 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.
Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————
- discussion archive
- Monday November 25, 2002 at 1:15 am
Albanian organized criminals move into drug,prostitution and other criminal activities in London. ( HTTP// NEWS .INDEPENDENT.CO.UK ).What a lovely story for Mr.Blair who opened the door for the Albanians:after the bombing of YU.
Vasile Ianos
NJ - Monday November 25, 2002 at 1:22 am
I read somewhere that the original mission of Domovina was for the U.S. military to be able to guage the attitudes of the media in Bosnia-Herzegovina's entities. The U.S. military is known for its devotion to censorship and control. Their illegal actions in 1997 to remove the Republika Srpska's television and radio stations from the control of the information ministry, to pass it unconstitutionally to the control of the president, is just one example of this. During the bombing of 1999, they suppressed free expression through the media in order to promote their own propaganda. Where the U.S. commands in the Balkans, there is far less media freedom than there was in Serbia when Slobodan Milosevic was in power. The British Helsinki Human Rights Group's reports for Serbian and Montenegrin elections in 1997 provide some information about that. Djukanovic blocked re-transmission of media from Serbia!
R. B.
Canada - Monday November 25, 2002 at 5:38 am
It is interesting that the prescription of the wrong medication is admitted by some people within the tribunal itself, while a "spokesman" (Landale?) declines to comment, saying this concerns the "privacy of the defendant"! This is getting so pathetic. "Privacy of the defendant"? If you were concerned about the privacy of he defendant, you wouldn't have let the whole world know that Milosevic is undergoing psychiatric examination. And I think the defendant, whose privacy you are trying to protect, wouldn't mind the world knowing that somebody was trying to poison him! Only, any comment Milosevic is trying to relay to the media is instantly curtailed. Remember what happened to Chris Black for giving the latest news on Milosevic to the Dutch press. He was banned by the tribunal.Now that we have this information about the medication, how reliable should we estimate the psychiatric evaluation to be? The psychiatric evaluation is part of a larger scheme. Milosevic refuses to appoint a defense attorney. His health gets worse as a result of that (with a little help from the doctors). The Prosecution points out that he will die if he won't give his case to the defense attorney. Milosevic still refuses, appealing to his right to defend himself. So the Prosecution argues that actually Milosevic is in effect committing a suicide! A sane person wouldn't consider defense rights worth dying for.
So now the suicidal tendencies come under scrutiny once again. The halogen lamps are already burning in his cell, with his suicidal tendencies presented as a justification. Now we should see the suicidal tendencies in a larger context. Milosevic is suicidal, because his parents committed a suicide too. So no matter what the part of the medication, the death of Milosevic could be blamed on his suicidal tendencies.
As to the Milosevic film, this seems another attempt to justify the RTS bombing. I might add that it amounts to a gross misrepresentation of facts, which Mr T is expert at. Even Amnesty International has said that the bombing of the RTS was a war crime. Besides, war propaganda is not a crime in itself (I stand to be corrected). When the survival of a society is at peril, the basic rights, like the freedom of speech, can be curtailed, even by the European Convention on Human Rights.
And the film we are talking about seems to be another plan to shift the focus away from the immense propaganda effort by the West. In other words, it is part of the Nato propaganda and thus part of the Nato war machine, which justifies the attacks on it at this site. But of course the civilized countries don't have a propaganda machine. Then why don't the big channels broadcast the trial? Because the Western media be controlled? Oh no, quite the contrary: broadcasting the trial would constitute an outlet for the Milosevic propaganda that he is now disseminating from the dock! So obviously, another person who should see a shrink is the one who said that the US government took over CNN during the Kosovo bombing.
As to Milosevic's contribution to the break-up of the Serb territory, Milosevic was not entitled by the Constitution of Serbia to look after the interests of the Serbs outside Serbia. The Serbian Constitution doesn't even speak of the Serbs. It speaks of the citizens of the republic, which underlines the multi-ethnic character of Serbia.
And of course he played a nasty trick on Republika Srpska by imposing sanctions. But we agree that it was he who imposed the sanctions, even if he was not President of Yugoslavia, but of Serbia. This is something the prosecution neglects, even if it admits that Milosevic was actually running the whole federal republic.
But on the other hand, it is equally incontestable that this sanction policy was in line with the requests of the Security Council. In fact, it is hard to see why he is now on trial for the genocide in Bosnia after he had cut his links with Republika Srpska. Luckily this is not a "general knowledge quiz", as Judge May pointed out.
It was said that Milosevic is on trial basically for his Greater Serbia policy. Not only does this seem to contradict the facts. The prosecution has no power to prosecute anybody for any alleged Greater Serbia policy! What legal qualification would that kind of policy come under? Aggression? But "aggression" was expressly left out of the ICTY Statute, probably to give some latitude to Nato. Besides, the borders between Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia were not consolidated until the conclusion of the Dayton Agreement in 1995. Until then, it was the international community itself that was putting forward various proposals for a Greater Serbia. This includes the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, the Vance-Stoltenberger Plan and the 49%-51% Plan.
So is Milosevic now on trial for turning down these plans (or because the Bosnian Serbs turned them down), just because they were made by the "international community", or in fact, for being a Serb just like the Bosnian Serbs, who turned down the 49%-51% plan, even if he cut his relations with Republika Srspka after their refusal?
Last week we discussed the illegality of the tribunal. The ICTY was established by the Security Council pursuant to Art. 29, which says that the Security Council can establish subsidiary organs that are necessary for the performance of its functions. But if the ICTY is "necessary" for the performance of the functions of the Security Council, how can the tribunal should be independent of the Security Council, as the Secretary-General insisted in his report on 3 May 1993?
Even if the tribunal were a legal judicial organ, what would be its function? Between whom does it adjudicate? Normally, the criminal cases are called "State v. Mr X", "the Crown v. Mr X". In the European Union the closest analogy would be "the European Commission v. Mr X". This designation shows that Mr X has violated the rules of the State, the Crown, in a word, the community. The Prosecutor only represents that community as a whole.
Who has Milosevic trespassed against? Well, apparently the Prosecutor! The Milosevic case is called "Presecutor v. Milosevic". But what has he ever done against the Prosecutor (until the trial began)? The idea is of course that the Prosecutor represents some wider community, but what is this wider community? The international community? But the international community doesn't have legal personality, let alone a commonly accepted definition.
Does the Prosecution represent the victims? In fact, this is more probable. But that in itself shows that the tribunal is biased. Besides, there are other venues for initiating proceedings on behalf of the victims. It has traditionally been the task of the state to represent the interests of its citizens. And indeed, there are proceedings pending at the International Court of Justice against Yugoslavia: Genocide (Croatia v. Yugoslavia) and Genocide (Bosnia v. Yugoslavia).
So what is the added value of this tribunal? Besides, is it even an added value? The proceedings in the ICJ have hardly got off the ground, and now we have the Yugoslav Head of State in the dock for these same crimes! Is it the individual criminal responsibility that the tribunal adds? In that case, wouldn't it be advisable to wait until the ICJ hands down its decisions in the cases before it before we carry on the trials before the tribunal?
If the "victims" had the patience to wait, we would have to brace ourselves for some interesting developments. The Croatia case, for instance, is obviously a fabrication. This even seems to be admitted by the Prosecution in the case against Milosevic, because it hasn't charged Milosevic with genocide in Croatia.
So isn't there an unwelcome overlap here between the two judicial organs? For instance, the famous "joint criminal enterprise" seems to come down to crimes allegedly committed in the name of the "Greater Serbia", which sounds like a state. So this "joint criminal enterprise" should be a party in the proceedings before the ICJ, not the tribunal! But then it is argued that this "Greater Serbia" was a "failed state". However, if it was, how can Yugoslavia now be accused of genocide allegedly committed by that "Greater Serbia"? The litigation before the ICJ is only open to states, according to the ICJ Statute, so obviously it doesn't matter if the state is "failed" or not!
The Genocide case Croatia v. Yugoslavia is interesting in another respect as well. It sheds light on the state succession of former Yugoslavia. Serbia and Yugoslavia now seem to be accountable for the genocide that Yugoslavia allegedly committed against Croats. It seems that this genocide case pending before the ICJ reaches back to 1991 and 1992, when Yugoslavia hadn't collapsed yet. This suggests that Serbia and Montenegro, which is now the defendant in the Genocide case Croatia v. Yugoslavia, is a (or actually "the") successor state of the former Yugoslavia.
On the other hand, we know that Yugoslavian activities in the General Assembly were suspended, because Yugoslavia was not a (or "the") successor state of Yugoslavia. From this, it seemed to follow that Yugoslavia had lost its UN membership altogether, which was the ultimate reason for ICJ's conclusion that Yugoslavia's request for provisional measures to get the Kosovo bombing stopped had to be refused. And this is indeed the reasoning that now seems to have become prevalent: Yugoslavia was not a UN member state. Consequently, Yugoslavia had to be accepted as a new member to the UN under Kostunica.
So the same court, the ICJ, seems to accept Serbia and Montenegro as the only successor state of the former Yugoslavia in the Genocide in Croatia case, but declines the same status in Legality of Use of Force, which concerns the Nato bombing. Whatever the question, Yugoslavia always seems to be the loser.
So now we have the combined problem of who the Prosecution is representing in the tribunal and who should the current government of Yugoslavia be representing in the ICJ. These two questions are separate from each other in the sense that the former is relevant in the tribunal and the latter in the ICJ.
But as long as the entity that the Prosecution is representing is not clear, there seems to be no dispute in the so-called case "Prosecutor v. Milosevic".
On the other hand, the only factor that seems to hold the concept of "Yugoslavia" together in the ICJ is the personality of Milosevic! And the culpability of Milosevic, in turn, depends on the uninterrupted state succession of Yugoslavia in the form of Serbia and Montenegro. That would be a circular reasoning, if the cases hadn't been divided between two different judicial organs.
It is also possible that the "joint criminal enterprise" could mean a sanction-busting ring. If so, a funny thing happens. If Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN, the Security Council resolutions didn't bind it. That includes the resolutions imposing arms embargoes. This is essentially the same problem that pertains to Switzerland. We know that a large part of the sanction-busting, on all sides, was financed through Swiss bank accounts. Switzerland also harboured KLA terrorists - allegedly. The problem is that Switzerland was not a UN member, so the UN sanctions didn't bind it. That means that the federal prosecutor Del Ponte also didn't have to close the bank accounts that were connected to terrorist organizations.
Now that we learn that Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the UN either, things get a bit more complicated. Why should the neglect to stop sanction-busting be condoned in Del Ponte's case, at the time she was the Swiss federal prosecutor, and that very same person should be allowed to prosecute Milosevic, who can evoke the same exemption as she can? Indeed, it seems that the powers that be know that people don't swallow small lies, only big ones.
Maybe the difference is that Switzerland is a member state of the ICTY, even if it isn't (wasn't) a member state of the UN. But what exactly does the "member state of the ICTY" mean? Was the ICTY established by a multilateral treaty after all? We have been told "no"! It seems that the advantage of being a member state of the ICTY is that your citizens won't be taken to the ICTY, even if in the so-called member state agreements you have expressly stated the contrary. So the uniqueness of the ICTY seems to be that the legal effects of whatever agreement are confined to third parties, the former Yugoslav repuclics. This is indeed a revolutionary concept. Normally, it has been conceded that agreements between two or more parties can have no legal effects on third parties.
Now that the US had stated in the member state agreement that the US citizens could be prosecuted by the ICTY, the US, and Nato, could feel pretty safe. The relevant point is that the US was a member state of the ICTY and Yugoslavia was not, no matter what the agreeement actually said.
It seems plausible that Nato staged the "genocide" in Zvornik. Now that one has thought about the matter a bit more deeply, one doesn't think it would have been necessary for Nato to lead Mladic into a trap - because of the dual-key system. On the other hand, Nato was mobilized on behalf of the Muslims, that goes without saying. It is probable that Nato knew the breadline massacre and Markale marketplace were staged by Muslims themselves. At least the Republican Party Congress knew. If Nato was aware of these self-inflicted injuries, a few thousand Muslims launching attacks on the Serbs from Srebrenica wouldn't bother them either. But if Nato accepted the possibility that Muslims could slaughter other Muslims as a publicity stunt, Nato could also conclude that it might be necessary for Nato to slaughter Muslims too.
And that was indeed necessary now that Mladic outwitted Nato in Srebrenica! Nato wasn't there to lose! Making Nato appear as a sucker would have harmed the US "credibility", so any means would have seemed proportionate to repair the PR damage incurred by Nato.
In fact, it was US "credibility" that was at stake, not so much the credibility of Nato. Why else would Madelaine Albright make statements denying any prospect of dual-key arrangements in the future? The US was really pissed off and decided to play a second half in Kosovo.
But of course, this is totally "irrelevant" in the Milosevic trail. In fact, everything that doesn't fit the script is irrelelvant. Take the admissibility of evidence, the tapes in particulary. The tapes that were ruled inadmissible in the Krstic trial will no doubt be admissible (by default) in the Milosevic trial when we get to the Bosnia phase.
The prosecution "strategy" in the Bosnia part of the trial will be the same as now. The court room could just as well be playing canasta during the sessions (at least the closed sessions), because the media will publish only such reports that could have been written by the prosecution when it compiled the witness list. In fact, such reports now seem to be the best way to make sense of the prosecution strategy.
Obviously, the prosecution can count on the presiding judge. The "reasoning" seems to be that these tapes could be authentic, so they can be used as evidence. But there is some inconsistency even here. It derives from May's and Nice's home country. The prosecution's reasoning seems to be contrary to the one that the English jury applied to the "picture that fooled the world". The English jury concluded that even if the picture might have been a fake, the reason for exposing the fake was to harm the reputation of those who produced it. So it was "irrelevant" if the picture really was a fake or not. What was relevant was the intent to damage somebody else's reputation. Of course, the jury didn't take into account that the fake was intended to damage somebody's reputation! However, if this reasoning were followed in the Milosevic trial, it would be impossible for the prosecution to produce tapes that could be fakes. The only relevant thing is that they are intended to harm the defendant!
Maybe the prosecution would even be in contempt of court, if that were possible.
By the way, it may not be a good thing to start guessing the identity of the protected witnesses. That would be too easy an excuse for the "eyes" to close down this discussion. Remember that Mr T was kind of enough to relay to us Judge May's warning that the press shouldn't start guessing the identity of the protected witnesses, otherwise it would be charged with contempt of court. Luckily, Judge May hasn't issued a similar warning about criticizing the medical care, which Mr T assured was up to the best Dutch standards. So maybe we are still free to speculate that the witnesses, protected or not, have been induced to give certain kind of evidence, with the help of the "doctors" or not.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday November 25, 2002 at 5:45 am
As to the legal effects of the agreements between the ICTY and the "Member States" on the third parties, let us remember that Art. 35 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says: "An obligation arises for a third State from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend the provision to be the means of establishing the obligation and the third State expressly accepts that obligation in writing."But of course, Milosevic accepted the legal effects of ICTY by signing the Dayton Accord. The question is: Could his signature bind a third state, Republika Srspka within Bosnia and Herzegovina, and thus constitute a breach of the Vienna Convention?
J N
Finland - Monday November 25, 2002 at 7:55 am
Info re Tim McCormack can be found on http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/db/profile/academic.cfm?username=Tim%20McCormack
Michael Thomas
London
UK - Monday November 25, 2002 at 10:33 am
Stefanovic "I did not want to fight outside Serbia"What is outside Serbia?We here are talking about selfdetermination rights that Serbs have before joining and during all shapes of Yugoslavia.It is like having any property - a house in 1914, 1918, 1945, 1991 or 2002. Which your did you decided I had a house long enough?
If you want to point with facts that we did not have these rightsthat would be welcome.
1. Hercegovina was once a serbian land with Serbs as majority.
2. "Nemanjina Serbia" on Kosovo was the central part of Serbian people and culture.
3. Krajina as Serbian land and as part of The State of Slovenians Croats and Serbs, had 1918 right of selfdetermination - just as Serbia did at the same time.
4. Njegos never thought that he was not a Serbian.
5. King Nikola gave up his kingdom in favor of Karadjordjevic just to confirm and strenghten a serbian interests.
Now: Serbs lost its majority where they once have been the strongest:
Kosovo
Makedonija
Hercegovina
Bosnia
Krajina.
And West is using Montenegro as it needs.Question: What it makes you think that Sumadija and Belgrade would stay as Serbian land?
Pero Peric
Canada - Monday November 25, 2002 at 12:35 pm
This is the first time I really take a look at the libel suit ITN v. LM in the High Court in London in 2000. I am reliant on the TENC article that can be viewed at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/missing.htm . This is pretty heavy stuff, but I will have a go at it.The gist of it was that LM questioned the veracity of the "picture that fooled the world", the photo of a prison camp in Trnopolje, which had originally been released by ITN. Jared Israel argues that everybody knew the photo to be a fake, but unless somebody could prove that ITN had intended to lie, nobody could question the veracity of the photo. That seems strange enough. But it goes further: anyone who questioned the veracity of the photo could be found guilty of libel - which is what happened in this case.
We know that May and Nice come from England (or from somewhere in Britain). If we apply the lessons of the ITN v. LM to the Milosevic trial, the conclusion would be that the prosecution can play fake tapes. If a person more sympathetic to the defendant questions their authenticity, that person has to prove that the prosecution knew the tapes were fake. Unless that person can prove it, he can be found guilty of libel later.
That might happen if we were in England. Which we pretty much are, with Nice as the prosecutor and May as the presiding judge. But hallo, wake up! Let us retrace our steps. Such a libel suit would be a trial within a trial. The trial that is now going on in The Hague is called Prosecutor v. Milosevic. That means that the Prosecutor has to prove everything it claims. That means that any evidence uit presents cannot and should not be accepted at face value. In other words, the prosecution has to prove that it is not lying. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Which means that Milosevic can question the evidence all he likes, and unless the prosecution fails to prove its point, the evidence it produces is worthless.
If the case were called Milosevic v. Prosecutor, then then and only then would the burden of proof be on Milosevic. And only then could we be in a situation that we are having now in the Milosevic trial.
And in fact, as long as the libel suit in the High Court in London was called ITN v. LM, the burden of proof should have been on ITN, even if LM had originally questioned the veracity of the ITN photo. That means that it was not LM that should have proved ITN's intent to lie (when it said the photo was true), but it was ITN that should have proved LM's intent to lie (when it said the photo was a fake)!
Of course, I am no expert in English law, so let's say that I stand to be corrected.
By the way, the mystery behind the hypothetical community that the Prosecutor represents in ICTY should be seen in its proper context. Isn't that community the same phantom community that Ashdown is currently the "High Representative" of in Bosnia? I guess that is not a proper answer, but even a tautology can be better than nothing. And the community that Ashdown is representing in Bosnia is called "international community", which in this case means ...(yes, what does it mean actually?). If it means the "West", which is a pretty vague concept in itself, it is plausible that the "West" is also the community whose interests the Prosecution is now advocating in the ICTY. And that is something everyone knew anyway.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday November 25, 2002 at 12:52 pm
I hope nobody suffered the ordeal of watching The Making of a Dictator, as it happens it was shown few weeks ago in this part of the USA in one so called "public" channel, as public as anything can be in the USA well financed by the largets gansters, I mean corporations of the world.
The Making of a Dictator is one the dumbest film I have seen and it has nothing to do with reality, in fact Disneyland advertisements are more realistic, in a sugary way, a poliester way but this The Making of a Dictator has just boring stuff with its repetious fearfull background music and dark footage of Mr. Milosevic walking holding hands with his wife, all shot in slow motion. Or wearing his dark raincoat reviewing some military guard at some unspecified occasion, all this keeps you wondering were is the dictator? Is it Charles Chaplin or general Patton?
The trial:
Most of it went on "private session" to protect this turncoat everybody knows (he has to be) who he is. Finally Mr Milosevice's turn arrived 6 days after it all started, to cross examine this vulture. Now, Mr Milosevic told the court he wanted to show one of the tapes, and there are many it seems of the "interviews" given by C 31 to the prosecutors and you could guess easely why. Obviously judge May (NATO) was told it had to be done in "private" session since the facial distortion was not applied to the tapes. So, for over an hour the screen went blank and silent.
Now, Mr. Milosevic wanted to show how the prosecutor and C 31 had "worked" out the interview and the testimony and judge May (NATO) after announcing Mr. Milosevic will have 20 hours to cross examine the witness, went again close session.
I went out for coffee.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Monday November 25, 2002 at 1:15 pm
Well the clearest indication that the -How to be a dictator- documentary is pure propaganda is that uses his 1989 visit to Kosovo as an indication of his monstrous nationalism. (The 2Vandaag narator has it wrong: he says 24 march 1987. See they can't even get the basic facts right.) Read how this speech was misused in Western propagnada in the interesting study of professor F. Gil White athttp://emperors-clothes.com/milo/gw.htm
Just for old times sake here is a beauty propaganda piece by C Amanpour Rubin (she also cant get the basic facts right: Milosevic president of Yugoslavia in the beginning of the 90tees??):
I wonder who will be the first documentary maker which exposes all the filth, selective halftruths and lies we were submerged in in the nineties??Certainly not those BBC guys wo were and are pretty good at it!
Peter Varavejke
Belgium - Monday November 25, 2002 at 1:34 pm
Too bad Leslie Woodhead is asking the right questions and making good observations but fails to translate it into genuine journalism. I quote"What lessons can we learn from this extraordinary episode where television does seem to have played, and control of media seems to have played such a powerful part in these ghastly events?"
"And I sometimes fear that we shall all lose our democracy while we are watching stupid game shows and reality documentaries and all of those bread-and-circuses things which increasingly fill the television screens of the allegedly free world."
Peter Varavejke
Belgium - Monday November 25, 2002 at 1:46 pm
LATEST:
Australian lawyer appointed 'friend of the court' to Milosevic
Mr McCormack's appointment came as something of a surprise, since court officials had indicated after Mr Wladimiroff's dismissal that he would not be replaced.
What is it about saxons ?
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Monday November 25, 2002 at 4:25 pm
The US and its ITCY creature do not believe that the borders of the Balkan states were decided in 1995. They maintain that these were decided in April 1992 when the separatist states were recognised. As Bush the Elder put it, "What we say goes...in this New World Order we're trying to create. And we mean it!"The Greater Serbia vision is considered to be evil because it goes against Bush's declaration that "what we say goes". The US declared that the borders would be as so, and so that's how they must be. Greater Serbia does not correspond to the US declaration of what is so.
My opinion is that there was a Greater Serbia plan as a contingency. That is to say, that when the separatists and Western powers decided to destroy Yugoslavia, there was a decision, mainly by Serbs west of the Drina, with support of Seselj and some support from Milosevic, to enforce an interpretation of the old Yugoslav constitution that corresponds to Greater Serbia. After the recognitions took place, Milosevic changed his policy to be to support separate Serb republics west of the Drina that in future could join Serbia and create Greater Serbia, or, become autonomous areas of the new republics. Greater Serbia was not sought out by Milosevic. It was just a contingency, one that was perfectly legal according to an interpretation of the 1974 SFRY cosntitution.
R. B.
Canada - Monday November 25, 2002 at 4:35 pm
Milosevic visited Kosovo Polje on April 25 1987 (it may have been April 24) and things like "Our goal is to overcome hatred, intolerance and distrust. We want all people in Kosovo to live together."
R. B.
Canada - Monday November 25, 2002 at 4:36 pm
Milosevic visited Kosovo Polje on April 25 1987 (it may have been April 24) and said things like "Our goal is to overcome hatred, intolerance and distrust. We want all people in Kosovo to live together."
R. B.
Canada - Monday November 25, 2002 at 5:24 pm
vera martinovic - it's nice to read what you wrote - nothing feels better than the truth... in the times when these endless esseys of lies about our country,people and president tend to tear tear our nerves into a broken string ... one word of truth shines like a golden diamond....
milan c.
netherlands - Monday November 25, 2002 at 5:37 pm
It seems i was mistaken, there were two Milosevics visits to Kosovo, one in 1987 and one in 1989. And both occasions were misreported and used to demonize Milosevic.
Peter Varavejke
Belgium - Monday November 25, 2002 at 5:53 pm
So, although Mr. Milosevic named according to some reports the name of C 61 judge May warned the "public" (the media) C 61 is a protected witness and his identity can't be reported.
I wonder how many gentlemen and ladies of that elevated proffession, journalism, are sleeping tonight with a person's name in their mind they can't report or even talk about. A person whom back in 1990-91 and later was giving press conferences, was the subject of POLITIKA editorials and was involved in shaping the future of the Serbs in Croatia . . .
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Monday November 25, 2002 at 6:31 pm
The first visit of 1987 is seen as the time when Milosevic stabbed Stambolic in the back because he said that Serbs should stay there and that the police should't beat them. The second visit in 1989 was the celebration of the 600th anniversary of the battle of Vidovdan. 1 million people showed up but that Zimmerman organised a diplomatic boycott of the speech. That American ambassador relentlessly supported separatism in Kosovo from the moment he assumed his post. US support for Kosovo separatism predates Milosevic's assuming power in the Republic of Serbia.
R. B.
Canada - Monday November 25, 2002 at 8:17 pm
I followed today's session, and the last hour and a half of the examination-in-chief of C-061 was really hillarious. There were 8 breaks for closed/private sessions, lasting between two and thirty minutes each (still not the record of the day, which was 13 two days ago). There was the abundant use of the words "I don't know", both from the witness and from the Prosecution, too. Here are some examples. Uertz-Retzlaff: "Were any paramilitary, volunteer units present there, too? C-061: "I do not know…" Uertz-Retzlaff: "I ask to go to the private session." And more. Uertz-Retzlaff: "Do you know whether these 2 villages were attacked in November 1991?" C-061: "I know there were some fights somewhere, but I don't know the exact location."After a few of such exchanges, it struck me that Uertz-Retzlaff begins almost each of her questions with "Were you informed of…?" and the versions of the answers by C-061 were: "I know there was some talk about that…", "I have been told…", "I do not know precisely, but I've heard…", "I cannot remember…", "I don't remember…", "I don't know exactly…".
One of the most exploited patterns of C-061, when asked about the events from 1991, was to answer by saying he heard about these events later, in 1995! Some witness. Indeed, anybody could replace him at the stand and "testify" like that. Or maybe his lawyer advised him to repeat this "I heard about that later", so as not to incriminate himself.
The problem is, the witness doesn't even know what "that" was. Observe. Uertz-Retzlaff: "In which period of time was this detention facility in Knin functioning?" C-061: "I don't know exactly, in 1991." Uertz-Retzlaff: "What was its capacity?" C-061: "I don't know exactly." Uertz-Retzlaff: "How long the POWs were kept there on the average?" C-061: "I don't know exactly."
What C-061 actually claimed was that Krajina Army officers were all officers of the old YU Army, JNA. (Truly a revelation. They should have appointed waiters instead? Were the officers of 3 other parties - Slovenes, Croats, Muslims - who fought the Serbs anything else than JNA officers?) C-061 claimed the Krajina Serbs expelled/looted/killed their Croat neighbours, but he himself "doesn't know exactly" where, when, who, how… Or maybe "there was some talk about that".
But, Uertz-Retzlaff contributed herself to the widespread ignorance in the courtroom today. Almost at the very end of her show, she produced few papers stapled together, pompously given a Prosecution exhibit number/tab. From it she read only one sentence, stating that the situation in Krajina at that point was relatively stable/unstable, or some such construction, and she quickly moved to another issue. But, judge Kwon intervened (poor, tormented soul, embarassed by the superficiality): he wanted to know what on Earth this document represented, who translated it and what were those numerous papers attached to it. Uertz-Retzlaff blundering explanation was that this should be a document from UNPROFOR regarding the situation at that time, "I guess they must have translated it. And these papers together with it, this has to be some kind of a letter… I really do not know…" (?!) And the document has been already tendered as a Prosecution exhibit, with the proper number and all. So much about the seriousness of the process. How many of the latest batch of 100,000 pages would stand such a simple test of Q&A?
Then, it was Milosevic's turn, but it was as Gogol already described: one short closed session, back to the public for a few minutes and then a long closed session almost to the end of the day. Those scarce public moments revealed the enormous conceit of C-061, who just couldn't resist the opportunity to discuss politics with his old adversary. And he got carried away, of course, admitting he took great pleasure acting in politics, representing attitudes and ideas that he personally didn't believe in, but nevertheless used them knowing this would allow him to stay in power. No wonder his defence lawyer, Mr Miller I believe is the name, jumped up and asked for a recess to confer with his client. May delivered them both by saying the session would adjourn anyway in a moment.
milan c., thanks for the praise; I got few lumps in my throat as well while reading your emotional post about our country, right before Frankenstein poured his propaganda. I guess my reaction to him was even stronger because of that.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia - Monday November 25, 2002 at 9:38 pm
Oh my......there seems to be a lot of patriotism floating about. talk of rights to self-determination, criticism from unknowledgeable outsiders, pride in history, pride in the suffering of ancestors......however unfortunately it was this pride which is what so unsettled the world powers into acting against Serbian pride. whereas the croats (unsure of their own identity and not so filled with pride) once again sold themselves out for the misleading lure of western independence.
ivan kokotovic
sydney
australia - Monday November 25, 2002 at 10:32 pm
Vera, Please don't waste your time with Humanitarian Warriors such as Frank. They are merely paid henchmen. It is better to ignore them and spend your time on constructive efforts such as your reports on the Tribunal proceedings. Please continue making your illuminating reports on the Tribunal, you have no idea how many copies of your reports get sent around the internet. They are priceless.
A.P. Vucelic
New York
New York - Monday November 25, 2002 at 10:46 pm
The New World Order Justice at its best:
Berlin (Beta agency 25 November 2002) - German International Law expert and recently nominated judge of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Bruno Zima (Serbian spelling) has assessed that the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was against the law, but excusable from the political and moral point of view. In his interview given to the Spiegl, Zima who took his position as the ICC judge in February, said: "I am suspicious when some states, like the USA, in the role of the White Knights are using swords and fire to enforce justice in other countries". Zima called the unlawful NATO intervention an "excusable sin". He assesses that today it will be difficult for the International Community to reach a common position on the validity of the intervention. " It was necessary to drop the bombs since the bombing was politically and morally excusable", said Zima. Question: "Do the justice has to step aside when it faces politically justifiable action"? He replied: "It is necessary to assess what serves the justice better and in this sense the political solutions are often better then jurisdictional".
Pera Bora
Canada - Monday November 25, 2002 at 11:45 pm
Well, normally if something is against the law, one would assume that a hearing is held and on the facts it is determined whether there is a justifiable defence for whatever unlawful action is committed.Bruno Zimmer,ICC, if correctly reported has already established the facts without a hearing. Presumably he has the word of the NATO politicians and the compliant media as he says "that the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was against the law, but excusable from the political and moral point of view".
Is Bruno a candidate for the Papacy or what? The arrogance is simply astounding! Talk about the Ubermensch mentality!
But then again, nowadays it seems that politics is synonymous with justice and justice is synonymous with politics. Thank you for clearing that one up for us Herr Bruno! I'm sure you will be a most faithful servant of the New New World Order. Adolf, the original proponent of the New World Order concept, would be proud of you. Some things never change. Sheeeesh!
David
Australia - Monday November 25, 2002 at 11:59 pm
I say Frank Triggelaar, Can you also tell us where the documentary film Milosevic showed in the ICTY is being screened? I wouldn't mind catching that one too. I like to balance my viewing of science-fiction with some non fiction.P.S. I'm okay for the comedy stuff, I watch the ICTY show regularly.
David
Australia - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 1:40 am
I also want to express my thanks to Vera for her intelligent and to-the point messages. She is simply the best on this discussion group. I just hope that time demand does not become too much of a burden. Keep up the good work! Ziveli!
vesa v.
france - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 4:14 am
OK, so we got examination-in-chief in public (unless the witness can't give the right answers) and the cross-examination in closed session. How can the judges make that kind of ruling before they even know what Milosevic is going to ask? Could the reason be that the judges are just as well aware as everybody else that the witness is crap? If so, the proper procedure wouldn't be holding the cross-examination in secret but to stop the examination-in-chief right there.I think the judges tried that in a roundabout way, when they suggested that the number of witnesses should be reduced, and Nice said that it cannot. If the cross-examination is held in closed session, what is the point? The judges have ruled the closed session to be held, because they know the witness is talking crap, so would the cross-examination in the closed session somehow reinforce their conviction - or possibly turn their heads? If so, why is the cross-examination held in secret?
The hanky-panky is going on at all levels. So we hear from Mr Chartier that the medication Milosevic got was the best Milosevic could have. Apparently Mr Chartier thinks that medicine works at its best when it worsens the condition of the patient: for instance, if the medicine is prescribed to treat hypertension, then it is good that the blood pressure goes up. Well, that may be good only from one point of view: if you want to harm the patient. But apparently some people within the tribunal are getting fed up with the bullshit too, which is why some of them divulged this story to the news agencies.
But actually the question should be whether a doctor can treat hypertension which makes the patient's condition only worse. That can happen even in the best of circumstances. Doctors are human too. But if so, why does Mr Chartier give us this bullshit about the best medication? The impression one gets is that the doctor treated Milosevic with these pills quite conscious of their "side-effects". And that is something a doctor would not do without direct orders from above. Where could these orders come from? Del Ponte of course. She must know everything that happens in that nuthouse of hers. So let us apply some of that good old "command responsibility" to her for a change.
I will be very disappointed if the matter rests here. Of course there is a conspiracy to kill Milosevic! Can the prosecutor do that with impunity? I don't think so. But does Kofi Annan have the guts to revoke Del Ponte's immunity. I don't think so. His wife is Swedish.
If that is the kind of treatment they give to Milosevic, what do you think the witnesses are going through? Rade Markovic is a classic. Actually we should see the "protected witness" bullshit from the perspective of the terror monopoly of the prosecution. One reason the Trial Chamber has these "protected witnesses" is just what it says: to protect the persons from reprisals. But does the possibility of reprisals alone indicate that the witness is telling the truth? You know, people can get incensed even when somebody is lying. And why would they be lying (unless they are already hostile witnesses, in which case they shouldn't be testifying at all)? It seems the prosecution can do the darnedest things to make the witnesses tell them what it wants to hear. But in order for these tricks to work, there is a condition: that the witness doesn't have to do any balancing between the threats from the prosecution and the threats from the rank and file back home. Which means that the prosecution has to monopolize the scare game.
And then the whole case is monopolized by the ICTY. That means that Milosevic can't run for help to any other court, either the Dutch courts or the European Court of Human Rights. This results in pretty innovative decisions. The Dutch court in The Hague ruled Milosevic's plea for immediate release inadmissible (as I have kept repeating). So his lawyers believe that the local remedies were exhausted, as they indeed were. And that is the criterion for going to the ECHR. However, the ECHR argued that the local remedies had not been exhausted: Milosevic should have appealed the decision made by the court in The Hague. But how can this be done? The decision was that the case was inadmissible. If the case is inadmissible, doesn't that mean that there is no case? If there is no case, what remains there to be appealed? The inadmissibility decision, where the court said it had no jurisdiction? But if that decision is appealed, should another court then decide whether the first court had jurisdiction to begin with? It makes no sense. As we have already learned (from the ICTY Appeals Chamber, of all places), every court decides for itself whether it has jurisdiction or not.
So what is happening here is a denial of justice. The European Court of Human Rights applies and interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court is now interested in the fairness of a trial and not in getting a trial. But what is the point in a fair trial, if one cannot get a trial at all? Art. 6 of the Convention says that everyone is entitled to a ... hearing (which has to be fair and public).
And what should the hearing in Milosevic's case be about? I think Art. 5(4) gives the answer: "Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court..."
Yes, ICTY made something on those lines, but how could it decide on the lawfulness of the detention, when the defendant contests the legality of the court! And as we have seen, he has every right to question the legality of the tribunal, because it was not "established by law" in the sense of Art. 6(1), whatever the Appeals Chamber says!
By the way, the Bruno Zima/Zimmer must be Bruno Simma from the University of Munich. He is the editor of the colossal work "The Charter of the United Nations - A Commentary", which was referred to last week. The work is good. It says that Art. 41 of the UN Charter doesn't apply to non-member states of the UN. That means that the ICTY, which has now supposedly been established on the basis of this article, had no jurisdiction over Yugoslavia at the time it was not a UN member state.
Bruno Simma makes the classical argument about the "excusable sin" committed by Nato. However, the reasoning seems to be that now that such an authority as Simma has said the bombing was illegal but excusable, then there must have been something to excuse it. That means that the claims Nato made to justify the bombing must be true. Period. This is again building the house from the roof down. If I hadn't used the term "circular reasoning" so often, I guess this would be one more occasion to use it.
But this is not the first time Nato makes the legal arguments suit its purposes. I borrow the following example from RB. For instance, the break-away republics of Yugoslavia were recognized in 1991/1992. Does that mean that their borders were consolidated at that time? Come on! Israel has been recognized by most states, which doesn't mean that anybody knows what its borders are.
Not only do the legal arguments get muddled. The Nato policy doesn't necessarily make sense. For the failure of the dual-key strategy, Nato has only itself to blame. Why did it act on request from the Muslims, while it knew that the UN was in Croatia to protect the Serbs? Was the idea that Nato should protect the Muslims from the Croats? Hardly. The whole idea of the massacres at Markale etc. was to stage the Serbs as the villains.
After the Srebrenica blunder Nato had every excuse it needed to take its revenge on the Serbs, though. This started in Croatia a month later. However, in order not to appear too anti-UN, the US also joined the UN troops in Macedonia. It forgot that it had Macedonia was actually not recognized, so strictly speaking it had no business there. But it seems that the ulterior motive was to do use Macedonia as a base to do some dirty in work in Kosovo to start a bigger show there a few years later. And as a bonus, the situation in Macedonia could be destablized as well by the UNPREDEP's promotion of "dialogue" in Macedonia when it stayed there after 1995.
And one of the excuses to get a foothold in Kosovo, in turn, was to malign the Serbian Constitution. It was argued that the Serbian Constitution of 1990 abolished the Kosovo autonomy. I have read that constitution a number of times, and I still don't know how it supposedly did it, because the provision on autonomy is kept intact. But little does it seem to matter to people who don't even know where Kosovo is. In his book "Kosovo - A Short History", Noel Malcolm seems to argue that since the Serb forces were in Kosovo when the new constitution was adopted by the Kosovo parliament, the Kosovars were intimidated into accepting it. And why would they be intimidated, if the intention was not to abolish Kosovo autonomy?
But the provision on autonomy is in the Serbian Constitution all right. Just read it. The possible shortcomings must have occurred in its implementation. But just in line with the misrepresentation of Slobo's 1989 Kosovo Polje speech, the 1990 Serbian Constitution had its share of misrepresentation too. In fact, this constitution doesn't even mention the word "Serbs" but treats all nationalities in Serbia as equals. And that is the reason Milosevic had no legal basis to intervene on behalf of the Serbs outside his republic!
But how did Slobo become such a villain? I think a lot can be attributed to his signature of the Dayton Agreement. His signature was needed. The ICTY had demolished the Bosnian Serb leadership with its indictments, so a figure was needed from outside. It was the international community that needed Milosevic, which was why the rules were bent. That was also why he - as President of Serbia - could bind the Bosnian Serbs. Since a person of Milosevic's stature was needed, he could also give his signature on behalf of the FRY as well.
However, this was the trap! Both of these constructs were against the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. However, instead of concluding that the Agreement is invalid (as it is), the Western powers argue that Milosevic was deliberately acting in the name of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as well as the Bosnian Serbs, because he was a megalomaniac and a Serb nationalist! Which meant first that he was the father of the Greater Serbia policy and, as he was President of the more significant constituent republic, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which he wrongfully represented, allegedly became to be regarded as a Serbian homeland. This must have given rise to the legends about ethnic cleansing promoted by Milosevic!
And this is then the proper perspective to interpret the Vienna Conventions. Since a signatory can only bind the entity that he has the right to represent, Milosevic actually bound his entity, the Republic of Serbia, and ultimately himself before the ICTY.
This is the "trap" that we have been lectured on by John Shattuck. Is it a coincidence that "trap" rhymes with "crap"?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 7:21 am
“Albanians are emerging as the would-be superstars of crime”Abduction, torture, murder
Extortion, gun-running, organised theft
Kidnap, sex slavery, rape
Prostitution, mutilation, organised crime
Heroin smuggling, gun running, people trafficking …“… links to the Kosovo Liberation Army provide a supply of weapons and they are prepared to use extreme violence.”
The Times and other UK newspapers begin to spill the beans while the BBC’s well rewarded glamour queens continue to mouth the “Balkans” myths prepared for them and displayed on their ‘idiot boards’ by the New Labour spin machine.
It has been claimed on these pages that Blair’s criminal folly in Kosovo was the result of naivety. The only naivety is his belief that spin and the ICTY will forever mask his crimes.
The KLA: These are the people that Blair cluster bombed Serb women and children for. The abduction, torture and murder they now practice in the UK and throughout the world – including Kosovo – was the very evil Blair supported with his cowardly and illegal bombs.
As the British press begins to recover some of its integrity by reporting the truth at last about the Kosovo terror gangs – now that Britain itself is under attack - :
Read here The Times UK
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 7:26 am
Good morning, dobro jutro to all,
It is hard to keep awake while now under the direction of judge May (NATO) the whole chamber goes into a full allegro of close and open sessions.
The interesting thing is that it is so blantly obvious the devise is used to not so much to protect the toad of the witness but to protect the falling case of the prosecutor. Mr. Milosevic can't score no more, because the high priest of legal order has all the strings of this puppet show tied, a little tangled but freely tied to his fingers no for long before it tangles up it all, I can forcast since Mr. Milosevic wants his twenty hours and you know how is byzantine mind works . . .
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 7:50 am
I have to say globalisation and new world order goes hand in hand with crime (but not punishement), in fact for some of us whom have being around now for some time I would say it is indeed nothing much of a new thing. After the war, sorry to bring that up WW 2, Italian elections were rigged with the open participation with US finances of the Italian maffia , the French had to deal with the same mixture of elections, politics and a generous dose of US money financing crime to stop certain parties, popular parties gaining their political representation. In Germany from the out set of post war restoration of "democracy", the many political figures, labor union leaders etc., Hitler had put in camps, political camps were not enthusiastically liberated by the Britts or Yanks, in fact they were kept in the camps until the political structures suitable to the Western allies were put in place in "liberated" Germany. Many in fact ended up later in East Germany not so mush liberated but described as free.
So, it is not surprising given the circumstances in Kosmet, BiH and mighty Albania the Western lords have granted full concessions to the now well known and established businesses (is business) of crime international Inc. . The windfall for local and other banks in terms of money laundering is nothing thefree market economies in the region at the moment can dream of generate.
That London honours itself with such a conference seems to me perfectly normal, since what other connections besides having created the modern state of Albania in 1910-11 do the British Isles have with the Albanians?
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 7:55 am
Highlighting the rise of gangs from the south east of Europe, Mr Blunkett said: “Organised criminals are more organised than we are.”
Well, sweetheart don't you believe in Darwin or is it all a matter of religion?
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 8:44 am
Pero Peric Let me give you message you dont understand in that period. Serbs living in Serbia didnt want to fight outside Serbia that is why Serbs lost the war. You ask me what is outside Serbia. Croatia is outside Serbia, Bosnia is outside Serbia itd... Kosovo is inside Serbia. These are facts. Romantic history is wonderful but I wont fight for that. Did you go and fight for your believes since this was from what you tell your fight not mine? I suffered for it. Many suffered living here from Sloba, Franjo and NATO. I say Croatian Serbs should have right of course but they were stuck in middle of Franjo and Sloba as were Bosnians I hate to be hard but point 1 is history. I not obsessed by it. And I dont know Hercegovina was called Serbia 2 Raska was the cradle of Serb history no Kosovo 3 I agree 4 Thats good but I do not care better if we forget these things and get independent Serbia. I agree with Batic on one thing. 5 OK if you say that Question: What it makes you think that Sumadija and Belgrade would stay as Serbian land? Many things you know I am sure. First one every Serb in Serbia would fight for Belgrade and Sumadija. Second one Serbs are big big majority. But now please answer me. Do you think that if once land was majority Serb means it is always Serbian? (even if there is no Serbs there). You know joke about Serbian blood suppose? Do you think every people or country has same right to think this way? Do you think the world would be war if all countries think like this? What else to say. You know that 10.000's of people avoided to fight. I am not alone in this thinking. Picture presented of Serbia here is not complete. But I think this is wrong place to discuss war unless we talk also about Sloba.
A Stefanovic
Beograd
Yugoslavia - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 8:57 am
Is it possible that May is switching to secret sessions not to protect the witness but to protect us? Why we could all die laughing before Slobo is finished with this particular witness! Imagine if this one said he too was tortured to give evidence. :-)I sympathise with Peter Taylor. You've got some prime export quality refugees there buddy. A few more excursions by Tony Blair and your domestic GNP will skyrocket even further.
But hey, using gangsters is no big deal. America used the Italian Mafia, why not the Albanian one too? Come to think of it, maybe an exploding cigar or two would have been quicker, kinder, neater and more humane for Slobo than this ICTY farce. Pity Fidel is still under sanctions or they could have got some cheaply from Havana. Assassinating foreign heads of state is legal now isn't it? Assassinating a whole nation or country must be even more so.
David
Australia - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 11:03 am
Jari, re: change of Kosovo's status in 1990 constitution, vaugue memory tells me that the status of Kosovo was returned to the level it was as afforded by the 1963 constitution, therefore not abolished as we are still told by the congnoscenti media. As far as I can remember, in 1945 Kosovo was politically autonomous, then the 1963 Consitution reduced this status, only for it to be augmented again in 1974 where it gained veto rights towards Serbia.Re: Nato looking for a reason to bomb the Serbs, I ought to point out that there was a mass offensive by the Bosnian Moslem army in May(?) of 1995 to try and break out of Sarajevo which was a miserable failure. This failed eventhough the US was directly air dropping supplies at Tuzla airbase at night (as noted by UN Observers).
In showing that the Bosnian Moslem army could not beat the Serbs even when supplied with western weapons (such as the german ambrust AT round (only other user: German armed forces)), more radical measures were adopted. This is where the idea about swapping Srebrenica/Gorazde and Zepa came in to play and why the SDA is accused of betrayal by the leadership of those regions. Remember that Oric was ordered back to Sarajevo and therefore not available to 'defend' Srebrenica. A
Alexei Gorbulski
Brussels
Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium ;) - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 11:10 am
Mr. Stefanovic You did not get the point.This is not about Romantic history. Serbs in Croatia is one thing and Serbs in Krajina is another thing. Serbs in Krajina carried over their constitutional rights from the fall of Austrohungary and In any constitution since 1945 until 1991 Serbs from Krajina have their place. The postition on 31. Oct 1918 was equal between Serbia and the State of Slovenians, Croats and Serbs, and Serbs from Krajina ceded their sovergnity rights on the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians, and consequently on Yugoslavia. Nobody ever questioned these rights until 1941 (You know what was it) and in 1991 was repeated.
This is not Romantic or ancient history it is about the ICTY and Slobo today.
That's why they are talking about Grater Serbia, secret Slobodan's plans etc. since West cannot justify why they changed borders why they changed universal principal on nation sovergnity rights - a new world order is there just to explain why new rules have to be implemented.
UN was established on the basic principal: "Respect sovergnity of the nation." to protect equality. The New World Order and globalisation(like any New World Order in the past) aims at domination, and sovergnity is on its way. That's all about ICTY and Slobo and Serbs as the soverign nation.
2. I did not tell you it was my fight not yours. I allways thought it is universal fight since it should have been and it is fight against domination.
3. If Croatia includes today Zemun, would you still think that this is outside Serbia? To remind you HDZ means "Hrvatska do Zemuna" 4. The question what I asked you was simple: "What it makes you think that Sumadija and Belgrade would stay as Serbian land?" and you answered: "Many things you know I am sure. First one every Serb in Serbia would fight for Belgrade and Sumadija. Second one Serbs are big big majority." Again I answered you by question: Do you really think that Serbs have not been absolute majority in Raska, Kosovo and Metohija, Hercegovina Bosnia and Krajina, like they are now in Sumadija and Belgrade?
Do you really think that every Serb in these areas did not go to fight to protect it?
To answer your question: My question was not driven at the Serbian right to go fight for ancient Serbian lands where Serbs even do not exist, morover it was aimed at the point that we consequently lost teritories where we once had a mojority of our nation, and if we continue that way there is no guarantee that we are going to keep Sumadija and Belgrade. I see it as process.
I know that students in Serbia did not learn and did not know that there are Serbs over Drina.
However Bosanska Krajina, Zapadna Slavonija (Okucani) Banija, Kordun, Lika and Dalmatinska Zagora was integral whole where Serbs have more than 80% after WWII and in a WWII Serbs lost there majority of its population. That integral area was split by administrative borders. One Serbian nation was divided in two states (republics) and yet Serbs were given in both republics constitutional rights.
You are pointing that there were 10000 people avoided to fight.
In a Western world you wouldn't do that even if you were Mohamed Ali.
Pero Peric
Canada - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 11:17 am
FYI on Western double dealings as retold by the Bosnian Moslem paper "Dani":...and Izetbegovic's moderate past...
Bosniaks Under the Control of Panislamists
Alexei Gorbulski
Brussels
Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium ;) - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 12:35 pm
I can't help thinking about the gag order issued by Mr T here a few months ago. The message was the May is becoming exceptionally stern in demanding that the press doesn't start guessing the identities of the protected witnesses. Those of the media who would do that would be in contempt of court.But has May recently in fact warned the "public" not to discuss the identities of the protected witnesses? Or do we still have to put a nice gloss on it and say that he meant the media (i.e. the privileged media that has access to the trial)?
Anyway, we know that May can't be trusted. He said the protection measures are not taken "lightly". Oh yes they are. I haven't seen the trial recently, but I am willing to believe the postings here rather than the official statements made by the tribunal. And why not? We have the suggestion that this witness Mr C-X might be a political rival of Milosevic! No wonder his identity has to be concealed. We are not to believe Milosevic because he is using the trial for political speeches, but what about witnesses who might use this trial to settle old political scores?
So by concealing the identity some of the sham objectivity might be preserved. Being so cynical of the Trial Chamber seems perfectly justified, because we have every reason to believe that the "closed sessions" are only meant to hide the poor quality of the witnesses. Nice has even admitted the poor quality of the witnesses but refuses to reduce their number. So an alternative solution is the close session.
Besides, what weight does the threats of an obviously illegal tribunal have? Especially when carried to such bona fide discussion rooms as this by some tribunal courier, who is known to be highly selective in presenting facts? For instance, I have not seen the "Milosevic - the Making of a Dictator" film, but I am more willing to believe the comments that I have read here than some official or quasi-official mole.
Supposing May said the "public" should not reveal the identities of the protected witnesses to anybody else, let me say that we are the public. Come one, we won't tell it to anyone. Just let us discuss the identities here. How else would we know if the protection measures are taken "lightly" or not? You know, it seems that we even have the right to do that, because the presumption is that the trial is public.
You know, you have potential murderers in the tribunal (I mean the staff), so why not a dishonest judge? In these circumstances it is unlikely the trial will be fair, but at least let it be public.
By the way, the question was put: Who are these measures meant to protect and from what? That is a good question. The illusion that is perpetuated is that Milosevic is some mafia boss who, even he has no political power, let alone an official position, is so dangerous for this very reason. He is in the underworld. The "well-informed" sources even allege that he has organized murders of his political rivals.
However, isn't there something self-contradictory in this setting? Milosevic is prosecuted as a politician, so why should he now be prosecuted like a mafia boss?
From Alexei's postings I gather this information. Nato had to intervene, because the Muslims were such miserable soldiers that they couldn't beat the Serbs no matter how much they were supported by Nato. Nato promised to let the Serbs enter Srebrenica, so Nato would have an excuse for the intervention (still wondering about the dual-key). However, many of the casualties in Srebrenica may have been caused by Muslim internal strife, in particular by SDA (The Muslim nationalist Party of Democratic Action). I guess the "swapping" of Srebrenica /Gorazde and Zepa means this that these "safe areas" were deliberately exposed to Serb takeovers so that Nato had a good excuse to keep its promise made to SDA of military intervention.
Sorry, Alexei. I may not be very good at this, so please feel free to correct me.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 1:41 pm
LATEST NEWS:Finnish investigator Helena Ranta to testify at Milosevic trial
http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20021126IE10
It is also worth checking out the other articles at the bottom of the page and compare with what we know now.
Peter Varavejke
Belgium - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 2:34 pm
Re: Stefanovic, You can find about Serbian position and facts about Serbs living in Hercegovina, Bosnia, Krajina and Croatia here:According to the first population census in 1879, of the 1,158,164 strong population, Orthodox Serbs accounted for a relative majority: 496,485 (42.88 percent, while in 1910, of the 1,898,044 inhabitants, the Serbs once again represented the most numerous part of the population - 825,918 (43.49 percent). Despite migrations (over 40,000 of them had emigrated by 1914)
After the annexation of the Krajina to Croatia in 1881, the Serbs accounted for 26.3% of the population of Croatia Slavonia, that is, they numbered 497,746 people out of the 1,892,499 strong population. Among the 35 members from Vojna Krajina in the Croatian Diet, there were 18 Serbs - 28 altogether, all followers of Bishop Strossmayer's People's party
Pero Peric
Canada - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 2:51 pm
Djindjic has just surrendered northern Kosovo to the KLA. Since Kostunica is responsible for Djindjic's taking power, he must take responsibility for this shameful act. He must also, of course, take responsibility for the surrender to NATO's pet tribunal.
R. B.
Canada - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 3:15 pm
Re: Stefanovic Continue:The main obstacle to the creation of a common Yugoslav state was the Treaty of London of 1915, which gave Dalmatia to Italy as compensation for entering the war on the side of the Entente Powers. While the Italians insisted on the fulfilment of the agreement, Serbia, along with the Yugoslavs in Austria-Hungary, referred to the right to self-determination which, along with other conditions, President Woodrow Wilson accepted several months after proclaiming his Fourteen Points.(124)
In the field, the course of developments surpassed diplomatic activities. In contrast to Zagreb, on November 4th, the National Council of Sarajevo called on the Serbian army to enter Bosnia. Two days later, the second Serbian army led by Field-Marshal (vojvoda) Stepa Stepanovic ceremonially entered Sarajevo as liberators. In November 1918, the departments and counties of Bosnia and Herzegovina commenced proclaiming the unification of Bosnian municipalities and local government areas with Serbia: 42 out of 54 municipalities (Banja Luka, Prijedor, Bihac, Kljuc, Jajce, Zvornik, Bijeljina, Visegrad, Gacko, Nevesinje, Rogatica etc.) proclaimed direct unification with Belgrade by the 3rd of December 1918 when news of the proclamation of the united Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on the 1st December brought this spontaneous activity to an end.(125)
On November 25th, the Great National Assembly of Vojvodina proclaimed the unification of Banat, Backa and Baranja with Serbia, and expressed the people's willingness to enter the future Yugoslav state. The Assembly of Srem adopted similar conclusions on the preceding day. In Podgorica on November 26th, the newly elected Montenegrin Parliament decided to overthrow the Petrovic-Njegos dynasty and, like Vojvodina, proclaimed unconditional unification with Serbia under the Karadjordjevic dynasty.
Dalmatia, the centre of the movement for Yugoslav unification threatened the National Council in Zagreb, on November 16th, that it would directly unite with Serbia, in five days' time, if Croatia continued to hesitate to enter the common state.
There was no Greater Serbia, all Bosnia, Vojvodina, Montenegro were part of Serbian Kingdom, and Yet you had a separate The State of Slovenians, Croat and Serbs were Serbs in Krajina and Croatia had been recognized as a nation.,
This is the difference between what happened and what Hag as NATO's spokesman is trying to prove.
The fact is Slovenia, and Croatia seceded from Yougoslavia, otherwise Yugoslavia would be divided among States that created it.
Even AVNOJ did not point out borders, each torch in AVNOJ represents nation not a republicAdministrative borders among republics in Yugoslavia were null and void since they until recognition of Slovenia and Croatia have not been recognized as state borders, and when they were formed they have not been meant as state borders
Milosevic insisted on the rights of selfdetermination, since it was the only argument he could use to save Serbian population.
If he did not succed, he is still not responsible. He did not agitate, make laws and speaches to create Graeter Serbia or to perform ethnical cleansing, or genocide
If he had done so we would see ideology, propaganda, laws etc in the favor of the one nation, as we can see it in many speaches, books and proclamations on the other side
Pero Peric
Canada - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 4:23 pm
Pero, I did not know Dalmatia threatend the National Council in Zagreb, on November 16th, that it would directly unite with Serbia. Very interesting. There's a very good piece by Srdja Trifkovic also taking a closer look on that matter: WHY YUGO-NOSTALGISTS ARE WRONG
Aleks Stajic
Germany - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 4:44 pm
Jari, that's about the size of it in my 'opinion'. The longer the war went on, the more it turned against the Serbs. By publically declaring an 'arms embargo', the 'West' took a good moral stand point and milked it for PR whilst doing exactly the opposite. Such a position leant weight to those vocal 'hawks' who demanded 'lift and strike', and with each new 'massacre'/mass rape/genocide story, it deliberatly had the role of 'undermining' the morality of the arms embargo so that when NATO did actually take sides, there would be little opposition. Take into account the US position of undermining the British and French by protecting Izetbegovic no matter what.It was well known that the Bosnian Moslems were deliberatly sacrificing their own civilans for PR (hence the various famous mortar attacks). When the UN declared that 'any side breaking cease-fires could be subject to airstrikes', it only referred to the Serbs.
There are a number of accounts such as General Rose threatening (bluff as it turns out) Izetbegovic or one of his goons about going public with data that proved the Bosnian Moslems were behind one of the 'mortar massacres'.As a shock tactic, it initially worked, but wore of very quickly nodoubt because the US was saying 'don't worry about it'. After all, the US had previous 'form' from their Lisbon trickery...
I think Milosevic realised that the longer the war was not won, the more likely the fact that the Serbs would come off worse. I think this might have been a major factor in the 1994 'sanctions' on Republica Srpska, i.e. quit while you are winning, as well of course of buying himself some PR brownie points.
Alexei Gorbulski
Brussels
Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium ;) - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 6:34 pm
So May has warned the public not to discuss the identities of the secret witnesses. Whilst it may be an "offence" to knowingly REVEAL the identity of a secret witness, where does it say that it is illegal to discuss or speculate about who a witness could be? Has May become a legislator or has he just issued a decree to that effect?He may gag Slobo by switching off his microphone or the cameras but I'll be damned if he can stop us from talking and discussing issues of interest to us. Unless of course he can switch off our lights, and then we're all in deep trouble. We may have to fight for our rights and liberties too and that is an even bigger extension of the whole sordid NATO and ICTY issue. They've done it in Bosnia and in Kosovo, where next? Iraq is on the cards but what comes after Iraq?
They've already got some pretty draconian legislation in place in the world's greatest democracies allegedly to counter terrorism. It remains to be seen how much further it all goes.
As for the Muslim breakout out of Sarajevo that Alexei mentioned, it is probably little known that Izetbegovic's forces suffered a huge defeat despite Western assistance. The loss of thousands of fighters in a trap set up by Serb forces was most unwelcome and even prompted stories of betrayal by the West. Question is how many thousand were pulled out of Srebrenica and died in the attempted Sarajevo breakout, the death of which has been somewhat hushed up to avoid embarrassment of the West and demoralisation of the Muslims. That would suggest that many of the corpses around Srebrenica could actually be Serb corpses wiped out by Oric and co. I wonder if that is why their identification is taking so long?
David
Australia - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 7:37 pm
Pero Peric, "Now: Serbs lost its majority where they once have been the strongest:..." Maybe I can understand your frustration, but don’t you think that this kind of opinion accommodated Yugoslavia to burn easily? Concerning Macedonia, I often heard similar “facts” from similar fellows, even if the subject was replaced by Albanians, Greeks or Bulgarians. If you like to solve that common point with them, please, do it away, Macedonia have some more problems then that.
Dragi Metodiev
Bruxelles
Belgium - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 9:56 pm
What a ridiculous day in court. (By the way, was C-061 originally coded as C-036? This number was announced before Milosevic's last bout of ill health, this number was to be accompanied by the lawyer Mueller and judging by the pre-trial note, C-061 is testifying identically. Is it the same person? Why the double protection? Why the protection at all - everybody have already guessed who he is.) The slip-ups with his name continued: after Milosevic allegedly mentioned his surname the other day, today even May did the same! Luckily, they have half an hour delay in the transmission, so they just erased that part, but Milosevic got punished by another closed session bit imposed on him. No punishment for May, though. To be on the safe side, Milosevic addressed the witness with mock seriousness as "Witness 'Croatia-061", spelling carefully.Milosevic definitely looks better, refreshed, and he's as ironical as ever: "So, as I understand, by the 'parallel structures' you mean all other Krajina officials, appointed by the Krajina Assembly, with whom you personally didn't get along?" Because, bearing a year-long grudges for being ousted and marginalized, C-061 started to list the names of those who ruled Krajina "illegally" and "with support from Serbia". The problem was that he lost the count along the way, named some 12 names, practically complete officialdom of Krajina, then launched an endless diatribe about their evil doings (so that May had to instruct him to please stick to the question, after Milosevic tried to interrupt him) and then started to list the names again, but forgot some and added some others, so it all sounded pretty pathetic. He included some names from Serbia as "members of the Krajina parallel structures"; in his first shot there were Milosevic, Frenki, Stanisic; second time around he omitted Stanisic and added Prof Budimir Kosutic (probably the only other name from Serbia he could remember and who had any connection with CRO, being born in Western Slavonia). Milosevic patiently listened through all that confusion (testimony!) and finally said: "Or, as the Serbs would call it 'Smuti pa prospi!" (The translation couldn't do justice to this, it literally means: 'concoct it, then spill it away', but the meaning is 'your story is like broth with many ingredients, which took you too long to cook but it's disgusting and could be only thrown away'.)
More of such broth came later, when the witness was asked to list 10 members of Serbian SDB (State Security Service) operating in Krajina, after he constantly claimed that dozens of them openly worked there in 'parallel structures'. The witness, of course, was unable to list more than 6 names, and even those were not all members of SDB. Were they in Krajina at that time? Were they active in 'parallel structures'? The witness said so. But, let's see an example: one of those names is the famous 'Captain Dragan', a person with definite military background, perhaps even from Foreign Legion, but hardly anybody official, who went to Knin in mid 1991 to help training rural, inexperienced Krajina policemen. That he ruled Krajina through 'parallel structures' is pretty farfetched: Krajina people are so headstrong, I'm surprised they even let him train them and obeyed his commands on the range. It seems more likely that he co-operated with Milan Martic instead with our begrudged C-061 and the animosity was born. When 'Captain Dragan' returned to Belgrade, he organized a private fund called "The Captain Dragan's Fund', which financed the families of those killed in the war, those who were wounded, as well as an Internet-center to help spread true info.
C-061 kept talking about "paramilitary formations", so Milosevic finally asked him to please explain who were those. C-061 said they were "Milan Martic's police". Milosevic: "Did I understand you correctly, witness Croatia-061, you're calling regular police headed by officially appointed Minister of Interior 'paramilitary formations'?" Poor C-061, his spite against Martic so blinded him that he wasn't even able to remember to tell that paramilitaries came from Serbia. But he knew these were too few, so it sounded better to name the whole Krajina police as paramilitary.
Then Milosevic started to tackle the role of C-061 in the vile campaign against his popular predecessor, Dr Jovan Raskovic, which drove the latter away to Belgrade. But, when Milosevic asked why C-061 together with his family fled Krajina for Belgrade three days before the Operation Storm, May closed the session for the next hour!. The same happened after Milosevic asked was the witness accused by the Tribunal.
Again the huge part of the day was closed for public. This protected witnesses business is becoming absurd: you have to understand this is not the US or Russia we are dealing with, but tiny little territories, where everyone knows everyone, and I'm absolutely positive that those interested know the identity of every single "protected witness". Recently I spoke to some colleagues, wandering why those are necessary, and someone said this is all part of the show, another enactment of the real legal proceedings that is being played, to render the whole performance more serious and credible by adding a touch of danger. Like those red and black robes are just costumes.
No sessions until Monday (long weekend).
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia - Tuesday November 26, 2002 at 9:57 pm
Peter thanks for posting the URL of the article on Ranta's future testimony at the ICTY: When reading it I did not know whether to laugh or to cry. Here are some quotes from the article:
Ranta's testimony is likely to be significant,..... ?!?
The exact date of Ranta's testimony remains unknown, as the court will not reveal the witnesses' schedules in advance.?!?
The decision to call Ranta to testify comes at a somewhat strange time; testimony on the massacres in Kosovo had concluded at the trial, and now the focus is on the wars in Bosnia and Croatia.?!?
"I will undoubtedly have to answer questions such as whether or not the events at Racak meet the criteria of a 'massacre'. I must be prepared for everything." ?!?
Experts say that the prosecution noticed too late that Ranta's personal testimony would be a very important part of the process. ?!?
The judges denied the prosecution's request to call her as a prosecution witness. Instead, they decided to call her to the stand themselves.>?!?
It seams that Mrs. Ranta has to be prepared for everything except to tell the truth. I rest my case. It is the shame for the legal experts of the world to keep their mouths shut!! P.B.
Pera Bora
Canada - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 3:57 am
There don't seem to be any "big" legal issues left to solve. I think the solution to the legal side of the "trap" and the trial "crap" is pretty much the way as has been sketched above. I feel a bit sad about this, because we have now passed one stage (the preparatory phase if you wukk) and what remains to be seen is where we should head next. We know that this discussion is popular, but how exactly should we capitalize on this popularity? Probably the best thing is just to keep on.I agree with David. I think we can use this levarage to defy the pathetic gag order, for starters. This is not about Milosevic and the Serbs any more but about our rights. Besides, I doubt whether the tribunal would really have "Western" discussions closed, let alone an American.
On a more philosophical note, the kind of subtle gag orders that have been issued by Mr T on this forum are exactly what the culture of silence is based on. The orders don't have to be any more specific than that to work. Only, following such innuendo is against my principles. It smacks of the mafia code of silence (which we read about in Peter Taylor's latest link), and I don't like it. Now that we have solid arguments to prove the illegality of the tribunal, should we contradict ourselves by letting us to be intimidated by the tribunal and its minions? Besides, if we think back at Mr T's communication, it it was expressly directed to the press (i.e. those few outlets that have access to the trial), and it was explicitly called "unofficial". So don't worry. Let's discuss the identities.
Even if the big legal issues seem to be solved, there remain the lesser problems to be solved, like the protected witnesses. First of all, I agree with Vera: anybody with any interest in the identity of the protected witnesses already knows who these protected witnesses are. Besides, it is mainly the Serbs that get the protected witness status, so it is easy to start looking.
So let us start listing the reasons why some witnesses are protected to get some logic to all of this.First, it seems that the nut scam to get Milosevic gagged isn't working, so the closed sessions are again resorted to.
Second, the prosecution has learned its lesson at the cross-examination of such petty criminals as Ratomir Tanic. When the identity of the witness is revealed, the legal team behind Milosevic can do its homework on the witness and find out, for instance, that he has a criminal past. Milosevic might be too successful in his job of discrediting the witnesses, which is what the cross-examination is about.
Third, as I already suggested, the prosecution wants to monopolize the scare game. It is doubtful how well this is working.
Fourth, in case the witness says publicly that he has been tortured, the protection measures will have covered up many of the leads.
Fifth, if the identity of the witness were disclosed, we would have good reasons to question the quality of the testimony, if we knew that the witness is in fact a political rival of Milosevic and thus likely to be an even bigger propagandist than Milosevic. That is, if the witness is a Serb politician. Many Western politicians + Mesic have witnessed against Milosevic, but they don't have to be "protected". The Western countries don't have any political propaganda. Besides, the value of these testimonies lies in the fact that everybody knows who these witness are.
Sixth, letting the Serbs bear the brunt of the protection measures evokes the image of the Serbs as assassins. Another thing it evokes is the insinuation of some inherent "joint criminal enterprise" between the Serbs no matter where they live. Actually, that would seem to exonerate Milosevic, but it is unlikely anybody would notice.
Seventh. Milosevic's hypothetical henchment might have been a threat while he was in power. Now he has no power left, so it isn't even worth staging him as a killer. The Milosevic loyalists now have only one thing to worry about: the survival of Milosevic himself. The protected witness game distracts the attention from the fact that Milosevic is currently the only one whose life is threatened.
Eighth, witness protection programs remind us of the American police series. They have an aura of respectibility about them. So the bribing of the witnesses in this connection to lie in their testimony seems normal and even acceptable.
Sometimes the protection measures have to be propped up with close sessions to have any effect. For instance, the prosecution can't take the risk that the witness exposes the manipulation by the prosecution. So the protection measures have to be reinforced with close sessions. The close sessions are also handy for gagging the witnesses when the examination isn't going the way it should. The prosecution can't take the risk that Milosevic manages to find the right questions to discredit the witness, even if he hasn't had the opportunity to do his homework properly.
From Vera's postings we learn something new every time. "Parallel structures"? This is really past pathetic. Weren't the "parallel structures" exactly what made the Albanian struggle in Kosovo so noble?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 8:01 am
The only parallels I'm seeing are the ones between 1939 and 1999.Similar mass propaganda, similar controlled media blackouts, similar attacks on small states to protect minorities, similar denial of civil and legal rights in the national interest, similar secret hearings, similar threats against dissent, etc., etc.
Little wonder the ordinary Germans had little idea of what the Nazis were doing. What's going to be our excuse? That we are in a parallel situation?
David
Australia - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 10:31 am
Dragi Metodiev. It is not that kind of opinion that burned Yugoslavia. It is fact. And again, I do not call that Serbs have right to fight for their ancient land, I said it is a process and if it is continue there is no guarantee that Serbs will have Sumadija and Belgrade. Please do not take some words out of context than critisize it. Besides that Serbs in old Serbia lost what was a civilization achievement. (Spiritial and Material) Again you cannot mix Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia with something else. They had their soverign rights untill 1990, and they were taken away - it is very much why Hag is becoming a Serbian city. Even if Milosevic is guilty, nobody had right to take away somebody's soverign attainment. It is done only for domination by Globalization. Krajina was the first soverign land that was on a way of NATO expansion, then Bosnia, then Serbia. If you take a look at geographical map you'l see that all others are already planned to be included. Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Check Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Estonia, Litva, Letonia and since Slovenia, and Croatia in late 1980s already established contacts with US officials (See Mesic testimony)there were only Serbs, left.Yugoslavia was broken as well with a great influence from Presidency of Yugoslavia in 1990, when Presidency could not fulfill its duties. You may recall who and how voted, yet the same people are blaming Milosevic that he had control over presidency and army. Dr. Zvonko Lerotic and Dusan Bilandzic from University in Zagreb would shed some lights on nation and Jugoslavia's position.
And remember the price that Serbs paid for Yugoslavia in 1914-1918 1941-1945 and in a last war. Others who did not paid the price they did not recognize a value.
Pero Peric
Canada - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 10:39 am
another black out,another button of the servants of globalization masters ..or ?? why did SPS web site dissapear (the only sight I know that was bringing transcripts from Milosevic's trial on serbian language)? anybody knows more ?
m. c.
netherlands - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 12:52 pm
m.c.
Try this; HERE
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 2:48 pm
Pera and Peter,
I noticed in the article that Peter posted that Helena Ranta is a forensic odontologist, incase you don't know what an ondonthologist is I'll tell you. An odonthologist is a person who studies teeth, specifically a forensic odonthologist is a person who identifies people by their teeth.If somebody is burned to death in a fire and their remains are unrecognizable a forensic odonthologist is the person who compares their teeth to dental records and determines their identity.
So unless Ms. Ranta is coming to talk about teeth, she doesn't have any business saying anything. She isn't qualified to say how anybody died or what or who killed them.
But oh well, this is the Hague Tribunal we're talking about. If they send a man with heart trouble and high blood pressure to a psychiatrist, then I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised by this.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 4:43 pm
Andy,
Ranta's testimony is likely to be significant, because she was the head of the forensic investigations into the events in the Kosovo village of Racak in the winter of 1999, where about 40 Albanians were killed by Serb forces. We all see how much "teeth" the investigation and the report have. It was clear during the proceedings none of the judges in the troika had much knowledge about forensic investigations. Their background is very suitable for the scorpion Mr. Nice (NATO)
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 4:51 pm
Hague Tribunal Called On NATO To Respond To Ojdanic’s DemandThe Hague - The Hague Tribunal asked of NATO to respond to demand of general Dragoljub Ojdanic’s defense to supply it with recordings of all tapped conversations featuring Ojdanic. Those are the recordings of his conversations during Kosovo war and NATO intervention in FRY in 1999. The Trial Chamber of judge Richard May called on NATO, member states and neighboring countries, to submit their replies to Ojdanic’s demand in writing, by 23 February 2003. The decision says that the Trial Chamber would soon schedule a discussion about this demand. All the listed interested parties will be allowed to participate in it.
The defense of general Ojdanic asked of judge May on 13 November to bind NATO, member states, as well as Croatia, BiH, Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria to deliver all the recordings and transcripts of tapped conversations where Ojdanic was participating from 1 January to 20 June1999. The defense asked to have access to all documents and recordings of statements from Ojdanic to ‘representatives of your organization, including the sources of information that worked for you’. General Ojdanic’s attorneys directed earlier those same demands to NATO, its member states and FRY neighboring countries. The replies only came from Portugal and Norway, saying they did not possess the asked material.
Explaining the demand, Ojdanic’s defense referred to the earlier decision of the Hague Tribunal that ‘NATO was obliged to cooperate with the Hague Tribunal and respect its binding orders’.
Simon Joseph
Amman Valley
UK - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 8:58 pm
Andy, thanks, I didn't know that Mrs. Ranta is a forensic odontologist. This is even more bizarre than I taught.
Pera Bora
Canad - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 9:07 pm
David, I agree with you. Here in Canada people have no clue what is going on. For years I was not able to understand how ordinary Germans didn't know what was going on. Now I understand that this is possible.
Pera Bora
Canada - Wednesday November 27, 2002 at 9:30 pm
The whole past week of C61 testimony was not reported in the Western media, zero!
Most people in Germany as in the United States, Canada etc., today have to deal with the priorities of regular life, getting up in the morning, working, sending their children to school, paying their taxes, they are at the mercy of the system which regulates their lives, how can they know what is hiden, behind the facade of big lies only the new man with a new conciousness was about to become ready for the task, and then the world exploded in yet another war!
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA