JURIST - Discussion Archive: Milosevic Trial

JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive

—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.

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

discussion archive
Monday November 24, 2003 at 11:18 pm
In an effort to provide a higher-quality forum for discussion, the discussion board has been upgraded. This upgrade is intended to obviate a number of problems, specifically problems users have with excessive page length and abusive posters. Please note that a simple registration is required to post to these new boards. Users who post abusively will be sanctioned and/or banned from the discussion. We expect that these changes will enhance the discussion and we hope that discussion participants embrace the changes. Note that the discussion archive will continue to be available here. You can enter the new discussion board by clicking here. Thank you for your support!

JURIST Moderator
USA
Tuesday November 25, 2003 at 2:00 pm
We are currently having technical difficulties with the new and improved Milosevic discussion board. Please stay tuned and thank you for your patience!

JURIST Moderator
USA
Wednesday November 26, 2003 at 12:40 pm
The technical difficulties we were previously experiencing appear to have been resolved. You can once again jump into the new discussion board.

JURIST Moderator
USA
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 12:30 pm
We are continuing to experience technical difficulties. In the meantime, the previous discussion board functionality will be restored to this page. As soon as the upgraded board is functioning properly, we will once again redirect traffic. Thank you for bearing with us!

JURIST Moderator
USA
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 1:04 pm
Thank you moderators.

Ian Davis
Waterloo
Ontario
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 1:43 pm
TO PUT IT SIMPLE: NATO was misusing an incident at Racak in Kosovo on 15th January, 1999 as CASUS BELLI, - its excuse for air attacks within the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Misrepresentation of these events as a deliberate 'massacre' gave support for a series of NATO initiatives leading eventually to its armed aggression two months later, subsequent to which the indictment issued against President Milosevic and other members of the FRY leadership on 23 May, 1999 included 'Racak' as the one and only charge concerning 'Kosovo' dated prior to the start of NATO's war.
During the now outrageously protracted Prosecution's case a whole series of eyewitnesses and others have exposed this charge for 'Murder' as a NATO fabrication. If in fact the incident at Racak were a 'mass killing' committed by the accused for the purpose of expelling a substantial portion of the population from the territory of the Province of Kosovo, then even all these fabrications might have served the Prosecutor well as evidence, - but they came up with nothing!
ICTY's charges have come to nothing but to confirm, that NATOs unscrupulous aggression began with a lie!
NATO was deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to cover up for its actions in preparation for war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and the ICTY Prosecution has worked to the best of its ability to cover up for NATO.
Without any investigations into the course of the events NATOs fabricated charges for 'murder of Kosovo Albanian civilians' etc. at Racak is based on NATOs preconceived ideas and the propaganda of KLA. The ICTY Prosecutor alleges that:
"The village of Racak was shelled by forces of the FRY and Serbia. Villagers, who attempted to flee, were shot throughout the village, and a group of approximately 25 men attempting to hide in a building were removed to a nearby hill, where they were killed."
That account never seemed to me particularly credible: Why would 25 male villagers attempt to hide as a group, - when their fleeing families, women and children were being shot "alover the village"?
One may indeed wonder why the FRY government forces would commit such a 'massacre' of civilians? The Prosecutor however does not allow himself to wonder, but has neither been able to substantiate a credible motive on part of the 'forces' or on part of the FRY Government or President Milosevic in particular, nor to confirm or even to make probable that those 45 persons set forth in the attached Schedule A were indeed killed under the circumstances described - or indeed that they were villagers from Racak at all!
In fact the Prosecutor has not been capable of proving that the victims were civilians rather than armed insurgents, members of the insurgents KLA.
If the village of Racak had in reality been "attacked and shelled", then why were no signs of panic or material damages noted by representatives of the KVM, the OSCE´s socalled 'verifyers' invited to attend. - and obliged to truthfully verify this operation? If villager including around a dozen of those persons listed in Schedule A were in fact shot "throughout the village", then why would the verifiers - who entered Racak immediately following the withdrawal of the FRY military and police personnel - be unaware of any victims untill the following morning? Even the KVM commander on that occasion, Canadian general Maisonneuve, who was directly responsible for a correct and credible verification of the events, has testified, that he "did not know that anybody were killed." Maisonneuve's actions on that day seem to indicate, that he did not even assume, that anybody were killed.
How come that the head of the KVM, U.S. Ambassador William Walker, who on next morning - Sunday 16 January, 1999 - visited Racak proclaiming this incident to be a 'massacre', was immediately encountering a headless corpse, - which his verifyers had overlooked the day before right in the center of the village? How come, that 45 dead bodies were now appearing in the nearby hill, - without any trace of blood on the ground below them?
How come that the autopsies later carried out by an EU-team of experts including Finnish Helen Ranta never even attempted to describe the circumstances surrounding the death of these persons alledged to have been shot while fleeing or summarily executed?
The Prosecutions case provided no credible answers to any of these, or to scores of other questions...

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 2:32 pm
Thanks Jurist moderators.

Dan B
Canada
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 2:53 pm
Well, thank you, Moderators - for your services in the past!
I cannot deny that from the little that I've so far experienced with the 'upgraded board' it seems to be rather an unfriendly format, - difficult to access - and even more so for gaining an overview...
I do hope, that I shall be proven wrong in this case, - the 'Milosevic Trial' is much too important for all of us to ruin the discussion with technicalities.

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 3:09 pm
I second that!

D. Jovanovic,physicist
USA
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 3:43 pm
THE WHOLE SCENE HAS BEEN RIGGED AT RACAK...
Although apparently recognizing that the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and the conflicts which it brought about form a complex process which cannot be exhaustively dealt with by way of mere 'criminal trial', the ICTY Chief Prosecutor, mrs. del Ponte, from the very beginning expected the Tribunal to write the "most bloody and hearthbreaking chapter" of this history (1).
While foretelling that the 'trial' against mr. Milosevic would by itself make history mrs. del Ponte probably did not expect any significant contribution from the accused - whom she prepared to bring before the world as 'the true culprit'.
The trial, she stated in her opening address on 12th February, 2002, would "evoke the tragic fate of thousands of Milosevic's countless victims', - and the Chief Prosecutor did not hesitate to establish beforehand her chosen culprit's fundamental motivation either:
"Milosevic did nothing," she concluded, "but pursue his ambition!"
Thus the Chief Prosecutor was accusing the former President of the F.R. of Yugoslavia, who stood up for his country and is still doing so from a jail at The Hague, for having been motivated exclusively by a search, his quest for power. Added mrs. del Ponte:
"And personal power at that!"
Having both victims and intent dutyfully identified, towards the closure of the Prosecution's case, her repeatedly prolonged case, we, the world public once again face the points she was citing from Baron d'Estournelles de Constant (who wrote a report of the previous 'Balkan Wars' at the beginning of the 20th Century). Did the Baron's conclusions on 'the real culprits' actually set the scene for the matters tried so far in the present case, - or do we maybe need to judge the facts for ourselves?
Did mr. Milosevic mislead public opinion, inciting his country and, consequently, other countries into war, involving deportation and murder? And why would he do that?
Frankly, - in the rear-view mirror I see the Prosecution getting off on the wrong foot already by mrs. del Ponte's opening address - meant to clarify the issues in the case! And mr. Nice, her deputy, was cementing the utter falseness of this 'trial' by his suggestion that the famous speech by the Serbian President at Kosovo Polje on 28 June, 1989 would imply that war was "not being excluded even at that stage" - some ten years in advance (2).
And the Prosecution took a decisive count if not before then on 12th June, 2002 when the American ambassador William Walker, a former head of the OSCE's Kosovo Verification Mission who sounded the alarm stirring NATO's concern and causing its armed intervention, had to admit that he saw no blood on the ground or around the wounds of the supposed victims of the 'massacre at Racak' (3):
"It looks very much like what I saw," William Walker admitted, when during cross-examination he was confronted with a series of photographs from the proposed hill side scene of the crime, "but these are only a few photographs out of the thousands of photographs that were taken that day. And I can assure the Court that in many of the photographs there is blood, as I described it..."
"Please," mr. Milosevic responded, acting in his own defense:
"This particular photograph, just like you have a big door revolving on a small hinge, this photograph shows that the whole scene has been rigged."
Who can argue with that?
(1) Opening address, 12th February, 2002. Trial Transcripts pp. 2-11
(2) Opening speech by mr. Nice, 12th February, 2002. Trial Transcripts, pp. 26-27
(3) JURIST Posting by Godfred Louis-Jensen. July 16, 2003 at 10:17 am.
(Previously posted in this forum on Monday October 20, 2003 at 9:48 am).

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 4:04 pm
SOMETHING THEY NEVER TAUGHT YOU AT LAW SCHOOL...
By Jari Nousiainen, Finland
I think it would be a good idea to keep this discussion within the precincts of sanity. I always thought that humanity was responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was something we all did to ourselves. I thought everyone condemned it. So I was surprised a couple of months ago to hear Professor D'Amato defend the Hiroshima and Nagasaki solution. He is probably the only internation lawyer that I think is worth listening to, so don't think for a minute I say this lightly. I thought I had misunderstood him. But I guess I hadn't. There are actually people in America who still want to believe that the atomic bomb was a good thing, or at least a necessary evil. And suddenly, to these people it is America against the rest of the world. Well, if that is the way some Americans see it, I think it is.
So now criticizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a leftist plot! And suddenly it becomes a question of pure politics whether to use the atomic bomb in Kosovo or Iraq. And I think the latter option is at least hinted when the Bush administration assures Tony Blair that "every conflict in the region can be contained". That would also explain the red herring of weapons of massa destruction Saddam allegedly has.
So what is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? The Republicans bomb Iraq, the Democrats bomb Yugoslavia. That is the only reason to support the Republicans these days. So even if Kosovo was spared (relatively speaking) this time, the thought pattern is the same. What are the people making such a fuss about? If they disappear in a mushroom cloud, they have deserved it. "Trust me, I know what I am doing." Lou seems to be right about one thing, though. If the Americans hadn't bombed Europe, few people would have really questioned America's policy, including me. Those days are gone. Kosovo was bad, but it did one thing: it opened our eyes.
What is it about these Americans?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a genocide, if there ever was one. Yet they had the nerve to begin the Tokyo war crimes trials against the Japanese. And as has now been divulged, Yamashita was convicted on false evidence, while the Americans were withholding evidence proving his innocence. As if the atomic bomb wasn't enough, they had to give something to satisfy MacArthur. So, should we trust the Americans' sense of justice?
The Yamashita records became public just before the Milosevic trial. And now they have the nerve to do it again, with the archives from WW II disclosed!
The "Yamashita doctrine" has been even flashed by name. And now that the ICC could create a level playing field for all, the Americans get cold feet. And they still call the US "the land of the bold".
As we all know, the Americans are the most religious Westerners, which I think is a very good thing in itself. However, some evangelicals interpret the Old Testament as if it applied to the US. Whenever the Americans conclude a treaty with any country, the evangelicals shout: "America is whoring with that country!". This is because in the Old Testament, Israel was admonished not to make treaties with Egypt or Assyria.
Similarly, other nations are identified with some undesirable Biblical nations. Russia is identified with Gog and Magog, which have a special chapter in the Bible, Ezekiel 38. This interpretation was made popular by Hal Lindsey in his book the Late Great Planet Earth. In this interpretation Ezekiel 38 says that Gog and Magog would attack the US. This is why some evangelicals expected Russia to attack the US during the Kosovo bombing. This attack is also supposed to be linked with the Second Coming, so the evangelicals were seriously expecting Jesus to come back during the Kosovo war.
Now that Russia didn't attack the US, let's take it closer to the Holy Land, Iraq, or as it was called in antiquity, Babylon and Assyria.
Because of the American exploits, one has almost be ashamed of being pro-Israel. I am pro-Israel, and I never realized how pro-Israel I am before the second intifada began. A few months ago I wasn't even sure where the Gaza Strip is. Now I am. And the only way to make sense of the proposed Iraqi campaign is to see it from the Israeli perspective: the Iraqis haven't been so nice to Israel. In the Gulf War they bombed Israel with Scud missiles without any apparent reason. Now they are financing the suicide bombings, and Saddam is giving some of the Iraqi money to the families of the suicide bombers (as if the Iraqis didn't need it). So not all of the financial disaster in Iraq is due to the sanctions. But the discrepancy remains. In Saudi Arabia there organized a telethon to collect money for the families of the suicide bombers, but no-one suggested Saudi Arabia should be bombed.
How does this relate to Kosovo? When the Twin Towers were knocked down, no-one suggested that the Serbs did it, no matter how the Serbs are now profiled as such terrorists in Hollywood films.
This should show that unconsciously people never believed the Serbs were a threat. The US just wanted a war "that could be contained" to avert a larger threat. Well, it failed. First, the war couldn't be contained. It was supposed to be over in a couple of days, but it lasted 78 days. Second, it didn't pacify the Muslims. They just got hungrier. Third, all that happened in Yugoslavia in the 90's and the part that the West played in it is now reviewed in the Milosevic trial. And we now get some stuff from as far back as WW II! Most of it doesn't flatter the US.
When Milosevic was indicted, it was widely speculated that the Serbs would now fight to the last man. One has to be grateful that the Americans didn't use the atomic bomb even if this "to the last man" scenario was discussed.
This is something they never taught you at law school.
(Originally posted on Wednesday August 21, 2002 at 3:30 am)
Now reposted by:

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 4:15 pm
Thank you moderator:)

Dakic Ana
Serbia
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 4:35 pm
THE USUAL RULES APPLY...
"I have no need to appoint (a) counsel", Milosevic said, - considering the Tribunal at the Hague to be illegal and the Indictment to be false.
From that initial appearance on Tuesday, July 3rd, 2001 the former President of Serbia courageously conducted a defence on his own.
(With regard to the alleged "massacre" at the village of Racak in Kosovo on January 15th, 1999 a conflict between the evidence offered (on May 29th and 30th, 2002) by a Canadian general Maisonneuve, who were on that occasion in charge of the OSCEs team on the ground, and that offered a fortnight later, om May 12th by the American Head of the KVM, Ambassador William Walker, always appeared to me as crucial, - but then I am no lawyer).
After more than a year, more than a hundred, day-long open sessions later - and with transcripts of the proceedings taking up more than 10.000 pages - on September 11th, 2002, Judge May would say:
"Yes, Mr. Milosevic! What is your final comment?"
"I have no final comment," Milosevic responded: "All I would like is for you to enable me to hold a press conference. The Prosecutors are constantly giving statements to the press, I can see now that the amicus are making statements to the press, - it would be logical to allow me to hold a press conference likewise."
Judge May: "The usual Rules of Detention apply to you. We will adjourn now until the 26th."
Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m...
...Now, - could someone kindly tell me "untill when"? What is next in the "Kosovo part"?
(Previously posted in this forum on Friday May 02, 2003 at 12:49 pm)

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 4:42 pm
IF YOU LOOK BACK IN THE ARCHIVES...
By Peter Taylor, Herts/UK
Godfred Louis-Jensen: In the absence of our one time resident legal guru, Jari Nousiainen, this forum sadly lacks his legal expertise. However I will tell you what I believe about the timetable for Milosevic's trial. In the original schedule Milosevic's defence was due to start about this time but due to illness and the prosecutions requests to extend the period of their case the original timetable has been extended.
I am not sure that the relevant authorities have yet decided on the termination date for the prosecutions case?
If you look back in the archives you will find some contributors who claim to have knowledge of the trials course of events. Other than that I hope someone else can advise you or point you in the right direction.
(Originally posted on Tuesday May 06, 2003 at 2:16 pm)
Now reposted by:

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 4:59 pm
"DO AS I SAY -- NOT AS I DO!"
By Ian Davis, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Godfrey, I'm simply pointing out the facts.. It was not my intent to imply that I endorsed all of the conclusions of the court. Regarding the issue however of campaigns of terror, human rights violations, etc. isn't that only to be expected in any conflict. Iraqii's are now starting to terrorise the Americans and British, and the Americans and British are responding in kind. Amnesty International complained today that American treatment of Iraqis violates international law, and there is strong evidence that crimes against humanity were committed with the covert knowledge and approval of US forces in Afghanistan.
We were told there were no friendly forces," said Guckenheimer, an assistant gunner with the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. "If there was anybody there, they were the enemy. We were told specifically that if there were women and children to kill them.
When considering war it is largely a given that bad things happen. This is precisely why initiating a war of aggression constitutes the supreme war crime. The only question is what shade of grey does one choose to call black, and what shade white.
The primary goal of terrorism is to force the state to become repressive, and to over-react. If a state becomes oppressive, repressive, or just plain brutal, precisely as a terrorist organisation intends, it seems close to double jeapardy to both condemn the state for responding precisely as terrorists planned and intended, while simultaneously siding with terrorists against the state, because of the all to predictable state response.
I think that the US responded precisely as terrorists expected following 9-11. It is easy for me to draw up a long litany of wrongs committed by the US following that attack. But am I to use this litany of wrongs, to justify aligning myself with those who committed the original attacks. Personally, I think that would be absurd. Yet, in Kosovo, the clear evidence is that the KLA provoked the conflict there by repeated deliberate terrorist attacks on Serb security forces and police, precisely to create the resulting conflict.
In the days immediately prior to Racak, 8 Serbian soldiers were kidnapped by the KLA -- would you call that action a campaign of terror. Serb forces became involved in Racak because of a belief that individuals who had earlier murdered a policeman were to be found there. Is murdering policemen consistent with a campaign of terror. Reports suggest that the villagers at Racak were press ganged into fighting for the KLA.. how was this achieved except through a campaign of terror? Racak was one of several villages in which Serb forces engaged the KLA on the date of the alleged massacre. There clearly were two sides involved in this civil war. It is not even clear that the Serbs were winning the battles. Racak remained under KLA control, when the battle in Racak was over.
Rugova's deputy was assassinated by the KLA.. was that an act of terror. The KLA put a price on Rugova's head, and sentenced him to death during the war in Kosovo. Could one describe this as an act of terror. Rugova clearly lied about this during his appearance in the Hague, claiming that he never had any fear of the KLA, despite them having assasinated his deputy, and later sentencing him to death. Do you think he lied because he was afraid to tell the truth. Witness after witness had not one bad thing to say about the KLA.. one could actually see that some remained terrified of the consequences of speaking candidly about both Serb forces and the KLA. Were they influenced by an ongoing campaign of terror being conducted not by the Serbs, but by the KLA.
Did the Serb forces commit acts of terror -- well British forces in Iraq did, and they have the photographs to prove it. Canadian forces in Somalia committed acts of terror too. I would be very suprised if there were to be found no similar bad apples among Serb forces.. and quite astonished if the same held true for paramilitary forces under no command but their own. But that is not the issue.. the issue is whether crimes committed against the civilian population were something that just happened because individuals decided to commit them, or were something that was orchestrated as part of a deliberate campaign approved and conducted under the orders of the Serbian administration.
The Kosovo section of the trial which I followed fairly closely presented no clear evidence to convince me that any of the crimes committed in Kosovo could be blamed on the state. To the contrary I was left with the impression that the state neither encouraged or condoned these crimes, and indeed prosecuted them to the extent that it was able to.
Personally I am of the opinion that both the KLA and Serb forces encouraged people to leave Kosovo at the barrel of a gun. The KLA wanted to create a flood of Albanian victims for the media, and the Serbs wanted to eliminate civilians who might get hurt in crossfire or assist the KLA in areas where there was active conflict with the KLA. I have a hard time accepting that forcing someone to leave a war zone, and become the charge of the enemy or extended family for the duration of a war, constitutes a crime against humanity. Dropping bombs on people seems far less humane than forcefully making them leave what has in effect become a lethal firing range. It also must be pointed out that not all Kosovo Albanians were expelled. In Pristina Paul Watson had access to Adem Demanci (the former head of the KLA) who lived out the war peacefully in Pristina. There were an awful lot of Albanians there to great NATO troops when they eventually rolled into the city.
If you put all the truths into the grinder and study the output, my sense is that the Serb's got painted blacker than they deserved, and the KLA were no where near as white as they were painted.
There is definitely a double standard when Serbs are condemned for waging a war against terrorism within their borders, by a nation which is debating which nation to invade next (counter to all accepted rules of international law) in its own war against terrorism.
It reminds me of a long cherished dictate of my own father: Do as I say -- not as I do.
(Originally posted on Tuesday July 01, 2003 at 5:19 am)
Now reposted by:

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 5:06 pm
I thank the contributors for erudite and lengthy statements. (Some re-posted). However I am eager to know what IS happening at the trial
The New York Times editorial glorifies the plea barraging which “opened “ up the “evidence” about Srebrenica. This in the testimony of the latest witness. But we do not get any account of Milosevic cross examination.
Please, those who do and can follow the proceedings, elucidate us!

D. Jovanovic, physicist
USA
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 5:13 pm
IS SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC GETTING A FAIR TRIAL?
By Gusztav Farkas, Cluj, Romania
Definitely the trial of Milosevic is NOT fair.
(Originally posted on Monday August 04, 2003 at 5:41 am)
Now reposted by:

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 5:48 pm
This is the the modern judicial principle implanted by the sole empire : " HOC VOLO , SIC JUBEO , SIT PRO RATIONE VOLUNTAS " . I WANT , I ORDER , IT IS MY WILL THE THE REASON .

M P
Panama
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 5:54 pm
PILLARS OF JUSTICE - in private session
By Peter Taylor, Herts/UK
Maat, Themis and Justitia: These Goddesses of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome were symbols of their age representing the pillars of Justice. They have survived through several millennia to be embraced by modern civilisation. We can be sure that they embody civilisation’s abiding principles of Justice.
Maat was the Egyptian Goddess of Justice who weighed mankind’s deeds in her scales against the feather representing Truth.
Statues of Themis and Justitia usually carrying a sword and the scales of justice adorn our courts. A blindfold when worn represents the principle of Impartiality. A sword represents the inevitable fact that there can be no Justice without power to enforce the law.
With one notorious exception - the ICTY - courts in Europe and North America attempt to adhere to these principles. Judiciaries are independent of the executive branches of government. Truth is protected by the practice of punishing Perjury. Hearsay evidence is not admitted. Impartiality seeks to eliminate bias and prejudice so that all are treated equally under the law. Legal processes are transparent so that justice is seen to be done.
The ICTY is a perversion of a court of justice as demonstrated by the trial of Milosevic where it frequently ignores these principles. In abandoning truth and impartiality it carries us back thousands of years to a new dark age. Its very creation is illegal. It is an abortion of justice.
The court’s contempt for the Truth is manifest in the legion of witnesses who have perjured themselves with impunity and in those rendering hearsay evidence having had no direct contact with the events upon which they claim to have evidence. The innumerable secret sessions have not only hidden the truth but also have denied us the right to see that justice is being done.
But it is upon the principle of Impartiality that this court so obviously fails. Milosevic has been indicted for crimes in Kosovo simply because Albanians were killed and displaced - by whom it is not clear - during an Islamic terrorist incursion and Nato’s supporting aerial bombardment. There was no evidence at the time of the indictments, nor any presented since, that Milosevic issued orders to his security forces to commit crimes of war. People die in war that is why it is a crime to initiate war except in self-defence or with the specific authority of the UN Security Council.
During the past four years Carla del Ponte, the ICTY’s chief prosecutor has made promises that she would indict the KLA leaders for crimes committed under their command when she had evidence. A few days ago Hashim Thaci, a senior commander of the KLA was arrested in Hungary on an international warrant for acts of terrorism in Kosovo. It appears that through the offices of Steiner, Nato’s Viceroy in Kosovo, Nato demanded and secured his release while under threat by Thaci’s associates that Kosovo would be returned to a reign of terror if he was not released. The ICTY distanced itself from any involvement.
There is much evidence for Thaci’s acts of terror in Kosovo including his own reported admission of participating in the murder of policemen: Hence his arrest. But del Ponte has refused to indict because she claims not to have evidence. This is provably untrue.
Carla del Ponte’s own chosen witness K6 has given her the necessary evidence during the cross examination by Milosevic of the testimony presented by K6. I quote this evidence here from Page 6615 and subsequent pages of the transcripts of the Trial of Milosevic by The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia:
From Page 6615 Line 1 Q. (Milosevic) An otherwise, a successful operation, according to KLA criteria, for which money was received, was if policemen were killed. That was considered successful. Is that true?
A. (Protected witness K6) According to them, every killing of policemen was a success … Correct.
Q. Because it says here, on page 22, paragraph 3, they were given 5.000 German marks for every successful operation, and "successful" meant, i.e., where police were killed. All right. Let's move on. Operations in 1998, and especially towards the end of 1998, were organised by Hashim Thaci, Sulejman Selimi, Rexhep Selimi, Jakup Krasniqi and Sokol Bashota; is that correct?
A. The attacks were coordinated and organised every time. That is correct.
Q. Of these individuals, right, the ones that I just mentioned?
A. Only -- yes, yes.
Q. All right. Where there were no police attacks, they organised their own attacks on peaceful villages; is that correct?
The witness K6 denies his own written statement and asks to go into secret session. Thus we do not know how this discrepancy was resolved.
From Page 6618 Line 14 Q. I'm going to ask you brief questions. Give me brief yes or no answers, please, before we go into checking them, and then we'll see. They would take some men from some houses and they would beat them unconscious. Is that right? Is that what you say? Yes or no.
A. Those who were members of the service or cooperated with the police.
Q. I'm talking about the KLA.
A. Yes. They did what I said they did.
Q. They burnt houses, didn't they?
A. [In Serbian] No, they didn't.
Q. You say they didn't?
A. [In Serbian] After the war. After the war, not now.
From Page 6619 Line 1 Q. Very well. You said they didn't. They attacked the Berisha family in the village of Dobra Voda; is that correct?
A. It is for a fact, yes.
Q. The KLA shot Leke Berisha at his house, was he was a teacher; is that right? Albanian teacher.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And the same fate was one that was experienced by the Buzhalla family. Their house was completely burnt and the whole family taken out; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the KLA and Bardhec Laci, who taught gymnastics in Klina, they did the same to his house. His house was burnt down too; right?
A. Yes. Normally, yes.
Q. They wanted to kill Leke Berisha and Bardhec Laci. So that's true, is it? And since you have relativised the answer to a series of questions, my series of questions, I'm going to read just this last paragraph for us to be able to grasp the entirety. So this is all contained in one paragraph:
"Until the end of 1998, all these operations were conducted at the direction and organised by people like Jakup Krasniqi, Sulejman Selimi, Rexhep Selimi, Hashim Thaci, and Sokol Bashota. In places where there were no police attacks, they organised their own attacks on peaceful villages. They would take some men from some houses and they would beat them unconscious. Sometimes they would burn houses, particularly houses of rich people. For example, in the village of Dobra Voda where they (From Page 6620 Line 1) attacked the Berisha family, they beat them and tried to kill them in the belief that they had all their wealth from the Serbs. These members of the KLA wanted to murder Leke Berisha who was an Albanian-language teacher. They burnt his house. Other villages that suffered the same fate were Cerovik where there was the Buzhalla family. They brought out all the family and burnt their house and told them they would do the same to them as they do for the Shka, an insulting expression for Serbs. The same happened to Bardhec Laci from Dobra Voda, who was a physical education teacher in Klina. They beat him up and intended to kill him because he did not allow members of the KLA to run a battle line through his house. They burnt his house. Laci and his family were saved only because of the intervention of other villagers."
Therefore, these are all the questions that I asked and linked up, and you gave a positive response and replied in the affirmative. Now, let's move on. Luz Buzhalla, his house was also burnt; is that correct?
A. It is not correct.
Q. And is it true they not only burnt his house but that Hashim Thaci drew lines on his chest with knives? He drew different drawings on his chest, using knives. Is that true or not?
A. It is not correct.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Witness K6, why, if it's not correct, is it in your statement?
K6 asks for a private session which is refused but we don’t get an answer.
From Page 6621 Line 12 Q. "Among the other people who the KLA beat up were -- other persons beaten by the KLA include Luz Buzhalla from Cerovik who worked as a traffic policeman in Pristina. They burnt his house. They also drew lines on his chest with knives. Hashim Thaci did this. They said to him: `You used to work in the police, and that's what you did to people.'" I'm going to skip over the next portion where it says: "Fortunately from Luz [as interpreted] the journalist Pren Buzhalla from Zadar arrived and Pren was a friend of Rexhep Selimi and saved him from death." I read it in so that you don't accuse me of getting it wrong. And then you go on to say: "There were many such cases, particularly against wealthy people, involving their shops and homes. Their property was burnt and destroyed. This was done by the KLA persons I have mentioned. Sokol (From Page 6622 Line 1) Bashota is from Cerovik. The Selimi brothers have a house near the train station at Klina," and so on and so forth. That is how your statement reads. Is that correct and that there were much such cases as I quoted from your statement?
The witness requests a secret session so we don’t know the answer.
From Page 6623 Line 10 Q. Is it true that the KLA caused some incidents to provoke the police?
A. [In Serbian] Yes.
Q. And is it correct that the KLA burnt whole villages in order to conceal some of its own crimes? Yes or no.
A. No.
Q. According to your knowledge, there were many cases where the KLA killed some family members, and the families were not allowed to talk about this for fear that they would be killed. Is that correct or not?
A. It is correct.
Q. Now, as you challenged my previous question, let me just read out (From Page 6624 Line 1) the beginning of the one but last paragraph on page 24. It is one paragraph after the one that we read out a moment ago and it states the following: "The KLA would cause some of these incidents to provoke the police to attack and burn villages and thereby cover up some of their own crimes. There would be many cases where persons have had members of their family killed by the KLA, but they would not dare speak out for fear of being murdered." Mr. May, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Kwon. I am drawing your attention to this fact, to this portion which says that witnesses were not allowed to speak out because they were afraid they would be killed by the KLA, and I would suggest that in light of this fact, that you assess the value of this witness which the opposite side is bringing forth.
Q. Now, is it true that other incidents have -- which they conducted have been attributed to the police? For example, bombs in the Pristina cafe. Is that true? Is that correct?
A. It is correct.
Q. All right. Persons like Hashim Thaci did none of these things because of the interest of people, of their own people, but rather for their own personal interests or the interests of certain individuals. Is that right?
A. They operated upon their own interests and the interests of Serbia.
From Page 6625 Line 2 Q. Are you referring to Hashim Thaci? That's who I'm asking you about.
A. [In Serbian] Yes. [In Albanian] Yes.
Q. And I would like to remind you of your sentence in the middle of this paragraph. And let me read the entire sentence: "The Serbs are capable of doing anything in the interests of their own people, while Hashim Thaci does these things out of personal interest or the interests of certain individuals who he appointed to his own government without asking the people or anyone else." Is that true or not?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it true that these people from the KLA are responsible for the murder of Ahmet Krasniqi who was the Minister of Defence in Bukoshi's government in exile? Is that true or not?
A. It is correct.
Q. Is it true that Ahmet Krasniqi was killed by Milaim Zeka? Is that true?
A. That I do not know.
Q. It says in your statement: "This was done by Milaim Zeka on the instructions of Rexhep and Sulejman Selimi." So this was done pursuant to the orders of Rexhep and Sulejman Selimi, and we know who they are. So pursuant to their orders, Milaim Zeka killed Ahmet Krasniqi. This is what it says in your statement at the bottom of this paragraph. (From Page 6626 Line 3) This group also has a list of people that should be murdered. Mr. May …
Q. Incidentally, the KLA undertook actions that had nothing to do with the alleged Serb offences on Albanian villages in Kosovo. However, occasionally this was done by the KLA simultaneously. Is that true?
A. The KLA would receive attacks where they expected the police to attack them and not offensive against the people.
Q. Can you please tell me, can this pertain to what you wrote in the last paragraph on page 24? This is the following paragraph after the one that I quoted, and it says so in the first sentence: "These actions of the KLA were undertaken unrelated to the offensives of Serbian forces on the Albanian villages in Kosovo. However, this was happening during the same time." Is that true or not?
A. Yes.
From Page 6627 Line 17 Q. Brothers Kryeziu, Albanians, together with their sons, near Kijevo, were killed by Hashim Thaci, Rexhep Selimi, and Jakup Krasniqi; is that right?
A. It is true.
From Page 6628 Line 2 Q. So these brothers Kryeziu, who, as you say, were killed by the people whose names I just read out, they had a gas station and they had alot of money; is that right? Was that the main motive for their murder?
A. Correct. I don't know.
Q. And in 1997, there was an attack on a police station in Glogovac, in Podujevo, that was also organised by the KLA; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. So in that attack on Glogovac (in which policemen were murdered), in addition to Selimi brothers, Hashim Thaci participated as well; is that true?
A. Yes.
For these manifest acts of terror, revealed above in May’s court, any normal judge would have ordered Thaci’s arrest: Carla del Ponte would have issued indictments. But this is not an independent court this is Nato’s court and it obeys Nato’s commands.
Surely del Ponte believes her own prosecution witness K6 why else did she call him? Judge May and del Ponte’s denial of this evidence in their court records are acts of blatant dishonesty. Their failure to bring KLA Commander Hashim Thaci before the court to account for the crimes described above are a gross prejudice. Thus the court stands condemned for its denial of Truth and Impartiality: Pillars of Justice known even to the Ancients.
(Originally posted on Thursday July 03, 2003 at 6:45 pm)
Now reposted by:

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Saturday November 29, 2003 at 8:18 pm
What an interesting volte face or the more its changes the more it is the same . I am glad to see the family all together once more. Now, what is the meaning of this announcement by the ICTY?
4 December 2003, contempt hearing (Dusko Jovanovic) in The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, commencing at 4.30 p.m. in Courtroom III (live broadcast).

Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La
Sunday November 30, 2003 at 12:16 am
Moderator Please leave the board in this format. Its easy and simple to use it. Thanks

Vasile Ianos
NJ
Sunday November 30, 2003 at 1:24 am
Lord Robertson:
"Charges against Mladic are very serious and the international community will never relax and will never stop looking for him until he is faced with a free trial at the [tribunal]... He said that if General Mladic was a "true patriot" he would give himself up and face his accusers".
Now, is this Robertson a bigger idiot than Del Ponte or is he just pretending?
Free trial? Does that mean they're not going to charge him for the privilege of being tried by a kangaroo court? Sounds like they normally charge for the rope when they lynch someone but in Mladic's case they will make an exception.
As for being a patriot, Mladic would be more of an IDIOT if he surrendered to the Star Chamber.
Del Ponte, Robertson and Co are just unbelievable! They have no sense of the absurd at all! Or they think there are lesser idiots around than them, Mladic included. LOL

David
Oztralia
Sunday November 30, 2003 at 1:38 am
MILOSEVIC IS NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING
By Christopher Black, Toronto, Canada
The Hague Tribunal is used to justify the NATO agression against Yugoslavia, to cover up NATO crimes and to demonise the Serbs in general and socialists in particular in Serbia in order to justify the withholding of elections in Yugoslavia. It is a political show trial from start to finish.
One writer stated that Milosevic is no doubt guilty of something. Why "no doubt"? He is not guilty of anything!
In Belgrade I met with the investigative judge and the Deputy Minister of Justice when Milosevic was arrested on domestic corruption charges. They told me that there was no evidence against him at all on those charges and the real reason he was arrested was on the orders of the U.S. that he be detained so Del Ponte could get her corrupt hands on him. The Deputy Minister of Justice of the DOS regime added that "although he is not guilty of anything those of us in the DOS would like to see all the socialists and communists hanged from lampposts."
So much for democracy in Yugoslavia in the New World Order - the new world fascism. Readers must remember that the idea for the Tribunal originated with the U.S. Dept. of the Army and was always seen as another weapon of war, - a propaganda tool used to justify war.
It must also be remembered that the media coverage is also a necessary part of that propaganda. Does CNN tell their viewers that its owner, Time-Warner, gives money to the Tribunal to prosecute Milosevic? Of course not.
This Tribunal is not a step forward for international justice. It is a complete corruption of it.
Christopher Black, Barrister, Chair Legal Committee, Int'l Committe for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic, (presently at the Rwanda Tribunal, Arusha, Tanzania, - Del Ponte's other little show trial).
(Originally posted on Tuesday February 26, 2002 at 6:00 am)
Now reposted by:

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Sunday November 30, 2003 at 2:03 am
SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL
David (November 30, 2003 at 1:24 am)!
Del Ponte, Robertson and Co. are entirely justified in thinking that "there are lesser idiots around"?
Aren't they?

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Sunday November 30, 2003 at 1:59 pm
I second Vasile Ianos in his plea to the Moderator:
Please leave the board in this format, which is inviting and easy to use.
Thank you!

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
Denmark
Sunday November 30, 2003 at 3:39 pm
The new, technically improved look of this forum has trouble emerging and I second the opinion of Godfred that the old way, although imperfect and opened to disruptive posting, is less compartmentalized and sterilized and more natural and democratic. If someone feels compelled to quote Ed Vulliamy here as a reliable source to anything, this only goes to prove the sorry state of the feeble Official Truth, which needs to be defended that way, and it’s good to be able to see it. Moderator, thanks for your efforts, but the old-fashioned is sometimes better, IMO.
Speaking of which, I really miss the style and morality of that professional giant Ed Vulliamy. His writings are flamboyant, featuring pigeons and reptiles both alive and imaginative (‘It needs more tigers’, as Snoopy would put it when judging a literary work), and his unrelenting moral fervour teaches us that a journalist must take sides, and distinguish victims who are the deserving ones from those undeserving. Too bad those colourful Balkan civil wars had stopped, thereby removing the set into which he could neatly arrange his very own rich stock of sadistic imagery. Take a look at some of his classics: ‘Shame of Camp Omarska’, The Guardian, 7 Aug. 1992; ‘Middle Managers of Genocide’, The Nation, 10 June 1996; ‘Face To Face With the Victims of His Horror’, The Observer, 17 Feb. 2002; ‘An Obligation to the Truth’, The Observer, 19 May 2002. Even the cursory glance could tell you how Ed progressed in his views, originally starting with ‘Trnopolje cannot be called a “concentration camp”; it is something between a civil prison and transit camp; ‘some people have fled voluntarily to Trnopolje simply to avoid the raging battles in the villages around’, only to conveniently transform his descriptions years later, cementing his findings into facts of ‘an infamous case, that of Trnopolje concentration camp, uncovered by ITN and myself’ and concluding bravely that there was ‘a gulag of concentration camps’. Note that the development was not due to any additional investigation, but to the mere fact that Ed had testified to that effect before the ICTY in the meantime, and he had to justify it subsequently. Likewise, his explanation on how he found himself visiting these facilities in the first place had also progressed, from being invited by the Bosnian Serb authorities to stumbling upon them in his intrepid investigative journalism. Note how these authorities, in their naivety, had let the “objective” Western journalists inspect whatever they wish to see in response to the concentration camps allegations previously made by The Guardian and ITN, wanting to show them there were no concentration camps and thus providing them with a great opportunity to invent some.
I’ve checked ‘The Best of Ed Vulliamy’ in The Observer and found out that for the last 6 years he had dwelled in the US as The Observer’s correspondent, but this venue did little to satiate him. Even when commenting on America (with which, reluctantly, he has now fallen out of love since Dubya had replaced the beloved Clinton), Ed never missed to recall his past Balkan glory, explaining once how he had to leave his tequila-fuelled watching of the 2002 World Cup match of the USA vs. Mexico ‘to immediately change into a suit, board a plane to Boston and address a conference on war crimes’. The man has emerged as an undisputed authority thanks to his unbiased, expert grasp on the Balkans subject, barbed wire and all! He managed to squeeze some more limelight out of it by testifying at The Hague twice, and then wrote a poisonous piece on his pet subject years afterwards, claiming to have learned the innermost dirty secrets of some prominent Bosnian Serbs while allegedly drinking slivovitz with them, by simply putting words into their mouths, taking advantage of them being now conveniently dead.
This year, missing the war environment, he even tried his hand in Iraq, but it turned out to be very unrewarding and impersonal to describe daisy-cutters blasting Iraqi civilians who happened to be lifelong opponents of Saddam Hussein during the major combat stage, so Eddie never struck any gold this time around and his Iraq reporting was scant and bleakly scoop-less. He never even tried to venture into house demolitions Israeli-style that is being done now by the US during the insurgency stage in Iraq.
It’s such a waste of talent leaving Ed unused that I have decided to help. Knowing how he likes it up close and personal, with birds and various other objects down the throats, I think I have found a juicy tip for him: to pursue a story that had appeared few months ago about the torturing of the Iraqi POWs by the Desert Rats British soldiers in Basra. These reports almost immediately vanished from the net, leaving the public incompletely informed. If anyone could get to the bottom of that, it’s Eddie. In his relentless pursuit of the truth, he would no doubt once again ‘stumble upon’ a detention centre/transit camp/infamous concentration camps/death camps/a gulag of concentration camps. This time it would not be necessary to take a photo neither in front nor behind the barbed wire - the British soldiers apparently had already taken care of that, photographing their exploit and then taking the film to be developed back in the UK (that’s how it has been revealed). Ed would first have to interview the surviving victims, if they exist. Knowing Ed, he would surely find somebody, anybody. His penchant for ghoulish would capture the sheer horror of Iraqis bound, gagged and suspended from a forklift truck (and photographed for the delayed home pleasure of the pervert torturers). As before, he would dwell endlessly on more sordid, sexual aspects of the exercise. Then the righteous Eddie would interview the commanders of that unit, while drinking Scotch with them, to cleverly trick them into admitting how they looked the other way because they don’t give a rat’s ass for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis nor about the Geneva Conventions. It would be that much easier for Ed to get his story and understand the hidden agendas and motives, these officers being his fellow Brits, speaking the same language and sharing the same culture. Being who he is, ‘objective but not neutral’, Ed would retain his moral high ground and would denounce his compatriots, just like he did with these Balkan savages. Alas, this time he would not be able to exercise his misplaced superiority and arrogance amounting to racism against anything non-British. Once again, he would have ‘an obligation to the truth’, he would explain that ‘we must do our professional duty’, and not only that, this would be ‘our moral and legal duty’. Finally, he would draw the inevitable conclusion about the chain of command going all the way up to his reptilian Prime Minister (or rather, a chimpanzee-faced one; but, I leave the metaphor-choosing to Ed, he does it so well). I’m sure this time around he would again depict the highest official of a country as being ‘closeted away in the dark corridors of his palace’ (10 Downing Street fits the description more closely than the former Milosevic residence, which is a distinctly light-flooded, huge-windowed Bauhaus structure).
I hope this revelation of the gulag of British concentration camps will bring back our Ed The Moral to the spotlights once more. Or not?
Gogol, Dusko Jovanovic is the editor-in-chief of a Montenegrin daily DAN, who is being charged by the ICTY for revealing the name of a secret witness K-32 in his newspaper in August 2002. The thing is (like with any other “secret” witnesses) that they are not secret at all, that everybody in their small communities (and in their small countries) knows their identity even before they appear on the witness stand, and Jovanovic had merely reported that fact in his small paper. The witness in question is a local Albanian, who continued to live in Plav, not being threatened for testifying, but only ridiculed, because his testimony was largely false (the locals should know that better than anyone) and irrelevant to the case to boot. By extension, the ICTY itself was being ridiculed and that was something this pillar of legality could not afford.

Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia
Sunday November 30, 2003 at 4:45 pm
Thank you, Vera! Truly amazed with your writings I have now secretly requested an overview of the Pulitzer Prize plan of Awards, - the complete guidelines, incl. definition of categories and rules for submitting entries; but please don't know that yet, - please...
I almost dare not add to that of yours, - but anyway: Mr. Dusko Jovanovic is charged with "contempt of the Tribunal" pursuant to Rule 77 of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence. According to these rules the maximum punishment is a seven-year imprisonment or a 100,000 Euro fine, - whichever...
The Medija Centar in Belgrade has been reporting also that apart from being indicted by the ICTY for disclosing the identity of that 'protected witness' (1) mr. Jovanovic was also last year handed a one month sentence (suspended for a year) by the Basic Court in Podgorica - which appears to mean that Father Christmas may know exactly where to find him this year?
"The only kind of evidence used in the trial were assumptions and an official note made by the police...," the Medija Centar says (2), - curiously reminding me of the ICTY, mr. May and his henchmen.
Gogol as well as everybody of course do read Andy Wilcoxson on:
whttp://www.slobodan-milosevic.org.
Don't we?
(1) http://www.yumediacenter.com/english/mom/2003/4/m090403e.html
(2) http://www.yumediacenter.com/english/mom/2002/2/m120202e.html

Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K
Sunday November 30, 2003 at 8:24 pm
Compared to Guantanamo cages and conditions, Trnopolje was a walk in a park. Pity the ITN can't get a look in into Guantanamo so we can all compare. Unfortunately, it's not run by Serbs so ITN and their ilk won't be getting any invitations to inspect the barbed wire and see which side of the posts it's on.
Godfred
re: "small is beautiful"... Indeed, except the number of us "lesser idiots" is small too. But no doubt we will grow in number as the farce unfolds and the blinkers come off some day for many more of us. We live in hope.

David
Oztralia
Sunday November 30, 2003 at 9:22 pm
David Mladic is a "true patriot" and “he would give himself up and face his accusers" if the accusers were honorable persons. With Robertson, honor has nothing to do with this issue. His comments remind me of Queen Victoria giving advice to one of her daughters about sex when she told her to just lie back and think of England. That is what most whores do including Robertson and Blair.
Vera you are amazing. My computer was down Vera and I lost your e-mail! Write.

Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada