's question can be answered, only if we limit the temporal jurisdiction of the ICTY. It is clear from SC resolution 827(1993) - as well as the Secretary-General's report from 3 May 1993 - that the activities of the tribunal were to expire as soon as peace was to be restored. In retrospect, this can only mean the Dayton Agreement. The Dayton Agreement was signed by Croatia, Bosnia and Yugoslavia (by Milosevic, who was at that time actually President of Serbia). In Appendix 4, which is the Bosnian constitution, the ICTY is mentioned a couple of times: Art. II(8) and Art. IX(1).

  So there is a treaty basis. But what is beyond question is the fact that this treaty basis covers only Bosnia and Herzegovina. And judging by the other two documents I mentioned above, it is clear that the signing of the Dayton Agreement was to mark the end of the temporal jurisdiction of the tribunal. Otherwise, it would be scarcely comprehensible why it took six years for the prosecution to indict Milosevic for Croatia and Bosnia (and even then after he was already at The Hague).

  An yet from another viewpoint, if I amy. It is actually this contrived Bosnia indictment that gives the lie to the decision by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases Naletilic and then later Milosevic. The Court concluded that the basic legal documents of the ICTY guarantee a fair trial, so there was no need for the ECHR to meddle in their business. One has to admit that Art. 21 of the ICTY Statute, where the rights of the accused are spelled out, and Art. 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which pertains to the fair trial, are very similar.

  But let us look a bit further, at Art. 7(1) of the ECHR:

  "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed."

  So if Milosevic was competent to sign the Dayton Agreement, he could not have been guilty under the ICTY Statute at that time. If he had been, he would have been disqualified from signing the Dayton Agreement on the basis of Art. IX(1) of Appendix 4 of the Dayton Agreement. Therefore, as long as the Dayton Agreement stands, the ICTY is precluded from prosecuting Milosevic for crimes which were allegedly committed before the signature.

  Let me repeat: If Milosevic had been guilty at that time, he couldn't have signed the agreement. If he was not guilty at the time, Art. 7(1) of the ECHR precludes his prosecution later.

  Earlier, I also argued that the decision by the ECHR in the Naletilic case cannot be reproduced in the Milosevic case, because the decision by the ECHR referred to the basic legal documents of the ICTY, which have been amended a number of times since the Court gave its decision.

  The ECHR also makes another mistake. It declares Milosevic's pleas for release inadmissible, because the ICTY basic legal documents guarantee fair trial. That is why the Dutch courts rule Milosevic's plea for release inadmissible. Or actually, it is the Dutch courts that make this mistake, but even the Dutch courts refer to the Naletilic decision. ECHR only replies that Milosevic has to watch the Dutch court make this mistake in all the relevant instances (which is called exhaustion of local remedies).

  However, let's take a look at what Art. 6(1) of the ECHR says:

  "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

  Even if one assumes that the ICTY guarantees a fair trial, ICTY only handles criminal cases. However, the above article also pertains to "the determination of his civil rights and obligations." This is something out of bounds to ICTY.

  One cannot dismiss the civil rights just by saying that the criminal trial in the ICTY is fair. In fact, fairness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. Basically, what Art. 6 says is that "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ...hearing...". The court cannot refuse a hearing concerning a person's civil right just by saying that if there were such a hearing, that hearing would be fair!

  Besides, Art. 6(1) speaks of "a tribunal established by law". OK, one could argue that even administrative orders like a Security Council resolution constitute "law". However, it would be worth checking out what the ECHR case law says about this. I think I can guess the answer.

  There is a whole lot of obscurities surrounding the ICTY (if somebody hasn't noticed by now). Let us take a tiny example. The new Popovic indictment defines "genocide" in § 37 thus: "a) The accused killed one or more persons; b) Such persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial, or religious group; c) The accused intended to kill the persons; and d) The accused killed the persons in furtherance of the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such."

  This is absolutely ridiculous. This is not how genocide is defined in Art. 4(2) of the ICTY Statute, which is basically a replica of the definition in the Genocide Convention. The definition of genocide has changed, which is against the nullum crimen rule! And this, in turn, is against Art. 7(1) of the ECHR, according to which nobody can be accused for a crime which was not a crime at the time he allegedly committed it. But so what? The ICTY has now the green light from the ECHR, so obviously it can do anything it wants.

  By the way, this Popovic must be the same Popovic, who called Krstic. The tape was played in the Krstic trial. But who is Pauk?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 4:37 am
  The General Assembly resolution, whereby the activities of Yugoslavia were suspended in the General Assembly, is 47/1, adopted on 22 September 1992.

  "Introducting the draft on behalf of the sponsors, the United Kingdom said that it was neither punitive nor designed to undermine the peace process, but a measure that had to be taken in view of the unjustified claim by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to represent the continuity of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

  So it was not a case of expulsion. The measure was not "punitive", so it couldn't be based on Art. 5 or 6 of UN Charter. On the other hand, I was wrong about one thing. The name-plate of Yugoslavia remained as before, but the Yugoslav representatives could not sit behind the sign "Yugoslavia".

  The resolution concludes by saying:

  "The admission of a new Yugoslavia under Article 4 of the Charter would terminate the situation created by the Assembly resolution."

  Who were the responsible government figures in Yugoslavia/Serbia at the time of the adoption of this resolution? The Federal President was Dobrica Cosic, the Federal Prime Minister was Milan Panic (the US citizen), the Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs was Vladislav Jovanovic, and the Serbian President was Slobodan Milosevic.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 4:51 am
  Carla Berg. You may be right about Yugoslavia's status as a non-member of the UN. The legal basis that has been contrived for the ICTY is Art. 41 of the UN Charter.

  You may know the exhaustive work "The Charter of the United Nations - a Commentary", edited by Bruno Simma. Jochen Frowein has written a commentary on Art. 41. He concludes that Art. 41 is not binding on non-member States!

  Now, we agree that Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN until Kostunica made the application. That means that Art. 41, by which ICTY was established, cannot be applied to Yugoslavia! Which means that as against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, ICTY is an illegal organ. On the other hand, the treaty basis of the Dayton Agreement is confined to Bosnia.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 6:54 am
  It would seem irrelevant whether the ICTY has a legal basis or not. Soon enough, after the US hits Iraq it will be relegated to the dustbin of history, together with the ICC, the UN and the Security Council. Bush Snr put us on notice that a New World Order is here (sounds ominously like the words someone else in 1939 used at the time of the controversies surrounding the Sudetenland and subsequently Poland).

  Clinton told us that the US didn't need the UN as long as it had NATO. Bush Jr has now told us that the US has no need for the UN in even more explicit terms.

  The UN has become an obstacle to US hegemony in the world and to the US right "to protect itself and its interests", wherever they may be. Consequently, unless the UN does as it's told by the US, the US will ignore the UN and will do as it sees fit. That will tear apart the UN and all its instrumentalities as the Russians, the Chinese and the French are unlikely to swallow whatever the US feeds them at any cost.

  There will be no need for the ICTY as it will no longer matter, given the broader scheme of things such as the global war on terror and the imminent collapse of the UN. Whatever the ICTY comes up with regarding Milosevic will be a storm in a tea cup... irrelevant except for the history books, which will be written by the masters of the New World Order. Therefore, whether Slobo got a raw deal from the ICTY will be a non issue.

  Where does that leave us with respect to international law? Why it will be based on the divine right of kings again! The meek may inherit the earth but the rich and powerful will take it from them one way or another.

  (Could someone also please speak nicely to Nice and ask him to tell his girlfriend to stop this secret session business, I get the feeling I'm being left out. Or does he just want me to give up watching altogether in protest?)
  
  David Juric
  Australia

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 7:06 am
  That is exactly my problem in attempting to square the circle of the legality of ICTY.Moreover, Dayton Accords while signed by then President of Serbia (Mr.Milosevic) is questionable.Did the President of Serbia have had legal standing to sign a Treaty he did? There are other legal and political questions, for example is the ICTY an independent Tribunal?Since it is obvious that its existance as well as finances are not.Qustion is how to resolve such comples question.Could it be resolved?As for its fairness, it stands to reason that an illegal or best a quasy legal bodyshould not and could not be promted as a fair judical organ capable to deliver justice,regardless of individual that that body procesutes.More over, it appears that the case of Dusan Tadic must be re-oppened, on basis of new evidence.It is but important for the future of development of International Legal system and International Law to consider as well as to debateproblems.Admittedly this does not help those accused that have been summoned before the "tribunal" to obtain fair and impartial trial.
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 7:44 am
  Carla wrote:

  It is but important for the future of development of International Legal system and International Law to consider as well as to debate problems.

  Indeed it is, Carla, but no matter what the legal outcome is, it's worthless unless the problems of implementation are overcome. Consider the Middle East situation where the legal issues are perfectly straightforward but the implementation of international laws leaves a lot to be desired.

  Some states can go beyond their borders, even across the world, to protect their interests, some are not permitted to do so even within their own borders.

  The problem is that when law and politics confront each other the law always pays homage to the politically more powerful, unless of course it's a Hollywood type production such as the one financed by Washington, produced and shot on location in the Balkans and the Hague. That's why the ICTY is there, to ensure we have a happy ending where "justice" triumphs over "evil". Unfortunately international law often gets in the way and the script has to be amended.
  
  David Juric
  Australia

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 7:55 am
  

  How interesting as always when things begin the slipery road of deception.

  The Trial Chamber after a little drama this morning when Mr. Nice (NATO) asked (again) for an extension of this portected witness who has the answer to all questions. Six days he was granted in exchange for removing 14 witnesses unknown or before knowing their names (!) when it was scheduled to last only 3 and 1/2 days of testimony.

  Kuong (OCCUPIED) : "Why the sudden change?"

  Mr. Nice (NATO) : "One never knows really how long until it begins, . . ." Mr. Nice (NATO) smiling and charming Mr. Kuong (OCCUPIED) and then judge Robinson (COLONIAL) wanting to know the 14 dropped witnesses names provoking a typical reaction of jester Nice (NATO), " . . .can this court doubt my word? "

  Vera is right, this testimony is nothing but a way to exhaust Mr. Milosevic, since now the cross-examination task will be extended over the week end to a total of 6 days. I understand now why the scorpion team had to produce 7 binders and 57 intercepts and their transcripts! Even the CIA can't do it in that time frame.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 8:04 am
  

  The tribunal was not impossed on Yugoslavia: it excluded Yugoslavia, clearly saying "for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia" that was the device used to avoid the issue of Yugoslavian sovereingty.

  Kosovo Metohjia being part of Serbia was never under scrutiny by the ICTY and the charges against Mr. Milosevic were brought in the middle of the NATO war against Yugoslavia in violation of the UNO SC resolution creating the institution. This has nothing to do with international LAW in any way and all to do with imperialism in its purest form!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 9:55 am
  Indeed, KLA in Kosovo and the PKK in Turkey behaived in simmilar maner.Occalan was kidnapped, tried and found guilty.Turkey does not recognise its Kurdish minority, but Turkey is strategic NATO partner.Former Yugoslavia rejected NATO occupation of her territory. Othervise refused invitation for suzerenity.If a state becomes a suzeren state, it nust do as ordered.It was so under the Ottoman, British, Austrian Roman and preceeding enpires. However, Empires capability to overexpand in the past,was a fatal error.How is the American Global domminance going to end is a question mark?History tells only the past, and domminant power of the day makes attempts to sustain its domminat role as long as possible.But future does not appear to bright, since in the past alliances collased, under extreem pressures from people.One must notice, that people not the political and economic elite have final statment and power.It was so in the past, I do not think that under rhe current international order much has changed. That is the relity of the realist paradigm.
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 10:06 am
  Perhaps worst scenario would be total colapse of the United Nations.While not perfect, United Nations is still cabale of organazing and leading its member statesperhaps, goal of some nations is to desttroy the only valid political organization, that not allway but some time,mobilisases its members to react.I am not stating the same for the UN SC. Yet SC if not discredited could make significant contributions for the futurepeace. Its pemanent 5, could change direction that UN is pushed into.
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 10:21 am
  

  The questions to be asked are:

  Besides disobediency what, who is the ultimate enemy of United States (aka as plutocracy alliance)?

  With the expansion of NATO East, despite the talk about "terrorism", any hints?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 11:26 am
  As empires in the past, each one was its own enemy.As for NATO, NATO serves as ultimate military enforcerof the only supperpower. Question is how long will the people andof course political ellite abideby the orders from the supperpoer, how long tax payers including American tax payer would support militarism?No money - no military expansion - in reality that is what occured with the Ottomans.They to proclaimed "New World Order" relaxed tasation and provided some what relaxed military conscription and "more freedom" to those who payd homage to the Sultan. However, it was to late. Empire became the "sick man of Europe"consequently it was dividied by the next "Great Powers". In reality we can observe the consequences today.
  
  Carla Berg
  Salzburg
  Austria

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 11:32 am
  Lonely China looks to NATO By Francesco Sisci Gogol

  "With the expansion of NATO East, despite the talk about "terrorism", any hints?"

  I think China's already joined the dot's

  BEIJING - On the last day of the Communist Party Congress last week Thursday, China confirmed that it had approached North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General George Robertson in Brussels to open exploratory talks aimed at starting a "dialogue" with the Western military alliance.

  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DK19Ad01.html

  I don;t think GWB's "your either with us or against us" was lost on the Chinese.
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 1:00 pm
  People tease their brains with a lot of things that have no direct relevance for everyday life. Think about astronomy. So likewise, it is nice to know the ins and outs of the legal trappings of the ICTY.

  The US plan doesn't seem to me to be so straightforward. Of course it likes friends. Look how desperate the US for friends to join them against Iraq. Also, the US is doing its best to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the world. The US has government agencies to do the PR for it.

  So at the end of the day, it may have to weigh the animosity, which the ICTY has aroused, against its "credibility", meaning consistent foreign policy, which it is particularly worried about.

  So if the ICTY is shown to be illegal, if the charges against Milosevic are exploded, and if proceedings are proved to be fraudulent, what chance does the US have for continued popularity and credibility? I am sure somebody somewhere is going to think long and hard about this.

  No matter what the practical outcomes, if any, of discussions like this, the old motto applies: "The truth shall make you free!" Of course we are being bullied by the fake law enforcement and the legal mumbo-jumbo of the ICTY, but at least we can resist it with a clear conscience. The question is who side justice is on and who is most convinced of one's cause. It is about freedom! And it doesn't take an awful lot of people to make one's enemies shake in their boots, if only one is sure that one is right.

  I basically like the US. I have made no secret of my pro-Israel inclinations. However, I must say the US has made one fundamental mistake. Now that it is the world's only remaining super-power, it has basically cast itself in the role of the Soviet Union. Whatever other reasons there might have been for the collapse of the Soviet Union, they all boil down to the fact that people really hated it. The US made the mistake of thinking that by getting better of the Soviet Union, it eradicated the Evil Empire off the face of the earth. Not so. The US is now recasting itself as the Evil Empire. As the Soviet Union must have noticed, power brings enemies. In fact, it brings more enemies than friends.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 1:35 pm
  When it comes to the NATO expansion I am not worried about it. I do not like the NATO. Its expansion is actually military subjugation of the national armies and eventually economies to the NATO. Which means occupation by the Anglo-American Empire. Joining the NATO will be expensive in money and soldier lives. Most of the eastern European nations that are joining the NATO at this time are poor nations that hardly can feed their people. There are joining in under the pressure of the concept: "If you are not with us you are against us". I strongly believe that people will rebel against their governments when they start throwing away Russian arms in order to buy costly ones from the NATO. The other problem will come when new member nations of the NATO are asked to send their soldiers to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. The idea that the USA would bomb and have now casualties and the others will die for their cause is not sustainable for a long time. So the faster the NATO grows the more wars that it gets involved in the sooner it will face its end. The problem for me is future of my children and freedom. I live in Canada and we have good lives here but for how long I do not know. On the other hand Canadian government is starting to oppose pressure from the NATO to increase Canadian budget for the military. When it comes to the people and opposition to the NATO policies except for few organizations everybody else is sleeping and having nice dreams. Most of the people do not have a clue what is going on and this is what is most troubling for me.
  
  Pera Bora
  Canada

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 3:36 pm
  

  It would be wise when facing the future to go by the say:

  Be prepared for the worst and hope for the best . . .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 4:08 pm
  ARMAGEDDON

  :-)The year is 2020 and China is a dominant world power.

  In the previous year US forces protecting oil supplies were still lodged in the States on Russia’s southern border. Threatened by the US and its Western allies Russia had long ago allied itself with China. During the last couple of decades China in collaboration with Russia has developed a most amazing weapon that negates US domination of the skies. This weapon, which in its field version may be deployed by a corps of only 5 troops, can seek and destroy any aircraft or missile at any range. Protected by this amazing development China has been able to place geo-stationary satellites targeted at the USA and armed with the new fusion bombs – 1000 times more powerful than those around at the turn of the century. Attempts by the USA to dislodge these WMD’s have failed because of this new Sino Russian weapon development. Forget the Missile Defence Project: MADness is back: with a vengeance.

  In earlier years, around 2005, China had begun successfully and covertly to adopt the former policy of Anglo/US secret services in fostering al Qaeda to stir up trouble in disputed territories. Much as the CIA and MI6 had done in Afghanistan and the Balkans in the late 20th century. As a result much of the Balkans and the UK are now Islamic states.

  Also US forces in the states bordering the southern states of Russia were harassed in much the same way as the Russian forces had been in Afghanistan at the end of the 20th century. After a particularly vicious and destructive attack by al Qaeda on Kabul last year the US launched a tactical nuclear weapon that went astray and hit an unprepared Chinese military base in the Mintaka Pass causing ten thousand casualties. China was in no mood to forgive the event as it had the attack upon its embassy in Belgrade in 1999. During the ensuing very short war the US lost a quarter of a million men and withdrew. Without superiority in the skies the US forces could not contain the millions of Chinese soldiers that stormed their positions. Although the Chinese suffered almost a million casualties the US forces had to withdraw losing the cream of its military.

  The US had abandoned Kosovo and Camp Bondsteel in 2006 after it had secured Iraqi oil. The squabbling Europeans not being able to contain the intractable problems their interference had caused in the Balkans at the turn of the century had departed more than a decade ago. Aided by the newly sponsored al Qaeda a Greater Albania now dominates the region taking in Northern Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia, the Dalmatian coast of Croatia and Serbia up to the Danube.

  The UK is a sad case. The Iraqi war in 2004 finally broke both the British military, which took most of the casualties, and the Bank of England as Chancellor Brown had forewarned. Albanian drug and prostitution rackets had irredeemably corrupted the Capitol. The massive funds were used to bribe politicians and fund the BLA terrorists who were in league with al Qaeda. Those politicians not corrupted were the victims of terror attacks. Surprisingly, due to weak opposition and an apathetic electorate, Blair was re-elected in 2006. However because one third of his electorate of 10 million were from Britain’s large and growing Islamic community Blair was forced by the BLA to appoint one third of his Ministers from the Islamic MP’s on the lines of the models forced on Kosovo and Macedonia at the turn of the century. This led to the implementation of the Open Door Act after which the Islamic population grew rapidly. So much so that after the landslide victory of 2010 New Labour was renamed The New Islamic Party of Britain. On the same day Blair converted to Islam after reading the Koran for the thirteenth time. Such was the electoral system in Britain that the Party was guaranteed future electoral success.

  Just one year later Blair was deposed and Osama bin Laden’s son took over as Prime Minister. As a sop Blair was appointed President when the Monarchy was abolished in 2011. However such was the outrage of Old Labour supporters that he feared for his life and fled to the USA. Now in his seventies he is living as houseguest of his old mate Bill in the USA. The BLA terrorised the moderate Islamic population. Initially, after much al Qaeda action just as in Kosovo, the Northern provinces of Yorkshire and Lancashire were ceded to the growing International Islamic State. The rest is history.

  Now in his eighties Milosevic is still locked up in the Hague’s old Gestapo prison of Fortress Europe. Europe’s erstwhile and unforgiving leaders being determined he should suffer for their failures and their sins.

  Many of those who supported New Labour around the turn of the century wonder what happened to principles as they find their country in ruins. They muse that Blair’s retention of power by expediency and duplicity, his style over substance, has led to nothing but grief at home and abroad: The support of terrorists in the Balkans, the disrespect for sovereign boundaries in Serbia, the deployment of illegal weapons, the refusal to honour negotiated settlements such as UN Resolution 1244.

  The NWO had been forced through in the reign of and to the greater glorification of Anthony Blair the First. The powers that were forgot that sovereign boundaries were designed to protect people. The rapid change in ethnicity of a state causes instability especially when accompanied by the concept of Jihad which is violently destructive in the hands of al Qaeda and the BLA. The warnings were there in Kosovo itself. Ironically Blair’s intervention in support of terror was the beginning of the end not only for Serbia but also for Britain.

  Footnote. Way back in 2002 the then chief prosecutor of the former ICTY, Carla del Ponte, made many promises that KLA leaders would be indicted for their atrocities in Kosovo but none ever materialised. The ICTY was shut down in 2005 after sentencing Milsoevic to thirty years.

  The new world power axis of Russia and China is demanding the release of Milsoevic and the return of the millions of Serbian refugees and their territory; some of whom have been in exile for more than twenty years. Arrest warrants have been issued for Blair, Clinton and Albright.

  The end of the world is nigh :-)
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 4:23 pm
  

  I am ready:

  NI HOW MA, gavarit pa ruski?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 5:44 pm
  Peter Taylor... Whatever happened to the new Messiah? Wouldn't he make a difference? LOL :-)
  
  David Juric
  Australia

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 6:38 pm
  

  Military alliances should end. They are a threat to peace in the world. Military spending when the world poverty remains unresolved is obscene.

  "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword"

  Some good points from our Canadian friends:

  Don't tell us how to run our military, defence minister admonishes U.S. president. Second Canadian official calls Bush'a moron' for pushing Iraq onto NATO agenda
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 9:54 pm
  These "intercepts" defy logic. Why would Milosevic, Karadzic and other Serb officials exchange their non sequitur political statements over the phone? They knew each other's political views. Presumably, you use telephone when there's something new and imminent to report/ask or agree upon (unless it's a telephone sex). So, how reliable do you think a recording of a phone call could be with totally unrelated sentences such as "Dubrovnik was never Croatian", "Sarajevo would be a dark cauldron"… To me it looks a lot like cut-and-paste job.

  A real gem of creative testifying was solicited by the Prosecution when another tape was played, with Karadzic and Kertes (a YU official in charge of the Customs Office) talking at length about "food supplies for the people", "supermarkets" and "commercial reserves". Uertz-Retzlaff (shaking her head slightly with either a nervous tic or beginning of Parkinson) asked whether this was the real subject of the conversation (?!), to which C-061 promptly answered that these 2 were actually speaking about weapons. Amicus curiae Kay naturally objected that the witness could not be asked to interpret the contents of the recorded conversation.

  Now, I have noticed that the only person in the courtroom to which May shows some respect is Stephen Kay (all others are either ignored or rudely admonished, despised and bullied). Perhaps Kay's rare interventions (or just his wig) remind May of the real courtroom, of his profession and integrity which he himself tramples upon daily.

  So, to such an objection by Kay he was forced to reply that the witness could only draw conclusions if he himself had a similar experience; otherwise, his observation was worthless. What do you think: will C-061 suddenly remember that he did have a similar experience?

  And they got another 2 days for such worthless nonsense.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 10:14 pm
  Peter; nice shot and a fun read. Are you also looking into Cantonese lessons?
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Thursday November 21, 2002 at 10:33 pm
  Perhaps these phone calls are intercepted coded phone call from SOPRANOS.Vera how come we hahen't heard anybody from YG talking about their personal experience .There must be a lot of people that were watching or heard about the trial and the lies some winesses told the court.Is the Internet available at a reasonable price ,or you must go to a Internet Cafe. I am surprised that forum has very few people from within YG.
  
  Vasile Ianos
  NJ

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 3:47 am
  Well, Milosevic may live up to be in his eighties, as Peter said, although I think that this is slightly optimistic. Anyway, if he is still doing his prison term then, it won't be in the Netherlands, but in countries like Finland! ICTY has "agreements on enforcement of sentences" with Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Finland and Italy. These Agreements can be viewed at the ICTY website at "Member State Cooperation" (can be accessed from "Basic Legal Documents" on the ICTY homepage). And since imprisonment is the only punishment the tribunal knows, those sentenced by the tribunal will serve their prison sentences in one of these countries.

  Carla Berg said that the case of Dusan Tadic should be reopened on basis of new evidence. I don't know what evidence that is, but if the Tadic case is reopened, it will have far-reaching implications. It was in the Tadic case that the Appeals Chamber ruled on 2 October 1995 that the tribunal is legal.

  The Appeals Chamber based its decision on three considerations. 1) Nothing in the UN Charter militates against establishing a war crimes tribunal. 2) The tribunal can be established on basis of Art. 41 of the UN Charter. 3) There is no separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions in the UN.

  We can now refute these three points. Let's start with the last.

  There is a separation of legislative, executive and judicial function in the UN, at least in a rudimentary form. Art. 1 of the ICJ Statute says that the ICJ is "the principal judicial organ" of the UN.

  Second, Art. 41 is a questionable basis in itself for establishing a judicial organ. Besides, these non-military measures, which the Article refers to, cannot serve as a basis for a military intervention (or "humanitarian intervention"). But more to the point, as we have noticed, Art. 41 can have no effect on non-member states, which Yugoslavia was when Milosevic was in power.

  And finally, there is nothing in the UN Charter to militate against the establishment of this tribunal? You're kidding, right? The provisions in the UN Charter which do exactly that would be a legion. Start from the sovereign equality of states, Art. 2(1). How is this to be perceived in the ICTY staff, judiciary, OTP and so on? Then go on to Art. 2(2), the requirement of good faith. This tribunal is based on fraud. The former US Secretary of State Warren Christopher said that the US would establish the tribunal, if the Serbs did not accept the American peace plan! And again, should the tribunal really have such far-reaching powers over non-members, even if there were nothing in the UN Charter to militate against it?

  When Milosevic turned to the District Court in The Hague with his plea for immediate release, the Court - in its decision on 31 August 2001 - referred to this decision in the Tadic case. It said that Milosevic had not managed to show that the decision was unsound.

  Oh dear! Are the judges not required to do anything ex officio? Just as reminder, in a later decision - on 26 February, 2002 - the same Court referred to the ICTY detention rules, even if Milosevic had not referred to them, in other words ex officio. The Court even gave an interpretation of the ICTY detention rules, even if no-one had asked for one!

  But of course the decision of the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case was unsound! The tribunal ruled on its own legality. In certain cases, a tribunal has a so-called compétence de la compétence to determine if it has jurisdiction over some cases. But this had nothing to do with competence or jurisdiction, but with legality. So the ICTY should have turned to the ICJ for an opinion.

  As we know, Milosevic did not appeal the decision made by the District Court in The Hague but went directly to the European Court of Human Rights. Now the ECHR says he should have appealed this decision, thus exhausting the local remedies.

  But Milosevic did initiate new interlocutory injuction proceedings in The Hague the following year. The District Court in The Hague gave its decision on 26 February 2002. It was in this decision that the Court referred ex officio to the detention rules. I referred to this above. The relevant articles are Art. 84-88. These articles refer to "complaints". The District court argued that Milosevic had the right to ask for immediate release on the basis of these rules. Milosevic's attorney argued that these rules pertained to household matters.

  If you read the rules, you can see immediately that the District Court is way out of line here. Look at Rule 84: "Each detainee may make a complaint to the Commanding Officer or his representative at any time." So was Milosevic required to turn to the Commanding Officer and ask him for immediate release? Is a plea for release what you would call a "complaint" in the first place? If you review the preceding rules, you see that the complaint can only refer to those things that have been regulated in the detention rules: reception, accommodation, personal hygiene, clothing, food etc.

  It doesn't seem to help if the detainee can complain later to the Registrar, who then forwards the complaint to the President. The President can only review decisions made by the Commanding Officer, not those made by the Trial Chamber, which had the power to decide on his release!

  And as I said, nobody asked for the District Court's opinion on the detention rules to begin with, let alone for an incorrect and nonsensical interpretation!

  In general, the District Court was also busy washing its hands of the whole ICTY circus. It referred to Art. 9(2) of the Statute, which says: "The International Tribunal shall have primacy over national courts."

  The Dutch court obviously argues that it has no jurisdiction over the ICTY in a case like Milosevic's immediate release. However, this is not what it means. The very next sentence says that the "primacy" refers to procedures which are already under way in national courts (in this case in Yugoslavia) and which have to do with the prosecution of the individual. Milosevic's pleas for release made to the District Court had nothing to do with the prosecution. In fact, the decision of the District Court was made by the Civil Law Division.

  Then the District Court also refers to Art. 29(1) of the Statute: "States shall co-operate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and prosecution of persons..." Obviously, the District Court has cooperation in the sense of a cooperation agreement - like the Headquarters Agreement - in mind. Of course, this is not what the Article means. The States have no obligation to make co-operation agreements with the ICTY. On the contrary, this article refers primarily to non-member states of the ICTY. This article is in fact referred to in the Dayton Agreement! So if the Netherlands really wanted to "cooperate" with the ICTY in the sense of this article, they would hand down their own war criminals from the time of the Kosovo bombing to the ICTY, supposing such a request in the sense of Art. 29(2) would come from the ICTY.

  Then the District Court makes a big deal of Art. 103 of the UN Charter. Obviously, the Court does so, because it knows that the ICTY Statute is - or at least has been interpreted - contrary to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Art. 103 says:

  "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."

  The Court argues - undoubtedly - that since the ICTY Statute is based on the UN Charter, according to Art. 103 it prevails over the Vienna Convention. But is the ICTY Statute based on the UN Charter? And anyway, it is the Vienna Convention that should prevail over the ICTY Statute in Milosevic's case, because Yugoslavia was not a Member State in the sense of Art. 103, when Milosevic was President.

  The Dutch Court seems to allow itself to be misled by the Dutch Implementation Act that was passed to implement Security Council resolution 827(1993). This act limits the Dutch jurisdiction over ICTY to the bare minimum. But actually it is here that one could evoke Art. 103 of the UN Charter. If the UN Charter prevails over the international obligations of the Member States, then the UN Charter should prevail over the ICTY Statute, which is contrary to the Charter, over the Headquarters Agreement, as well as over the Dutch Implementation Act.

  And to come back to Tadic, I don't know what the "new fact" is which would merit the reopening of the case. But it is interesting that in the Genocide case, Bosnia v. Yugoslavia, which is pending in the ICJ, Yugoslavia has put forward as a new fact the significant detail that Yugoslavia was admitted as a new member to the UN long after the Bosnian war. Surely this would qualify as a "new fact" also in the Tadic case, if it does in the Genocide case in the ICJ.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 4:35 am
  Some of you may find the Appeal Chamber decision in the Tadic case interesting. It is a little hard to find, but if you go to the ICTY website, and click on "Indictments and Proceedings" the first case that you will find it the Tadic case. You will find Appeals Chamber Decisions and Orders on the right. Click there and you will find Decision on Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995.

  Here you will read the most outrageous crap that even this tribunal has produced. § 42 is a smasher. It says that the requirement that a judicial organ should be "established by law" can only apply in municipal law. The same passage argues that since there is no separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers in the UN, the trial cannot be fair in the same sense as in the municipal law, where fairness means the independence of the judicial organs from the executive organs.

  In § 47, the conclusion is that the ICTY has been established in accordance with the appropriate procedures under the UN Charter and provides all the necessary safeguards of a fair trial. It is thus "established by law".

  And somehow the Appeals Chamber manages to camouflage the question of legality as a question of jurisdiction.

  Well, obviously the requirement of "established by law" referst to Art. 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Whatever the Appeals Chamber finds of the question whether the tribunal has been estalished by law, its view is not the same as the view of the ECHR. Since the question of impartiality in the sense of Art. 6 is contingent on the legality of the organ, in other words its being "established by law", the European Court of Human Righs should not have declared the Naletilic case and later the Milosevic case inadmissible just because it thought the ICTY Statute guaranteed the tribunals' impartiality.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 4:56 am
  Besides, this decision by the Appeals Chamber doesn't refer to the Secretary-General's report presented on 3 May 1993, where the Secretary-General admitted that a proper procedure for the establisment of the tribunal would have been a multilateral treaty.

  So isn't it obvious why the Appeals Chamber pretended that this was a simple question of jurisdiction? If it had asked for an opinion outside the tribunal itself, probably the answer would have been more in line with the Secretary-General's view. And that was a risk the Appeals Chamber was not willing to take.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 5:22 am
  

  Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

  1. Approves the report of the Secretary-General;

  2. Decides hereby to establish an international tribunal for the sole purpose of prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia between 1 January 1991 and a date to be determined by the Security Council upon the restoration of peace and to this end to adopt the Statute of the International Tribunal annexed to the above-mentioned report;

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 5:24 am
  In response to Vasile Janos - Serbs are very confused on this whole issue, as many, especially in bigger cities, do not like Milosevic and consider this process as only relevant to him, They do not relise that this is bigger than the fate of one man - and that the outcome is what the history will say about the role of Serbian people. What I am saying that any Serb, who has not sold to the West, should support and cheer for Slobodan.
  
  vesa v.
  france

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 9:55 am
  As far as I have had the chance to read through the Decision on Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, the "reasoning" goes something like this.

  Tadic had contested the legality of the tribunal. The Trial Chamber made a decision, where his protests against the illegality of the tribunal were not dealt with, because the Trial Chamber considered itself competent to deal only with questions concerning jurisdiction and found, quite rightly, that the legality of the tribunal is not a question that concerns its jurisdiction. That was an understatement. If Tadic was right, the Trial Chamber didn't even have the competence to determine its own jurisdiction.

  However, the Appeals Chamber thought it was doing Tadic a great favour in hearing his protests against the illegality of the tribunal as a question about jurisdiction! That meant that the tribunal could rule on its own legality, because any tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction!

  Then the Appeals Chamber had the nerve to say in § 11 that, "in international law, every tribunal is a self-contained system (unless otherwise provided)". Well isn't this what Art. 1 of the ICJ Statute is all about? Isn't the "division of labour" between ICTY and ICJ clearly "otherwise provided" in this Article? It says the ICJ is the "principal judicial organ" of the UN! So no matter how the tribunal tries to dismiss it, there seems to be an "orderly division of labour among a number of tribunals".

  Then, in § 12 the Appeals Chamber makes an aboutface and seems to argue that if the tribunal has the legitimate power to determine its jurisdiction ratione loci, tempori, materiae, and personae, as the ICTY has according to its Statute, then it must be legally constituted! The Appeals Chamber explains that the question of legality "is a preliminary to and conditions all other aspects of jurisdiction".

  It is funny that the Appeals Chamber dismissed one petitio principii (or circular reasoning) made by the Prosecution, only to perpetrate another - a huge one - only a few lines later!

  Well, now that it has been found that the tribunal is a legal organ, it can obviously relax the jurisdictional rules too. In Art. 8 of the Statute, the jurisdiction ratione loci (territorial jurisdiction) and ratione tempori (temporal jurisdiction), are fixed, more or less. Only, the temporal jurisdiction is a bit open. From Security Council resolution 827(1993) and the Secretary-General's report it is clear that the temporal jurisdiction should have expired after the conclusion of the Dayton Agreement. However, now that the tribunal is a legal organ, it doesn't have that kind of restrictions. It can interpret the Statute restrictively. When the Statute only says that the tribunal has temporal jurisdiction from 1 January 1991 onwards, then there is obviously no expiry date to its temporal jurisdiction.

  Also, at the time the Statute was written, the territorial jurisdiction was understood to be limited to former Yugoslavia, "especially" Bosnia, excluding Serbia and Montenegro. This is clear from Security Council 808 (1993) and 827 (1993). However, now that the clear provisions of Security Council resolution 827 are pushed aside concerning temporal jurisdiction, there is more latitude to determine the territorial jurisdiction too.

  The so-called subjective interpretation has given way to so-called objective interpretation. The subjective interpretation of the territorial jurisdiction at that time excluded Serbia and Montenegro. However, in objective interpretation we must consider the Statute literally. And indeed, Art. 8 of the ICTY Statute says that the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal comprises the whole territory of the SFRY, and that means also Serbia and Montenegro.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 9:56 am
  Vesa, you touched a very important point, and through my conversations with other serbs on this issue, I came to the conclusion, that many serbs are not aware what this trial is about. It is not about one man. It is about how histrory will be written in a few years and decades and how the serbian people will be portrayed in regard of the events of the last decade. Ironic to say, that this outrageous farce of a trial is indeed 'historical'. It was established to answer the 'Kriegsschulfrage' for the wars of the last decade and with it's answer the history and the future of the whole region will be determined. And there's another irony. I support and cheer for Slobodan in his fight for justice and truth against the masters of the New World Order and their lackeys. But at the same time I see him as a traitor and the worst leader the serbs had in their entire history. Although I'm impressed and somehow even proud of his performance at this 'trial'. There's still some hope, but we all know what the outcome of this trial will be finally. It has become a tool, a show and I guess May and Nice hope nobody is interested in it and watching it anymore. The lack of coverage 'of the trial of the century' in the mainstream media and the silence speaks volumes.
  
  Aleks Stajic
  Germany

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 11:13 am
  Aleks if you think that Milosevic was the worst leader that Serbs have, then tell us what one would done differently, and yet preservemultiethnical character of Serbia.I think the role of Yugoslavia has changed in late 80's, and West did not needed it in a form and with a role as it was before. Nobody newwhat the ultimate goal of US and EUwas. One could assume that US wanted war. If they did not, they would'nt go every couple years on other continents to protect their interests. Starting war in Yugoslavia they might had/have interests:

  Divide nations in EU and have more control over EU market.

  Establish a military strategic basein order to have better positions against Russia and China.

  General tryout for future bigger actions(Arab world, Russia,India, China)

  Demonstrate might to show other nations that they do not have choice, than be "with them"

  Control over oil routes

  Rebound economy, refresh and test arm stokpiles.

  etc.

  If US really wanted war in Yugoslavia, then the way how they condacted it was the right way. One couldn't do it better and simpler.

  It was a notorious story that Croats, and Slovenians considered Serbs as inferior and they hated even "Y" from Yugoslavia.US had a chance to see so many Croatian terrorists and groups acting to destroy Yugoslavia. Even Candic on Milosevic's trial admitted that the number of these groups was impresive and their character terroristic. (Susak as they said came in 1991 from Canada and was the Minister of Croatian deffence, what they did not say was as well Kikas who came from Canada with the shipment of guns).

  Albanians never have hidden their intention to seccede from Yugoslavia.

  So US new all of it quite and they exploited it. They wanted war in Yugoslavia and of course they choosen groups and polticians inside Yugoslavia to destroy it.(Like they had "Northern alliance" in Afghanistan, as allies against Taliban)

  They could not choose Serbs to destroy Yugoslavia.

  The question is: If Milosevic has choosen the same way as Djindjic, would it mean that there wouldn't be a war?I think that Serbian and Milosevic role was determined before war started, whatever happend affterwards was justification of US actions, and that's why there is so much illogical in the last decade.

  Croatian emblems, songs, speeches, ethnical cleansing, state control over media etc was recognized as democratic.

  No body have seen serbian refugees

  US made allies with UCK terrorist organization

  Support to mujahedin's in Bosnia

  Help to Croats to ethnically clean Krajina

  And after all Hag is becoming a Serbian city, etc

  
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 12:07 pm
  

  The United States wanted to stop the possibility of a large and strategically important (never mind it was one of the few where socialism had succeeded) nation to join the Euroepan Union. Period.

  Tomatoes in NATo-TOmatoes Prague!

  HERE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 12:50 pm
  In a week which has witnessed in Kosovo the destruction of two churches, gunfire upon a Serb ambulance, the stoning of a bus full of Serb school children, the vicious beating and hospitalisation of three Serb men by a mob armed with stones and metal rods and a bomb attack on a building in Obilic: the UN Secretary General, on a visit to Serbia, had this to say:

  Turning to Kosovo, which he had just visited, Annan said hecould attest to good progress there. "But we have difficult problems that we need to tackle and my team on the ground is working very hard to do just that," he said. "We are working hard to create a multi-ethnic Kosovo where rights of minorities are respected, where their human rights are respected and they feel secure."

  #Who do you think you’re kidding Mr Annan# – “good progress” – please see above? On the evidence: #“working hard” doing nothing busy the whole day through trying to find lots of things not to do# – except perhaps for some UN Kosovo officials visiting the hundred or so brothels run by the KLA.

  Mr. Annan said that he also discussed with President Kostunica refugees, noting that the situation in the region naturally brings up the question of their return home, as well as the plight of internally displaced persons, and what individual countries or the international community are doing to help.

  Have you ever heard such circumlocution? As to what the international community is doing to help: the answer is obviously ‘Next to nothing’. Some quarter of a million of the Kosovo minorities have been exiled from their centuries old homeland now for almost four years. Thanks to the ongoing onslaught on the remaining IDP’s as described above almost none dare return.

  As for the painful issue of missing persons, the Secretary-Generalstressed that the relatives all want answers. "We will work with all concerned in these countries through programmes that have existed and we are trying to strengthen to get to the truth," he said. "That is essential."

  “To get to the truth” - More bullshit: For up to four years the relatives of some 1300 persons abducted by the KLA have been imploring the authorities for news but to no avail. Tell it as it is for God’s sake: No one dares to embarrass Nato and the ICTY by confirming these murders. The whole sorry debacle of Kosovo was conducted upon the myth that ‘Serbs uniquely slaughtered Albanians’ not ‘Albanians also slaughtered Serbs AND Albanians’.

  Is this all the Secretaryship of the UN is good for – mouthing disingenuous platitudes?

  Words are cheap

  More from the chamber of horrors known as Kosovo under Nato
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 12:51 pm
  Just let me say this before the weekend. If one makes the switch from subjective to objective interpretation, one can include Serbia and Montenegro in the former Yugoslavia (because they belong to the territory of the SFRY) and one can extend the temporal jurisdiction of ICTY to infinity, even if it was meant to end when the Dayton Agreement was signed. The objective interpretation is handy.

  However, if one appies the objective (i.e. literal) interpretation consistently, sooner or later one gets unpleasant results. Art. 1 of the Statute says: "The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute."

  Now who are the "persons"? According to the subjective interpretation, they must be the barbarians living in the former Yugoslavia. That is also clear from Security Council resolutions 808(1993) and 827(1993). According to the objective interpretations, however, they are the persons that - well - committed war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. And even the subjective interpretation is far-fetched, because the US, Austria and Switzerland mention in their cooperation agreements with the ICTY explicitly the possibility that US, Austrian and Swiss citizens could be handed over to ICTY.

  Why hasn't that happened (particularly as regards US citizens)? Not enough evidence? The Dubrava prison bombing is the best indication that the prosecution has all the evidence it would need to indict Nato. Instead it chose the deaths that may have been caused by the prison guards after the bombing of the prison.

  However, the more the interpretation of the ICTY Statute is veering in the objective direction, the more it has to be offset by fraud to keep Nato out of harm's way.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 12:53 pm
  Peter. I think the UN said it would act to stop the destruction of churches in Kosovo. And this must indeed be one of the biggest successes in the UN history. The destruction of churches in Kosovo will come to end soon. There will be no churches left.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 1:05 pm
  

  Koffi Anan is truly Nest-koffi he knows whom the bosses are!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  USA

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 3:18 pm
  

  This is to test the formatting on this page disregard this post

  LINK 1

  Bold Text Italic Text Plain Text underlined text

  
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 4:06 pm
  

  Here is something interesting:

  The mastermind behind the attack on the USS Cole, a man named, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, "attended a training camp operated by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1997, after meeting Al Qaeda operatives four years earlier in Bosnia-Herzegovina."

  According to this article from today's Chicago Tribune.

  I wonder what a person with a non-Slavic sounding name like Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was doing in Bosnia back in 1993 that would place him in association with Al Qaeda operatives?

  hmmmm...........

  Vera,

  I have noticed that you follow the trial more closely than anybody else here, or at least you write more analysis  on the day to day proceedings of the trial than anybody else.

  I find your analysis to be constantly accurate, and very helpful since I don't have enough time to watch as much of the trial as I would like to. I think that many people could benefit from your insight and I was wondering if you would be interested in writing articles about the trial formy website. You wouldn't be under any deadlines or anything like that you would just write articles saying what happened in the trial, and providing any analysis that you feel would be helpful.

  Like I said there would be no deadlines, you could write articles when you felt like it or thought it was important to do so. The articles can be as long, or as short as you wish.

  Since access to my website is free and I don't post any ads on it or solicit any donations, it is a money losing venture, but I don't care about the money. Unfortunately, that would mean that I can't pay you anything for writing.

  If you are interested e-mail me at:webmaster@slobodan-milosevic.org

   

   

  
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 4:08 pm
  

  Witness K-12 Acquitted

  The Hague - The Trial Chamber of the Hague Tribunal pronounced the protected witness K-12 not guilty of disrespect for the court. The witness refused to give his testimony last summer.

  The chamber, presided by judge Richard May, declared K-12 guilty on 4 June this year of disrespect for the court, after he first swore in court then refused to answer the questions of the prosecutor Geoffrey Nice. The new decision, brought on the closed session on 18 November, annulled the previous decision. It is based on the report of the Victim and Witness Protection Department of the Hague Tribunal. This report states that ‘there could be a risk of reprisal against the family of the witness if he testifies'. ‘Having in mind the extreme nature of testimony the witness could make, the possibility of the reprisal cannot be excluded’, said the second judge Patrick Robinson at the same session.

  According to last summer’s announcements, the witness should have testified about the transportation of the bodies of murdered Albanians from Kosovo to Serbia, which was an organized attempt of Serbian authorities to cover up the traces of crime. When he entered the courtroom on 2 June, K-12 confirmed he was driving the truck, but upset visibly, he refused to answer further questions of prosecutor Nice. After the same thing repeated on 4 June, the Trial Chamber pronounced him guilty of disrespect for the court. The maximum penalty for this is seven years in prison or up to 200 000 euros or both. At the following separate discussion about this case, also held this summer, the defending attorney of K-12 Rebecca Heemskerk said that the witness ‘still had a problem with his brother’.

  The third member of the Trial Chamber, judge O Gon-kwon opposed the decision to discharge K-12. His viewpoint was that the witness refused to testify out of the unfounded belief that the accused would uncover his identity’. According to the statement of the Tribunal, at the closed session of 18 November presiding judge May said to witness K-12 that it was on him to decide whether he was going to testify or not.

  SOURCE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 4:24 pm
  Pero, you mentioned many points that I agree with. And there are many more viewpoints. There is also Germany's siginficant role to discuss in the whole breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the political, strategical mechanisms behind the scenes in the late 1980's and the 90's. To me it is also important to look at the mistakes the serbian leadership made during the last years. It was cristal clear where the region was heading in 1991 and at least in 1992 the leadership in Belgrade should have known that they were dealing with the same forces on the croat and bosnian muslim side that has lost the second world war.This is why I am critical of Milosevic. He was Serbia's president and it was his duty to protect the serbian citizens and their interests in the former Yugoslavia, regardeless in which of the six republics they were living. He had no vision, no concept to ensure the unity of the serbian people in the aftermath of the breakup of former Yugoslavia. Instead he created a union with Montenegro. Not that I am against a union with Montenegro, but look, it gave the 'West' another opportunity to blackmail and now even support the seccesionists movements within Montenegro. Why didn't he create a Serbian Federation together with RSK and Repblika Srpska instead of FRY with Montenegro? The newly created Serbian Federation could have seeked a loose union(some sort of Yugoslavia) with Montenegro and Macedonia for example. Why not? A little bit creativity could have helped here. The RSK officialy asked(they were begging) to become part of FRY, but they were refused becoming a member by the Belgrade leadership. Why is that so? The most outrageous episode for me was, when Belgrade imposed sanctions against Republika Srpska! National high treason on Milosevic's behalf. To sum it up: he sold out Krajina, he sold out Republika Srpska, he sold out Kosovo, he sold out the whole serbian cause. But he's doing a fine job in the Hague now. Now he's finally getting it, what all these wars were all about and I hope he can see where HE has failed in that regard. My oppinion is still that the serbs had all what they needed to achieve a decisive victory in their own hands in 91/92. The problem was that one part of the serbian nation was struggling and fighting a war for survival and the other part was pretending that 'Serbia is not at war'! And their leadership had no clue about anything. Nobody wanted to listen to me at that time,....., but I will repeat my words for you from these years: "That's not the way to fight a war, a battle for historical truth and justice for your nation". Most serbs I have talked to at that time didn't understand. Maybe this trial will help them now to come to terms. 'Help your self and God will help you'. Unfortunately the serbs didn't know how to help themselves in the first place and they underestimated how ruthless their enemies could be(ruthless in the context of lying, deceiving, cheating and smearing). Anyways, I hope Slobodan Milosevic's legacy will be to ensure there are some siginficant cracks in NATO's version of history and that's why he has all my support now. Cheers, Ziveli.
  
  Aleks Stajic
  Germany

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 4:30 pm
  Jari and Walter

  A point you raised some time back

  Cyber spies

  According to Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt, the government already has plenty of eyes in cyberspace.

  "There are officials on websites and in chatrooms. It is important that we know what is being said," she admitted at the e-summit.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2496363.stm

  ...the thought police are out there and they're on to us for daring to think for ourselves.
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 4:41 pm
  I'm sorry that I mentioned the background, the reasons for Kofi Annan's service to NATO in Kosovo. I mistakenly thought it was important.
  
  R. B.
  Canada

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 4:44 pm
  

  Aleks

  From 1991 on the Yugoslavs had practically lost the political iniative to the EC, US and UNO. Under sanctions, threats of military intervention and a troubling UN pressence on the ground the leadership in Belgrade could only resort to limit the damage and avoid the worst. In a sense Milosevice's policies have paid since NATO has beside Kosmet, not set foot in Serbia as they badly wanted, Kostunica and the G17 have failed and there is a strong chance Serbs will rally behind a nationalist (save Serbia) candidate.

  Other Balkan countries aren't so lucky!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 5:18 pm
  Gogol, I still think they could have done better. Krajina is erased, non-existent. Kosovo and Metohija is defacto part of Greater Albania. Republika Srpska is under foreign occupation without a slite chance to be a souvereign country in the near future. There's even a possiblity it will be abolished, if they(NATO) can prove that it's very existence is based on Genocide! Shouldn't be problem for NATO - sarcasm! FRYugoslavia is defacto non-existent, NATO can push the Montenegro-Button whenever it wants and stirr up trouble in Bujanovac-Presevo if needed. When taking a look at the last century, the last two World Wars, then the situation today looks like a catastrophe to me.

  From 1991 on the Yugoslavs had practically lost the political iniative to the EC, US and UNO.

  Yes, but that doesn't wash away the fact, that the Belgrade leadership had no concept, no vision, no clue whatsoever, for the serbian question, that is up to now not answered. Why didn't they produce some own initiatives? The status-quo now is not a solution at all. Or maybe that's what it's all about: eternal occupation! I would like to know what Slobodan Milosevic thinks about this and where he thinks the gravest mistakes were made. If he could go back in time, would he have signed the Kumanovo Capitulation again? Don't they have internet in these dutch jails nowadays!? :)
  
  Aleks Stajic
  Germany

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 6:14 pm
  

  Aleks,

  No internet at the detention center. Not for him at least as they say it is a "security risk".

  I think Milosevic and many dealt with the situation as best they could, they were alone, worts yet Russia under the leadership of Yeltsin betrayed Yugoslavia! It did cost him his presidency for the Russian Armed forces had two high ranking officers present at all Russian government meetings and at the end forced Yeltsin to abdicate in favour of Putin. By then it was too late and Milosevic had to conceed Kosovo.

  The Serbian "question" was like all other national questions, best resolved under the political structure of Yugoslavia and its preservation is precisely what Milosevic and again many other fine people, indeed Yugoslavs from all nationalities supported him and voted for him several times as a Serb and as Yugoslav.

  Finally, defeat or loosing a battle is very hard to acept but you should put the blame where it belongs: on the enemies of Yugoslavia as a sovereign and free nation where many cultures and nations found their freedom!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 6:42 pm
  Finally, defeat or loosing a battle is very hard to acept but you should put the blame where it belongs: on the enemies of Yugoslavia as a sovereign and free nation where many cultures and nations found their freedom!

  You are right. There were too many enemies inside and outside of Yugoslavia at that time. At least I would have made the enemies inside pay a high price for their betrayal. And that's my point, I think Slobodan was too soft with these enemies inside. He gave them too much time to manouver and play their dirty games. He should have crushed them in 1991, with absolutely everything he had, as it was clear what their answer to the serbian question was. A quick, decisive, determined move with clear objectives and goals and with overwhelming force. After he missed his opportunity to act, he was only able to react in the years to follow. His enemies were always ahead of him. And now these enemies finally put him in a small cell in the Netherlands without internet....pitty.
  
  Aleks Stajic
  Germany

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 7:33 pm
  Simon:Every message that is sent by us, e-mail or post, goes through a CIA filter. One is located in Seattle. I don’t know where the other one is located. Keep posting. Computer was down last week. I am in Toronto at present and hope to speak to the people at CBC in person re: lack of media action on the trial of the century.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops
  Canada

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 9:30 pm
  Why didn't he create a Serbian Federation together with RSK and Repblika Srpska instead of FRY with Montenegro? But Aleks why dont you say it as it is. Why doesnt Milosevic try to create a greater Serbia?Why - because people like me were not interested in joining up to fight outside Serbia? (Did you join the fight also?)If you want to expand your borders you must have willing soldiers. As you probably know many people were not interested in killing or being killed. Whats wrong in that?I dont believe that Milosevic should have crushed his opposition any more than I believe that Germany should throw out all foreigners. Whats wrong with you?I think of the legality of Hague but when I hear argument of others I am thinking that its better that Milosevic is gone. I agree that at least Milosevic sold out Krajina and Bosnia but it would take very stupid person to support Milosevic after that.
  
  A Stefanovic
  Belgrade
  Jugoslavia

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 9:49 pm
  Bravo Stefanovic: you said it all,but remeber that what are talking in this forum is not only about Milosevic. Its about what happened in YG ,its about the tribunal conduct toward the serbs ,its about international law ,its about the new world order ,its about trying to put all the blame on a single person.Just look at yourself.If you want to go at the beach you must pass 3 different countries. Look at the refugees and homeless people that are living on the streets of Belgrade. Where is your industry, where is your government and so on. Stefanovic are you better off now than before?
  
  Vasile Ianos
  NJ

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 11:36 pm
  

  Aleks, I agree with your view on many issues that you are bringing up. This forum is not about explaining Mr. Milosevic to the world. It is about fairness of Mr. Milosevic's trial. Hence, I am only sticking to that topic. If Mr. Milosevic was tried for these issues that you are bringing up I would discuss them with you. Mr. Milosevic is tried from my point of view for the things that he has not done. Additionally the trial is executed by braking and ignoring international laws. If we allow this to proceed our freedoms are in jeopardy, regardless of the wrong and right doings of Mr. Milosevic.

  The future of the Serbian State and the Western civilization is grave, since we refuse to procreate. Our modern "civilization" does not recognize that giving birth to children and bringing them up is tough honorable profession for a woman. The concept that I am thinking about is that a mother that has more then two children is a professional mother and government should pay her for that job. For every added child on top of three children she should get a raise. This is a very tough job that turns occasionally into 24-hour working day and our "modern civilization" does not recognize it as such. The end result is that we do not have enough children.

  Why on earth I am talking about this issue? Well you mentioned many political scenarios that could have been used to save Serbia and many wrong political steps that helped its demise. Serbs would not have lost as many territories as they have if they had significant majority as Albanians had in Kosovo. It does not meter how Albanians have accomplished it, fairly or not fairly. Numbers do count. So my point is, if Serbs and Westerners are serious about having future they have to procreate, if they continue to refuse procreation there is no other politics in the would that will save them. Good politics can slow down the demise but they can not prevent demise from happening. From my Lebanese fried I have learned that successful civilizations do not last 50 years but centuries. If Serbs are clever what happened in the last 12 years will look as a glitch thousand yeas later. There are no historical errors that can not be corrected. There are no borders that will not be change again and again and again.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Canada

• Friday November 22, 2002 at 11:54 pm
  Vasile, you've got your answer from Vesa re the scarce YU presence on this forum: I agree with his points, as well as with Aleks. Let me add another obvious reason: people are busy surviving here. Many have to work in grey economy (mostly in semi-legal street trade of smuggled goods), although many have university education, but had lost their jobs. The economy is in ruins and our new sock puppet "rulers" introduced Western prices, but forgot to change African salaries.

  Re Internet: it is available at a reasonable price, there are more and more PCs at homes, there are also Internet Cafes, but providers are not so good, telephone switchboards are obsolete and crammed and thus the connection is poor; only recently more direct connections are being introduced.

  Then, there's also a psychological angle: I think people here are still in shock after being hated, killed and bombed. For me, the hatred and the lies were the worst. Most of us genuinely liked everything Western, some even adored it. We took pride in our comparative well-being, our openness; we strived to be more like them. To be so totally used and abused really hurts. If anything, this whole terrible experience taught me that it is wrong to try emulating any given model, particularly this new one which is not given, but force-fed. Its basic intention is to give the whole world a uniform shade of grey. I like different colours. Vive la difference! , as the French would say.

  Andy, thanks for inviting me to write for your site, but I respectfuly decline. My participation here and trying to watch the trial as much as possible is already taking up too much of my time. I also live in the ruined YU economy and have to work long hours (fortunately, still not in the street trade of any goods!). Participating here gives me the possiblity to let out steam, but I have to be careful: one night, instead of finishing my multi-page work, I typed up another post to JURIST… But, you can copy my posts, in part or as a whole, if it would be of any use. Thanks for the interest.

  Back to the trial: I think I know who C-061 is. I did some detecting by re-reading his testimony and it's really quite easy to guess. There were 3 major Krajina figures, all of them were Presidents of Krajina at one point. In his testimony, C-061 mentions all 3 of them, but alas, only 2 of them are reviled and denonunced and the third one has been mentioned ONLY ONCE, and that just in a passing remark. Listen: "At that time [i.e. in 1992, when Vance Plan was accepted], the current RSK President Milan Babic was replaced with Goran Hadzic, who was absolutely obedient towards Milosevic." And more: "Milan Martic, Minister of Interior Affairs of SAO Krajina and later RSK President, was absolutely loyal to Milosevic." The whole testimony of C-061 is brimming with positive hatred towards Milan Martic, and Goran Hadzic is being dismissed as a ninny; both are depicted as Milosevic's stooges. Who is the remaining high Krajina official, who was never described as subservient to Milosevic, never put in a negative context, in fact mentioned only once? Yes, the answer is correct. I'm sure many people here came to the same conclusion, the media as well, but perhaps they fear judge Roy May.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Saturday November 23, 2002 at 5:25 am
  Stefanovic look, Slobodan is tried for trying to create a 'Greater Serbia' anyways now. He refused to give permission to RSK and Republica Srpska to join the FRY, but they are accusing him he wanted to create a 'Greater Serbia' as they say. They made a fool out of him. First he was championed for signing Dayton(selling out serbs west of the Drina) and now he's in a small cell!The old Yugoslavia was the best solution for all nations and for the serbs too. But when the inside enemies showed their unwillingness to preserve the country and openly worked to dismember it, there should have been made some contingency plans for the serbian nation how to survive and keep the unity of the serbian people, if the unity of Yugoslavia was not a feasible solution any more. Call it a 'Greater Serbia' if you want, I keep calling it a Serbian Federation. Do you think the serbs west of the Drina had the right to self-determination or not?

  'because people like me were not interested in joining up to fight outside Serbia'

  Fine with me, but many serbs outside Serbia were willing to fight for their freedom. What is your definition of Serbia nowadays? Tito's borders? Serbia minus Kosovo, Serbia minus Kosovo and Vojvodina? Did I join the fight!? Guess I was too young at that time, but which army should I have joined? The Yugoslav army, the Kraijna Serb Army, the Bosnian Serb Army, the serbian Serb Army, Arkan's Tigers, Seselj Eagles, or the other volunteer hobbie armie's. No, no, that's not the way to fight a proper war for national survival. There should have been only one army and one serbian state. If you attack Knin, you attack Belgrade. Period. Look at NATO. If you attack one member country, you attack all of them. And still today serbs don't have a definition and a program for their nation after the break up of the old Yugoslavia. Sad state of affairs.

  If you want to expand your borders you must have willing soldiers.

  Who's expanding borders here? The serbs west of the Drina had the right NOT to leave Yugoslavia and stay with Serbia in the Federation. Do you deny your people west of the Drina the same rights that were granted to muslims and croats by the 'West'?

  I dont believe that Milosevic should have crushed his opposition any more than I believe that Germany should throw out all foreigners. Whats wrong with you?

  Nothing's wrong, I wasn't talking about the political opposition in Belgrade nor Germany, I was talking about the resurected WWII creatures like Izetbegovic and the Pavelic-incarnation Tudman.

  The process will answer the historical 'Kriegsschuldfrage' in the end, and my bets are it won't be a favourable outcome for the serbs. They are not judging one man. So is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial? For obvious reasons, it is per historical definition impossible for him to get a fair trial. Otherwise the CNN propaganda and smear campaign in the last decade would have been a waste of time and resources. And Joe Sixpack would get too confused...and we don't want that, don't we?
  
  Aleks Stajic
  Germany