MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

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

• discussion archive

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 12:48 am
  Frank: "I don't think I will live to see a Serbian president take responsibility for the genocide in Srebrenica."

  Neither wiill the rest of us. Or our children, for that matter. I hope.

  To move things in the proper order, we'll have to establish exactly what happened, who did what and when and for what purpose, and who knew what and when. We are nowhere near that.

  What we have is a recycled PR tale of 8,000 "men and boys" who "are missing" and therefore are "thought to have been executed" by the BSA. Note the exact recurrence of the obligatory wording in the U.S. press over the last 7 years - never any deviation: "thought (or 'believed') to have been executed" - old Pravda style.

  The order of the day is therefore a deconstruction of a public relations myth.

  The following basics can be established with reasonable certainty:

  1. The 8,000 is a PR number, intentionally inflating the number of the actual dead as to magnify the events to the degree of a "massacre." One has to depart from the actual number of bodies found, and only after establishing beyond doubt that the bodies in question are Bosnian, and not Serbian (given the missing Serbs in the area). That has not happened. In the U.S. if you have no dead body, you have no crime.

  2. Close scrutiny of the events leading up to Srebrenica forcefully suggest that the town was deliberately left defenseless by the Bosnian leadership after provoking BSA into an attack. The strategic timing of sacrificing Srebrenica on the eve of the planned offensives further evidences a close coordination between the U.S. plans in the region - the Krajina offensive, and the joint Muslim-Croat offensive, midwifed by Peter Galbraith and Anthony Lake (the "endgame" scenario).

  Conspiracy theories don't grow on trees. They exist because conspiracies exist.
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 3:22 am
  Yes, Andre. I think your latest comments recap it all. In fact, at this point I don't have really anything essential to add.

  The same rule should apply here: fraus omnia corrumpit - fraud corrupts everything. So if the figure of 8,000 has been used against better knowledge, I think the game is over.

  Frank is actually digging the ground underneath his own feet, when he comes up with these new findings. If these findings come up after the Erdemovic and Kristic trials, what were the round figures of 7,000-8,000 in the respective judgments based on? If they were based on hearsay, for instance media, could it be that these later findings will be interpreted to fill the whole left by these judgments, i.e. in a prejudiced manner?

  And Andre, you really managed to put the finger on the right question. If one manages to differentiate between genocide and war crimes, ICTY should have no business in ex-Yugoslavia. The war crimes investigations belong to the national jurisdiction, like criminal law in general. Everything stands or falls on Srebrenica.

  It may turn out that subsequent findings come closer to 7,000 figure, but I don't see what difference it would make. They have extrapolated the findings in Kosovo to 10,000 and they still fail to qualify the Kosovo conflict as genocide. So my conclusion would be: the prosecution has lost, even by the standards of its own prosecution policy (this is why I have the feeling I am running out of things to say).

  Kathryn Love made very good points. One starts to wonder if the 6 million holocaust really existed, if the numbers game tends to gets so erratic. I don't know if the Germans killed 6 million Jews or 1 million or fewer - or more. I just noticed early this year, when there was a general anti-Semitic flurry in the wake of the Israeli reconquest of the West Bank, that I don't have one cell in my body that would allow me to abandon the Jews to their enemies. This reaction is something I can't find any rational explanation for. Maybe it is the same psychological process that keeps me here in the discussion on the Milosevic trial.

  I quoted the Israeli Defense Force figures, because I think that despite all the negative publicity, the IDF is one of the most accurate armies in the world. At least it must have the most reliable intelligence system. So if they can't avoid civilian casualties and losses on their own side, I can't see who can.

  The circumstances of the West Bank "occupation" are very similar to the conflicts generated by the collapse of Yugoslavia. It is true that many pro-Israel people can't see what Yugoslavia and Israel would have in common (they have been brainwashed by the genocide propaganda), but I think that the Israelis (at least those in responsible positions) know perfectly well that a connection exists. Why else would the information on the location of mujaheddin in the Balkans often come from the Israeli intelligence? Why would Israel turn down the Jenin fact-finding mission, reputedly because of Helena Ranta?

  On the other hand, it should be obvious to anyone that Israel is not keen on sticking its neck out on behalf of the Serbs, because it has too many problems on its own hands, mainly publicity-wise. But the Israelis were willing to supply the Serbs with weaponry and ammunitions in the Bosnian conflict at least, as the NIOD report confirms, and as has been floated by Del Ponte's later investigation of sanction-busting.

  There is another discussion on JURIST on the Israeli conflict, so I don't want to get into all the niceties of the problem. I just hope Israel is something we can agree to disagree on.

  Pero, you may not have noticed, but I did give you an answer. Let me repeat.

  I see your point of the SHS State (State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs) that preceded the SHS Kingdom by one month. The SHS State was constituted to enable the formation of the SHS Kingdom (from 1929 Yugoslavia). The relevance of the SHS State is that Serbs were recognized as a constituent people of the original Croatian-Slovenian state.

  However, the SHS State was not Croatia. It extended to present-day Slovenia as well.

  Second, the Yugoslav Parliament gave out in 1992 (if my memory serves me correctly) a report on the dissolution of Yugoslavia. It said that the dissolution is possible, because the constitution allowed the "nations" to leave the federation. However, it concluded that the republics couldn't leave the federal republic as such, because the Yugoslav constitution spoke of "nations", not "republics". So the borders of the nations had to be renegotiated according to the report. And some international initiatives were made on those lines, like the Lisbon agreement and the Vance-Owen plan (I am pretty much in the dark here).

  But finally the idea of uti possidetis prevailed. This rule means that the administrative borders of the consitituent administrative units, in this case the republics, should be preserved. This was the idea of Zimmermann, and it was the leading theme in the Badinter commission's report on the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

  But maybe the main problem of the Yugoslav parliament's report was somewhere else. And this is something that I thought of just now. The "Muslims" were not one of the constituent "nations" in the Yugoslav constitution. I think the Yugoslav parliament's report went as back as the AVNOJ documents. That would mean that "Muslims" - or "Bosniaks" - couldn't have a state of their own. And this was something the famous "international community" couldn't accept. So now that the renegotiation of borders was "contaminated" by such an obvious omission, the concept of renegotiating the borders was discarded as a whole.

  Kathryn, I have the same feeling about Frank. He may have some kind of "conflict of interests" here. Maybe we all do. The difference is that we are right and we don't have anything to lose, because the starting point was that Milosevic is a goner.

  Nuff said. Contempt!
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 9:25 am
  Hi all

  I'm laid up with flu, should be back in a few days

  Jari

  "Nuff said. Contempt!"

  {chuckle} Shall I start calling you Bro ? :)
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 10:22 am
  Go ahead.

  I fulfilled my duty today and wrote to the Dutch Ministry of Justice.

  I have also been thinking about some things that Frank has pointed out. It is not true that Erdemovic judgment confirmed the Srebrenica genocide. The judgment didn't mention genocide. It didn't even mention 7,000-8,000 Bosnian men and boys. The judgment concerned VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF WAR.

  The judgment only quoted the indictment (!), which stated that thousands of Bosnian men were summarily executed. Thus the Srebrenica massacre may have got a life of its own in the ICTY case law. the Krstic judgment was a necessary piece in the puzzle to build a case against Milosevic.

  It seems that the case against Milosevic is prima facie unfounded (I use the expression prima facie even if this conclusion is an outcome of a lengthy reasoning process). How could 10,000 dead fail to reach the genocide threshold in Kosovo, while 2,000+ men and boys do so in Bosnia? That damned UN court in Kosovo, which concluded that no genocide took place in Kosovo! So even if one supposes that everything that the prosecution puts forward is true, the case against Milosevic is self-contradictory on legal grounds! And here that marvellous Latin maxim applies: allegans contraria non est audiendus - he who alleges contrary things must not be heard.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 10:42 am
  And by the way, we are looking at another contradiction. How can the "summary execution of thousands of Bosnian men" qualify as a simple war crime in Erdemovic judgment and as a genocide in Krstic judgment and the Milosevic indictment? Is this discrepancy due to the status of the accused? Surely, the law should be the same to all.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 11:56 am
  Practicing Denial and Weaving a Fabric of Deceit

  Frank Tiggelaar gave a reference above to an article by David Walls, a self styled “lefty sociologist”: By this I suppose he means not lefty like a one armed bandit but lefty like Tony Blair a one time pacifist and CND campaigner who nowadays drops bombs on people at the drop of a hat, threatens nuclear strikes on those he dislikes and is spending tens of billions upgrading his military machine.

  Entitled “Dubious Sources” this work by Walls attempts to brand admired authors in “Censored 2000”, who expose the West’s dirty deeds in Kosovo, as “conspiracy theorists, Marxist-Leninist sects, and apologists for authoritarian regimes”.

  Professor Walls will not thank Frank Tiggelaar for highlighting his accusation of “lack of rigorous research and fact finding” by these authors in the light of his own misplaced speculation.

  “Pipelines and Lead Mines” First he pours scorn on stories of projected oil pipelines in the Balkans and the West’s designs on the Trepca mine complex. In the past few weeks Protocols have been signed progressing three oil pipelines in the Balkans referenced in posts above by Andre and me: Two of these are major pipelines to pump Caspian Sea oil from Black Sea ports to the Adriatic and Europe: AMBO and CTPL. In future when a British General such as General Jackson says it’s about safeguarding oil Professor Walls might listen up. KFOR has seized the Serbian owned Trepca mine complex.

  ”Atrocious History” Here he attempts to cement the Racak Massacre Hoax with ‘evidence’ of bullet fragments found at the site - would you believe it - more than six months after the event. How would you rate the probability of the KLA planting evidence during this period, in a region under its control? Read again what another US sociologist has to say about the so-called Racak massacre:

  Facts about Racak by Gil-White

  ”Practicing Denial” and “Weaving a Fabric of Deceit” Here Walls attempts to justify the West’s portrayal of the Trnopolje refugee camp in Bosnia as a Nazi style concentration camp through an infamous and misleading ITN photo:

  Click here to view.

  In contrast to the appearance in the photo the facts are: that it was the photographers alone who were enclosed in a barbed wire enclosure: that the skeletal figure prominent in the photo was a victim of tuberculosis as a child: that the refugees were free to come and go at will. It was true that many inmates were abused and even murdered by marauding paramilitaries but even so they preferred the relative safety of the camp. The photo was the subject of a libel case ITN v LM Magazine.

  In calling the English legal system to aid his case Walls fails to acknowledge the Judge’s summing up for the jury précised at the time by Nick Higham, media correspondent of the BBC: 'Mr. Justice Morland told the jury LM's facts might have been right (that the cameraman was enclosed within a barbed wire enclosure, the camp was not), but he asked, did that matter?' Because LM had failed to show intent to deceive by ITN. The Jury found that ITN had been libelled and LM was bankrupted. There was very probably an intend to mislead and certainly many other press reports used this photo to support a Nazi connotation. Thus Walls argument here depends upon a perverse decision by an English jury.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 11:56 am
  Friends,I met with President Milosevic on September 6th in the old Gestapo prison at Schevenignen and am happy to report that despite the odds he faces he is in good spirits and ready to take on the gangsters who force him to take part in this charade of a trial. He just received 100,000 pages of so-called disclosure and asked how it was humanly possible to go through this material before the second part of the trial commences. But under the rules of the ICTR and ICTY (supposedly the height of fairness and civilised conduct but which in fact incorporate the lowest standards of fairness in the world)the prosecution has the "right" not to have to give the defence anything in the nature of disclosure until 60 days before the trial starts. This is impossible even in a petty theft case let alone a major case of world importance like this. Why the legal profession remains silent about this is a mystery. But in my view it is a world scandal that the bar associations, law faculties, jurists, and lawyers around the world sit back and say nothing. Where are you?This man is innocent and he needs the support of fair-minded and just people around the world. Break the silence! Speak out! Stand up and be counted!Christopher BlackBarrister,Chair, Legal CommitteeInternational Committee For The Defence of Slobodan MilosevicToronto, Ontario, Canada
  
  Black Christopher
  Toronto
  Canada

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 12:30 pm
  This is just in:

  Radio Free Europe/Radio LibertyOctober 1, 2002

  Yugoslavia: Former Serbian Deputy PM Charged WithSpying for U.S.

  Belgrade, 30 September 2002 (RFE/RL) -- Yugoslavmilitary prosecutors today brought formal chargesagainst former Serbian Deputy Prime Minister MomciloPerisic for spying for the U.S.

  Perisic was arrested in March for allegedly passingmilitary secrets to a U.S. diplomat. Perisic -- whowas army chief of staff under former YugoslavPresident Slobodan Milosevic -- denied theallegations.

  Washington also denied the spying allegations at thetime and protested the detention and rough treatmentby military police of its diplomat, U.S. embassy FirstSecretary John Neighbor. Yugoslavia later apologizedfor Neighbor's detention.

  If convicted, Perisic and two others charged todayface between three and 15 years in jail.
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 12:54 pm
  Getting things out of proportion?

  Srebrenica, Racak ..?

  This article claims that 14,000 Serb civilians were murdered and 200,000+ ‘ethnically cleansed’ from Krajina by Croatian forces supported by Britain, Germany and the US in August 1995.

  Is this true?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 12:58 pm
  Correction
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 4:02 pm
  

  Some deny it ever happened, but...

  UN tribunal indicts former Bosnian Serb commander for war crimes in Srebrenica

  30 September - A former Bosnian Serb commander has been charged with multiple counts of war crimes for allegedly killing Muslims after the takeover of the Srebrenica enclave in the mid-1990s, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) said today.

  On Friday, the ICTY unsealed its indictment against Ljubomir Borovcanin, charging that he, together with other officers and units, was a member of and knowingly participated in a joint criminal enterprise to forcibly transfer the women and children from the Srebrenica enclave to Kladanj.

  The group also allegedly plotted to capture, detain, summarily execute by firing squad, bury, and rebury thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys aged 16 to 60 from the Srebrenica enclave in July 1995.

  According to the Tribunal, Mr. Borovcanin was involved in opportunist killings in Potocari, opportunistic killings in Bratunac, wide-scale and organized killings in Potocari and Tisca, killings and mistreatment of prisoners captured along the Bratunac/Milici road and wide-scale and organized killings in the Zvornik area, as well as other opportunistic killings.

  Mr. Borovcanin, charged on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility as well as his failure to prevent or punish those who committed the crimes, faces one count of complicity in genocide, four counts of crimes against humanity and one count of violations of the laws or customs of war.

  source: UN News Centre Report

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 5:07 pm
  Frank: "Some deny it ever happened, but..."

  You did not listen carefully, Frank. Noone denies that Srebrenica's takeover and the subsequent attempt of the encircled AND ARMED men to break through the BSA lines toward Tuzla resulted in casualties. I even allow that isolated executions of Muslim men also took place.

  The issue is how many people were killed, how, by whom, and what is the exact proportion of those killed in combat vs. the executions. Further, what is the proportion of the Bosnian and Serbian dead discovered in the graves around Srebrenica - especially given the fact that a great number of remains could not be identified, e.g. positively matched IN SEVEN YEARS with those "missing".

  Also "joint criminal enterprise to forcibly transfer the women and children from the Srebrenica enclave to Kladanj" was nothing else than transporting Muslim women and children TO SAFETY from the theater of military operations.
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Tuesday October 01, 2002 at 5:21 pm
  

  Would the world be satisfied if a truly independent commission composed of Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, UN, Dutch, French, Canadians, Russians and Americans were to conduct an independent investigation on Srebrenica and issue a report on what the commission finds in concensus to be the truth and factual?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 3:21 am
  Gogol, I think that depends on what the findings of the commission would be. If the report runs counter to the accepted genocide theory, the "world" would not be satisfied. The world representatives could intone in a melodramatic voice that some deny it ever happened, and then prove that it did happen by producing and ICTY indictment (not even the Krstic judgment)!

  Just to make a couple of points that I would think are self-evident: First, denying something is not a crime, especially when it would be unfair to admit something that didn't take place. Second, the ICTY indictments are no evidence.

  All people with an inkling of sincerity must admit that the numbers games do tend to get erratic. They do so in Bosnia. And to get really to the bottom of things, let me say a word on yesterday's thread: Maybe such a numbers game took place in WW 2. I am not saying that 6 million Jews died in the holocaust, and I am not saying that 6 million Jews did not die in the holocaust. That doesn't mean that I deny that Jews did get killed, maybe in the millions. I don't know the exact number, and neither do you. And to add a human-interest element to this argument: One of my in-laws (fairly distant though) is an Auschwitz survivor, and I must say that I find it a slightly offensive suggestion that anyone who denies the so-called Srebrenica genocide must be lumped together with the holocaust deniers! I am being as honest as I can with the numbers that died in the holocaust, and in comes some lowlife who tries to make a political point using that honesty to his advantage. No wonder the 6 million figure has been made to stand the test of time.

  Frank, I hope you are listening. I repeat: the ICTY indictments are no evidence. I know that the tribunal has given that impression in the Erdemovic judgment, where it cites the indictment (!) as evidence (I am not kidding), but this practice is not in the interests of a fair trial.

  One doesn't have to go even that far. When one is in doubt, one has to decide in favour of the defendant. The same thought crossed my mind even before I read Andre's reply: Separating women and children has to be seen as a safety precaution. If you still want to stick to the deportation interpretation, you have to admit that it is possible that such a "deportation" was undertaken under duress.

  When one studies the genesis of the Srebrenica genocide myth one notices one thing. The higher up in the hierarchy the accused is, the more likely the genocide charges becomes, in addition to simple war crimes. Erdemovic was a common soldier. He was charged with war crimes. Ljubomir Borovcanin, whose indictment is now unsealed, "had the authority to give orders to his subordinates" (point 3), so he is charged with "complicity in genocide" plus war crimes. Krstic was Lieutenant Colonel-General, and he was charged with "genocide" plus war crimes. The crowning achievement of the prosecution is Milosevic, who is charged with "genocide" and every other imaginable crime.

  Somehow, the prosecution manages to convert the war crimes into genocide, the higher up the hierarchy we climb. However, genocide doesn't differ from war crimes quantitatively but qualitatively. The prosecution knows this when it comes up with the accounts of women and children being separated from the men. However, this separation can be seen as the reverse side of a normal military campaign (to separate the combatants from the non-combatants), in which context war crimes can occur.

  The reason that the prosecution charges the "superiors" with war crimes is political. Few people would understand why simple war criminals have to be convicted in The Hague: why not at home? However, the mouths of these sceptics are supposedly shut when high-ranking people are charged. It is unlikely that these people would be convicted in their home countries... the explanation goes.

  Yes, but still: it may be unlikely but not impossible. So the genocide card is played. Now who would deny that these people would not be convicted of genocide in their home countries? A genocide charge is a bit like charging the whole nation with the same crime, which means that such a process cannot be trusted to the respective nation alone.

  And voilà, the political objective is thus achieved: the political undesirables are removed from the political scene for good.

  To answer Mr Black. It is true that few people raise their voices to defend Milosevic. But it is equally remarkable that so few raise their voices to defend this trial! Look what happened with the legal arguments for and against the Kosovo bombing. Seldom has their been such lively debate on a legal theme as the one concerning the Kosovo bombing. However, that debate died an untimely death. The Legality of Use of Force case in the ICJ has been suspended to appease those who are after Milosevic. It is unlikely that this case will ever be resumed, so the stormy academic and non-academic debate on the legality of the Kosovo bombing showed its limits. That might explain the lethargy surrounding the Milosevic trial. People might find the Milosevic trial just as interesting as the Kosovo bombing, but the continuing detention of Milosevic for reasons that really don't stand scrutiny frustrates any real hopes that he will get a fair trial, or that the public opinion might somehow change the foreordained outcome of the trial.

  But nobody is perfect. The tribunal makes mistakes, and so do its supporters. The mistakes get bigger over time. Considering the presumption that Milosevic is a goner, the only way for his supporters is up!
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 3:24 am
  Mesic' "testimony" goes beyond any travesty, even for The ICTY standards. I pretty much went through all world press, and nobody, nobosy ever mentioned Mesic famous line in The Croatian Sabor (Parliamnet)" I have fullfiled my duty: Yugoslavia is no more". I would like you all to read and save the following quote. I think that any journalist on your e-mail list should get a copy of it. Here is the quote: John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times,in a toast before the New York Press Club,1953 "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, asan independent press. You know it and I know it.There is not one of youwho dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehandthat it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honestopinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paidsimilar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would beso foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets lookingfor another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue ofmy paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. Thebusiness of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; tovilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for hisdaily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks,they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives areall the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."Bravo to all of you. Special regards to Mr Black.
  
  Ozren Vukobrat
  Canada

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 3:44 am
  Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander.

  If Milosevic was the President of Serbia as I am led to believe: May I ask again what have the war crimes in Croatia and Bosnia got to do with Milosevic?

  Clinton was President of the USA when massive crimes against the Serbs were committed in Croatia and Bosnia involving US forces: But no indictments.

  Blair was Prime Minister of the UK when massive crimes were committed against the Serbs in Kosovo involving British forces: But no indictments.

  The only reason I can see for the difference is that the ICTY has run out of sauce.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 4:22 am
  Peter, I think the prosecution is trying to prove that Milosevic gave direct orders to commit a genocide in Bosnia. That would mean he would be responsible on account of Art. 7(1) of the Statute, not on account of the command responsibility of Art. 7(3). That is why the prosecution wants to play tapes of telephone discussions that Milosevic had with Karadzic and Mladic. (Milosevic argues that this evidence is inadmissible because it was obtained illegally.) If the prosecution cannot play these tapes or if they turn out to be a lot of hot air, as so much in this trial, it doesn't have the command responsibility of Art. 7(3) to fall back on, as it did in Kosovo.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 5:29 am
  

  In an extraordinary session before the ICTY, this afternoon, Biljana Plavsic is going to change the plea she entered earlier. Tribunal Live will carry the session live in the RealAudio, RealVideo and WinMedia formats. The session is to start at 15:00 CET, the usual 30 mins delay between yhe courtroom and the webcast will not apply.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 5:40 am
  

  Journalists who were present at the press conference at the ICTY re Biljana Plavsic suggest in their reports that Mrs. Plavsic may become the prosecution's crown witness in the trial against Slobodan Milosevic.

  It is not known yet whether Mrs. Plavsic will appear in court today

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 6:56 am
  Thanks for your illumination Jari. What is the probability that the US has fabricated the tapes the ICTY wants to present as evidence?
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 8:26 am
  Simon

  I hope your ‘flu symptoms have abated. Regarding your URL addresses for information on victims in Kosovo: I found a bewildering array of numbers. Finally I resorted to your address pointed out by Jari. These are figures issued by the ICTY on 17 July 2001.

  Given that the ICTY has shown a propensity to deceive why should we place any faith in these figures and what exactly do they mean?

  Extrapolated totals: Clearly the ICTY would want to extrapolate its figure of 4392 disinterred bodies to the circa “10,356” given in evidence by Ball. There are alternative interpretations and one is this: According to these figures there remain 384 identified graves. These may contain only one body each and even none as has been experienced in past exhumations. This would put the total at below 5,000.

  Lets consider this total of 5,000. There are some 2000 murdered and missing of the minority populations in Kosovo. This leaves 3000 bodies of Albanian ethnicity. Of these 1,000 might easily have been killed by Nato bombs. In attacks on two refugee convoys, a bus and prison some four hundred were killed: And these figures neglect other known Nato attacks upon residential areas. Then there are the victims of KLA terror upon ‘loyal’ Kosovars. How many have died of natural causes between March 1999 and July 2001. What happened to the bodies transferred from Albanian cemeteries into Kosovo that the UN authorities complained of in 2000? All this leaves a total of between 1,000 and 2,000. These might easily be combat casualties of KLA/VJ actions. According to the ICTY figures some 85% of victims were male. The Nato attacks alone, listed above, could account for some half of the 481 female victims.

  According to these interpretations of the given figures there is no case for massive war crimes to be attributed to the Serb security forces.

  Yes Simon I agree with you we should be careful to publish accurate figures. But the point is we do not know the facts and yet they ought to be available!
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 9:37 am
  Stipe Mesic’s performance was despicable and clearly aimed at pleasing his longtime contacts in the West. A political speech presented as “testimony” yet again. Some “witness.”

  Stipe ought to have been tried for treason under the Yugoslav law for his real record in breaking Yugoslavia apart, of which he now roundly accuses Milosevic.

  When the cracks first showed in the Yugoslav Federation, all the new elected "saviors" happened to be Croats: Prime Ministers Milka Planinc, Branko Mikulic, and Ante Markovic. It was in their governments that Loncar was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Ultimately he allowed Europe to meddle in Yugoslav internal affairs under the guise of attempt to resolve the Yugoslav crisis. Indeed, De Michelis, Chaisson, and Genscher set in motion a chain reaction that brought to Yugoslavia Owen, Carrington, Rose, and then Clinton. Although bound to protect Yugoslav interests, Budimir Loncar protected the interest of the West.

  For instance, without the consent of or endorsement by the Yugoslav Presidency Loncar initiated the discussion about Yugoslavia at the U.N. Security Council, which was followed by the condemnation of the official Belgrade, and then, following a domino-effect, by punishment in the form of economic blockade, sanctions, and ultimately NATO’s air war in 1999. Cognizant of his negligence, Budimir Loncar submitted his irrevocable resignation on December 11th, 1991 and left Belgrade.

  Some of the former Yugoslav high-ranking officials were careless enough to publicly boast of their collaboration with the U.S. intelligence, and so it happened that even Stipe Mesic, the last President of the collective leadership of the Yugoslav Federation, and later on General Martin Spegelj, the first man of the Croatian Army, admitted to taking classified contingency plans for the armed fight within the country to Pentagon and the CIA. In his interview to Slobodna Dalmacija of December 1995, Stipe Mesic admitted to his espionage:

  “In 1991, I found out from a Croatian army general, that the Yugoslav Army was manufacturing sarin, a poison gas at a facility near Mostar, and they were cooperating with the Iraqis on the production of a new rocket launcher. I used the opportunity to make some circles of American administration acquainted with the whole case, and soon afterwards they arranged a trip for me to the U.S., where I delivered the related records to authorized Pentagon staff. As the Yugoslav President, I believed that such an activity by the Yugoslav Army represented a threat not only for this region but also a broader one - for the entire international community. And since it was evident that the war was about to break out, one could presume, in 1991, that a potential use of these gases could bring about a disaster in Croatia. Americans must have made use of the information I delivered them and warned Serbia, through certain channels, to stop the production of the poison gas.”

  Such treason and espionage was a logical consequence of the need and search by anti-Yugoslav and anti-Serbian bloc within the Yugoslav Federation to seek and find their allies, as opposed to Serbs and Serbian leadership, who entered the process of the breakup of Yugoslavia alone, without a single ally. Seasoned counterintelligence agents confirm that such an alliance was the result of the fact that the U.S. had had their people in the Presidency of the Yugoslav Federation and the Presidency of the CCCLY for a long time already. The first among them was Stipe Mesic, the Croatian representative in the collective leadership of the Yugoslav Federation.

  As soon as he was appointed President of the Yugoslav Federation, Stipe Mesic went on canvassing for the secession of Croatia. He personally phoned all European political leaders and then, in the fall of 1991, went for a private visit to the U.S., intending to meet, unofficially, with U.S. senators and congressmen. Apart from them, Stipe Mesic managed to meet Lawrence Eagleburger, James Baker’s deputy at the time, but did not manage to see President George Bush. Mesic advised the U.S. of the Serbian production of poison gases and, most of all, of the danger threatening the Yugoslav Federation from the Yugoslav Army and Slobodan Milosevic. The President of the Yugoslav Presidency was thus the first one to publicly accuse the President of Serbia of actually commanding over Yugoslav Army, of being the aggressor and, in order to alarm Americans even more, he was the first to compare Milosevic to Sadam Hussein.

  In 1991 he boasted across Croatia “how he broke Yugoslavia apart” it is on record in his published memoirs.

  Some of the high-ranking Yugoslav officials were publicly flirting with the U.S. as early as in 1989, going to Washington for consultations, and leading confidential talks with U.S. representatives in the heart of Yugoslavia. The SSUP’s SDB staff were ordered to monitor and record the Yugoslav officials’ secret contacts with foreign diplomats, politicians, and informants. In spite of the destruction of Yugoslavia, neither the State Security Service of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, nor the Military Counterintelligence of the Yugoslav Army have ever publicized the names of people who betrayed Yugoslavia. By 1998 Petar Knezevic of SSUP SDB named the following people as collaborators with the U.S. embassy and CIA: Ante Markovic, Josip Vrhovec, Budimir Loncar, Haris Silajdzic, Vasil Tupurkovski, Dimitrij Rupel, Gojko Susak, Branko Salaj, Ivan Milas, Perica Juric, Stipe Mesic. Borisav Jovic himself mentioned that, in Yugoslavia, only Budimir Loncar was advised by ambassador Zimmermann, in November 1990 that the CIA had made the analysis of the Yugoslav situation, i.e. of its imminent breakup and a possible military coup as a way of preventing it.

  In December 1990, Jovic was informed that CIA had set up an expert team in Budapest, and that they were working on plans aimed at further destabilization of Yugoslavia, along with the FBI and the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior. According to Borisav Jovic’s testimony the plan was put into operation after Milosevic’s election victory in 1989, since in Washington’s view Yugoslavia should have not existed any longer under Communist leadership. According to Military Counterintelligence colonels Bosko Todorovic and Dusan Vilic, the Center for Information and Reporting of the Federal Executive Council was recording all telephone conversations, including those of Prime Minister Ante Markovic. One of these tapes, according to Todorovic and Vilic, includes the conversation between Ante Markovic and Croatian premier Josip Gregoric that took place in September 1991. Gregoric advised the Yugoslav Prime Minister that the Croatian leadership had made the decision to withdraw all their staff from the Federation, and then expel the units of the JNA out of Croatia.
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 9:49 am
  Peter, I don't now what the likelihood is that the US has fabricated the tapes. Milosevic's point is that these recordings are inadmissible because they have been made without proper authorization. His argument is the same as one might make in domestic law. The tapes are inadmissible, if the police didn't get a permit for the surveillance. In Anglo-American legal systems such formal requirements are crucial.

  And believe it or not, the ICTY seems to adhere to these formal rules as well. I read that in the Krstic trial the tribunal did not accept some recordings on the ground that they were made illegally.

  Peter, I think you made a very good point on the whole. The numbers are not what what counts. A war crime is a war crime even if there is only one victim. On the other hand, a combat situation doesn't become a war crime just because of the number of casualties. The manner in which these casualties were brought about is what counts.

  On the other hand, the opposite reasoning would seem to apply to genocide. In genocide it doesn't matter in what manner people are killed. Genocide is not concentration camps or gas chambers. Genocide is not even great numbers of victims. Genocide is the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (according to Art. 2 of the Genocide Convention).

  It doesn't matter how many persons in absolute terms are killed. If a population group has no more than a thousand members, then even the killing of 500 people might constitute genocide. On the other hand, if there are over a million Bosniaks as a whole, one would have to stretch one's imagination to qualify the killing of even the alleged 10,000 or more as a genocide. That figure is less than 1% of the total number of Bosniaks.

  And one has to be careful. The prosecution has to show the intent to destroy the population group. In Krstic trial the prosecution hoped to do this with a tape where Krstic told to "kill every one of them". And this is the tape that was ruled inadmissible.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 10:11 am
  

  Just in case any body cares, "The New York Times" that famous New York newspaper, has closed its forum on "The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic", for years the newspaper had a forum on Yugoslavia under different names, but a forum nevertheless.

  au revoir, Berlin . . .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 10:19 am
  

  Did Biljana Plavsic change her plead or not?

  For anyone following her saga, this is most fascinating a development.

  Perhaps Frank Tiggelaar can give us more details, the juice stuff not just the news from the ICTY bulletin board. Like what convinced Biljana to change her plead, to see the light, etc.,

  Gorgeous stuff!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 10:56 am
  My thoughts exactly. Maybe Mrs Biljan Plavsic saw the light for the reason that Frank says she did: that she might become the prosecution's crown witness against Plavsic.

  And this is the reason I suspect that the indictment of Ljubomir Borovcanin saw the light of day as well. He must now act as the poor man's Karadzic and Mladic. Talk about "individual criminal responsibility".
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 12:32 pm
  Biljana Plavsic entered a plea of guilt to one charge of persecution.

  All other charges were dropped.

  Any Serbs from Yugoslavia on forum, can you tell us if it is true what the AP is reporting? Are the Serbs not interested in the Milosevic trial any longer?Jari, I hope you are over the flu, or at least feeling better.
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 1:48 pm
  

  Well, Frank here is your kind of girl, I mean your kind of Serb. But still unclear about Mr. Milosevic. Click HERE to read the report.

  No much mention of her "personal" crime and no show trial will be necessary.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA (ON WAR PATH)

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 4:37 pm
  To bring Mesic in Hague as prosecution witness just showed contemporary justice and moral of the world powers.

  He openly called for a Croatian secession;he openly called for break-up of Yugoslavia, he contacted foreign secret agencies as President of Yugoslavia, he did not want to say oath as president of Yugoslavia (since it called for integrity of Yugoslavia, he openly called for ethnical cleansing, he openly called Serbs to leave Croatia, he openly spread hatred towards Serbs, he openly insulted Serbian national feelings (“Nisu Srbi njihovu zemlju donijeli na opancima” - “Serbs did not bring their land on their boots” - “boots” - are part of the Serbian cultural heritage)he organized smuggling of guns into Yugoslavia - and he admitted it,he as a high ranking officer of HDZ distributed guns to Croatian residents of only Croatian nationalityhis party used Nazi symbols to provoke a reaction from Serbs and JNA, his party spread terror among Serbshe was the part of the establishment that officially send letters to companies asking to fired Serbs,his HDZ party had a program to take power not only by legal means as political party, but also using armed forces (That’s why they distributed arms to its members - before the war started) he openly called for war ("Of course we smuggled arms - we would not smuggle pencils to fight with them (Serbs)", he knew for war crimes committed by Croatian police and Croatian official nominatives (Gospic).(These were not some paramilitary organizations or gangs - It was Croatian police - organized and ordered to commit crimes) Many Croats were inspired by Alojzije Stepinac who never said word "Yugoslavia". They hated Yugoslavia - even the word itself.He was part of the establishment that tried to erase any sign of Yugoslavia, they even banned name Yugoslavia, Yugoslavian nationality was officially forbidden in Croatia, he was a part of the establishment that brought legal act sanctioning the use of Serbian property.Singing Yugoslavian national anthem “Hej Slaveni” in Croatia in 1990, or even mentioning the word “Yugoslavia” or “Yugoslav army” was deadly dangerous.

  (Long time before the war - 20-25 years ago) Tudjman, Stedul, Mesic, Seks, Vlado and Marko Veselica, Djurekovic, Busic, Dzodan, Gotovina, Glavas, Domljan, Boljkovac, Barisic, Savka Dabcevic-Kucar, Bobetko, Budisa, Cicak called and considered Yugoslavia as a dungeon for Croats. (All of the above listed; planned how to destroy Yugoslavia and make a Croatian state - these plans for the first time emerged publicly in 1971). - Many of them were convicted as terrorist and some of them Tito politically discredited as Croatian chauvinists. (Actually he saved them - anywhere else they would be tried)Many of them called in 1971 for US intervention in Yugoslavia (that happened 20 years later - since US at that time was prevented by other superpower to make a war)

  Now Western justice brought Mesic to explain to us that he (and Croats) did not want to break - up of Yugoslavia - and that it was all Milosevic’s fault.One of the Croatian journalists said: “If Good exists it vomits somewhere up there”.

  
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 5:51 pm
  

  It was revealed by Mr. Milosevic president Mesic has been a witness in at least two other trials at the now world famous ICTY. In one of them he was a protected witness (!) and when Mr. Milosevic read part of the transcripts where Mesic contradicted his testimony prosecutor Nice (NATO) wanted to go on close session!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 7:09 pm
  Mesic's Croatian Nazi government recently sentenced the liberal moslem leader Fikret Abdic to 20 years for the war crime of not surrendering to Izetbegovic's fundamentalist thugs. He obviously understands the legal principles the ICTY operates under. In quite correctly recognising the corruption in the Milosevic trial we sometimes forget the hundreds of less famous people currently suffering under the same injustice.
  
  Neil Craig
  UK

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 7:26 pm
  What is the reason that we do not have the Trial Video for todays's court for the cross examination of Mesic by Milosevic is it because Milosevic demolished Mesic as per newspapers reports???????
  
  blagica economi
  London
  UK

• Wednesday October 02, 2002 at 7:48 pm
  What is the reason that we do not have the Trial Video for todays's court for the cross examination of Mesic by Milosevic is it because Milosevic demolished Mesic as per newspapers reports???????
  
  blagica economi
  London
  UK

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 12:20 am
  Jared's interview with Blewitt: http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/blewit.htm
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 3:26 am
  Peter, I may have missed your last point about the numbers killed in Kosovo, but it was very good that you brought up that subject again. The URL we are talking about is http://www.serbia-info.com/news/2001-07/17/24567.html.

  There is something very strange about Hartmann's statement that the prosecution won't dig up all the graves, because it already has enough evidence. Hartmann said: "[OTP's] task is to accumulate proof for criminal prosecution of those responsible for the crimes which come within the tribunal's competence".

  Why would it come up with this incredible freezer truck story if it has enough evidence?

  But that is not all. Hartmann says the prosecution's task is to "accumulate proof for criminal prosecution of those responsible for the crimes which come within the tribunal's competence".

  You may not believe this, but Hartmann's statement is not strictly speaking true. The crimes that she is talking about come primarily within the respective country's competence. How else would it be possible, for example, Milosevic to punish the perpetrators of the crimes according to Art. 7(3) of the Statute?

  Hence, it is not the OTP's "task is to accumulate proof for criminal prosecution". The OTP stepped right in after the VJ had left Kosovo and took hold of all the evidence in Kosovo. How was the Yugoslav judicial system to accumulate proof for its criminal prosecution of "those responsible for the crimes"?

  And yet, Art. 9(1) of the Statute says: "The International Tribunal and national courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute persons for serious violations of international humanitarian law..." Aha! Now the tribunal seems to be walking on thin ice. At no point - to my knowledge - was there talk about "concurrent jurisdiction" of the Serb court and the ICTY. Sure, Art. 9(2) provides for the primacy of the ICTY, but it seems this provision has been used too liberally. Because it has, the Yugoslav judicial system couldn't do its work properly, and hence Milosevic is charged with not punishing the perpetrators of these crimes! If you want a name for this kind of misconduct on ICTY's part, it is called entrapment!

  On the other hand, the lack of bodies, which seems to impede the work of the Yugoslav courts, doesn't seem to bother the ICTY itself in Bosnia! It has never come anywhere close to showing us the 7,000-8,000 bodies that are relevant for its case, but the ICTY doesn't seem to suffer from the same kind of flaws that makes the Yugoslav criminal process - I hesitate to use this expression - null and void.

  And another point about Hartmann's statement. I don't see how the prosecution can fail to prosecute the Serbs for genocide (I replace Milosevic with "Serbs" now) in Kosovo, where the extrapolation of the findings would take the casualties to 10,000 (notwithstanding Ball's testimony) while charging them with genocide in Bosnia where the figure of genocide victims doesn't seem to reach that figure? I haven't done my sums, but I suspect that the persons killed according to Schedules A and B (those related to genocide) in the Bosnia indictment don't come up to the level of the body count in Kosovo.

  Somehow, this whole genocide business stinks in this case. Genocide has been known to be notoriously difficult to prove, because the intent of the perpetrators is so difficult to show. But maybe this difficulty was restricted to the days when states were the only litigants in international law. Anyway, this difficulty doesn't seem to bother the prosecution at all. On the contrary, it seems to think that when everything else fails, there is still the genocide back door. This "everything else" is war crimes and crimes against humanity. The reasoning seems to be that genocide is the sum total of all the war crimes.

  WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!. Who ever came up with the idea that genocide has anything to do with war? The prosecution's genocide case is simply ridiculous and I would say, an INSULT to those groups that are or have been subject to genocide. Where is the intent to destroy a population group? It is deducted from the war-time situation: if you wage war, obviously you want to destroy your enemy. And then you wish to prove your point with telephone conversation like "kill them all!" (Kill all who? That is something any one of us could say.) Add some crimes against humanity, and presto, you have a genocide.

  No, no, no. The intent to crush your enemy and maybe to terrorize the civilian population in war-time has nothing to do with genocide. The genocide of the Jews wasn't directed at a belligerent, but at a peaceful and innocent Jewish population. The prosecution seems to ignore the fact that those these allegedly genocidal maniacs were killing had an elaborate defense system, i.e. guns. They were belligerents!

  In genereal, the prosecution seems to be playing games with the civilian population. I don't know why the Kosovo battle was not qualified as a genocide. Maybe the mass deportation of civilians showed that the Serbs had no intention to destroy the whole population. However, in the indictment of Ljubomir Borovcanin the idea seems to be that the deportation of women and children somehow adds up to genocide. This is insane!

  I don't know why the Jews allow this travesty to go on. Maybe they fear being called holocaust deniers just as much as we, the goyim. To get around the uncomfortable facts, in everybody's mind a genocide is reduced to a series of digital figures. In WW2 it was 6 million, in Bosnia it is about 10,000 (there is a travesty in that comparison alone). I don't know how the 6-million figure came about, but it is a catastrophe to take that figure for the essence of genocide. Everyone who challenges that figure is a holocaust denier. One of the Palestinian leaders argued in his doctoral thesis that this 6 million figure is uncertain, if not totally false, 1 million being probably closer to truth. And so he thought he had managed to disprove the holocaust! As if 1 million people belonging to a specific population group were a trifle! He said he lamented the death of even one single human being, but that is not the point. Genocide is not the sum total of individual deaths but the destruction of a population group as such.

  Such a fixation to numbers is exactly what propaganda needs these days. Throw in a round figure and charge anyone who has the guts to challenge that figure a holocaust denier! This was done by the Muslims in Bosnia. Now they want to make Srebrenica a sister-city of New York. (Maybe I had better to refrain from any emotional outburst at this point.)

  Have you noticed how often the ICTY's homepage is updated nowadays? They do it in such a haste that a spelling mistake has crept in: it says "plea agrement".
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 5:33 am
  Re: Mrs Plavsic. Her lead counsel said: "Mrs. Plavsic has not agreed to testify in any case pending before this Tribunal". He even denied there had been any negotiations between her and the OTP. How could the journalists then think that she might come the prosecution's star witnesses in the case against Milosevic (according to Mr T)? Is this again evidence of limited psychic powers or what?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 5:40 am
  Things get curioser and curioser. The lead counsel said: "[T]here is no agreement, nor have there been any discussions, between Mrs. Plavsic and the Office of the Prosecutor regarding sentencing." How misleading! Her co-counsel O'Sullivan says that there were agreements: "All agreements and understandings between the Prosecutor and Mrs. Plavsic are contained in the written Plea Agreement."
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 6:04 am
  Well, there was an agreement concerning sentencing in the Plea Agreement. Point 6 of the Plea Agreement says: "In determining the sentence, the Trial Chamber shall, pursuant to Article 24(2) of the Statute, take into consideration such factors as the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the convicted person as well as those factors described in Rule 101(2)."

  The Trial Chamber shall adhere to a couple of provisions of the Statute and the Rules. How magnanimous! Obviously the only reason this has to be spelled out is that the observance of the Statute and the Rules is an exception.

  And indeed, Art. 24(2) says: "[T]he Trial Chambers should take into account..." The prosecution now says: "[T]he Trial Chamber shall..."

  What is particularly magnanimous that the prosecutor can promise something like that on behalf of the Trial Chamber!

  Anyway, it is strange that the Statute affords this magnanimity of Art. 24(2) only to the "convicted person". It sure pays to plead guilty. Who knows, you might get a fair trial (although you relinquish some of your rights and agree to get convicted)!
  
  J N
  Finland

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 11:16 am
  

  I just finished watching the cross examination of C37 in todays session, Stepi Messic ended earlier, before Mr. Wladimiroff (NATO) got pounded by judge Kuong (OCCUPIED), Robinson (COLONIAL) jumping in while a surprised May (NATO) tried to give Wladimiroff (NATO) some assurances he was OK with the court.

  Wladimiroff had trouble defending himself and took refuge in the fact his English was not his native language something of little help since the original interview was given in his native Dutch. Of course the student from Bulgaria, the Bulgarian press, his course on international law and his lecture on the role of amici curiae is what, in his opinion got him in trouble, but he is ready to continue and learn his lesson.

  The the trial chamber the little troiska of sorts, will consider, May (NATO) said.

  Under cross examination C37 was another miracle for Mr. Milosevices defense. No wonder the camera avoided a direct view of the prosecutors bench. Mr. Nice (NATO) gone for the day no other star was worth the efffort, I suposse. C37 will continue for 3 more hours of revealing stuff . . .
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA (UN-PHOBIC)

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 12:59 pm
  I can't remember if Anti-Defamation League was on Ruder & Finn's list of Jewish organizations to be won over to the anti-Serb campaign. In any case, if the Ruder & Finn story is correct, it seems just as crucial to win the same organizations over to the anti-ICTY campaign. And I don't see why the Ruder & Finn story wouldn't be true: it is confirmed by the Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society. See http://www.vidici.com/NetClipping/
  Text_htm/Politica/Kosovo/IZJAVA_jsfs.html .

  I checked what the ADL has actually written about Yugoslavia. The answer seems to be: nothing much. I found this letter to the Chicago Tribune written two years ago: http://www.adl.org/israel/
  chicago%5Ftribune%5Fletter%5F10%5F23.asp .

  I think the ADL has to change direction anyway, because the letter speaks of "the groundbreaking negotiations with the Palestinian Authority". In other respects, the letter doesn't impress me with its originality. It says:

  "Milosevic’s Yugoslavia was guilty of ethnic cleansing, clearly displayed to the world through the use of camps in which Muslims and Croats were starved, tortured and murdered. This policy was further evidenced through the discovery of mass graves throughout the former Yugoslavia."
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 1:50 pm
  Jari, there is no single Muslim or Croat that died of starvation during the war in Bosnia and Croatia. As usual anybody can write about the Serbs whatever one wants and it goes. Ruder & Finn bragged about how they spun stories about Serb atrocities.
  
  Pera Bora
  Canada

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 1:58 pm
  

  Jari, I can give you some information about anti-Semitism real and alleged in Yugoslavia and in Serbia in particular.

  I don't think I want to do that here, for reasons you would understand and also because it is secondary in appearance to this conflict and many would not understand. Personaly I think the perceived memory, collective memory of the hollocaust has everything to do with it, since without the holocaust as a background the situation would have been very different. I can only say, the holocaust is popular as many museums on the subject will atest.

  That is at least one charge they have not brought against Milosevic, in fact a prominent Belgrade Jew and a his personal friend, the head and founder of a Serbia-Jewish Firendship Asssociation was founded dead in her apartment last year.

  If, you're interested and I may not have anything you don't know, we can exchange email addresses.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 4:32 pm
  Over the last month I was too busy to participate here, but managed to catch up reading the archive. Interesting posts, high level of info, acuteness. May I contribute feebly? A vivid day at the session today: Wladimiroff complaining the media blew everything out of proportion re his hunting-with-shootgun-metaphor in yet another incredibly unprofessional interview of his; his words were misinterpreted, it was published what he didn't say... Poor thing! Got a taste of that bitter treatment my country has been experiencing abundantly. Or maybe just blurted out what all court officials really think: staged fight, sure bet. Worried not about the justice to be done, but about the perception of doing justice, our troika of "judges" took turns in fierce wrist-slapping of their friend Wladimir. Poor thing! He was reduced to the explanation that the intricacies of the English language, not his native tongue, are to be blamed for his slip-ups. May concluded by saying that Wlado's antics didn't harm the judges, the Rock of Gibraltar of professionalism that they are, but only Wlad himself, and the perception that us poor laymen are getting when watching this. So, they are not only playing this charade of a trial in front of us, they also consider us too dumb to realize that. Insulting. More on today's witnesses tomorrow, if I find time.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday October 03, 2002 at 11:25 pm
  Hi Everybody! - I watched that video from Haag and I' m trying to figure out what was the Stepan Mesich's testimony about..... -In case his performance was supposed to prove that S. Milosovich destroyed Yugoslavia by building "greater Serbia" why Mr Mesich was taking all the credit in his book b"how we topled Yugoslavia"? - You Guys are doing a great job on this forum and i enjoy it a lot.....- even Simon from the Amman Valley is contributing quite a bit, - I believe he is a very honest guy - he just was in disadvatage by entering this forumvery lightly armed (excusively BBC and CNN mass consuption gems). - Just like me for the first few days of humanitarian bombing...... wish i had more time for this forum.. .....but i hardly have enough of it to read what You guys have to say,,,,,, and lately i discovered those video broadcasts from Haag..... - All You guys are good but my favorite is Bogdan.....
  
  vytas abrutis
  phila,PA
  USA

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 2:41 am
  Oct. 10 Runoffs

  HOW TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION:

  Thursday, October 3, 2002 3:13PM EDT

  Associated Press reports US Forgives Some Yugo Debt

  BELGRADE, Yugoslavia (AP) - The United States forgave two-thirds of Yugoslavia's debt on Thursday in a sign of improving relations with the country's reformist leadership.

  The agreement erases $353.7 million, or 66 percent, of the Belgrade's $589.4 million debt to Washington. The write-off was signed by U.S. Ambassador William Montgomery and Yugoslav Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic.

  Svilanovic was quoted by the state-run Tanjug news agency as saying Yugoslavia expects further improvement in economic relations with the United States in the months to come. He said the agreement Thursday was the result of "long and exhausting" work.

  Montgomery said the U.S. move was a sign of support for economic reforms undertaken after the current pro-Western leadership ousted former President Slobodan Milosevic, Tanjug reported.

  Yugoslavia faced international sanctions during the Milosevic era as a punishment for the country's role in more than a decade of Balkan bloodshed. The United States has been cautious restoring economic ties with Yugoslavia and has so far refused to release frozen assets. Svilanovic said the issue was under discussion and should be resolved in the months to come.

  The U.S.-Yugoslav agreement is likely to boost the position of Deputy Prime Minister Miroljub Labus, a reformer who faces Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica in an Oct. 13 runoff vote for president of Serbia.

  Labus, an economist, had been instrumental in negotiating the bailout, and has made continuing economic reform a cornerstone of his election campaign. He is closely allied with the pro-Western government run by Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 5:52 am
  

  Well, this seems a pretty benign way of influencing elections. You may have read that the European Union spent more money on propaganda during the recent Slovak elections than all national political parties put together. When early opinion polls made it clear that the propaganda did not work, the EU sent a message to the Slovak people that in case Meciar would become head of the government, the EU membership application process would be stopped.

  As for the Plavsic matter: No Mr CG, someone who has committed war crimes like the ones Mrs. Plavsic admitted to is not 'my kind of girl' As a matter of fact I'm disappointed that the other charges against her were dropped. I think the OTP had a strong case against her on all counts. The only reason for this week's agreement I can think of is that the OTP thinks Mrs. Plavsic's age/health would make it unlikely that she could sit in court for a year or so - or much longer if there were also to be an appeal case.

  As for an agreement to testify: there is of course no need for any witness to 'agree' to testify. If prosecution or defense (defendant) wants to call a witness and the witness refuses to appear, the court may hold him/her in contempt and punish him/her with up to seven years in prison and/or a hefty fine if it decides his/her testimony is crucial. The Jonathan Randal case which came up again in court III yesterday is in the early stages of such a procedure.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 7:48 am
  

  On the matter of witnesses today Mr. Nice (NATO) told the trial chamber he was having problems getting them to come to the trial to testify, he was contradicting what he had told the court earlier addressing the complaints by Mr. Milosevic regarding the constant changes of the witnesses order of appearance in court. Mr. Nice (NATO) said if this situation was not improved he would have to ask the court for assistance.

  It is quite remarkable this situation exists at all and worse of all that Mr. Milosevic has to bear the burden of it, since the selection of witnesses, or the apearance rather is some sort of random, chancy event. Mr. Wladimiroff "shot gun" analogy is begining to make sense.

  I also noticed and today it was really obvious, judge May (NATO) gets very agressive towards Mr. Milosevic when prosecutor Nice (NATO) is present, he did indeed entangled himself in a vociferous argument which was resolved in closed chambers, away form the public; a truly British gentleman at play!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 9:31 am
  Apart from his own political agenda of those years as well as of today, Mesic delivered nothing even remotely relevant or reliable. He even lowered himself in peddling as evidence the gossip of his office staff. Every other question by Nice was answered with parroting about Greater Serbia. Either he really learnt the indictment by heart or else co-authored it. When cross examined, he was exposed to be guilty of high treason and slyness (accusing Milosevic for breaking up of ex-YU, which was his own life-long pet project and which he engineered) and of personal rudeness of a thug (boasting with his own quotations of threats to his political oponents in a mafia-style language). Milosevic must have a strong stomach to communicate with such a vomit-inducing individual. May tried to save him by frequent interruptions, but then Mr Key drily intervened, warning the "judges" that the accused has the right to challenge the credibility of the witness; so May at least temporarily stopped his misbehaviour; later on he resumed, of course. The only thing that prevented the complete humiliation of this "presidential" witness was the fact that he was interpolated before the cross examination of C-037, because this witness turned out to be almost as pro-defence as Mr Markovic was and successfully denied the rosy picture of CRO as it was and is, painted by Mesic. It is ever so convenient when you have such means available for reshufling cards at your will, as the prosecution does. But this is a minor point, a technicality. The main issue here is that CRO was and is a neo-fascist state, sponsored to destroy ex-YU and helped to discriminate, kill and expell the Serbs living there, while at it. No amount of legal gymnastics can hide that.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Yugoslavia

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 10:09 am
  There were those who craved war because war served their interests. Mesic was one of threes who craved war. Even Free Dalmatia media sees that Mesic didn’t do very well. In fact they score it one to zero in favor of Milosevic. In the Free Dalmatia discussions the main concern seems to be how history will see the role of Croatia in the breakup of Yugoslavia.

  The media again is playing games as is the internet provider. For me to comment or to challenge what is said I must see the event at the same time when I see the reports in the media that is if I see them at all? There is no point in responding several days later since most readers forget what they have read after they throw the paper into the recycle bin. As far as the media provider is concerned, the late posting of the tapes makes any reply to the media redundant

  Media in BC on very rare occasion reports on the trial but only the prosecution side. Milosevic’s cross examinations are not reported. For Canadians that post here you need to call CRTC and state your objection about media bias. CBC is funded by our tax dollars and CRTC takes complaints seriously and they will respond. The toll-free Client Services line for CRTC is 1-877-249-2782

  Jari, thank you for your detailed explanation re: ICJ, ICTY and ICC. Peter I wrote to professor Walls challenging his sources such as Newsweek magazine and other articles of Reader’s Digest caliber. This gentleman is a chair of a major department at Sonoma College and he simply justifies his sources by saying that my sources were no better than his. That should tell you something about academic rigor at Sonoma. His main interest, however, was where I obtained his article. I challenged him on the lack of due process at The Hague to which he has not responded.

  Mr. Tiggelaar writes that “the only reason for this week's agreement I can think of is that the OTP thinks Mrs. Plavsic's age/health would make it unlikely that she could sit in court for a year or so - or much longer if there were also to be an appeal case.” Wow! Mr. Tiggelaar, several individuals who died while in custody at the Nazi Fortress and those who were killed before their trials must be applauding this magnanimity of the Tribunal.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 11:00 am
  

  Buying elections is a very benign way of influencing the results?

  Lets apply this remarckable principle to the issue here: Justice.

  How much for the acquittal of Mr. Milosevic would the NATO court ask?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 12:11 pm
  Gogol, regarding the Jewish fellow killed in Belgrade and his mistress:
  1. Has any group claimed responsibility?
  2. Had their been any allegations against either/both of them about (Israeli Mossad and/or) CIA connections?
  3. Was he involved with the mafias in any way?
  Thanks for any information.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb
  IL USA

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 12:28 pm
  

  Buying elections is a very benign way of influencing the results?

  Yes, it will still benefit Yugoslavia/Serbia if Mr. Kostunica is elected president. In that sense the EU's threatening of Slovakia is imo much more abject while conditioned to the outcome of the elections

  Mr Trkla, would you elaborate some on the killing spree at the ICTY that you make mention of? I'm aware of Slavko Dokmanovic's suicide in the detention unit and of the death of natural causes of Milan Kovacevic, but what massacre(s) did I miss?

  I would say the ICTY treats those in detention pretty humanely: terminally ill indictee Gen. Djukic was for instance set free and spends his last moments with his family in Montenegro.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Amsterdam
  Holland

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 12:58 pm
  Mr. Frank I asked you some of the things months ago and you did not reply. Now you are asking Mr Trkla for a killing spree. Obviously you are not well informed on the matter. If you want to know he are the names:

  Dorde Dukic

  Simo Drljaca

  Milan Kovacevic

  Slavko Dokmanovic

  Dragan Gagovic

  Nikica Janjic and his father

  
  
  Pero Peric
  Canada

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 2:28 pm
  

  Lou,

  Dr. Klara Mandic was the founder of the Serbia-Jewish Friendship society and she fought very hard to get the record straight in the western press, especially in the United States. She was brutally murdered 11 May 2001, and its motive was reported as "robbery" but there was nothing missing in her apartment and besides showing signs of a brutal beating the final cause of death was a bullet in the back of her skull and set at fire.

  I know of no connection or claims to any foreign or Yugoslav secret services involving this crime, but I know her struggle in defending the truth, her friendship with Mr. Milosevic reflected a spirit, a sense of commitement beyond any compromise and one that I have found over the years to be the trade mark of many Yugoslavs.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 2:44 pm
  

  American "generosity and largesse" in wanting to get Mr. Labus (NATO-G17) elected could perhaps be better measured in the desire to pay Yugoslavia damage compensation for the 78 days of destructive and illegal bombing. The hypocrites are getting away cheap.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 4:35 pm
  

  CLICK HERE

  UN Drops Indictment Against Fugitive Bosnian Croat
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 4:54 pm
  Thank you for setting me straight on the tragedy, Gogol.
  
  Lou Coatney
  Macomb
  IL USA

• Friday October 04, 2002 at 9:59 pm
  As I can see there is a lack of Croats in the discussion here. Just to point out a few facts: 1/3 of Croatia was occupied in 1991/1992. All non-Serbs were expelled from the occupied territory where the percentage of Serbs was from 30-50% before the occupation, villages were burned, people expelled or killed. The city of Vukovar was destroyed. Many cities were shelled daily, Vinkovci, Zadar, Dubrovnik, Osjek, Sisak, Karlovac where I was. The world did not pay attention and people were dying daily. Any questions for Milosevics implications in all this, on the front Serbian soldiers swore at Milosevic. In Vukovar Serbs while occupying were singing :"Slobo salji salate bit ce mesa klat cemo Hrvate". meaning: " Slobo send the salad, there will be meat, we will butcher Croats". To give you a taste of his implied involvment. And most gruesome chants some of Serb troops used to sing. JNA was clearly on Serb side, they were shelling the city of Varazdin in the north for a week from the army barracs (which was not even close to the front,) until there was an agreement to let them transport all the armor to Serbia. The same in many cities, my own city was shelled for months from army barracs situated in the suburb which was controlled by Serbs after the "rebellion". That is just a taste of what was going on. Just a few more details, a Serbian friend of mine in my 8th grade, was telling me how it will be in a years time... I did not take him seriously than, but he explained to me that Serbs will have the "Virovitica, Karlovac Karlobag" line that was mentioned by Mesic in his testemony. That was in 1990, in the Spring, and that was a than friend of mine in 8th grade. In Summer the rebellion started. His family went to the other side, never to come back. I guess they hoped to come back as the "winners", or whatever. Don't know about you , but if Croats had occupied 1/3rd of Serbia and not the other way around, I would understand that the man in charge should be put on trial. This way around... huh. If Mesic and Tudjman "craved for war" would they be crazy to go against the full Yugoslav army with people armed with hunting guns, and molotov coctails on 2/3rds of the front for the first 6 months of the war. The main weakness of the "Milosevic tactic" was that many of the people who had to do the dirty work on the ground did not actually believe they will have to kill their neighbours for the idea of Greater Serbia. That made them very inefficient at the beginning, and until their ranks cleared and you got only "hard-core" people fighting for his idea, the resistance was already too strong to progress further, albeit he almost succeded in his plan, as just couple months before the Operation Storm, Serbs held 81% of Bosnia and 1/3 of Croatia. Almost there, but fortunatley never made it. If Croat government planned/wanted war 1/3 of Serbia would be occupied by Croats and not the other way around. And for claims about "fascist government" well even after the war more than 200000 Serbs live and work in Croatia as they used to before, some of them I know too. However these guys did not go after the hype of those early 1990's, and they suffered the same fate as the rest of us as they were shelled and had to hide underground for days until the arrival of UNPROFOR when we at least in Karlovac did not have any problems (no shelling and such) after. Regardles, It will be interesting what Biljana Plavsic will have to say, as she is the first one to admit to the charges. Hopefully noone will kill her.
  
  Djuro Brodarac
  Croatia/UK

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 2:50 am
  Djuro: I have pictures and press articles of what the Croats were doing to the Serbs as the Serbs were forced out of the Krajina, their homes for centuries. Croats spitting, throwing rocks, shooting, at old people, women, children. You showed yourself. I never thought that the human race would sink so low that they would not mind being photographed as though they were proud of their less then human actions.

  As for being fearful of the Yugo army, you were depending on Germany to help you. Where is Germany now? Your economy is not good. You have almost nothing in health care. You have your independence. Was the pure Croatian state worth it?

  I have heard what the Croats were telling the Serbs, about the blood of Serbs running through the streets.This was in l975 when Serbs were whispering to one another in fear. Before the Yugo army fired one shot, Serbs were being fired from government jobs to be replaced with Croats. There were many civil rights being denied them. They also remembered what happened to them in the 40s.

  As for Bosnia, do you think we cannot remember that the Croats were fighting the Muslims at one time. The only reason they stopped was Clinton threatened sanctions. I have read of the war crimes committed against the Muslims by the Croats. You and I both know what crimes were committed against the Serbs.

  During the signing of the Dayton Peace Accord (joke)it was said by the western media (no friend of the Serbs) that Tudjman was terrible to Izebegovic, and that Milosevic was respectful. Tudjman it was said had no respect for Muslims.

  As for Plavsic, God forgive her, she must be under a lot of pressure. I know without any doubt that she made the plea under circumstances that I probably could not take nor could you sir.

  In the USA, we do not have a pure state. We have a mixture that all in all works well. It is illegal to deny anyone their civil rights.

  The other day an article came out about an ex ambassador to Yugoslavia, a Japanese gentleman. His ashes were buried in a Belgrade cemetary as for his last wishes. In the last days of his life, his son said he spoke only Serbian. He loved Yugoslavia. Too bad you did not.What a mess you all have made for yourselves.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SKC
  USA

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 5:38 am
  To Djuro: "If Mesic and Tudjman 'craved for war' would they be crazy to go against the full Yugoslav army with people armed with hunting guns, and molotov coctails on 2/3rds of the front for the first 6 months of the war".

  I don't know if that is true. At least it contradicts what has been said here (not surprisingly). In any case, it can be only part of the truth. I think it is an incontestable fact that the Croats did get some support from the Germans and the Americans at some point of the war! Gotovina's whole "defense" strategy is based on this!

  But I think it was very good that you brought up the other side of the story. I hope no-one challenges the idea that all sides committed atrocities (or at least had some bood-thirsty slogans).

  On the other hand, I doubt if the slogan "Slobo send the salad, there will be meat, we will butcher Croats" is enough to prove Milosevic's individual criminal responsibility.

  Even apart from his individual responsibility, the prosecution seems to admit there was no genocide in Croatia, no matter what the Croatian government claims in the Genocide case at the ICJ.

  And I can't help thinking that it is this very discrepancy between the ICJ case and the Croatia indictment that makes the whole Croatian episode pretty obscure.

  Just let me pause for a minute. What does one mean by Greater Serbia? I think the original idea of Nikola Pasic in 1910's was to make the whole are of Yugoslavia a "Greater Serbia". Did Milosevic really want that? Was he to subordinate all other nationalities in Yugoslavia, or convert them into "Serbs", or failing that, to kill them? Just what exactly does the idea of "Greater Serbia" consist of?

  The Greater Serbia slur may be based partly on fact but it has been given a well-calculated spin. You know, a Yugoslav Parliament committee concluded in its report in 1992 (I still haven't had the opportunity to check the year) that the Yugoslav constitutin gave the "nations" the right to leave the SFRY but not as republics: the borders of the coming independent states had to be renegotiated. It is my understanding that the Lisbon Agreement and the Vance-Owen Plan were in favour of the renegotiation of the borders as well. And the Serbs being the largest nation in Yugoslavia, they had to have the largest republic! So there is a bit of meat in the Greater Serbia slur, but the "international community" OK'd it one point as well! As it is, I think about half of the Serbs live outside Serbia proper!

  And notice the one-sidedness. No-one can deny that at least one point the Kosovars subscribed to the Greater Albania ideology. Are the Kosovar political leaders now in the dock for that?

  Walter, it is epidemic in the media that the Milosevic trial is covered with a couple of lines somewhere. However, yesterday I picked the largest Finnish newspaper (something that I do reluctantly) and there seems to be some softening. The reporter said that many news agencies said that Mesic stood up bravely to Milosevic. Notice the critical distance adopted in the reporting. But on the other hand, do these nuances matter in a story a few lines long in a Finnish newspaper?

  Gogol, the killing of Dr Klara Mandic was the thing that brought the Serbian-Jewish Friendship Society to my attention. There was wide speculation that the American Jews (or those who had managed to turn their heads) couldn't support an alternative point of view and had her shot. Maybe that was so, anyway the killing is now part of the mystery killings that were indeed ascribed to Milosevic at the time but never solved. N.B. There has been a killing spree in Belgrade, but this doesn't seem to bother the international justice a bit. (If it does, the mud is thrown at Milosevic. Strange that he wasn't held in detention in Belgrade for these murders but for corruption!)

  But I think you know my point was somewhat different. My point is that even the ADL is not infallible. It seems incredible that the letter that I quoted answers a Chicago Tribune column which compared Israel to Saddam and Milosevic but fails to question that link only as far as Israel is concerned. In fact, the letter attacked Milosevic and Saddam only so that Israel would come clean. Milosevic's atrocities were supposedly proved what the "world" had seen. I don't know how that argument is supposed to convince anyone. Nowadays the ADL might not use that sort of argument in Israel's case any more.

  The Jews should ponder on the fact that it was Stipe Mesic that was the first to come up with the Saddam=Milosevic equation (as has been suggested above). Further, I think it would be very wise for the Jews to think about Milosevic's outburst when he said Mesic is a Croatian Fascist. If the Balkans were any closer to the American Jews, these sort of allegations would be looked into immediately.

  And there would be a lot of stuff to keep the Jews on their toes anyway. I think James Harff of Ruder & Finn said it best when he described the challenges he faced in winning the Jewish organization over to the anti-Serb campaign: one major obstacle was the Croatian ustasha past. (As we now know, the book containing Harff's interview has seemingly vanished, which may be a sign that the ADL doesn't want be shown wrong.)

  Is it any wonder the ADL is now complaining anti-Semitism is on the rise (as it undoubtedly is)? The impression now given is that the American Jews will remain strangely silent about anti-Semitism when it takes place in some faraway corner of the world, as in the Balkans. It would be in the interests of the Jewish organizations themselves to revise their Balkans policy, not to mention the healthy effect such revision would have on the Serbs in general and Milosevic in particular in the long run.

  Finally a word on the indictments themselves. The difference between genocide and other crimes is vital. If the prosecution can't get Milosevic convicted of genocide in at least one of the indictments (i.e. Bosnia), the whole case collapses, at least in the long run.

  The kind of "genocide" that occurs in a war-time situation, which the indictment is talking about, would be properly called extermination. For instance, the first Arab attack on the Israeli state in the 1940's was called a war of extermination. It was an attack against an armed enemy but its intended effect was to "push the Jews to the sea" (i.e. the civilian population).

  How do I know the prosecution knows the flimsiness of its genocide case and knows that it is actually arguing for extermination? Simple. Just read the Bosnia indictment. The Schedules A and B (including the Srebrenica massacre) are used to substantiate the genocide charge as well the extermination charge (and some other crimes against humanity).

  Extermination is a crime against humanity. However, even "crime against humanity" seems too harsh a qualification. It is an incontestable fact that the safe havens were used for attacks on the Serbs (admitted in the Krstic judgment), and the men and boys that the Serbs allegedly killed were probably unarmed militants. In that case, the crime would be a simple war crime: murder (in the sense of the Geneva Conventions). And would you believe it, the Bosnia indictment using this name, too, to refer to the same Schedules A and B!

  In fact, schedules A and B have justified at least seven different counts in the indictment. Isn't that a bit too much, when we are still talking about one and the same victims and the same event? Can't the prosecution make up its mind?

  Crimes against humanity are crimes which take place against the civilian population in time of war, and that is exactly the kind of "genocide" we are talking about here. Does the prosecution really think that one and the same episode - with the same victims! - can be qualified as both genocide and extermination in Bosnia? If it does, it would have been logical to resort to the same kind of double argument in the Croatia indictment too, but obviously Croatia doesn't have its own kind of Srebrenica legend that people would buy. On the other hand, the Kosovo indictment doesn't even mention the word "extermination" (let alone "genocide")!

  The prosecution's policy seems erratic. The names of the crimes change from one indicment to the other, and this is something that the defense might be able to exploit. The name of the game is: allegans contraria non est audiendus - he who alleges contrary things should not be heard.

  But does it really matter? Yesterday I picked up a textbook of international criminal law, and there some of the arguments were based on the Milosevic indictment alone! It is good that the trial inches forward so slowly. The indictment will in the meantime be absorbed by the way to the textbooks, and the case will be closed even before the judges reach the verdict. This is especially detrimental, because the prosecution uses such multiple qualifications for the same event. Insane!
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 6:19 am
  Gogol, thank you for the latest "CLICK HERE". This link is about the withdrawal of an indictment Marinic, a Bosnian Croat policeman who allegedly killed Muslims. The explanation Jim Landale, the tribunal's spokesman, gives is magnificent: "This is all part of a prosecution strategy of concentrating as high up the chain of command as possible and of deferring some cases to national courts."

  Well, why haven't they charged Marinic's superiors on basis of "command responsibility"? No wonder all they got is small fish. That is how they got Milosevic to The Hague! Is it a mere trifle now that Marinic is at large? Shouldn't he have been punished by his Bosnian Croat superiors earlier? So what if he is at large? Shouldn't the Bosnian Croat leadership start looking for him, just like the Serbian leadership is supposed to find out where Karadzic and Mladic are. If they can't find them, they aren't cooperating with the tribunal fully.

  So Jim, this is one of the stupidest things we have heard this far, but maybe it wasn't your fault. You are only doing your job.

  Gogol, I will get back to the Jewish question after the weekend, if need arises. Anyway, you know why I use the Jewish and the Israeli history so much: as you said, that is the background of the whole thing. It provides the modern international criminal law with the vocabulary, the concepts and the hard cases - it doesn't matter if it is only a perception. Is your e-mail still the same - gogol@hotmail.com - or what was it?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 6:35 am
  By the way, the judge who made the decision is the Egyptian Amin El-Mahdi. Maybe he has the power to forgive the Croats on behalf of the Bosniaks.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 7:44 am
  

  Jari,

  correction to the email:

  g o g o l c @hotmail.com

  I agree with your comments and I would add taht during the Clinton administration, that is to say during most of the 90's, the holocaust frenzy reached a peak; a high one.

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 8:42 am
  Mr T, I am not sure if you are quite honest about the reasons that led to the dropping of most charges against Mrs Plavsic. Last time you said that the deal was that she might testify against Milosevic. This is of course something that her counsels denied, but according to you, they were just stating the obvious, because the OTP can call any witness it wants (especially if they are Serbs like the former president Lilic). I think what might be at stake here is the content of the testimony (and I think you know what I mean).

  A comment about Dukic. He was the indictee with the pancrea cancer. He was released a month before his death. Yet, his indictment has not been withdrawn. It is still there on the ICTY website - like all the other indictments of people that are now dead. Pretty humane!

  But with Dukic's fate in mind, why should the Plavsic plea agreement be contingent on her ill-health. The counsels said nothing about her health. Why not? And if the treatment of Dukic is any indication, the decision of her inability to stand the stress of the full-length trial should have been taken only a month before her death! And still you would call that pretty humane!
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 8:51 am
  And come to think of it. What is this fuss about Mrs Plavsic? The ICTY homepage has links to her plea agreement (they even corrected "agrement" to "agreement" - thank you). Yet they have withdrawn some of the charges against Milosevic but you would never notice it by reading just the ICTY website. It is bad enough that the Bosnia and Croatia indictments were finished after Milosevic was already in The Hague. But isn't it about time the prosecution made up its mind what they are charging him with!! It was reported that the OTP withdraws the genocide of the Bosnian Croats, but now it seems to be included all the same. I can't see how this back-and-forth movement contributes to the fairness of this trial.

  But I guess everything that is OK with R. May is OK with the rest of us. I think if the other two judges said anything he didn't like, he would convict them of mutiny.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 10:12 am
  Peter

  Thanks, feeling better now

  The ICG (PDF) URL was as Sept.2002, one interesting after thought, check the footnotes and see where they got their numbers from . See p17

  The source for the 4000+ is the ICTY and probably correct, as was the 1999 2000+ number quoted by JI. I have no reason to doubt this 4000+ number nor am I worried about it being higher than two years ago, as you say the numbers on their own mean very little but this 4000+ still don't point to a 78 day genecidal rampage afaic. With the combatants(estimates JA/KLA) removed I'd say around the same % of population of non-Albanian and Albanians died in the year from 4/99. (I hope you understand what I mean here)

  In short, random war crimes happened in Kosovo, both sides committed them, only the JA are actively prosecuting its soldiers, NATO put its into the KPF

  Bogdan

  I have a difference in approach to achieving justice with some here, most have a goal of what I see as "top down" justice, big fish first, to my mind a very difficult approach when dealing with large orgs like NATO and states like the US/UK, to me its one where the thug holding the gun gets forgotten or lost in the battle for justice. I favour "bottom up" in this instance the truth from the little fish will bring down the big fish.

  I'd say most ordinary victims want to know who were the perpetuators of individual war crimes, those active in the field, prosecute these minions and they're soon give up masters.

  Its not that I want NATO left out of reach, I just am not convinced that going after NATO in this way will achieve anything other than NATO battening down the hatches. Ask yourself is NATO any weaker now than it was 3 years ago? No, its stronger, last year it offered to enact article 5(?) after 911, Russia is now a partner and many states are queuing up to join, NATO is positioning itself as the worlds policeman and it seems everyone in Europe wants to be part of this force. Its now so big and powerful that the huge amount of mud thats slung and sticks goes largly un-noticed.

  I think what is more important to me is justice for ordinary people and not the political ego's of the likes of Milosevic, Mesic & Co. I can imagine now the case against NATO being proved (outside our little group) and all the ordinary people saying "yeah, like we already knew that man, but that Croat/Bosniak/Serb/Albanian that killed my relative is still living down the road". This kind of "top down" justice will not peace and harmony to the region IMO.
  
  Simon Joseph
  Amman Valley
  UK

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 1:08 pm
  

  Mr. Nousiainen: You write that I was saying that Mrs. Plavsic would testify against Milosevic. My post said, however, "Journalists who were present at the press conference at the ICTY re Biljana Plavsic suggest in their reports that Mrs. Plavsic may become the prosecution's crown witness in the trial against Slobodan Milosevic." Please do not put words in my mouth.

  As for Mrs Plavsic, I spoke of "age/health". We have no particulars about Mrs. Plavsic's health, we do know that she is in her seventies.
  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Beograd
  Srbija

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 5:34 pm
  Djuro you say that there are still 200,000 Serbs living in the territory claimed by Croatia. Can you please give evidence for this & confirm whether this figure compares only with the figure of 581,000 Serbs living there before or includes approx 300,000 who in a prewar census termed themselves Yugoslavs. What I am asking for is evidence whether the Croatian Nazis under Tudjman (I trust that from his publically expresed opinions you would accept Tudjman was a Nazi) were responsible for the genocide & ethnic cleansing of 280,000 or 600,000 people. In general I would be more impressed with your claims of Serbs singing songs etc if (a) you had any independent source posted & (b) such stories had not been used repeatedly by the nazis in this war. By comparison I believe I COULD find independent evidence of a major public demonstration in Croatia culminating in a woman publically defecating on a Holocaust memorial.
  
  Neil Craig
  UK

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 6:42 pm
  Sorry that should read 380,000 or 700,000 (out of a total pre-war population of four & a half million.
  
  Neil Craig
  UK

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 9:20 pm
  Re witness C-037: You have to understand that the Serbs from CRO feel betrayed by Milosevic; they think he should have seized power in ex-YU by a military coup and stop armed secessions by force. (Here I'm reminded of a parallel: my Greek friend from Cyprus told me how anxiously they watched the skies in these days of Turkish attack back in 1972, expecting jets from Mother Greece to appear and save them; but none came. Greece was in the EU and NATO, had to obey; the US and Small Britain needed division of the island to set up their military bases. Mother Greece/Serbia were both powerless.) The absence of a military coup just proves Milosevic had no influence over the YU Army, which just sadly crumbled within, being composed of all YU nations, and those favouring secession stalled Army's reaction to the crisis. Some heroic local commanders, defending their barracks deprived of electricity, water and food, attacked by secessionistic SLO and then CRO illegally founded armies, did their best trying to save their soldiers, property and honour of the country to which they swore loyalty (ex-YU); major Milan Tepic blew himself up, remaining the last within an ammunition depot, to avoid surrendering to the CRO armed mob. But at the higher level the generals half-heartedly tried to do something, sent some tanks, then withdrew them, being frozen by the split-up Presidency, still obeying its commands even when no commands were issued anymore and not daring to organize the putsch, just watched helplessly, together with the rest of us civilians, our country dying. I'm quite prone to believe Milosevic when he said the country would have been defended by the Army if he were the one to control it. (TO BE CONTINUED)
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Saturday October 05, 2002 at 10:00 pm
  (CONTINUATION) So, C-037 has this resentment for Milosevic, but faced with his questions regarding the fears, injustice and killings suffered by the Serbs in CRO even before the clashes started, he could not lie but had to confirm everything. And deny any involvement of Serbia in instigating, organizing and financing the resistance to it. The lame prosecution tried to fortify its non-existent case by attaching couple of documents (No. 7 and C276) to his written statement, introduced as prosecution exhibit, representing the minutes he supposedly submitted of the meeting he supposedly participated. The brave C-037 roundly denied he ever saw any of those papers or said these words as recorded in the "minutes". Mr Kay was ordered by troika to investigate and when questioned, the closely-cropped (wo)man from the prosecution team was forced to admit these are neither original minutes nor submitted by the witness, but a concoction sent them by the CRO Govt! C-037 has to return to CRO where he lives, Western Slavonia region, populated by some 2,000 Serbs where there used to be tens of thousands before CRO started killings and expulsions; to the country with a red-chequered coat of arms on its flag (imagine Jews living in today's Germany with swastika again on its flag!); where the Serbs are not a constituent people anymore, as they used to be, but not even a minority, because they are NOT listed in the law together with Italians, Hungarians and others; where the tenancy of apartments for hundreds of thousands of expelled Serbs has been revoked by law, their pensions not paid for 11 years now (unlike SLO and Bosnia&Herzegovina, which regulated this a long time ago), their voting rights denied... Good luck to you, C-037, a Serb from CRO, an unfortunate, humiliated human being! My heart weeps for you. Djuro, why do you complain the lack of Croats on this forum? What's somebody's nationality got to do with the price of eggs or with someone's ability to grasp the truth? To make you feel better, my father is Croat, I'm born and raised in CRO; but I happen to consider ex-YU was my country, not some monstrosity of "independent" CRO founded upon the glorious traditions of the Nazi puppet state that set the example of exterminating its Serbs. And btw, the Serbs in CRO didn't occupy 1/3 of its territory before its secession; they had been living there for centuries. OK, you can relax now, they are expelled. HOW DO I FORM NEW PARAGRAPHS? HELP, SOMEBODY!
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Sunday October 06, 2002 at 5:50 am
  To form paragraphs Prefix the sentence you wish to begin a new paragraph with following group of three characters: <P>
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Sunday October 06, 2002 at 11:18 am
  Djuro,this is not a joke.They called their President:"Oj Tudjmane,oj Tudjmane donesi salate...".That's how war looks like.No one is proud of that.If it was shown on TV at that time Milosevic would have been finished. Serbs were against Ustashi, not Croats.That and few other melodies from Serbia can be heard on Croatian stadiums.One very popular is:"Zovi, samo zovi, svi ce sokolovi..."These days war song singer Thompson(a gun) is on the peak of his carreer with Balkan rhytms.Croats claim they are not on Balkans and have nothing in common with Serbs.

  Debts are all that left.Croatia owe for help in attacking federal army, expulsion of Serbs and "independence".Kathryn asks where is Germany now. One very clever woman ,whose mother is from ustashian family,Vedrana Rudan describes new state with "Republic Deutsche Telekom".

  Simon don't be so naive.It makes me nervous.Poland has to pay 40 billion $ for American arms to get in the NATO and at the same time to fire soldiers. Pure corruption.Accusing only Serbian leadership will not bring harmony to the region.War didn't start because of small fish.But that's all right,Serbs didn't expect anything better.The real sin is what they do to Fikret Abdic.

  Jari is naive too.Izrael and Yugoslavia can not be compared.YU didn't break the rules.

  Welcome to Frank Tiggelaar.I hope he will take with him all NATO spies from Belgrade.
  
  milan masic
  Serbia

• Sunday October 06, 2002 at 11:36 pm
  This the only place I can find where people can express opinions contrary to the prevailing "press reports" It used to be possible to exercise free speach on the forums of New York Times. Now these have been off for the last three days. Does anybody knows the actual reasons behid so called "urgent maintenance" ?
  
  Drasko Jovanovic
  USA

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 12:52 am
  A voice from the past (re-post):

  Why Serbia lifted Kosovo's autonomy From: NYT-David Binder, 03 Oct 2002

  Comments

  There is always intense pressure in wartime for media outlets to serve as propagandists rather than journalists. While the role of the journalist is to present the world in all its complexity, so that people can make up their own minds, the propagandist simplifies the world in order to mobilize the public behind a common goal.

  One basic simplification is to interpret a conflict in terms of villains and victims, with no qualification allowed for either role. Conflicts in the real world rarely fall into such simple categories: Particularly in ethnic conflicts, both sides usually have legitimate grievances that are often used to justify a new round of abuses against the other side.

  In presenting the background to the Kosovo conflict, U.S. news outlets usually begin with Serbia's revocation of the Kosovo Albanians' autonomy in 1989. This was a crucial decision, one of the major reasons for the rise of the KLA. It also destabilized the Yugoslavian system and contributed to the country's breakup.

  Yet media accounts have rarely explained why Serbia lifted Kosovo's autonomy. The article, from the New York Times in 1987, gives important background to this decision. Although the article is easily found in the Nexis database, little to none of this information has found its way into contemporary coverage of Kosovo, in the Times or anywhere else.

  Also for the troubles in Balkans and Kosovo is blamed Serbia's 'stronman' Mr. Milosevic. From NYT articles one can see that Albanian separatists' quest for an "ethnically pure" Kosovo as part of Greater Albania started 1981, when Mr Milosevic was not even in politics. (At that time he was a bank manager.)

  If one read a similar history of Kosovo written today, one would likely dismiss it as pro-Serb propaganda. Yet this was written 12 years ago, when Kosovo was an obscure corner of the world, and the New York Times would not seem to have any particular interest in defending Serbs or attacking Albanians. ==============

  The New York Times November 1, 1987, Sunday, Late City Final Edition Section 1; Part 1, Page 14, Column 1;

  "In Yugoslavia, Rising Ethnic Strife Brings Fears of Worse Civil Conflict"

  By DAVID BINDER, Special to the New York Times

  BELGRADE, Yugoslavia

  Portions of southern Yugoslavia have reached such a state of ethnic friction that Yugoslavs have begun to talk of the horrifying possibility of ''civil war'' in a land that lost one-tenth of its population, or 1.7 million people, in World War II.

  The current hostilities pit separatist-minded ethnic Albanians against the various Slavic populations of Yugoslavia and occur at all levels of society, from the highest officials to the humblest peasants.

  A young Army conscript of ethnic Albanian origin shot up his barracks, killing four sleeping Slavic bunkmates and wounding six others. The army says it has uncovered hundreds of subversive ethnic Albanian cells in its ranks. Some arsenals have been raided.

  Vicious Insults Ethnic Albanians in the Government have manipulated public funds and regulations to take over land belonging to Serbs. And politicians have exchanged vicious insults. Slavic Orthodox churches have been attacked, and flags have been torn down. Wells have been poisoned and crops burned. Slavic boys have been knifed, and some young ethnic Albanians have been told by their elders to rape Serbian girls.

  Ethnic Albanians comprise the fastest growing nationality in Yugoslavia and are expected soon to become its third largest, after the Serbs and Croats.

  Radicals' Goals The goal of the radical nationalists among them, one said in an interview, is an ''ethnic Albania that includes western Macedonia, southern Montenegro, part of southern Serbia, Kosovo and Albania itself.'' That includes large chunks of the republics that make up the southern half of Yugoslavia.

  Other ethnic Albanian separatists admit to a vision of a greater Albania governed from Pristina in southern Yugoslavia rather than Tirana, the capital of neighboring Albania. There is no evidence that the hard-line Communist Government in Tirana is giving them material assistance.

  The principal battleground is the region called Kosovo, a high plateau ringed by mountains that is somewhat smaller than New Jersey. Ethnic Albanians there make up 85 percent of the population of 1.7 million. The rest are Serbians and Montenegrins.

  Worst Strife in Years As Slavs flee the protracted violence, Kosovo is becoming what ethnic Albanian nationalists have been demanding for years, and especially strongly since the bloody rioting by ethnic Albanians in Pristina in 1981 - an ''ethnically pure'' Albanian region, a ''Republic of Kosovo'' in all but name.

  The violence, a journalist in Kosovo said, is escalating to ''the worst in the last seven years.'' ...

  Were the ethnic tensions restricted to Kosovo, Yugoslavia's problems with its Albanian nationals might be more manageable. But some Yugoslavs and some ethnic Albanians believe the struggle has spread far beyond Kosovo. Macedonia, a republic to the south with a population of 1.8 million, has a restive ethnic Albanian minority of 350,000.

  'We've already lost western Macedonia to the Albanians,'' said a member of the Yugoslav party presidium, explaining that the ethnic minority had driven the Slavic Macedonians out of the region.

  Attacks on Slavs Last summer, the authorities in Kosovo said they documented 40 ethnic Albanian attacks on Slavs in two months. In the last two years, 320 ethnic Albanians have been sentenced for political crimes, nearly half of them characterized as severe.

  In one incident, Fadil Hoxha, once the leading politician of ethnic Albanian origin in Yugoslavia, joked at an official dinner in Prizren last year that Serbian women should be used to satisfy potential ethnic Albanian rapists. After his quip was reported this October, Serbian women in Kosovo protested, and Mr. Hoxha was dismissed from the Communist Party.

  As a precaution, the central authorities dispatched 380 riot police officers to the Kosovo region for the first time in four years. Officials in Belgrade view the ethnic Albanian challenge as imperiling the foundations of the multinational experiment called federal Yugoslavia, which consists of six republics and two provinces.

  'Lebanonizing' of Yugoslavia High-ranking officials have spoken of the ''Lebanonizing'' of their country and have compared its troubles to the strife in Northern Ireland.

  Borislav Jovic, a member of the Serbian party's presidency, spoke in an interview of the prospect of ''two Albanias, one north and one south, like divided Germany or Korea,'' and of ''practically the breakup of Yugoslavia.'' He added: ''Time is working against us.''

  The federal Secretary for National Defense, Fleet Adm. Branko Mamula, told the army's party organization in September of efforts by ethnic Albanians to subvert the armed forces. ''Between 1981 and 1987 a total of 216 illegal organizations with 1,435 members of Albanian nationality were discovered in the Yugoslav People's Army,'' he said. Admiral Mamula said ethnic Albanian subversives had been preparing for ''killing officers and soldiers, poisoning food and water, sabotage, breaking into weapons arsenals and stealing arms and ammunition, desertion and causing flagrant nationalist incidents in army units.''

  Concerns Over Military Coming three weeks after the ethnic Albanian draftee, Aziz Kelmendi, had slaughtered his Slavic comrades in the barracks at Paracin, the speech struck fear in thousands of families whose sons were about to start their mandatory year of military service.

  Because the Albanians have had a relatively high birth rate, one-quarter of the army's 200,000 conscripts this year are ethnic Albanians. Admiral Mamula suggested that 3,792 were potential human timebombs. He said the army had ''not been provided with details relevant for assessing their behavior.'' But a number of Belgrade politicians said they doubted the Yugoslav armed forces would be used to intervene in Kosovo as they were to quell violent rioting in 1981 in Pristina. They reason that the army leadership is extremely reluctant to become involved in what is, in the first place, a political issue.

  Ethnic Albanians already control almost every phase of life in the autonomous province of Kosovo, including the police, judiciary, civil service, schools and factories. Non-Albanian visitors almost immediately feel the independence - and suspicion - of the ethnic Albanian authorities.

  Region's Slavs Lack Strength

  While 200,000 Serbs and Montenegrins still live in the province, they are scattered and lack cohesion. In the last seven years, 20,000 of them have fled the province, often leaving behind farmsteads and houses, for the safety of the Slavic north.

  Until September, the majority of the Serbian Communist Party leadership pursued a policy of seeking compromise with the Kosovo party hierarchy under its ethnic Albanian leader, Azem Vlasi.

  But during a 30-hour session of the Serbian central committee in late September, the Serbian party secretary, Slobodan Milosevic, deposed Dragisa Pavlovic, as head of Belgrade's party organization, the country's largest. Mr. Milosevic accused Mr. Pavlovic of being an appeaser who was soft on Albanian radicals. Mr. Milosevic had courted the Serbian backlash vote with speeches in Kosovo itself calling for ''the policy of the hard hand.''...

  Remzi Koljgeci, of the Kosovo party leadership, said in an interview in Pristina that ''relations are cold'' between the ethnic Albanians and Serbs of the province, that there were too many ''people without hope.''...

  Efforts are under way to strengthen central authority through amendments to the constitution. ...The hope is that something will be done then to exert the rule of law in Kosovo while drawing ethnic Albanians back into Yugoslavia's mainstream.
  
  Andre Huzsvai
  U.S.

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 3:45 am
  

  Frank

  There is no audio, just video. . . . .

  Thanks
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 3:51 am
  

  Drasko Jovanovic

  Hackers raided the site pretty seriously after the "The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic" was terminated.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 3:56 am
  It is an incontestable fact that large parts of Serbian population were driven from Croatia and the areas of BiH that don't belong to Republika Srpska. When the international monitors verified that some of the villages in Kosovo were emptied, they reminded of the "forgotten" Serb refugees from Croatia. I think Bernard Kouchner was already heading that team (I may be wrong).

  Yet, in Croatia's case, the Operation Storm is the only thing that has led to an indictment, namely of Ante Gotovina. He is not accused of the mass exodus of the Serbs as such. In fact, the indictment only says § 34: "Croatian forces subjected the Krajina Serbs to inhumane treatment, humiliation and degradation by beating and assaulting them."

  This is in striking contrast with the indictment of Milosevic in Bosnia. Remember the joint criminal enterprise? The "purpose of this joint criminal enterprise was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs, principally Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, from large areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" (§6). Note that the celebrated "joint criminal enterprise" in the Bosnia indictment was not about genocide or extermination or the like but forcible removals.

  And in numerical terms, how big numbers are we talking about? According to Schedule D "268,050" people were expelled. This is about half of the alleged mass exodus of the Serbs from Croatia. And let's not forget that some of the Serbs from outside the present-day Republika Srpska were "forcibly transferred" too. Besides, the prosecution seems to be strangely silent about the great numbers of Bosnian Muslims who fled to Serbia!

  But let's take another look at the purpose of the joint criminal enterprise. The purpose was "the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs".

  But I'm sorry. This makes no sense. Genocide cannot be placed within forcible and permanent removal, as § 8 suggest. You see, genocide must be committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" (Art. 2 of the Genocide Convention).

  Or alternatively, the indictment suggests in §8 that genocide (count 1) was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the execution of the object of the joint criminal enterprise. However, genocide cannot be a consequence, or even a "natural and foreseeeable consequence" of forcible and permanent removal of non-Serbs. Genocide has to be committed with the sole intent to destroy a population group.

  So the genocide charge fails. All one has to do to arrive at this conclusion is to read the indictment. Even no exhumations are needed!

  Besides, the famous 66 or so charges are a lot of hot air. For instance, counts 1 and 2 are "genocide" and "complicity in genocide" respectively. How can someone commit a crime and be complicit in the crime at the same time? So, these counts are just each other's safety nets. When one count fails, another is supposed to work. Indeed the title above § 32 even uses the word "or": "Genocide or Complicity in Genocide".

  And how does that purpose of "forcible and permanent removal of non-Serbs" manifest itself primarily? Well, as "forcible transfers" of course! These are detailed in Schedule D, right after the three Schedules relevant to the genocide charge!

  But wait a minute! Are forcible transfers a crime? After all, they could be a result of evacuation and the like!

  The answer is given by the indictment itself. Count 17 says: "Inhumane Acts (Forcible Transfers), a crime against humanity, punishable under Articles 5(i)..."

  This is ridiculous. The forcible transfers, the alleged purpose of this joint criminal enterprise, are not even mentioned in the Statute of the ICTY. The above Art. 5(i) only says: "other inhumane acts"! So the indictment against Milosevic and the whole joint criminal enterprise is, in the last analysis, based on a rest category in Art. 5(i)!

  Shame on the prosecution, shame, shame, shame. If anyone just had the patience to read through the indictment, he or she would surely find that the whole ICTY prosecution is just a lot of crap. As a matter of fact, I don't know if anyone has had the nerve to read through the indictment (the ICTY staff excluded).

  And shame on Jim Landale too. It doesn't matter if you are doing your job. You said: "This is all part of a prosecution strategy of concentrating as high up the chain of command as possible and of deferring some cases to national courts." You were of course referring to the withdrawal of the Marinic indictment. However, if he is still at large, how can the case be deferred to national courts? And if the OTP is now after the big fish, why isn't the BiH and Croatian leadership indicted? The relatively small fish that has now been indicted, Ljubomir Borovcanin, is only to build the case against the Milosevic case, now that Karadzic and Mladic are still at large. the indictment makes no bones about this. As you know, Jim, §2 of his indictment reads: "During the attack on the Srebrenica enclave and the subsequent killings and executions of Bosnian Muslim men, LJUBOMIR BOROVCANIN served as Deputy Commander of the MUP Special Police Brigade (SPB)."

  Well, Borovcanin was one of the known and unknown persons in the joint criminal enterprise. That phrase leaves a back door open for the prosecution. You think I am kidding? Read §44 of the Borovcanin indictment. It says he was a member and participant of the Joint Criminal Enterprise (note the capital letters), even if he wasn't mentioned in the Milosevic indictment as a participant. (I still don't get it why the prosecution didn't indict Seselj.)

  By the way, see how lax the prosecution has become in its criteria of genocide - or actually the complicity in genocide. The Borovcanin indictment says in §45 (c): "The accused knew that the crime was being committed in furtherance of the intent to destroy [a group]".

  Hallo! This is the "genocide" which was in itself a natural consequence of the forcible removal of non-Serbs. And now the accused only had to know that what he did was committed in furtherance of genocide.

  Insanity of insanities! It is not enough that the word "know" has been misplaced (it belongs to the command responsibility, whereas this crime of his was obviously committed as a subordinate). But how about the the context of the forcible transfers he allegedly committed? The forcible removals were the purpose of the "Joint Criminal Enterprise", to begin with. The alleged genocide was only committed within the object of this removal - or at least it was a natural consequence of the removal (the absurdity of which was shown above). But now this removal, the cause of the genocide, is called complicity in genocide, because the genocide has now become the purpose of the forcible removal, which was originally the cause of the genocide!

  Frank, I appreciate your participation in this discussion.

  Milan, who is naive? Israel can be compared and should be compared to Serbia. It doesn't matter if Israel broke the rules and Serbia didn't. All I wanted to show is that the Anti-Defamation League has now painted itself in the corner. (By the way, if you don't know what the ADL is, visit their website at www.adl.org, and you know a little better how the world works, I assure you.)

  The ADL said in its letter that the ethnic cleansing was "displayed to the world" in such and such a form. Now would they use that argument to whitewash Israel? I think they would agree that what they see on TV is not the whole story. And to dig a little deeper, my point is that the second intifada, for instance, was not unrelated to Clinton's Balkans policy, because it sent the signal that the Muslims can now use the Jewish rhetoric (like genocide and holocaust) - even with the Jews' blessing! I emphasize that it is in the Jews' best interests to rethink everything that has happened in Yugoslavia during the past ten years.

  Anyway, this trial is about Milosevic's guilt. It may harm his case to insist that Serbia didn't break the rules. What rules? If no atrocities were committed, why were the 200 war crimes convictions handed down in Serbia? I have no reason to doubt that UN arms embargoes were violated, if you mean the UN rules. In fact, I know that they were. But that is not why Milosevic is in The Hague. I have no reason to doubt that the Serbs shouted "Milosevic sent the salad". What I am interested in is Milosevic's individual criminal responsibility. I mean, "Milosevic sent the salad"?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 4:12 am
  One of the five characteristics of a holocaust denier is to say:

  "The Nuremberg Trials were a 'farce of justice' staged by the victors in the war."

  So beware, the roots of the ICTY go really deep. However, the ADL's response to the victor's justice argument is this:

  "The trials did not result in either 'rubber stamp' guilty verdicts or identical sentences. In fact, by 1951, 77 of the 142 criminals convicted at Nuremberg had been released from prison."

  I find it absolutely deplorable that the ICTY now seems to be used to prop up the Nuremberg Trial, which is in turn used to prop up the holocaust. I would like to ask the ADL to reconsider its position on ICTY for the benefit of all and not to see links where none exist.

  Or maybe it is me that is seeing non-existent links. In fact, the ADL website didn't yield any search results with "ICTY". After all, it could be that the James Harff story is a hoax too. But then the ADL should react to it. As it is, the ADL website didn't deliver anything with "James Harff" either.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 4:57 am
  But the need to reconsider is there anyway. This is an extract from a recent JWR column at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin.html :

  "Europe, itself essentially a Muslim country (yes, country), acts like something between a teenager trying to assert his independence and a wishy-washy third party... So Europeans stand up to American might rather than Islamic might. What courage, after all, does it take to oppose America? America isn't going to terrorize them.

  I agree that in comparision to America, Europe is an essentially Muslim country. But I don't agree that Americans wouldn't terrorize the Europeans. I even claim that this terrorizing has all to do with Europe being a Muslim country. Think back at the Kosovo bombing. The US terrorized Europe for not being a Muslim country. And you can go further back and think about Croatia and Bosnia. The Americans reenacted Germany in WW2. I hope that one day the Americans will admit it. Pin it on Clinton if you have to, but a colossal mistake has been made.

  On the other hand, who can deny that Bush's recent Yugoslav policies have been positive, like wiping out most of Yugoslavia's foreing debt? Now let us just get rid of this tribunal, and indeed, "farce of justice" it is.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 7:42 am
  “The naïve idiot”

  Picking up on the theme of recent posts it is clear that whatever were the purposes of the US/European interventions in the Balkans they were not primarily humanitarian or if they were they have been badly botched: just look at the consequences of those interventions.

  Riding my hobby horse again I ask myself what were Blair’s reasons for attacking the Serbs over Kosovo: to pander to his large Muslim constituency, to toady up to his pal and mentor Clinton, to protect oil corridors, Globalisation, New World Order …

  Kant’s principle of morality was ‘Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature’ The maxim implied by Blair’s intervention in Kosovo appears to be: ‘If a region of a sovereign state gains a majority population - usually by immigration - of an ethnicity alien to the population that has lived there for centuries it has the right to drive the indigenous population out: to impose its own language, religion and customs upon the region by violent means and to realign that region’s sovereignty’.

  Let us consider how Blair’s maxim, as applied in Kosovo, would affect northern provinces of the UK. Over the past forty or fifty years a large Muslim population has grown in this region. Recently there has been violence between young Muslim and the indigenous population in many cases fuelled by the perception that the immigrants have been favoured at the expense of the poor of the indigenous local population. Last summer properties of five northern cities were burned during violent clashes and the police were attacked. In one town a wall has been built to separate the Muslim community from the indigenous population. As was the case in Kosovo the majority of the Muslim population is perfectly civilised but extremists among them aided by the concept of Jihad promise to make the UK an Islamic state. Is it Blair’s intention to apply the Kosovo maxim to resolve any future conflict in this region?

  “The naïve idiot” is IRA code for Blair in respect of his peace plan for the UK Province of Northern Ireland. The British people would do well to wake up to the implications of Blair’s Kosovo policies as applied to the UK. Is he sowing the seeds for some similar disaster in the UK? I do not know whether Blair acts out of naivety or calculation, whether for Blair Kosovo was a special case: But either way his actions, not only in cluster bombing women and children, were dangerous and immoral.

  Morally the British people have a duty to return the Kosovo Serbs to their centuries old homeland from which they have been driven largely by the immoral decisions of “The naïve idiot” who is neither naïve nor an idiot. They should do so quickly, restore their property and their civil rights and ensure their continued safety. Blair owes the relatives of the two thousand or so of the minorities murdered by his favoured KLA. The first of his duties in this respect is to stop boasting of his 'moral' victory and face the awful consequences of his unjustified actions.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 11:45 am
  According to http://www.unhcr.org/, if you go to the statistics search page, put Yugoslavia in 'country' and 'refugees 1992' in the full text box, one gets the 'Statistical Fact Sheet, 1998 - Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' dated 1 July 1999.

  For the year end 1992, there were 516,500 registered refugees in the FRY. These figures in no way support a Milosevic 'master plan for a greater Serbia', so they are ignored.

  As for the protection of the minority Serbs in Croatia prior to the outbreak of 'hostilities', why were they made to sign 'oaths of loyaly' on pain of being made redundant (which I have personally seen)? I also know of a number of mixed Croat/Serb families who stayed in Zagreb throughout, and have faced constant discrimination, threats and on occaison violence. They still live in a climate of fear and remain careful about what they say to whom. I've yet to hear similar stories of the ~80,000 ethinic albanians who live in Belgrade...
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Belgium

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 4:40 pm
  

  "Mr. May, despite all your biass towards me you were not able to stop me asking the question"

  Mr. Milosevic in today's cross examination Djuro Matovina
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 6:57 pm
  

  The prosecution is so very desperated for witnesses that they are counting on Nikola Smardzices health to improve so he can come tomorrow to the ICTY. Nikola Smardzic was at one time very sick and had both legs amputated. Mr. Nice (NATO) had him scheduled for today but according to report his health had worsen. I wonder if he is subpoened . . .

  It is not clear what the court schedule fo the week is going to be, when the daily schedule is going back to normal from 9:30 to 4:00 PM, will judge May (NATO) keep his word and grant Mr. Milosevic his 4 day weekend every two weeks as doctors have recommended or the court's concerns about his health are already forgotten?
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 7:35 pm
  Djuro, something more on "craving for war" by Tudjman & Co. which you don't believe:

  While cross-examining Mesic (Trial Transcript, Page 10637, 2 Oct. 2002), Milosevic quoted Tudjman (Zagreb, Ban Jelacic Square, 24 May 1992): "There would have been no war had not Croatia wanted it. But we thought that it was only by war that we could win the independence of Croatia. That's why we had a policy of negotiations behind which we were setting up military units." Mesic answered it was all Serbian papers' propaganda. Milosevic retorted that, unfortunately, they had watched this on video tape few days ago in this courtroom!

  Another little pearl of CRO democracy (Page 10691):Milosevic said that Mesic had presided over the meeting of the CRO Parliament on 24 Sept. 1992, at which Djoko Kalanj, Deputy Public Prosecutor from Gospic, was relieved of duty for not turning up for work; this Serb had been killed already in October 1991! Mesic answered he had put this proposal to vote and only later learned that particular individual had in fact been killed. Milosevic concluded: "So he was killed first by those authorities of yours and then he was relieved of duty." Rich, isn't it? A Deputy Public Prosecutor, no less.

  More on this court's impartiality, legality, professionality, fairness, civility...: May to Milosevic (during his cross-examination of C-037, 3 Oct. 2002): "We couldn't hear you, but it's irrelevant what you're saying."

  Thanks for the tip on paragraphs, Peter.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Monday October 07, 2002 at 7:51 pm
  Hurrah for at least one honest Western Journalist and Publication

  "After the war the cruellest cleansings took place among the Albanians. Under the pretext that they were 'Serbian collaborators', the leaders of the KLA liquidated their political opponents; old blood feuds were settled, and Albanian civilians were executed by the Albanians themselves." Says Chairman of the New Party for Kosovo, Bujar Bukoshi.

  “The number of the victims is estimated to be more than a thousand. The perpetrators or instigators were usually former senior KLA leaders; after the war they were integrated nearly without exception into the KLA successor organization, the civilian Kosovo Protection Corps.” Reports Renate Flottau in Der Spiegel on 21 September 2002.

  Almost a thousand Kosovars killed by Nato bombs, more than one thousand Kosovars murdered by the KLA/KPC also some two thousand Serbs and other minorities - compared with four thousand or so bodies found after more than three years of searching according to the ICTY? The Serb security forces are accused by the ICTY of massive and indiscriminate killings of Kosovars - to be precise “10,356”?

  :- ) Some time ago just before it went bust there was a story that the BICC, colloquially known as the Bank of International Crooks and Criminals, was interviewing for an auditor. A seemingly trivial question was being posed “What do two and two make?” Many failed this trivial exercise in mathematics until - to the Banksters joy - the reply came back “What do you want them to make?” Is it possible that this wizard with the figures has moved on to the ICTY?

  I am having serious difficulties with the arithmetic again. The KLA/Nato alliance killed some four thousand. It is alleged the Serb security forces killed “10,356”. Some four thousand bodies have been located. Where are the missing ten thousand bodies and why is it taking so long to locate them?

  AND WHY HAS DEL PONTE NOT YET INDICTED THE KLA/KPC LEADERS FOR THE MANIFEST ATROCITIES COMITTED DURING THEIR CONTINUING REIGN OF TERROR?

  Click here for the source
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday October 08, 2002 at 3:22 am
  Peter, you may be right. They have dug up about half of the graves. Now, what criteria did they have for selecting just these graves? Even if one could multiply the 4,000 exhumed bodies by two and arrive at approximately the desired number, why did the prosecution come up with this incredible freezer truck story, only to leave this avenue unexploited? Is the prosecution afraid that in its quest for the missing 6,000 Albanians it might actually find the missing 1,500 Serbs?

  Hartmann said that "it is not the tribunal's task to establish the total number of victims in Kosovo" in that now-familiar URL http://www.serbia-info.com/news/2001-07/17/24567.html .

  Quite. But why did it want to produce the 10,356 figure by Ball anyway? Who knows, they might reach the critical "genocide" level, if they could establish a high enough figure. Wouldn't that be nice?

  But there is something the prosecution doesn't like about the figures it has discovered so far. Notice the sex distribution: "Out of 3,620 examined victims, 2,798 are male (78%), 481 female (13%) and the sex of 341 (9%) could not be established." Everything points to a normal combat situation. The 481 females could be easily called "collateral damage". Also the ethnic distribution, which the above article doesn't touch upon, points to the same direction. It was about 1,000 non-Albanians and about 3,000 Albanians. Add to these figures the VJ and MUP casualties.

  It was suggested above that if the motives for the US-European intervention in the Balkans were humanitarian, they were badly botched. It is not naive to think that those responsible for the intervention and all the suffering it caused were acting out of noblest of motives. Maybe they thought the intervention was humanitarian.

  But it doesn't make sense. The most basic rules of international law were broken at every opportunity. First, Germany recognized Croatia and Slovenia. That is called premature recognition, which amounts to intervention in another country's domestic affairs (and believe it or not, this used to be illegal). Germany was also acting against the policy that the EU had adopted under the Dutch presidency: the VJ has the right to quell any insurrections on its territory. The American recognition of BiH was likewise a premature recognition. The Badinter commission had concluded the republic shouldn't be recognized.

  On the other hand, Yugoslavia, which was truncated into Serbia and Montenegro, was not recognized. The failure to do so was based on the flimsiest of excuses, like the UN General Assembly resolution to bar Yugoslavia from the activities of the General Assembly until the succession problems were solved. Then there were these Greater Serbia slurs, which reflected only the "international community's" policy until then!

  By the way, it was suggested that the Serbs were the only ones that were aiming at a "Greater-something" state. This is not so. Still in the early 1990's the Albanians subscribed to the Greater Albania ideology. But let us not forget about the Greater Croatia, either. Of course, this state was not to extend to Serbia but to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian Croat state was called "Herceg-Bosna", with Mostar as its capital. It is a bit uncertain which part Zagreb played in the politics of this statelet, but Herceg-Bosna wasn't easily suppressed. Just last year the Bosnian Croat bank was closed by the international troops, because it allegedly financed the Bosnian Croat independece movement. Whether that "independence" included joining Croatia is not known to me.

  Then back to the Joint Criminal Enterprise. Mrs Biljana Plavsic was part of the JCE, as was stated in § 12 of the Bosnia indictment of Milosevic. Somehow the prosecution managed to pin a genocide charge on this JCE, Biljana included. Indeed, this genocide charge was spelled out in §11 of her indictment.

  By the way, see how flimsy the definition of genocide is in itself. Did Biljana want to destroy the Bosniaks as such? Not at all. The same paragraphs defines this "genocide" as follows: "the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, in several municipalities". In other words, the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Croat groups in separate municipalities constituted a separate group!

  But notice the miracle of multiple charges. In § 21(a) of the indictment it says that "the killing by Bosnian Serb forces of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats during and after the attacks on the areas and municipalities listed in Paragraphs 11..." was persecution too! (As we remember, Biljana has now admitted the persecution charge.) This is called concurrence of offences: calling one and the same act by one name (like persecution) excludes the possibility of calling it by another (like genocide).

  See the games the prosecution is playing: it wants to justify its activities (and its presence in former Yugoslavia) by calling every imaginable crime "genocide", but in the end it is satisfied if the same act is called "persecution"!

  But what is left of the JCE now that Biljana admits only persecution? The answer is: nothing. This plea agreement was devastating for the case against Milosevic. Please notice that Milosevic's crime in BiH was "participation in a joint criminal enterprise as a co-perpetrator" (§ 5). This is how they could pin the genocide charge against him.

  This is something of a circular definition: the group is defined by the persons that committed the alleged crime, but the crime is defined by the persons that were part of that group. So when the genocide charge of Plavsic is withdrawn but her name still appears in the Milosevic indictment as part of the JCE to commit genocide (or forcible removal to start with), what gives the prosecution the right to charge Milosevic?

  And don't forget Seselj! He is one of the JCE as well. Yet he hasn't even been charged (unless his indictment is now sealed, of course). Why not? Just the inclusion of him in the JCE implicates him, so no Mickey Mouse investigations are needed, like the one before the presidential election! I think the prosecution is afraid of Seselj. He would be eager to stand up to the tribunal, but considering his reputation as a persuasive speaker, the prosecution may be afraid of losing the whole case if Seselj is allowed to speak. But in so doing, the prosecution is only demolishing its own case! If Seselj is part of the JCE, he has to be indicted.

  And finally, let's not forget about the newcomer on the indictee list, Borovcanin. He is one of the "known and unknown participants" in the JCE.

  So far so good. The possibility of the "unknown participants" points to the fact that this JCE was somehow a separate entity and the criminal responsibility within it has to be allocated evenly.

  But exactly this is not the case. First, the prosecution fails to indict Seselj. Then, it drops the genocide charge against Plavsic. Finally, it indicts the hitherto unknown Borovcanin for complicity in genocide! Obviously, there was nothing "joint" about this criminal enterprise when it is reduced to its single parts! And therefore, Milosevic's individual responsibility fails too, if there was anything much to begin with.

  And let us put the finger on the problem that really explains the erratic moves the prosecution has recently made: the lack of money (if some sources are to be believed). That has led to dropping of the case against Marinic. It might explain the Plavsic plea agreement (whereas health doesn't: why would they let Milosevic go on with his hypertension). It explains Del Ponte's need to pinpoint the Bosnia indictment to Srebrenica - in the form of Borovcanin. And on it goes. And as it does, the prosecution will make bigger and bigger mistakes. And so will the judges. The recent "Mayism" could be directly from Alice in Wonderland: "We couldn't hear you, but it's irrelevant what you're saying."
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday October 08, 2002 at 4:16 am
  Just to set the record straight about the ADL's Balkan policy.

  The ADL mentions that tens of thousands of "Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and anti-fascist Croats" (note the order) were exterminated in the Jasenovic camp - see http://www.adl.org/presrele/holna%5F52/3483%5F52.asp .

  The ADL has also stood up to Tudjman. The argument was about the Holocaust monument. The Serbs are mentioned again. See http://www.adl.org/presrele/holna%5F52/2665%5F52.asp .

  I am not trying to convert anyone to the ADL position (I hope everyone understands that), but one has to be extremely careful. Nothing will be gained by untruthful statements. Probably the James Harff story is not a lie, but that may not be the whole story.

  Likewise, there is no point in embellishing the crimes that the Serbs did commit. This trial is about Milosevic's individual responsibility (if only he understood that). If this were a normal case, we would now be approaching the stage when we are going for the kill. At that stage it would be crucial to know what arguments the prosecution will use and what kind of evidence it will present to prop up those arguments. Don't think the prosecution will turn out empty-handed. Some unpleasant things won't go away only by closing your eyes. This is one the Chinese strategist Sun-Tzu meant: you have to know your enemy, but you also have to know yourself.

  And how are we to turn these big words into reality? I don't have the foggiest.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday October 08, 2002 at 6:37 pm
  Jari, this trial is NOT about Milosevic's individual responsibility. It's about re-writing history. The prosecution, as you rightly pointed out, should be ashamed of the job they've done with mixing, renaming and redistributing charges, going too wide. But, this is exactly what they needed: if you sling enough mud on a person, some of it may stick. And the picture of the events as they painted it will remain, not only in legal textbooks.

  The civil wars we had (one of them spiced up with NATO bombing, all of them engineered from without) were wars, for God's sake! There's nothing civil in a civil war. But, a Joint Criminal Enterprise? Greater Serbia?? Genocide???

  Don't torture yourself trying to find legal logic in the indictment: there is none. You're right, this is not a normal case.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday October 08, 2002 at 6:59 pm
  

  We could start an international internet newsletter, an independent forum-web-site; this could lead to organising and to concentrate efforts to express oposition to relevant government bodies and organisations. To organise public talks and conferences and activate public debate on international law and the present trial. I have seen attitude changes among people when they see I follow the trial with persistence while they are lied upon and knowingly remain in the dark. Giving example is a powerful tool towards awakening.

  we could also send a letter, a telegram, a fax expressing our support to Slobodan Milosevic who while we talk and debate is doing all the hard work and deserves support and respect.

  To that effect here is his present address:

  Huis Van Bewaring Pompstationsweg 46a

  Den Haag 2597GX

  The Netherlands

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday October 08, 2002 at 10:19 pm
  Can you believe this one? Thousands who served in the Kosovo bombing are waiting for their medals. The medals are to honor those who served? Did I miss something?I bet their is a rumble in every military cemetary in the world.

  Serbian Unity forum has been hacked again. It happens when an article appears about the truth in Kosovo. The article regarding the KLA crimes against their own people apparently was not what some people want spread around.

  Jurist is getting quite a load. Soon I will not be able to access it. I wish they would only keep a few weeks and then archive the rest.

  I enjoy all the posts and especially love to hear from Yugoslavia.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA