 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.
Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————
- discussion archive
- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 3:12 am
I hope covering the trial will go on. That's what it's for: to be covered. Nice got it wrong: trial isn't there not to be covered. Another thing Nice got wrong: if he can't find witnesses who know something, then it is not the media's fault. There may be two reasons: a) they may not have evidence because there was no crime, or b) the case should get another prosecutor.I have been repeating and begging that this trial be held in Serbia. If Nice complains that it is impossible for an outsider to tell the ins and outs of Serbian politics, let them get that damned Serbian prosecutor. The trial doesn't even have to be taken to Serbia. Just bring in the Serbs in other capacities as well than indictees.
OK, so the US bombed Kosovo a bit. Why was the bombing not left off when they noticed it wasn't working? The reason that Ahtisaari gives is the normal one: the credibility of the US would have been damaged. Well, let us suppose that keeping on the bombing was just what the US credibility needed. So what the (--) do they need this trial for? If it is meant to rewrite history, they should at least keep broadcasting. If that is not done, what earthly use does this trial have? If it has no use, why should it go on? See? I am trying to see the American point of view us much as anybody else's. Do they think there are not enough reasons to stop the trial? The law firm May & Nice break the rules on a daily basis!
It is true that there will be a second half, when Milosevic starts the defense in March next year. But how to use that precious time? I am still arguing that Milosevic would do best to rat on his cronies. I believe that he is innocent. There is no other way that he could keep defending himself the way he is. But his people handed him to the ICTY, so let him play ball. Now his people appreciate him exposing all the lies, but once he gets convicted, they will spit him on his eyes. And the Nato crimes are not what this trial is about, I am so sorry!
Or maybe you would like to argue that the Serbs did nothing wrong. Well, the Serbs admitted that the war in Kosovo was dirty. Dirty from which point of view? Were the Serbs the only once who could keep a clean record war-crimes-wise? Who is naive? Are the war crimes trials in Serbia just a sham? ICTY says they are (look who's talking). See? If you say there were no war crimes, the only line of defense Milosevic now has (the perpetrators were punished) is instantly blocked. Even Mr Dick Dickers from HRW admits that it will be a problem to show Milosevic's individual responsibility, even if it is clear crimes were committed. If Mr Dickers admits that why on earth should anybody argue that there were no crimes? Who are the media going to believe, us or Mr Dickers?
It has been said that Milosevic used Seselj as a cover to distract the attention from his own radicalism. That may be true, but I am starting to believe that Kostunica is doing the same. He is the one who is trying to lure Republika Srpska back. Milosevic was the one who handed it to Bosnia. Kostunica has hard time admitting that Serbs committed any war crimes? Why would he deny it? Has he something to hide?
I can understand why Mr Holbrooke called the Serbs bastards (or whatever his choice of words was). I know many of them are. Maybe all of them are. But come Dickie, that is no reason to indict anybody. That is very bad law. Now we see that removing Milosevic didn't make the Serbs any more pliable. So are you going to indict them one by one? So where is their individual responsibility - not mention the crime itself? They may be bastards, but you should not take anyone to court because of that! Hallo! Hallo! Anybody listening? Nato? You are losing this case. Did you ever think that you should win by taking somebody to court out of malice. You should know better. Whatever credibility the US had after the bombing, this trial is sure to ruin everything. You may keep this fact hidden for some time, but as the Krstic judgment stated in ｧ 2, the historians and social psychologists will work on it later. How are you going to make them conclude what you want? By evoking the Holocaust analogy?
Nice may be a scorpio. Maybe his sign is Scorpio. At least he looks like a chain smoker.
If you are going to write Milosevic (and I have been told he reads all his fan mail), encourage him to get himself out. For Nato it only matters that the Serbs did some war crimes and Milosevic is out of office. If he goes on with exposing Nato lies in the second half, it is absolutely vital that he can show the Serbs committed no crimes (at least unpunished ones). But I have to be honest: why didn't he punish Arkan when he was in Belgrade? Was Arkan innocent?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 4:00 am
LATEST:
The trial goes on close session wirh a brief announcement by judge May (NAT0) to explain it is done in the interest of justice!
So, C4 changed his mind once more or prosecutor Nice (NATO) convinced him or something else . . .I am waiting to know if the cross-examination of the part given in the open will be also behind doors. It iss nearly 4 AM here and silence is all coming out of the ICTY. Damn fools!
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 4:31 am
Reflecting on Vera's comment about understanding other peoples mentalities and customs, I remember learning about respecting other countries, nations customs and ways before judging in any way. My teachers, taught us that for harmony between nations to exists mutual respect was and is essential.
At a personal level the concept was nothing new: foreigners residing in a host country were expected to refrain from getting involved in politics, especially with national politics.
Well, how much things have changed! US politicians are days on end talking about changing this or that foreign leader or regime, buying foreign elections, blackmailing nations with financial "aid", financing and organising tribunals to judge their enemies while refusing to acept the principle of consensual international law to be applied to their beloved United States, evoking some higher mission placing the US well above the law.
How can anybody take this proposals seriously, or is it that my teachers were wrong?
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 5:17 am
What does it matter who takes what seriously! I can't understand the US secrecy about the whole affair. The US administration could just as well let Holbrooke testify without any preconditions and tell the public that the US did this or that dirty trick. At least it would clean the air and restore some confidence in the US politics. The ICTY will never convict the US of anything, so the US administration could tell us the way it is. If the ICTY gets out of hand, the US can set up a war crimes tribunal for every nation that questions the US foreign policy. You see my point. The US is the only remaining superpower, and playing these stupid games about justice and war crimes, and then enveloping it all with silence, is only going to damage the US image. Maybe the US wanted Milosevic indicted after Yugoslavia took the Nato countries to the International Court of Justice over the bombing, but hey, Milosevic is out of office, and there will be nobody in Belgrade to resume the case at the ICJ. If Milosevic wants back to power, the Russians can kidnap him and take him to Kazakhstan, where his son is believed to be hiding. What do you need this trial for!
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 5:20 am
Sorry Gogol. I missed your point. Now that some blabbermouths like us won't shut up their faces about the shortcomings of the prosecution, the law firm May/Nice are thinking of ever more reasons to resort to witness protection, so nobody will know anything. How absolutely clever! That is why May told us beforehand that nobody should question the witness protection decisions.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 5:22 am
G'day again, I see many of you are restless, what with all the insulting, etc. I am writing to admit that I think Milosevic is putting on a stellar performance. He knows what he is talking about; he understands what is going on; he can read into the mind, and be perceptive of witnesses, and he asks the right questions to make them look silly, which they quite often are. This is all in a court he considers to be illegal (I agree with him). ...but, this is kinda my problem with it. It all seems too easy for Slobo to defend himself, and all the Serbs he says he is defending (I think they should be defended by someone considering the shit they have been going through). The reason I say this is because, for someone to be so far removed from the events of the breakup of Yugoslavia (as Milosevic has told us before), he seems to know a hell of a lot about it. Not just of what went on overall, in the broader picture, but of actual specific and local events. He knows the intent and guilt of the Croats and Muslims, he knows the innocence of all Serbs, and everything which is suggested otherwise is wrong.....and he can tell us in detail why. Even if it is true, he still knows way too much about it, especially the local bickering between villagers, and the Croat-Serb politics in small villages in Croatia. His knowledge is not just widespreading, it is also indepth. Also, for someone who says he wished for the continuation of Yugoslavia, his policies regarding Kosovo and Vojvodina in 1989 must have sent bad tremors through the other Republics. Not just this, but Serbia's economic block on Slovenia in 1990 (which finally shifted Croatia's sentiment towards secession) was a very clumsy, and antagonistic decision, which Milosevic (as Pres. of Serbia) has responsibility for. Definately, I think there is a lack of balance in Milosevic's defence. His lack of knowledge, which comes to his defense in one sense, is suddenly found again when he sees the opportunity to attack. I am not sure whether it is conveniant or genuine. Definately, I am sure Milosevic is playing political games, as he was a master politician, to survive that long in Serbian politics was quite an achievement, even if his tactics were sometimes debateable. Or maybe it could be that the ICTY wants Milosevic to be let off the hook, and instead of jailing him, they may just exile him. That way, the Serbs (who are being defended by Milosevic) also get off the hook, and their name is somewhat cleared of a lot of falsities. The Croats and Muslims get given more blame, but what the hell do they care because they have independence. The US is happy because Yugoslavia is no more, NATO still has something to do in keeping Bosnia and Kosovo separate from their Serb neighbours, and their criminal actions in Kosovo aren't looked into again; they can also keep up the pressure on Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia to get what they want....eg: a return of refugees to Krajina, etc. Each way, this might be the correct settlement (for the western powers), because Milosevic guilt might add another deep seeded element to Serb phsyche (which could be tested somewhere again at a leter date), which has been bashed from pillar to post since the Battle of Kosovo Polje, which I think is the biggest load of crap since the Fundamentalist Islamic Clerics of the Middle East used the example of the Crusades to sign young extremists to their ranks. totally reasonably.... Ivan
Ivan Kokotovic
Sydney
Australia - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 5:22 am
G'day again, I see many of you are restless, what with all the insulting, etc. I am writing to admit that I think Milosevic is putting on a stellar performance. He knows what he is talking about; he understands what is going on; he can read into the mind, and be perceptive of witnesses, and he asks the right questions to make them look silly, which they quite often are. This is all in a court he considers to be illegal (I agree with him). ...but, this is kinda my problem with it. It all seems too easy for Slobo to defend himself, and all the Serbs he says he is defending (I think they should be defended by someone considering the shit they have been going through). The reason I say this is because, for someone to be so far removed from the events of the breakup of Yugoslavia (as Milosevic has told us before), he seems to know a hell of a lot about it. Not just of what went on overall, in the broader picture, but of actual specific and local events. He knows the intent and guilt of the Croats and Muslims, he knows the innocence of all Serbs, and everything which is suggested otherwise is wrong.....and he can tell us in detail why. Even if it is true, he still knows way too much about it, especially the local bickering between villagers, and the Croat-Serb politics in small villages in Croatia. His knowledge is not just widespreading, it is also indepth. Also, for someone who says he wished for the continuation of Yugoslavia, his policies regarding Kosovo and Vojvodina in 1989 must have sent bad tremors through the other Republics. Not just this, but Serbia's economic block on Slovenia in 1990 (which finally shifted Croatia's sentiment towards secession) was a very clumsy, and antagonistic decision, which Milosevic (as Pres. of Serbia) has responsibility for. Definately, I think there is a lack of balance in Milosevic's defence. His lack of knowledge, which comes to his defense in one sense, is suddenly found again when he sees the opportunity to attack. I am not sure whether it is conveniant or genuine. Definately, I am sure Milosevic is playing political games, as he was a master politician, to survive that long in Serbian politics was quite an achievement, even if his tactics were sometimes debateable. Or maybe it could be that the ICTY wants Milosevic to be let off the hook, and instead of jailing him, they may just exile him. That way, the Serbs (who are being defended by Milosevic) also get off the hook, and their name is somewhat cleared of a lot of falsities. The Croats and Muslims get given more blame, but what the hell do they care because they have independence. The US is happy because Yugoslavia is no more, NATO still has something to do in keeping Bosnia and Kosovo separate from their Serb neighbours, and their criminal actions in Kosovo aren't looked into again; they can also keep up the pressure on Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia to get what they want....eg: a return of refugees to Krajina, etc. Each way, this might be the correct settlement (for the western powers), because Milosevic guilt might add another deep seeded element to Serb phsyche (which could be tested somewhere again at a leter date), which has been bashed from pillar to post since the Battle of Kosovo Polje, which I think is the biggest load of crap since the Fundamentalist Islamic Clerics of the Middle East used the example of the Crusades to sign young extremists to their ranks. totally reasonably.... Ivan
Ivan Kokotovic
Sydney
Australia - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 6:57 am
Exactly, Ivan. There is a missing link there somewhere, and it is quite difficult to say exactly where it is. Sure, knowing too much in defending himself can't incriminate him. That only shows he defends himself brilliantly.But to come to the individual responsibility part, the question is: when did he come to know all these things. While he was in office, or while he was preparing his defense? And this may not be such a dumb question as it seems. Would he know the criminal record of Ratomir Tanic, for instance, from the time he was in office? It is not only Milosevic, who is doing a splendid job, but the whole defense team. Keeping the team behind the scenes seems to be doing him some harm, because we then think he knows all these things from day 1, which he possibly cannot (at least not the most of it).
Now suppose he rats on his friends, like: I am not responsible, because it was Karadzic's idea etc. So he admits that he "knew" as it happened. The question is: why didn't he do something about it? For instance, he must have known that Arkan was a killer (I really have a problem with this), so why didn't he punish him? I think that strictly speaking he didn't have to, because he was not a superior of Arkan in the sense of Art. 7(3). But would the Trial Chamber accept fine legal arguments like that, even if theoretically it should stick. It will be quite a gamble. Until now the May&Nice team have not been very receptive of legal arguments.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 7:43 am
THE HAGUE -- Thursday (B92)-- The Hague Tribunal this morning suddenly decided to close for the public the resumed testimony by Vreme magazine journalist Jovan Dulovic at the Milosevic trial. In the prosecution documents Dulovic was initially quoted as a protected witness, but he personally demanded to testify publicly yesterday. However, prosecution told the judge this morning that Belgrade informed them Dulovic received threats over his testimony. Dulovic yesterday testified about events in Vukovar, Croatia, while today he was scheduled to testify about incidents in eastern Bosnia. During yesterday's testimony Dulovic named various names for which he claimed were involved in the events in Croatia and Bosnia. On the list were Vojislav Seselj, Radovan "Badza" Stojicic , Zeljko "Arkan" Raznatovic Arkan, Veselin Sljivancanin, Miroslav Radic, Momir Gavrilovic and many other members of Yugoslav Army and volunteer groups.
So, the ICTY respond to public pressure. How interesting, since C4 journalist Jovan Dulovic gave all this evidence yesterday for the benefit of the prosecution infurating public opinion in Yugoslavia why couldn't Mr. Milosevic publicly dubunk it?
Balance? I say: scandal!
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 8:56 am
When we keep throwing out numbers in order to define genocide or a war crime disturbs me. Any non combatant killed is a crime and killing combatants that you capture is a war crime as well. The question of responsibility rests with those who pull the trigger. Motive may be a reason for the crime but motive is not a defense to the crime. The state of mind of the perpetrator is a defense I wonder how many of us would have acted in the same way as the two German soldiers who refused to shoot the school children at Kragujevac during WWII. Some 1700 school children were killed (execution style) in retaliation for a partisan attack on a German convoy. When the soldiers were told to shoot the children two soldiers refused to participate and they were shot by their own men. How many of us would have had such a moral fiber as these two men?Bush stated after September 11th 土ou are with us or against us .This was the same mentality in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo during this conflict. Your neighbor had a gun to your head and was asking you the question are you with us or against us? I am not sure how many of you saw the Bosnian film 哲o Man痴 Land, ( it is a great film by the way) when the Muslim had the gun and pointed it at his Serbian captive and asked 展hose fault was this war? the answer was predictable. The Serb replied that it was the Serbian fault. When the Serb got hold of the gun and pointed it at the Muslim and asked the same question the answer again was predictable. The Muslim replied that it was the Muslim痴 fault.
Jari asks 釘ut I have to be honest: why didn't he punish Arkan when he was in Belgrade? Was Arkan innocent? Of course he was not innocent, just like Oric and Gotovina are not innocent. Arkan paid with his life for his actions. I am not sure who ordered his death but I am sure that it was a political killing and not related to his criminal enterprise.
Ivan writes in reference to the return of refugees to Krajina that 摘ach way, this might be the correct settlement (for the western powers). Would this not be correct for Croatia also? In my opinion, building statues and renaming streets for Croatia痴 Ustase heroes is morally repugnant and to use Ivan痴 words 妬s the biggest load of crap. Allowing innocent people to return to their homes would be a statue worth remembering.
Ivan also writes that 哲ATO still has something to do in keeping Bosnia and Kosovo separate from their Serb neighbours. How about their Croatian neighbors? Ivan, are you saying that the Croatians no longer covet Bosnia and Herzegovina? You seem to forget Ivan that Kosovo was never a 創eighbor it is Serbia just as much as Zagreb is Croatia.
Ivan also writes that 鉄erb phsyche ---- which has been bashed from pillar to post since the Battle of Kosovo Polje, ---- is the biggest load of crap. Serbian psyche was shaped by hundreds of years of slavery just as Croatian psyche has been shaped by hundreds of years of Tutonic mentality. The fact that many Croatians suffer from an inferiority complex and reject their Slavic origin tells one whose psyche is 澱ashed from pillar to post. The Serbs have never forgotten where they came from or who they are.
Ivan also writes that the economic blockade of Slovenia 吐inally shifted Croatia's sentiment towards secession to use his words 妬s the biggest load of crap. Ivan, you seem to forget The Australian Croat mercenaries, the riots in Split, the kidnappings, the hijackings of airplanes, the mercenary training camps in Canada, and the well organized Croatian emerge groups. This all happened overnight. It is amazing Ivan IT ALL HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC BLOCKADE OF SLOVENIA. It must have been Croatia痴 good neighbor policy at work.What a load of crap?
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 10:48 am
FYI This was taken from: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0210&L=justwatch-l&D=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=18275 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:57:36 +0200 From: Frank Tiggelaar
Michael Thomas
London
UK- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 11:15 am
Gogol, I don't get it any more. We know who the protected witness was. But May had warned earlier that the journalists shouldn't start guessing the identity of the witnesses. I can't access the Statute and the Rules right now, but it bears checking out if this sort of arrangment is possible. May also said that measures for witness protection are not taken lightly. Like in this instance being informed by Belgrade that he had received death threats. Yeah. But how is the secrecy going to help him now the cat is out of the bag? The public is angry, and are they now reassured as they can't check what he is talking. May just gave a glimpse of the reasons these measures are taken: to avoid any uncomfortable publicity. We kind of guessed that already.And I believe in Milosevic's innocence. Nobody could keep lying even at the cross-examination without contradicting himself at some point. May must have been looking for such contradictions all the time, but what has he found? But the other side of the coin is that a little contradiction only makes it seem more likely that somebody is telling the truth. The trouble here is that, as Ivan pointed out, it is almost too perfect. But there is no way he could have colluded with the witnesses. If Milosevic continues this kind of performance when the defense witnesses start talking, everything is going fine. But the fact is that crimes were committed and the responsibility for them remains to be determined. In my view, he must explain who is responsible, even if that may make it more difficult to get Serbs to testify for him (and the public in Serbia is going to get mad). Anyway, my general expression is that he is not responsible (it is misleading to use the word "guilty"). The level of his performance cannot be so much due to intelligence as to having a clear conscience. That makes his manoeuvring so spectacular.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 12:16 pm
Jari:"Kostunica ... is the one who is trying to lure Republika Srpska back. Milosevic was the one who handed it to Bosnia."
True. But times have changed since 1995. Milosevic was manipulated into signing Dayton for U.S. backing and prolonging his rule. Little did he know that our Imperial Masters wanted him to be in power only until they could complete the work of snatching Kosovo from Yugoslavia.
Kostunica, on the other hand, rightly sees the feasibility of swapping RS for Kosovo down the road - especially considering that BH will not last, ultimately reverting Herceg Bosna to Croatia proper.
Andre Huzsvai
U.S.- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 12:16 pm
How many trials at the ICTY have reached a guilty conclusion and how many of those defendants have indicated that the orders came from Belgrade or Milosevic for the crimes they have been found guilty of?....None I bet...has a single Serbian defendant fingered Milosevic or other members of the JCE?...been called as a witness for the prosecution in the Milosevic case?For a so called JCE where's the joints? Am I missing something here?
Simon Joseph
Amman Valley
UK- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 12:23 pm
Well Jari, it seems the problem as stated by the prosecutor is that they can't prove their case because the "unwillingness" of the whitnesses to come forward supposedly due to the threats; I haven't heard of any witness suffering persecution after giving testimony altought there was lady from Kosovo who did not return from The Hague and reportedly asked for assylum.
So, because of the perceived danger, which I think is nothing more than a clear sign of lack of evidence, and a crime without much evidence is a doubtful crime, the prosecutor wants to show it is possible to conduct a trial based on hear say, doubtful credibility and finally behind closed doors.
If the alleged crimes were as widespread as broadcast to all winds and directions, I am sure more witnesses would have come forward in a more convincingly way. Instead we have this show of inconclusivity, and when the going gets tough they just simply go behind closed doors saying it is in "interest of justice".
Mr. Milosevic sounds and is well informed, of course he is well informed about Yugoslav, Serbian issues, political, geographical, military, foreign policy issues and there is nothing strange on this since he is a Serb, a Yugoslav, a politician who has served his country in various capacities during what it is euphemistically described as "interesting times" and trying to make him guilty by nature of his knowledge is a little far fetched.
And again the direct link, the intentional dimension of the crime is something the Carla's crowd has shown only ridiculous claims of it.
It goes back to Vera's point: if you want to judge someone, you have to know about the setting, the culture, the customs, the conflict even the language for otherwise the judge will be, as they often are in this circus, at a loss in following the story. It is wise, if it justice one is in search of, to be judged by your own, by your peers and this is only possible by an strict respect of nations sovereignty.
They are entangled in their own mesh and Mr. Milosevic has not even begun his defence which is due to begin May 16, 2003!
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 12:34 pm
Good question, Simon. I agree with you, until now none of the convicted have blamed Milosevic for anything. If they had, I am sure the prosecution would have jumped at the opportunity. But as far as I am aware, none of the other indictees or convicts have been called to take the witness stand. Besides, if Milosevic's guilt were on black and white somewhere, it should have been so in the celebrated Dutch NIOD report on Srebrenica, which is famous for its being so strangely silent about Milosevic.I checked the Rules of Procedure for having a closed session with Dulovic. The funny thing is that Dulovic wanted a public trial, whereas the prosecution got this strange information from Belgrade, where the people were suddenly concerned about Dulovic's safety. The story doesn't tell if Dulovic OK'd the closed session after all. This practise isn't exactly contrary to the letter of the Rules, but it is contrary to the spirit of the Rules. Rule 75 (A) says: "A Judge or a Chamber may, proprio motu or at the request of either party, or of the victim or witness concerned, or of the Victims and Witnesses Section, order appropriate measures for the privacy and protection of victims and witnesses...".
The Belgrade officials were kind enough to inform the prosecution and not the judges. Stinks.
And right again, Simon. The prosecution has this theory of a joint criminal enterprise to pin all the blame on Milosevic. But somehow it doesn't make sense. Where are all the joints? So Milosevic might defend himself by finding the "joints". At that point it would be theoretically quite irrelevant what the indictment says of the nature of the joint criminal enterprise.
But we'll have to see if the prosecution proceeds to new indictments, and if so, who the indictees are. Still, how can it take so long to indict people who are so important? Famously, Seselj was mentioned in the joint criminal enterprise, even if an investigation hadn't been opened against him!
Jari Nousiainen
Finland- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 1:21 pm
- You aint missing anything, Simon.....- Because there is absolutely nothing really incriminating in the whole case... - When Carla Del ponte brought up that famous Milosovich speech on Kosovo Pole in 1989 to illustrate his criminal ultra nationalist intentions it was not only clear that prosecution has "nothing" but that they don't even know what they're talking about..... - that they didn't even bother to read that speech ( or were too dam dumb to comprehend it) - They relied on some misquotes and interpretations of some Croatian journalist,,,,,,, -The prosecution really has nothing except the orders to PROPERLY PROCESS the delivered scape goat to the point where the panel of 3 judges (who also have orders) can pronounce him GUILTY ,,,,,,
vytas abrutis
phila,PA
USA- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 1:56 pm
Jari:"I am still arguing that Milosevic would do best to rat on his cronies. I believe that he is innocent. There is no other way that he could keep defending himself the way he is."
I respectfully disagree.If Milosevic attempted to defuse the charges leveled against him by incriminating his associates below him, it would ultimately backfire, by way of having acknowledged that there were crimes as such.
The prosecution, with May's eager help would always be able to revert it back to him as an ultimate superior of those he would try to blame for the misdeeds he stands accused of. I'd say: no go.
The only way to go is the one he has chosen from the very outset: pointing out the minuscule nature of actual facts on the ground as opposed to the mythical status of the "crimes" trumpeted around - effectively "demystifying" for instance, Srebrenica; and highlighting the complicity of his very accusers in creating the situation he has been made a public scapegoat for.
It has been working quite perfectly thus far: the prosecution is on the verge of collapsing even before wrapping up ITS OWN case.
Andre Huzsvai
U.S.- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 3:37 pm
Another charge?Samardzic statement leaked, alleges Hague | 19:03 | Beta
THE HAGUE -- Thursday The Hague Tribunal prosecution has alleged that Podgorica daily Dan was illegally given a copy of the written submission of Montenegrin Foreign Minister Nikola Samardzic, while he was still giving evidence before the Tribunal.
Dan immediately published excerpts from the statement, which Samardzic had earlier given prosecutors.
In a letter to the Trial chamber, the prosecution claims that copies of Samardzic痴 statement in Serbian had been given only to the defendant, Slobodan Milosevic, and the amici curiae.
In its report, the prosecution says that Samardzic痴 evidence was published verbatim in Dan.
Dan editor-in-chief Dusko Jovanovic claimed that he had found a copy of Samardzic痴 statement in Serbian in his mailbox on October 9, the second of the three days Samardzic spent in the witness stand.
He also claimed not to know who had sent it to him.
Dan is close to Montenegro痴 opposition Socialist People痴 Party, the main rival of Milo Djukanovic痴 Democratic Party of Socialists in the coming elections.
Under Hague Tribunal rules, disclosing information on proceedings without the permission of the Trial Chamber is categorised as contempt of court.
Anyone found guilty of contempt of court is liable to a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment and a 200,000 euro fine.
Simon Joseph
Amman Valley
UK- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 5:18 pm
On Nice痴 objection to criticism典he lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State. Joseph M. Goebbels
Now here was a guy who knew what he was talking about: unsurpassed in his day he could teach the New-Labour spin-machine nothing.
So Mr Nice take my advice
and play not Mr Nasty
To muzzle surely is a vice
reserved for the Nazi Party?Walter I believe the point Hobbes made was that without 喪eason life is 渡asty, brutish and short and more than that: reason or logic applied to law based upon principles of justice. Man痴 early history bears ample testimony to this brutish way of life without reason. In modern 祖ivilised history the Nazi Empire used reason but its laws were not based upon principles of justice. And the truth, a pillar of justice, was suppressed.
Education is the answer. But not surely education according to: The West痴 media barons and 祖lassical economic theory, Communist ideology, 鮮azi ideas of racial superiority, Middle Eastern, South American or African Dictators ?
Pragmatism the new religion: Modern philosophers sneer at Kant痴 categorical imperative 鄭ct only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. So Blair in 1999 feels morally justified in to blasting Serbs to Kingdom Come in support of an Islamic terror campaign in Kosovo. And three years later feels morally justified in blasting Islamic terrorists to Kingdom Come in support of the War Lords in Afghanistan. Men of true moral reason, acting on Kant痴 imperative, would require terrorists to be brought to justice on every occasion.
The moral laws embraced by the worlds great religions 船o not murder, do not steal, and do not bear false testimony derive from Kant痴 law above. A truly civilised world depends upon upholding principles such as those requiring murderers, robbers and perjurers to be called to account. Yet Nato murdered in Kosovo, stole in Kosovo and now bears false testimony upon its war in Kosovo - with impunity?
There is nothing mysterious in this idea of a moral categorical imperative. It is simply a logical process to determine the consequences of relevant actions. The more states or individuals abide by this imperative the more civilised the world becomes. The less states and individuals abide by this imperative the less civilised the world becomes. War lies near one extreme where men of true moral reason are forced to abandon moral imperatives or be killed.
Risking the wrath of Mr Nice by raising a criticism of the ICTY for the umpteenth time may I ask: When will we see leaders of the UCK on trial in the Hague for the manifest crimes against humanity committed by them in Kosovo?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 5:20 pm
Well worth a read if you have the time, maybe there are some who have followed the whole trial who could compare the evidence gathered by The Balkan Institute to that of the ICTY.There are some intersting comments by Seselj for those who wish to know more of his relationship with Milosevic and Belgrade during the Bosnian war.
War Crimes and Individual Responsibility: A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INDICTMENT OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
http://www.nesl.edu/center/balkan1.htm#crimes
Personally I find some of the claims pretty damning as there seems to be facts to back them up. Much I guess has been debunked already as I've not read anything anywhere re these specific claims in light of the current trial.
Your thoughts please on the "Balkan Institute" and the case they have put together, work of fiction or the case the ICTY should have made?.
As a side note the paper reads as if it was written in 1996.
Simon Joseph
Amman Valley
UK- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 6:52 pm
There are hundreds of such "institutes" in America, all private and "independent' of course, out of the reach of government and yet staffed with people very close to government: intelligence and defence.
Then we have the government grants to universities, money, lots of monies to study certain subjetc and buy the easy to buy intellectuals whom are hungry, insecured and tired of not finding a job until they publish saying the "right"things, the things bringing money to universities: like for example Slavic depts. becames and remains anti-Soviet depts. yes, even now. Re-writing Russian history, "finding" "new" evidence in Moscow's archives, glorifying the virtues of the capitalist west.
The institutes are part of the large network in place to keep the "truth" unchallenged by any mean. The universities provide the intellectual blessing and aceptance, and so a country which once had Yugoslavs writers and academicians like Louis Adamic and understood Yugoslavian ideals, have now instead people like Ivo Banac.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 7:12 pm
Simon Balkan Institute is working for the ICTY. There is no difference between their position and the ICTY prosecutor. The only thing positive here is that in court you have witnesses and their evidence with opposing views. George Soros Foundation finances them and most members of the permanent staff are ex State Department employees.
go to the URL:
http://www.nesl.edu/center/WAR_CRIMES.htm
And you will find the following statement:
In 1996, the Center entered into a unique arrangement with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, under which New England School of Law students provide legal research and analysis to the war crimes prosecutor on issues pending before the Tribunal. Issues range from the contours of command responsibility to the interpretation of the Genocide Convention.
Members of the Public International Law and Policy Group provide the students with guidance and research assistance, and members of the law school faculty supervise and edit the final work product before it is sent to the Tribunal. New England School of Law is one of very few law schools in the world with this arrangement with the international prosecutor. During the past five years, the Center has provided more than 70 legal memoranda and hundreds of thousands of pages of supporting research to the international prosecutor. The Tribunal recently cited a memo by a New England School of Law student, and it was appended to the prosecutor's brief in a published decision. Since 1997, this program has been supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute, a branch of the George Soros Foundation. These student memos are now available online.
Pera Bora
Canada- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 10:36 pm
Vytas & Andre, my thoughts exactly on the purpose, defence strategy and, unfortunately, the outcome of this "trial".Jari, "his people handed him to the ICTY" is not so; Milosevic was handed by his political opponents in Belgrade to his political opponents abroad to be prosecuted, tried and sentenced on a political trial. He was a perfect target, a scapegoat by definition.
And why the proceedings are not broadcasted? Let me answer with a question: Who could have imagined such incompetence from the Prosecution? But, mind you, the sentence is still necessary to both sets of political opponents, thus the trial continues. And not a bit like something out of the TV series "L.A. Law".
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 10:37 pm
Ivan; You don't know how much help Slobo has. What he is unsure of he gets out of Belgrade. No witness will be free to lie without rebuttle.Jari; I think you forget that Slobo dosn't want to be found not guilty; but wants the world to know who is.
We need a forum, like Saturday Nite Live; with a comedy script that will bring the trial into focus. I tried a scrip based on sports comments but was rejected. I am sure one of you can write one that will put Slobo back in the news.
Pertti Lindroos
Quesnel
BC Canada- Thursday October 17, 2002 at 11:17 pm
We need to make like L.A law. or like Monday Nite Football, Vera. If the US public is in the dark about it's crimes you can not blame them.
Pertti Lindroos
Quesnel
BC Canada- Friday October 18, 2002 at 3:55 am
Andre, of course I didn't mean that he should make up crimes to be able to shift the blame on others. The presupposition that I am trying to counter is the one put forward by Pertti: "Slobo dosn't want to be found not guilty". As far as I know Slobo, this is just the kind of guy he is. But I have to be as realistic as possible, even if it means being critical. In the last analysis, it is his own vanity that brought him to The Hague in the first place. It is often said that he fought three wars and lost them all. Even if that is not strictly speaking true, everybody understand how this myth came about. Milosevic has some pretty serious misconceptions about his own powers, considerable though they are. If the past is any indication, his grand schemes will backfire in this case too, if he attempts something which this trial is not for. If by "showing who is guilty" you mean indicting Nato, it won't work. If by "showing who is guilty" you mean finding those responsible in the Yugoslav machinery for the crimes that are under investigation, it might work.Andre, Milosevic may show that the crimes are miniscule compared to what has been alleged may be working as a publicity stunt, but technically it doesn't matter how miniscule the crimes are. Even a miniscule crime can put Milosevic behind bars for life, if he is shown to be responsible for it. So his argument may seem to be working when he shows the extent of the crimes, but he has to convince the Trial Chamber that he is not responsible for them. And that is something he can do by pointing out that the crimes were investigated and acted upon.
Let us accept Mr Dickers's generous offer. He said to IWPR (!)that crimes did take place, but it is difficult to show that Milosevic is individually responsible. I can't tell you how important that is (in my view). I read only the summary of the Balkan Institute report given by Simon, but the prosecution will never win this case if it argues the way the report seems to be doing. The prosecution may argue, as does the report, that Milosevic had official and/or effective control of the Yugoslav apparatus. Well, that he may have had, but "effective" doesn't mean that he could control every bit of the machinery. The crimes could just as well show that he did not have absolute control of the machinery.
See? The prosecution is using a circular reasoning, and technically it won't work, because the defendant is presumed innocent. But I will have to read through the whole report, if I find time (that phrase "if I find time" is just meant to make me sound more important).
As to the closed sessions, I did some thinking. It is possible to arrange that sort of sessions according to Rule 79. Rule 79(A)(iii) mentions that it can be arranged in the "interests of justice". But there is a more general Rule, Rule 75. This is the one that talks about "appropriate measures for the privacy and protection of victims and witnesses." However, it goes on, very significantly: "provided that the measures are consistent with the rights of the accused". I have the impression that "interests of justice" mean that something must be done because the judges say so. In my view, in this case the "interests of justice" cannot excuse the violation of the rights of the accused. Geoffrey, grow up. We all know that this is your way of infringing on the rights of the accused, and that in itself has nothing to do with justice. You wanted closed sessions only so that no "wide publicity" is given to the poor quality of the testimonies. Damn it, you said it yourself (I don't know in how many words).
Let's come back to Ahtisaari's memoirs "Mission in Belgrade". You might find this interesting. We all know that Milosevic was indicted because the Americans wanted him out of office. The Americans have all but admitted that - by denying it. I have been reading Ahtisaari's memoirs, and there he says that Strobe Talbott [US Deputy Secretary of State] won the Russians over to the American side by insisting that the famous "five demands" did not imply that Milosevic should leave office. However, Talbott reminded that an ICTY indictment is a different matter. Oh what prescience! Ahtisaari adds laconically: "And the indictment came a little later."
Ahtisaari also reminds the reader time and again that Yugoslavia could not be an equal negotiating partner. His argument is flashy. Yugoslavia was a "failed state", which was demonstrated by the way it treated its own citizens (where have we heard that before). Because Yugoslavia couldn't be an equal partner, the bombing couldn't be left off - otherwise Milosevic might have got the idea that he would have any room for manoeuvring. I just wonder why they had to bomb Montenegro, if Yugoslavia was such a "failed state".
Ahtisaari also says that the idea of partitioning Kosovo between the Serbs and the Albanians was put forward by none other than Franjo Tudjman. Ahtisaari says that this showed Croatia was paying a heavy price for the crisis in the Balkans and it wanted to do something to stop it.
Ahtisaari is adamant that everything was Milosevic's fault. He admits that there were some uncertainty about Racak, but because Helena Ranta had submitted the report (actually the report was made public only after Ahtisaari's book came out), the matter seemed to be settled. Ahtisaari also adds that not all European capitals were convinced that the Kosovo crisis was all due to the Serbs. The killing of six Serbs in Pec was a reminder to them that they might be more to the crisis than met the eye. Ahtisaari doesn't comment on this.
On the other hand, he says - quite inconsistently - that he managed to persuade the Russians of the necessity of the Nato presence in Kosovo after the bombing, because who else would have been able to keep the KLA in check! He has no illusions about the KLA. He says that half of them were Nazis and the rest were Stalinists. Somehow it doesn't occur to him that that may have been the reason Milosevic was messing up in Kosovo.
Ahtisaari had also some brief contact with Blair and Cook. He says they were such nice men stand behind Ahtisaari's mission 100%. Well fancy that!
One of the "five demands" was also that all Serb troops should be withdrawn from Kosovo. Ahtisaari explains this by the familiar argument: otherwise the Kosovo refugees wouldn't dare to come back. Well, maybe I am talking with the benefit of hindsight, but it seems that now that there are no Serb troops, the Serb refugees dare not return. After the bombing one Finnish academic explained the Albanian violence was due to some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder. Now it seems the Albanian "freedom fighters" were nuts to begin with.
Chernomyrdin also argued that the Security Council resolution would have been needed for the bombing. Ahtisaari counters that with a curious non sequitur: Milosevic had been given enough opportunities. Doesn't this show that the UN rules are followed only if it suits the Realpolitik?
We know that this trial is a political trial. Curiously, when Ahtisaari mentions the two Australian CARE workers who were arrested in Yugoslavia and accused of spying, he also mentions that the Australian ambassador contacted him so that he would mention their plight to Milosevic. The workers were released the following fall. Ahtisaari only mentions the many notes of thanks that he then received. But the Australian's greatest worry was that the two CARE workers might be used for a political trial! Doesn't that show that the Milosevic trial is the continuation of war by other means (in which case I am not sure who is winning.)
Then to the "general knowledge quiz". It was mentioned a couple of days ago in the cross-examination that Karadzic signed the Vance-Owen Peace Plane (VOPP) in 1993. This was the plan that divided Bosnia into 19 or so (I can't remember the figure) Swiss-style cantons. Well, if Karadzic signed the plan, wasn't it an agreement? If it was, then it couldn't be revoked at the drop of a hat. So why do we hear that the Serbs broke every agreement they made?
This Western capriciousness is more flagrant in the Lisbon Agreements of 1992. All three nationalities in Bosnia signed it. On the basis of the old rule pacta sunt servanda the agreement had to be abided by. However, the Americans had the impression that they have the power to revoke agreements made by others, and in this case the US ambassador Zimmermann seemed to have better ideas (actually it seems he had none, but who cares?). Zimmermann later argued that uti possidetis juris had to be observed: the borders of the former republics were to remain intact. Zimmermann also argued that this would make a good precedent for the break-up of the Soviet Union.
But is uti possidetis such an unbreakable law? In the frontier dispute between Burkina Faso v. Mali, the International Court of Justice argued that uti possidetis juris should be observed to avoid fratricidal wars. It seems in Bosnia the rule was the cause of fratricidal wars. How does Zimmermann sleep? Just wondering.
It was pointed out by Vera a couple of days ago that the circumstances of the person should be taken into account when the person's guilt is determined. Believe it or not, the ICTY Statute allows for a person's individual circumstances. However, it makes this concession only for the convicted person, when his sentence is determined (Art. 24.). That is the only time the Statute uses the word "circumstances" or "circumstance".
This provision was brought up when the Plavsic plea agreement was discussed. And the wide speculation that Plavsic might testify against Milosevic only shows that getting an indictee or a convict to testify against Milosevic would certainly be an event.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland- Friday October 18, 2002 at 4:08 am
By the way, showing Nato to be guilty might work if these were indeed an illegal organ. If it is not, Milosevic has to play by the rules. And it is my opinion that even if the UN Charter doesn't give the Security Council the power to establish judicial organs, it might have implied powers to that effect. This is the old debate on the peace-keepers rehashed. The UN Charter doesn't give the Security Council the power to set up peace-keeping forces, which was the way the Soviet Union argued against the Security Council peace-keeping forces. But the SC peace-keepers were a fact nevertheless.Milosevic's defense strategy stands or falls on the question if this is an illegal organ or not. Maybe some legal expert might give his or her opinion on whether I am right about this implied powers argument in the case of the ICTY.
J N
Finland- Friday October 18, 2002 at 5:24 am
If you think no legal proceedings are under way against Nato, think again. Visit www.natosued.org. Something concrete is being done. But I still think this trial is not about the guilt of Nato.
J N
Finland- Friday October 18, 2002 at 12:55 pm
The visit to the www.natosued.org website is an eye-opener. Now that the prosecution is trying to prove that Milosevic had the "official and/or effective control" over everything that happened in Yugoslavia, we are actually hearing the reverse side of the arguments put forward by Nato for what constituted a legitimate target of the bombing campaign.The crucial case is the bombing of the RTS tower. That was a "legitimate target", it is argued, because it was an integral part of the Milosevic machinery. Proof remains non-existent.
Was Milosevic a legitimate target? Remember how the US shot in missile in his bedroom.
And on and on it goes. Everything the Nato bombs hit was a legitimate target, because Milosevic had the official and/or effective control over it.
What would happen if Milosevic were found not to be such a bogeyman in the first place? The Western courts would be flooded by the claims made by the Serb bombing victims. The national courts could not argue that this or that was a legitimate target just because it was supposed to be part of the Milosevic machinery.
So it is understandable the ICTY is playing this stalling game, no matter how ridiculous it is becoming. It has the inestimable support of the European Court of Human Rights in this game. The ECHR seems to decline jurisdiction over anything that is even remotely connected to Yugoslavia.
I am just voicing my concerns about the games Milosevic is playing himself. The sports analogy has been used above. It is not true that we have a soccer match or whatever. Milosevic isn't officially playing. He hasn't entered any kind of plea and he hasn't even recognized the legality of this tribunal.
I maybe naive (and maybe I really am). But it seems to me that the reason the lawyers cannot have any regular contact with Milosevic is because he has no official counsel. This was already hinted at by Mr T. Giving access to people who are helping Milosevic apparently out of political motives does seem a bit precarious, does it not?
But more importantly, what is anybody supposed to do about all the mistakes that the law firm May & Nice are making? Milosevic doesn't even recognize them. In that respect, it is only of academic interest if they make mistakes.
So I would argue that if there is something too good about this trial, it is the absence of any plea from Milosevic's side. It may have worked well in the beginning, but now the prosecution are peeing in their pants, we have to get into game at some point, and entering a not-guilty plea is the first step. We have enough evidence this is not a fair trial, but as long as Milosevic is outside the trial, as it were, it is "irrelevant".
It is time to size Milosevic up. He thinks he is the ruler, but he is not. Recognizing the court would be admitting the limits of his power. He does this very convincingly. It is no wonder such malicious rumours of his infinite power have gained popularity. He isn't there to stop them. So this game of his may do a lot of harm.
Dostoyevski shows in his novel House of the Dead how it is the prisoners in custody (just like Milosevic) who do the dumbest things. They are too scared to hear the outcome of the trial, so they would rather commit a murder than hear the verdict. Never mind that that is going to lock them up for life. I think something like this is applicable in Milosevic's case. Rising above the tribunal is his way of having any certainty about his life.
This is not to excuse any of the things the ICTY, the prosecutors, the judges, the ECHR and the national courts have done in this case. But in my opinion Milosevic has a chance. But as long as he thinks he is above the rules, he cannot blame the law firm on the opposite side of being above the law!
And back to the argument he should make. He should argue that the joint criminal enterprise never existed. And then he should explain his relationship to any of the alleged members of the JCE. Remember, he is only prosecuted for participation in the JCE, nothing which he did himself.
Milosevic shouldn't get too excited about demolishing the JCE. So far the prosecution doesn't seem to produce any evidence that he had any dealings with all of the members of the alleged JCE. So the prosecution may have set a trap for Milosevic and wait until they can cross-examine the defense witnesses later. Milosevic can deny his link to Karadzic by calling Akashi as a witness, but this is when the prosecution will strike and argue that there was a link between Milosevic and Karadzic after all.
These are my final thoughts before the weekend.
J N
Finland- Friday October 18, 2002 at 1:24 pm
Another day behind close doors and then at 12:30 PM The Hague time, after a recess the court is in open session again. Judge's May (NATO) microphone is open and you can hear his heavy breathing mixed with some ungry mumbling. Mr. Groove (NATO) beging the examination of C1141 and the screen shows the motion of the multicolor mosaic of cubes C1141 is. It is all boring Mr. Groove's style and again the judges Robinson (COLONIAL) and Kuong (OCCUPIED) are eager for details. Judge May (NATO) presses Mr. Grove (NATO) on, we don't need too many details, get on to the main point, he says. The atmosphere is heavy, the camera static, May's (NATO) voice impatient, one wonder what has happened behind doors for the last couple of days. Mr. Nice (NATO) is not there.
10 minutes before the end of the session the examination ends. Judge May (NATO) baulks "cross-examination on Monday" then a tense and conmtrolled "yes, what is is Mr. Milsoevic/", "Well, gospodine May, what does the testimony of this man has to do with me? with the indictement, any one picked up from the street could do . . ." Judge May(NATO) is annoyed he wants to shout, he can't, "no need to insult, you can say so during arguments..." "no, no, no, Mr. Milosevic you can cross examine this witness on Monday, and if you had acepted his statement as we can, acept (written) statements as evidence as crime base evidence, without cross-examination we will have saved a great deal of time! No, no, 9:30 Monday".
Well Mr. May (NATO) it was you who agreed with Mr. Milosevic that no acepted written statement could escape cross examination of the witness, what Mr. Milosevic had asked him regard to C1141 has to do with you'r acepting the statement, since the court reviews the evidence and there for once acepted Mr. Milosevic will cross-examen the witness. Judge May (NATO) may have forgotten his own ruling, he wanted to get out and end this week, tired, out of breath he needs a break. I think behind door sessions are taxing him and his health.
Note the JURIST does not carrry the WSWS.org story about journalist being told to stop criticising. Self imposed censorship?
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Friday October 18, 2002 at 1:28 pm
Food for thought there Jari, I agree that there is no evidence of any JCE... as yet, but the trial is far from over and yes Milosevic could well trip himself up if he refuses to defend himself and the prosecution come up with a "dream witness" or two.I can't help but think the prosicution is not as dumb as it makes out, are we being fooled into a false sense of security, did Milosevic spring the trap laid by them by not entering a plea?Have a good weekend all.
Simon Joseph
Amman Valley
UK- Friday October 18, 2002 at 1:52 pm
Gogol, It is obvious that the prosecution has decided that public sessions with this kind of witnesses are devastating for them. My reading is that their possition is: You guys form media shut up or we will continue trial behind closed doors. This is what is happening the last two days. This is very sad development for the trial of the century.
Pera Bora
Canada- Friday October 18, 2002 at 2:00 pm
Another good sign that Mr. Milosevic is doing fine is the lack of the new news stories in the media on the trial of the century. Eventually they will convict Mr. Milosevic on the evidence that was delivered behind the closed doors by the witnesses that nobody publicly has seen or heard. It does not make sense or deliver justice but it serves the NATO well.
Pera Bora
Canada- Friday October 18, 2002 at 2:37 pm
Closed doors sessions means high "caliber" whitnesses like Ricky Holbrooke (a first class Serb hater) could testify. And why not read Adolf Hitler views on the Slavic people as "evidence"?
This is all happening 24 hours after judge May (NATO) objected to too many close doors witnesses applications by Mr. Nice (NATO)
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Friday October 18, 2002 at 3:50 pm
Jari! - You Do quite a bit of talking..- You keep on bringing up the articles of the indictment........ - You sound like a lawyer.... - You really qualify to be on the PROSECUTION TEAM - ( playing the "good cop") You qualify because like the prosecution You do not realize that the only JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE in this mess was Western Powers with their own agendas. - The only reason why the civil war broke out in Yugoslavia is starting the interference in the domestic maters of a Sovereign Country.- Interference by instigating and exploiting ethnic tensions by recognizing The Independence of CROatia before the "problem" of 1.000 000 Serbs living for centuries on its territory was resolved.......and all this Recognition was done while the members of the new Croatian Gov . were openly and proudly using the term of ETHNIC cleansing.... - By illegally supplying arms to the gangs of nationalists under the flag of " NAZI TIMES" - There is not a shred of evidence during the 10 years of "Milosovich Rule" that could point out that His Gov in any way was promoting Serbian nationalism, Ethnically clean Serbian territory or "GREATER SERBIA"...... but there is quite a bit of video footage from Croatian , Bosnian and Albanian side...... ... and then there are facts of 800.000 refugees from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo (where 250.000 refugees were generated after the PEACE KEEPERS and FREEDOM FIGHTERS took over.......- THAT IS REALLY " JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE " in action........ .- Did You happen to know the #'s of Croats , Bosniaks , Albanians or other minorities that escaped the "ULTRA-NATIONALIST REGIME" in Serbia proper? - You would qualify to be on the PROSECUTION TEAM because just like THEM You have no idea what a real SHOW TRIAL is(even though THEY participate in ONE and YOU are for IT by very seriously philosophizing how Milosovich "could save his ass ... if he would play by THEIR rules .........
vytas abrutis
phila,PA
USA- Friday October 18, 2002 at 10:14 pm
Yes vytas! If Milosevic were to give this court any credit or semblance of ligitimacy, he would indeed fall into the trap.This is indeed a game. It was set in motion as the newest blood sport, with advertizing and a promis of Amanpour, giving the colour commentary. A test case for the new ICC. Slobo refused to lay down and ruined the party.
NATO, not the UN bombed Serbia. Much the same as the No Fly Zones in Iraq. They have no UN mandate but because of the media most people assume it is so.
Mr. Milosevic, keep up the good work. If the trail keeps going as it is, Even judge May won't have the nerve to find you guilty.
Pertti Lindroos
Quesnel
BC Canada- Friday October 18, 2002 at 11:02 pm
SOLEMNLY PROTEST "JURIST" IMPOSED CENSORSHIP ON WWW.WSWS.ORG's RECENT ARTICLE COVERING THE TRIAL, WHICH WAS FIRST POSTED, ONLY TO BE DELETED FEW DAYS LATER。 I CONSIDER World Socialist Web Site, PUBLISHED BY International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), TO BE THE BEST POLITICAL SITE WITH DAILY NEWS AND ANALYSIS IN THE WORLD. IT IS ALSO AN EXCELLENT TOOL FOR BUILDING OF PARTY OF WORLD SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, AND WILL PLAY AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ROLE IN YEARS TO COME. IT IS REGRETABLE THAT WSWS HAS BEEN CENSORED BY "JURIST".
Marko Pesic
Yugoslavia- Saturday October 19, 2002 at 1:52 pm
Vytas, you have asked an eye-opening question: " Give me the number of the Croats, Albanians and Moslems that left Serbia proper during the rule of Mr. Milosevic"? And the answer is: "None". I do not count here temporary refugees caused by KLA/NATO intervention i.e. during it because this intervention was not necessary. I hope that Mr. Milosevic would be able to use this question effectively once when he starts his difference.
Pera Bora
Canada- Saturday October 19, 2002 at 2:41 pm
Dear Jurist, OK you don't like the WSWS article and consequently you have removed the link and when I posted it again you removed once more.
Fine, that shows you must have so compelling reasons to do so. Now, since this space is a forum , an exchange, an exchnage of ideas it will be far more constructive if instead of removing what you disagree with you could express your dissenting point of view, your opinion.
Is it too much to ask?
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Saturday October 19, 2002 at 4:10 pm
JURIST does *not* - repeat, does *not* - censor news articles. The disappearance of the WSWS article from one of our news feeds was due to technical reasons relating to how our news provider delivers and/or caches online headlines. We have no control over that process. No JURIST staffer interferes with those feeds. The disappearance of Gogol's repost was due to the fact that it coincided with a discussion "clean-up", which we have to do periodically when discussants enter multiple posts or make errors in HTML code. The less often these things happen, the less often we will have to intervene, and the less likely it will be that a post made at the same time, such as Gogol's, will be lost. Gogol may resend his post at any time.
JURIST Moderator- Saturday October 19, 2002 at 6:03 pm
Excellent explanation!
Here is the link to the WSWS.org article on how the Prosecutor asked the Media to shut up: click HERE
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Saturday October 19, 2002 at 6:28 pm
Some information clearing up the air around Seselj and the last witnesses at The Hague:
ELGRADE - The head of the Serbian Radical Party, Vojislav Seselj, on Friday delivered to journalists copies of a letter he sent to former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic who is currently being tried by the UN tribunal for war crimes. In the letter, Seselj refutes testimonies made by two Belgrade journalists from the "Vreme" weekly, Dejan Anastasijevic and Jovan Dulovic. Both refer to my alleged statements post festum, that were perhaps made during the fierce propaganda war between the Serbian Radical Party and the Socialist Party of Serbia at the intervals between my two terms in prison, Seselj said in his letter. Seselj notes that he first met Milosevic in February 1992 at a session of the Serbian Assembly and they spoke for the first time in May that year about the coming federal election. They never discussed war operations or volunteers. The Serbian Radical Party, Seselj notes, sent all its volunteers to the Yugoslav Peoples' Army (JNA). Their collection point was the barracks in Bubanj Potok while their length of service was written into their military registers, Seselj claimed, emphasising that his party never had any paramilitary units. I am prepared, Mr. Milosevic, to testify to the truth about the war events and I am surprised that the ICTY's Prosecutor considers me unavailable. As soon as I receive an official subpoena, I will be there, Seselj wrote to Milosevic. In the Milosevic indictment, Seselj is noted as one of the members of the joint criminal enterprise in the war against Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Seselj was arrested twice by Milosevic's regime. The last sentence was in 1993 during the pre-election campaign when Seselj referred to Milosevic as the greatest criminal in Serbia and branded Milosevic's wife, Mirjana Markovic, as the red witch from Dedinje. After that the Serb Radical Party entered into what was commonly referred to as the Red-Black coalition with Milosevic's party and the Yugoslav Leftists run by Mirjana Markovic forming a national unity government from 1998 to 2000. HINA
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Sunday October 20, 2002 at 6:55 am
To JURIST Moderator Your explanation has one serious flaw. You say that you have no control over your news provider, who can, apparently, delete content on your web page at will. And you think that issue ends there. Wouldn't it be natural to check with your news provider how this came about, and ensure that this kind of practise would not set a pattern for future. By the way, the reason someone might want to censure WWW.WSWS.ORG is that only their position, regarding Miloshevich trial, is true and politicaly correct. They rightly qualify Milosevic as petty-bourgeois nationalist politician, who utilised Serbian nationalism to shore up his position within Yugoslavia, what played a significant role in enflaming ethnic tensions and encouraging crimes. Crimes, some of which we were able to see these days, concerning taking people from hospital in Vukovar and executing them, what seems to be beyond doubt, and is quite enough to make Milosevic at least politically, if not criminally, responsible, and deprive him of any pretension to play a role of some kind of "idealist" or "hero". On the other hand that does not change the fact that "The Hague trial is a politically motivated kangaroo court. Its claim that Milosevic was solely responsible for events in Yugoslavia is aimed at covering over the role of the Western powers in fanning the flames of civil war in order to divide the country into a series of impotent ethnically-based states｡ｪentirely dependent on imperialist favour". Gogol Charlemagne made a strongest impression on me, on this forum. He seems to be a very talented man. I would like to know his attitude toward petty-bourgeois and petty-bourgeois nationalist perspective. Also I am curious to know his oppinion on WSWS, not only in regard to Milosevic trial, but generaly. Do you read daily WSWS? Best regards to Gogol,
Marko Pesic
Yugoslavia- Sunday October 20, 2002 at 12:15 pm
To the moderato:
Would you please consider partitioning the forum again. People with low speed access are complaining that they can not access it after 17th
Pera Bora
Canada- Sunday October 20, 2002 at 7:55 pm
I wonder if the MODERATOR could remove my above poorly written posting and leave this one instead after I have tried to improve it and correct. THANKS
To Marko Pesic:
I do not read WSWS everyday. I check their headlines and if I find a subject or story it has interest to me I read and share it with others.
I have, not too long ago written in these pages about my feelings on the political ideology of WSWS and I gave an example: a WSWS review of a film about the Spanish Civil War. Political ideologies are ill defined today and when it comes to socialism and the left, the differences of the past have all vanished because the lacking of clearly defined identities. No more Rosas Luxemburg, no more Telehmans, Dimitrovs, Pijade, Duclos and I don't need to dig deeper into the past, I think to make my point.
I don't know how much of a petit bourgeois Slobodan Milosevic was or is. For what I have been learning about him, the person, the man by following his trial and his own defence I can only see a very strong political belief driving his struggle for the truth. This is not characteristically a very petit bourgeois trait, at least in this part of the world. But I, like many in the West follow Yugoslavia's history and events thru a cloudy distance, geographically, culturally distance and above all thru the thickness of a propaganda fog. It is just last night I was able to see Yugoslavia the Avoidable War which I borrowed from my local public library confirming that many of my conclusions about this tragedy were correctly interpreted, even with the scarce available information. Yet, I still find enough unfinished, undefined and patently wrong material because its very definite bourgeois interpretation of history in this otherwise excellent documentary, an oasis in a desert of lies, which by comparison brings the present state of western ideology and media servitude closer to the perfect fascist state that I ever remember. It is all, so it seems very relative and just a matter of perception to the immediate observer and far more absolute, concrete and definite to the student of history and in this context the la petite bourgeoisieif any of Milosevic is nearly undetectable.
In recent years national sovereignty is a concept which has come severely under attack. The multi ethnic concept of the state alongside or belonging to the national state has been replaced by the multicultural state, this is in fact a reflextion of the problem of national minorities in the United States, a model which is under promotion for the world to adopt. In this context I can't stress enough the need for nations to assert their national rights, historically, culturally, linguistically and, again and deducting from the trial I can see how misplaced Albanian nationalism was in Kosovo, in rejecting the multi-national Yugoslav model. We know now, of course about their motivations and the disaster they brought with the help of NATO to themselves and to Serbia.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Monday October 21, 2002 at 12:10 am
Simon, re your expectations of a "dream witness", here's another proof that the Prosecution has nothing:The witness-journalist Dejan Anastasijevic published in his magazine VREME, after he returned from The Hague, a short diary of his few days in the Low Land. Apart from describing foul weather, his problems with no-smoking rules and protracted stay over the weekend, he also made an interesting revelation: two years ago, when he gave his written statement to the investigators, he was led to believe he would not have to testify in the courtroom. Instead, they slapped him with a subpoena.
Listen to his own words: "I was aware that a large part of what I had to say was secondhand information, and I thought that it would serve primarily as a guide to testimony by other people and more solid evidence. In fact, I did not think that they would actually call me to testify, and I have to agree to some extent with Milosevic that I am not an especially good witness."
And here's another little insight into the "witness preparation" procedure: "My first statement was about forty typed pages and it covered great variety of subjects about which the investigators asked me. However, the prosecutor was interested in only some of those subjects and now it was necessary to prepare a much shorter version, leaving out some people and events and strengthening that which remained. We worked on that all day..."
So, it took them all day to cook up the strengthened version of the testimony, which came out as a total blank, and from the witness who never expected to really testify, but who thought some real witnesses would appear instead. I almost feel sorry for such used useful idiots. You should just hear and read their lamentations for the Prosecution's poor performance! That was the mortal blow to their unconditional belief in Due Process, Fair Trial, Principle of Justice, all those court-drama mainstays learned from films and TV. Instead, the monster of a show trial rose its ugly head.
On a more cheerful note, here's another citation from D.A. Diary, with a touch of humanity found in our brave Prosecutor: "Nice awaits me in his office during the lunch break, with his feet on the table, a sandwich in one hand and a glass of red wine in the other. I discover that under his severe robe Nice wears a lavender shirt, flowered braces and brightly coloured patterned socks."
I just hope our experienced witness, at some hypothetical grotesque future trial will not be tricked into testifying against the Joint Criminal Enterprise of those who disdain regular white shirt, classic leather belt and plain black socks.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia- Monday October 21, 2002 at 12:53 am
Vera Nice face looks very pale,it doesn't look like someone who is drinking wine at lunch. The phrase ALL RISE is repeated in a second language IT sounds Albanian to me. The Albanian part is already finished,why they using it. Your contribution is apreciated and it gives us a lot of hard to come by information . Thanks: Vasile
Vasile Ianos
NJ- Monday October 21, 2002 at 1:04 am
Vera. I saw Dejan article at WWW.vreme.com , but is only in Serbian. Can we get a translation in English. Vasile
Vasaile Ianos
NJ- Monday October 21, 2002 at 2:27 am
- A pleasure to bump into some real report from Haague brought by journalist-witness-journalist............and a matching revue......... - Vera You could be making good money if You switch sides ;)
vytas abrutis
phila,PA
USA- Monday October 21, 2002 at 2:58 am
Vytas, it was me that called the ICTY a "joint criminal enterprise". I would also agree with you that the Western plan is a joint criminal enterprise.The rules of the game are what they are, and they won't go away just by closing your eyes. I think this is a legal organ, maybe. I asked someone to counter that statement with legal arguments, and I got none. Some people treat him as a sports hero, others as the accused.
Do you think I don't know this is a political trial? Does that mean Milosevic has to make is an even more political trial? He will surely lose. In my mind, it would be much more valiant for him to beat this political trial by winning it by legal means. I think that is what his hero, the later Bulgarian communist leader and statesman Georgi Dimitrov did in the Nazi show trial.
It is my opinion that Milosevic would do everyone a lot of good if he would play by the rules. If he recognized the court, the judges wouldn't have to worry about him running away, if he were released. Remember, it is not the ideal situation that he is behind bars during the trial. But what are the Trial Chamber to do, if he doesn't recognize the tribunal? He can promise them that he won't run away, but he is not bound to his own promise, because he doesn't recognize those who he made it to.
Also, bear in mind that there are a lot of ancillary cases waiting there in the national courts, which don't proceed, because Milosevic is regarded as an excuse for anything. If Milosevic would win this trial fair and square and save his ass, the national courts would have nothing more to excuse their recalcitrance, and they would have to award the damages the relatives of the RTS victims, for instance, are claiming. Until now, the cases have been pending in Holland and Germany and countries like that, but if the Milosevic excuse were rebutted, it would open the American markets as well, where the lawyers must be just waiting for really big-time litigation. We wouldn't then be only dealing with bombing victims but slander victims as well, and this is the only way you will ever get your hands on Amanpour, believe me.
I have also said the proceedings are null and void. Until now no organ has been willing to conclude that, because the flaws of the trial can be excused by saying that Milosevic hasn't recognized the trial anyway. So is working for the prosecution? MILOSEVIC! It is of course possible that by recognizing this court, he would be recognizing all the flaws, but I think that the flaws are so fundamental that they won't go away, and the only way Milosevic can get a hold on them is by recognizing this damned tribunal! It is possible that it is then the Americans themselves who will be eager to declare the proceedins null and void.
And what is the most fundamental flaw? Pero said it. The closed sessions. What we now know is that journalists gave some evidence of a joint criminal enterprise between Seselj (whose reply Gogol gave). This "evidence" doesn't stand the light of day, which Nice has been only too willing to admit, so they use the closed sessions for the pivotal evidence.
This has to be stopped right now. And the prosecution has given us all the ammo to do it. I trust Gogol that the latest closed session was motivated by "interests of justice" according to Rule 79(a)(iii). However, Nice had explained it by death threats the witness had allegedly received. So why didn't the Trial Chamber order the closed session based on Rule 79(a)(ii), which speaks of "safety, security or non-disclosure of the identity of a victim or witness"? Does that mean the witness wasn't worried about his own safety? So how should we interpret "interests of justice"? The only explanation is the poor quality of the evidence! May had only warned the press of speculating on the identity of the protected witness, but that is not at issue here.
That where the argument for closed session tumbles. Rule 75 (A) says that witness protection can be undertaken "provided that the measures are consistent with the rights of the accused". But the prosecution wants to circumvent by its actions one of the basic rights of the accused: fair and public trial. Art. 21(2) says that "the accused shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing..."
The amicus curiae should notice these things and act upon them. Maybe there is still time to do so. But it would be preferable to have a counsel. That way the constant harassment of Milosevic's lawyers would be avoided. In principle. I agree with Vytas and Pertti that it is a gamble.
So the evidence for the joint criminal enterprise is given behind closed door. That scraps the idea of a fair trial, because it is this evidence which the conviction will be based on. But theoretically (again), we can be reassured, because from other actions of the tribunal until now it is obvious that there is no evidence of a joint criminal enterprise. If even one of the members of the criminal enterprise is a mistake, the whole construct collapses. How about Seselj? Investigated about a month ago. How about Martic? He was not active in Bosnia. He was President of the self-style SR Krajina. And as far as I know, none of these people belonged to the same party or the same hierarchy as Milosevic, so there is no prima facie case for the enterprise, no matter what May has ruled in his review.
So even if the tribunal were recognized, I would contend that the indictments against Milosevic are unfounded. Remember that it is claimed that Milosevic recognized the tribunal when he signed the Dayton Peace Agreement. Annex 4 mentions the ICTY a couple of times. One of these provisions says that an ICTY indictee can hold no political office or even be a candidate for such an office. Could such a person sign the Dayton Peace Agreement? It would seem that this is out of the question. Otherwise Karadzic could have signed it. But now a curious problem arises. Milosevic is indicted for crimes he allegedly committed before the Dayton Agreement. Don't the Croatia and Bosnia indictments work retroactively, so that the Dayton Accord is null and void? If so, Milosevic cannot be held accountable for his alleged failure to do later what the Dayton Accord provided! So he didn't have to help in the investigation (which he didn't have to do, even if the letter of the Agreement is strictly adhered to, because he was not a Bosnian leader). And whatever happened with the Dayton Peace Agreement and later on, was a case of entrapment, as Shattuck admits.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland- Monday October 21, 2002 at 3:32 am
So. I will go on with my review of Ahtisaari's memoirs "Mission in Belgrade", because I think the trial won't be resumed until tomorrow.Ahtisaari was clearly in the pocket of the Americans. But what proof did he have that Milosevic was anything like the Butcher of the Balkans he was made to be?
By the way, don't fool yourselves by thinking that the Russians were so fond of Milosevic. Every time we hear a Russian politician say something in the book, it is almost always to the effect that Milosevic is an SOB.
But the crimes? You would be surprised what human rights violations Ahtisaari mentions. You know that the police units were under the Ministry of the Interior (MUP). These police units included a special unit (Posebne Jedinice Policije, PJP). This special police unit had an anti-terrorist group. So the unutterable human rights violations are attributed to the anti-terrorist group of PJP, which had violated human rights in the way they treated the arrested!
That is all. That is all that Ahtisaari was ever told! Sure enough, Ahtisaari wrote the foreword to his book after Milosevic was ousted, and in his foreword he mentions the lithurgical genocides and so on.
On the other hand, he seems to make no big deal of the fact that the Serbs were using anti-terrorist groups. Why would they do that if there were no terrorists?
Ahtisaari also reveals, almost as a slip of the tongue, that if the Mission in Belgrade were to fail, Milosevic could be held as the scapegoat. The real reason for such a failure would have been the adamant demands that the Americans made. But Ahtisaari says something more. He says that Milosevic would continue to be a scapegoat! So that was his function in world politics.
The ICTY indictment of Milosevic came as a surprise to everybody. Kofi Annan didn't know about it until it was too late, and the German presidency of the EU didn't know about it. Ahtisaari sure didn't know about it. He thought that it was a conspiracy to undermine his and Chernomyrdin's mission. It was suggested that it was the "Lady at The Hague" who had taken a surprisingly hard stance. So I think she was acting out of hurt feelings, after Milosevic had refused her a visa to enter the Racak site, and maybe on the advice of Bill Clinton. Strobe Talbott had already flashed the possibility earlier.
The Americans trusted that Milosevic would accept the hard bargain, because "it was the only way to keep Yugoslavia from falling apart". Well, we now see how eager they are to live up to that promise. And anyway, such a promise is in collision course with the thesis that Yugoslavia was a "failed state".
The Americans and Ahtisaari explained the necessity of the Nato troops by the fact that only Nato was strong enough to keep the KLA in check.
Ahtisaari adds that they wanted to avoid the mistake of Sarajevo, where the Muslims caused so much fear that the Serbs had no alternative but flee from the city! Isn't it obvious that the mistake that was made in Sarajevo was confined basically to one city, where as the Kosovo mistake comprised the whole province?
And finally to the "official and/or effective control" Milosevic allegedly had over everything that happened in Yugoslavia. This is not in the book.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, Colonel John A. Warden III of the US Air Force has created a devastating theory. According to his theory, the US can bring about a regime change (and this was what the Kosovo bombing was about) by paralyzing the civilian infrastructure first. That way they will ultimately get their hands on the "brain of the system". This is of course completely against the Geneva Conventions, which is a pity. But it is against the background of Warden's theory that we should interpret the rhetoric about Milosevic's "official and/or effective control" which allegedly legitimized the attacks on every bit of Yugoslav civilian infrastructure.
It was not that Milosevic exercised such control. It was the US that wanted to exercise total control over Milosevic, the "brain of the enemy system", by starting by attacks on infrastructure. So all this talk about Milosevic being the mastermind of everything and all the control he had is just a smoke screen. It tells us more about the US strategic thinking than about Milosevic.
It is true that Milosevic was elected by the overwhelming majority of votes, but that is where the analogy with Hitler ends. On the other hand, if George Bush Jr. gets too smart, we may think back at the number of votes he got.
J N
Finland- Monday October 21, 2002 at 9:21 am
Adolf Hitler was never elected by any form of sufrage or direct election he was appointed Chancellor by the President of the Republic Hindenburg on 30 January 1933. Before that general elcetions had tgaken place in the Reich on 6 November 1932 and I quote William L. Shirer on his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich whom I believe was there during the occasion:
Fate, and the German electorate, decided on Novemeber 6 a number of things, none of them conclusive for the future of the crumbling Republic. The Nazi lost two million votes and 34 seats in the Reichstag, reducing them to 196 deputies. The Communists gained three quarters of a million votes and the Social Democrats lost the same number, with the result that the Communist seats rose from 89 to 100 and the Socialist seat dropped from 133 to 121. The German National Party, the sole one which had backed the government, won nearly a million additional votes--obvioulsy from the Nazis--and now had 52 seats instead of 37. Though the National Socialists were still the largest party in the ccountry, the loss of the two million votes was a severe setback. For the first time the great Nazi tide was ebbing, and from a point far short of a mjority. The legend of invincibility had been shattered. Hitler was in a weaker position to bargain for powere than he had been since July.
Then came the fire of the Reichstag, (Dimitrov's Trial) repression and terror and another election where Hitler failed to gain the needed 2/3 majority he needed to pass his . . . but by then democracy was dead and gone. It was the bourgeoisy since this came up yesterday, the ruling class whom handled the power to Adolf Hitler and not the people.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Monday October 21, 2002 at 9:23 am
Jari I do not believe that Milosevic痴 recognition of the court is going to change anything. The rules of this court change every day. Enough has been posted on this site to fill a book on the illegality of this Tribunal. For Milosevic to recognize this Tribunal he becomes a party to the "joint criminal enterprise" of the NATO countries. Recognition will give legitimacy to the charges against him. We know full well that this Tribunal is not interested in justice. If they were interested in justice the tribunal structure would need to change and the procedure as well. NATO does not want this. They want a conviction. They act like a policeman who is entrusted to enforce the law but subverts the law in order to do it. I am missing something in your post because I am at a loss as to what evidence is there for such a conclusion.America only recognizes Tribunals that they can control. They use face to face negotiations with nations that are likeminded or that have some clout, like nukes, everyone else they bully. This Tribunal is a form of international bullying. In the end they justify the bullying by establishing a trial process that they would not accept for themselves. They use threats with both friends and their enemies. Play ball by our rules or we wont let you play at all, simple as that. The threats are real; IMF, the World Bank, propaganda and support the son of a b-- since he wants to play ball by our rules. If this does not work bomb and justify, justify, justify until the lie is the truth even with fair minded people.
I do not believe that Milosevic conspired or planned to do any of the things that he is charged with. I think he was reactive rather than proactive. If crimes were committed they were not planned. Events in many cases overtake leaders; they do not plan the event. Milosevic was reacting to the "joint criminal enterprise" of the NATO countries and by recognizing this Tribunal he would once more be reacting. For the first time I think he is sticking to a plan and it is working. Will he win and go free? No. However, a moral victory is better than no victory at all.
We know big nations have always pushed small nations around. Once the "joint criminal enterprise" is complete those who planned it go on speaking tours and write their memories explaining how they saved the world. They are nothing but political psychopaths since they commit the most appalling acts are devoid of morality and they have no remorse or feeling of guilt.
Walter Trkla
Kamloops
BC Canada- Monday October 21, 2002 at 9:59 am
Gogol. You know the story. Every democratically elected leader, whom the Americans don't like, is compared to Hitler. The story goes that he was democratically elected too. Arguably, George Bush Jr doesn't have this ballast.Walter, it may be that if Milosevic recognizes he has more to lose than to win. I am indeed quite skeptical if the tribunal would release him on bail after that. Yes, the recognition may be a trap. Believe it or not, I am aware of that.
But the question remains. What will his defense strategy be? I think that he should think twice before "exposing the Nato lies". May has been quite determined to rule certain things "irrelevant", and he will do that when we get to the defense phase. Even if Milosevic doesn't recognize this tribunal, I think it would be in his and everybody else's interests to conduct the defense as if he did recognize the tribunal. The bottomline remains: he should concentrate on saving his ass.
I am basically making a discussion. One should feel free to discuss different options.
The question I am wrestling with is this: does Milosevic have any theoretical chance of winning if he does not recognize the tribunal? Or is it possible that he might tackle the lack of fair trial only if he recognizes the tribunal? One alternative is also to recognize the tribunal but to regard the proceedings as null and void (no matter how academic the distinction is). That is basically what I am saying.
On and on the permutations go. It is also possible that he refutes the legality of this organ but still appoints a legal counsel (maybe part-time). Milosevic pointed out that the amici curiae are not his friends but friends of the court. Once one sees light at the end of the tunnel, Milosevic should consider taking a counsel, who are more convinced of what they are doing than the amici curiae. Or he may go on defending himself, as he is now doing. Nobody would deny he is doing a splendid job, but the defense will have to be based not only on facts but also on law, and whether he can do that, remains to be seen. It can also be that if he can't do it, nobody else will.
But it is pondering on these different alternatives that this discussion can also be good for.
Walter. You are right. A book could be written on the flaws of this trial. I am beginning to think that a book will be written. But even then one should assess if Milosevic could have helped his case by some other strategy.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland- Monday October 21, 2002 at 11:02 am
In a normal court of Law, a national court judging under national law and with a judge not as spineless as judge May (NATO) the judge would have told the prosecutor to produce conclusive evidence linking Mr. Milosevic to the allegations in the next ten days or less or to get lost, dismissing the case.
Take for example today with the tail end of C1141 (C double-one-four-one) in the few moments of public testimony: "What you are testifying about here, is about things you were not present when they did occur, did not see. Only about things you heard from others" and of course can Mr. Milosevic make it clearer when he says "...you could bring a witness from Bali to say these things as well...."
Mr. Nice (NATO) where is your case, where is the evidence? This court whether recognised by Mr. Milosevic or not is a (*******) farce and it is about time JURISTS and LAWYERS of the world recognise it as such and begin to complain about it, anywhere, everywhere and at all times. And Mr. Milsoevic should continue dennouncing the ICTY illegality at every opportunity he can because it is only the truth, the absolute truth that will set him free!
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Monday October 21, 2002 at 11:19 am
Jari,your point about Arkan:
But I have to be honest: why didn't he punish Arkan when he was in Belgrade? Was Arkan innocent?
I think this is where sanctions busting comes in to the picture. Sanctions shut off almost all routes the government had of getting hold of hard currency. They neither had the aparatus nor the knowledge of how to operate a sanctions busting system. This is were the likes of Arkan and co. come in as not only 'warriors', but 'business men' too.
Milosevic was forced to deal with Criminal elements within as the only way to get quick access to hard currency as they were accustomed to 'circumventing offical proceedures'. Serbia's enemies were having money and equipment being given to them and leaving the Bosnian Serbs high and dry would have been their death sentence.
By the time Dayton was signed, criminal elements had become entrenched within, and more so once the West declared that they would keep an 'outer wall of sanctions' in place against Serbia. (I ought to remind everyone here that the West turned their eyes away from Djukanovic's criminal activities...).
Any attempt by Milosevic to start a clean up would in itself have destabilised himself. We saw what happened with the 'mysterious' slayings just prior, during and especially after the democratic and humanitarian bombing of an entire population in 1999. Paranoia was rife and it only takes on hit job to up the ante in a major fashion.
From personal observations, I've forgotten how many times I've seen bankrolls of large denomination Dmark notes as thick as a mans fist flashed about regularly in Belgrade, the few times I've been there during the 1990s. That's not even to mention all the darktinted Mercedes I saw in the country side driving on newly laid tarmacadam or the international bonanza in Tusi, where anything was available for a price (Montenegrins and Albanians did very good business out of the sanctions).
That was the reason that Milosevic needed his own personal police force (and likewise Djukanovic) - neither trusted or knew who they could trust and in which pockets they were.
Alexei Gorbulski
Brussels
Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium ;)- Monday October 21, 2002 at 11:52 am
And what about the superiority stand of this court, again a good example given today when C 60 said: "I never said that" ---"Well it is here in your statement, signed by you . . ."----"I never said that in Serbo-Croatian, the only statement I signed was in English, it might have been mistranslated" (English is a language C 60 does not know!) and prosecutor Mr. Nice (NATO) tells the court it should be found in B-H-S to what Mr. Milsevic criticises this way of reffering to Serbo-Coratian, "an insulting way" and Mr. Nice has no reply left to the chewing of his pencil, because it is true this tribunal does know nothing about Serbo-Croatian but pretends to invent new ways to reffer to it: it is a revolutionary tribunal, a new era of international jsutice, a new world order where the big crushes the small and claims superiority and wisdom!
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Monday October 21, 2002 at 11:54 am
Jari! - I know exactly were You stand and where You"re coming from.... - I appreciate Your insight and Your input on this forum..... But believe me -Milosovich really knows what he is doing ( maybe he should vigorously protest against those CLOSED SESSIONS though ..... maybe not) On the other hand -the JCE ( you must add amicci curiae and official media to the team) is in such a misery that they have to hide in those CLOSED SESSIONS and it takes a reporter disguised as an expert witness to bring out just a crumb of the truth ..... Those behind the JCE (lets call them THE MOTHER JCE or MaMa JayCEy) knew what a powerful thing THE show TRIAL can be ( I heard that they spent some time and $ looking for the experts on properly processing the accused and any witness if necessary...... but the only one they could find still alive was Fiodor Lavrentievich Oblivuchin a resident of Groznyi but the problem was that the old man was "processed " by the mujahedins and when they tried to get from him some "expertise" all they could squeeze was " Allahu AHBAR But Stalin IS Great!") - So they had to give up on The real thing and counting on all the other elements in place and knowing how gullible the "World Community is .......decided to go with a PARODY......... .. and believe me- Milosovich is having a ball in all THIS..... -I was once in such a parody of ShowTrial in 1980. -When the KGB arrested me they threw all their heaviest Criminal Code Articles(among them "Antisoviet agitation and propaganda", Espionage and Treason) - They Arrested me in Moscow when i was about to meet Kevin Cloth from Washington Post (that was the "espionage" part) - to whom i was going to give 14 pages of a glimpse of my crime .14 pages that survived a very thorough search in my apartment and 2 more more paralel searches in the apartments of my friends 3 weeks prior to the arrest and all that on a tip of another NATIONALIST and my "friend" who was freelancing for the KGB at the time(and after the independence he was a member of the City council of Vilnius - maybe he is a member of Parlament by now ...... i don't follow their game anymore but if he becomes a President i will hear about it and let You know - NATIONALISM part was funny because because my crime was on about 300 pages in Russian which was not my native language but a language that was uniting all the nationalities in the USSR OK - to get closer to my point - After 6 month of "negotiations " with my KGB prosecutors all the heavy charges were droped and only the 1 that could send me for only 3 Years to a Labour re-education camp remained. - The "Show" was sceduled exactly to the day to make 6 month from the day of my arrest . - During those last few weeks the prosecutor was real friendly and "understanding"(as he put it - he was once young and restless too)- We went point by point through my "deffence"....... - Mainly it was Yes or NO answers to most of the questions but he expected me to do real taking when we would get to the point of blaming all the bad influences like BBC VOA and Radio Free Europe and some bad indiniduals and so on. - I had to "work on my defence" with a prosecutor because from the very beggining i refused their apointed defence lawyer and when the prosecutor tryied to do that again 2 weeks before the Show and i categoricly said "No" and my excuse was - We can't risc the guys carier and may be his freedom if he really tries to defend me......- This was a lame excuse of course and they had the ground for doubt that the show will go as planed. - That"s why they had a surprise for me on the day of the trial. - Among 200 or so of the audience there was not a single friend of mine -nobody i could recognise - Nobody from the UPN or AP. - They were there in town in the Courhouse but not in the courtroom! - The excuse - ! - The place was packed before they arrived ( the whole f...ng LAW faculty of the University of Vilnius was there ....... on a field trip) - Now i really had my chance to be sorry, and go home after the SHOW with a sentence of 6 month TIME served! - But i had to screwe IT UP!
vytas abrutis
phila,PA
USA- Monday October 21, 2002 at 12:09 pm
Wow! Thanks, Alexei. That may indeed be what this is all about! Now I see why Del Ponte is having these maniacal investigations into Milosevic's secret bank accounts in Nicosia and where not.OK, there may have been a "joint criminal enterprise": a sanction-busting ring.
On the other hand, it extended outside the borders of Yugoslavia. It was an open secret that the prime minister Ivan Kostov made a fortune on sanction-busting. Israel has already admitted its participation in this "enterprise".
But hey, sanction-busting is not what this tribunal is about. Just saying in the indictment that there was a joint criminal enterprise is a tad misleading when it is sanction-busting we are talking about.
Just something to think about: Is the participation in an sanction-busting ring enough to implicate a banker like Milosevic in the crimes that were committed with the arms that passed through the arms embargo?
Besides, the prosecution has never managed to prove Milosevic's personal participation in sanction-busting. This failure has been recorded in the press! (One of the few things that have been recorded.)
That may indeed be the "logic" behind the prosecution's case. However, the more the prosecution starts to make sense, the flimsier its case becomes.
Another thing to think about. I still have the bad feeling that Del Ponte is involved in a similar arms smuggling ring on the Albanian side! Remember the article about how she allegedly failed to investigate the Swiss bank accounts that belonged (remotely) to al-Qaeda.
Gogol, I think the lawyers the world over are beginning to wake up. Believe me, Internet will make or break this case. It may be the public clamor that may change the course of history.
I am afraid you are right: if the Trial Chamber had any intention of giving Milosevic a chance, it should have given a ten-day limit to the prosecution to make its case.
On the other hand, we have seen positive signals that May is not all there is to the Trial Chamber. There are two other judges as well, and they have shown they can think for themselves. Most importantly, they have shown they keep up what happens in the press (in this case in the Haagsche Courant).
Jari Nousiainen
Finland- Monday October 21, 2002 at 1:21 pm
Mr. Arkan's name comes and goes on this board. Very few people remember that during the war in Croatia Croat forces captured Mr. Arkan. Then president Tudjman made surprising move and ordered his release. So is president Tudjman responsible for not prosecuting Mr. Arkan? The other interesting question is: Is ICTY also responsible for not prosecuting Mr. Arkan since they have not issued an order for his arrest many years ago when he was alive and his crimes were reportedly know to them. Much lower ranking war criminals were promptly prosecuted by ICTY especially if they were Serbian nationals. The other puzzling question is how Mr. Milosevic can be responsible for the crimes committed by others if they are not prosecuted for these crimes them selves. Looking at this hesitance of ICTY and USA to deal with Mr. Arkan on time rises a question: Whom Mr. Arkan was working for?
Pera Bora
Canada- Monday October 21, 2002 at 3:24 pm
OHCHR Kosovo Report October 2002Click on the heading above to read a damning UN report of the conditions in Kosovo: Conditions for which Blair in particular is responsible as Nato痴 outspoken 僧oral leader in this wicked adventure. We are all familiar with the massive lies disseminated by Blair and his UK spokesmen: Pour encourager les autres rightfully hesitant Nato leaders to engage in Albright痴 unjustified plan to launch a military attack upon Serbia in support of an Islamic terror campaign in Kosovo; including elements of Mujahedeen and al-Qaeda.
It behoves statesmen to set an example in moral conduct. Moral conduct requires consistency. What a nasty world we create when men embark upon adventures simply because they have the power to do so: Or in the words of Albright 展hat's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it? Do Blair and Albright really believe that if and when China achieves military strength in a few decades time it will be justified in raining nuclear missiles on the USA/UK because of our pivotal role in the murder and actual ethnic cleansing of the ethnic minorities in Kosovo just because they can? With a population advantage of four to one this would be a war of attrition the USA/UK could not win.
Read in the report the disastrous consequences of Blair痴 intervention. Consequences that Blair ignores whenever he boasts of his war on Serbia: The one hundred brothels, employing virtual slaves, servicing mainly KFOR troops and UN officials. The 230,000 to 280,000 persons of the ethnic minorities expelled by KLA terror. Christian churches and cemeteries either totally destroyed or severely damaged. Resolution 1244 of the peace agreement not implemented. On the matter of missing persons it quotes 訴nhuman treatment by the authorities. These things and much more.
Jari, on the matter of missing persons, I would value your legal opinion. According to this UN report above some 3,700 persons remain missing. Some 4,600 bodies have been found of which 2,100 have been identified. Therefore 2,500 remain to be identified and 1,200 remain to be located.
Thus according to the UN figures above the total number of persons missing thought dead was originally some 8,300; though there is a warning that this figure may be reduced by the fact that some mispers have subsequently been found to be alive. Of the remaining 3,700 missing 2,750 are claimed to be Kosovars and 950 persons of the minority population.
In the absence of the facts, which we should surely have by now, let us apportion the ethnicity of the 4,600 located bodies in the proportion of those still missing: that is just over one quarter: approximately 1,150 for the minority population. Thus we have a total 2,100 for the minorities and 6,200 for Kosovars. But 鄭lbanian civilians were executed by the Albanians themselves." Says Chairman of the New Party for Kosovo, Bujar Bukoshi. 典he number of the victims is estimated to be more than a thousand. So the total number of Kosovars originally missing and allegedly killed by the VJ reduces to some 5,000.
This compares with some 2,000 of the minorities abducted and murdered by the KLA. These figures do not take into account those killed but not missing. Those hundreds killed by Nato bombs. Those killed in combat. Those of the minorities murdered but not hidden by the KLA.
The question Jari: There appears to be a discrepancy of some 5,000 between the figures given by the UN OHCHR and the figure of 10,356 presented as evidence in the UN ICTY court. If the prosecution has presented false evidence, contradicting a figure of its own sister organisation, is the trial null and void?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Monday October 21, 2002 at 10:48 pm
Vasile, would you believe that I managed to find a somewhat rough translation of Dejan Anastasijevic Diary (supplied by one Eric D Gordy) in another legal forum: University at Buffalo, International Justice Watch Discussion List. I admit with shame that I do not know how to make links, so try this:http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wc?A2=ind0210&L=justwatch-I&D=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=28559
Thanks for appreciation. (Btw, the phrase ALL RISE in the courtroom is being repeated in French, not in Albanian.)
Vytas, I would switch sides only if hell froze. But of course you already realized that.
Here's another small sign that the "trial of the century" is leaking water on all sides: even our muzzled press started to publish short comments of the worst slip-ups, and in yesterday's BLIC a story of an ex-Army officer appeared, under his full name, regarding the witness-journalist Jovan Dulovic (originally protected witness C-04, who decided to testify in open session, said few horrifying things on the Vukovar hospital case that he saw/heard and then after presumably being threatened, went to closed session). Well, this Army officer was in Vukovar garrison at that time, he met our brave Jovan C-04 there, but only in the part of the town called Petrova Gora, miles away from the hospital and clashes. Apparently, our labourer of the written word never budged thence, being wined and dined and in constant alcoholic stupor, and never came nowhere near the hospital, so his testimony re the things that he saw there is simply a fabrication.
I tend to believe the officer because of Mr Dulovic's public record of a drunkard, but more important is that our press has started to come out with such pieces, which was unthinkable only few months ago.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 12:38 am
Maybe this has no direct connection with Milosevic trial per se but it has a strong connection with the Hague court. The point is this: The chief prosecutor Del Ponte is in Belgrade today threatening to 途eport Yugoslavia to UN for non-cooperation. But what about Croatia non cooperation in not delivering Bobetko to Hague?
Drasko Jovanovic
USA- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 4:02 am
Peter, let me answer your question paraphrasing Bin Cheng's book.He rights that a judgment will not be upheld if it is the result of fraud. Even no claim should be put forward "that does not bear the impress of good faith and fair dealing on the part of the claimant [in this case prosecution]".
"A certain amount of exaggeration and even misrepresentation of facts...is not infrequent and does not of itself invalidate the claim. But when it is alleged that an international tribunal has been misled by fraud and collusion on the part of some of them," the decision cannot stand "if such allegations are well-founded".
So exaggeration is in this case part of the prosecutor's job, but the question is whether the evidence is deliberately fraudulent. If it is, the judgment cannot be based on such evidence. Otherwise the judgement is invalid.
A different matter is if the proceedings are null and void in their entirety. That would be the case where "fraud is proven either with regard to the formation of an international tribunal or with regard to the conduct of its members".
So to annul the judgment, we will have to see if it will cite the 10,358 figure. On the other hand, in my opinion the proceedings should not come so far, because they should already be regarded as null and void.
And where would the prosecution's fraud be manifest? Remember that Florence Hartmann said that the OTP is not going to dig up all the graves, because it is not the OTP's job to establish how many people were killed altogether. But why did it give us this 10,356 figure then? Whatever the explanation, it can't be based on good faith (let alone "bear the impress of good faith"). As you suggested, the OTP may have a good reason to believe that the real figure would be considerably lower on the basis of physical evidence (and that is the only evidence that is significant in this case).
The prosecution apparently thought it had demonstrated its independence by dismissing the 100,000 put forward by Nato and bringing it down to 10,000. It also apparently underestimated the fascination people like us have for the exact number of corpses.
On the other hand, Hartmann said the OTP has enough evidence for war crimes. The total number of bodies would be relevant only if the charge were genocide, which it isn't (and it is doubtful if it would be relevant even in that case). But why does the OTP then play these numbers games? I guess the answer is that the bigger the number of bodies, the more planning it took to kill the bodies. That means that the plan had to be at least known to the higher echelons of the system, and that brings the charge closer to Milosevic.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 4:49 am
By the way, if the number of the bodies is not relevant to the war crimes charges of the Kosovo indictment, why didn't Judge May rule Ball's testimony as irrelevant?Why does the prosecution come up with such lousy evidence that it even has to apoligize for it itself? Is the problem really technical, like finding witnesses, as Nice would have us believe, or is it doubtful that there ever was any crime? That makes no difference really, because there was no crime, if the prosecution cannot demonstrate there was.
There is one uncomfortable fact in the joint criminal enterprise. If there really was such an enterprise, and if Milosevic was part of it, then he could be convicted of aiding or abetting, in the sense of Art. 7(1) of the Statute, the crimes committed by the other members, even if his role was merely that of a financier.
This is not funny. All I would reply at this moment is that 1) there was no such enterprise: the prosecution has not proceeded to the necessary measures to get all the other members to The Hague. 2) Milosevic was not part of the enterprise, because his bank accounts were not been demonstrated to have any links to the financing of arms trade. 3) Even if Milosevic had some dealings with the gangsters (who didn't?), that does not implicate him in their crimes: an armed conflict is not illegal in itself, so it has to be demonstrated that Milosevic aided and abetted the specific crimes the other participants are now charged with (but even then, not necessarily). 4) Participation in a joint criminal enterprise can at best imply a collective responsibility, whereas the Statute only recognizes individual responsibility. No amount of the phrase "aid or abet" can alter that. 5) The prosecution has not clarified what exactly the role of the joint criminal enterprise was: it was our own idea that it may have been a sanction-busting ring (in which case, why does the prosecution want to play tapes where Milosevic allegedly ordered any killings?
And add all this to the one-sided prosecution policy. Why should Milosevic have arrested Arkan and Seselj, if even the Nato troops don't have the guts to do that? If the prosecution asks him why he didn't punish these people, the answer is: why don't you? (I don't know if the Croats should have punished Arkan, because he was their prisoner of war, so his treatement was subject to the Geneva Conventions.)
If you want to reconstruct a joint criminal enterprise, why do you not punish those people you have named, and on the other hand, why do you stop at the Serbs? I guess half of the Balkan countries and Israel was involved in sanction-busting.
And that is only the Serb side of the story. On the other side, let us not forget the DynCorp and the other US freelancers.
J N
Finland- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 10:22 am
Captain, NATO captain Scorpion puts the court on the march: open session, close session, private session, open session, eins, zwei, links, links, links, rechts . . .open session, close session,
Gogol Charlemagne
USA- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 10:56 am
Germans that were prosecuted at the end of the World War 2 were war prisoners and they have been prosecuted for the war crimes. I do not see that Geneva Convention could have protected Arkan against prosecution for the war crimes. Additionally I am puzzled how fast Croats released Arkan after his capture at the time when they had an international warrant for his arrest filed with Interlope.
Pera Bora
Canada- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 11:05 am
The
C
parade: C1141 open session, private session, C60 open session, private session, C20 open sesssion, private session . . .C1020 is coming up, open session, private session.
Gogol Charlemagne
Open Session, USA- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 11:54 am
Just inUNMIK to make Hague arrests | 17:40 | SRNA PRISTINA -- Tuesday 哲o one in Kosovo can be above the law, Michael Steiner told Hague prosecutor Carla Del Ponte today. The Kosovo governor pledged that UNMIK would arrest anyone the Tribunal required. Del Ponte said in Pristina today that one indictment would be issued against a member of the former Kosovo Liberation Army by the and of the year and another two later for crimes committed during and after NATO痴 attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999. She declined to name the suspects. The prosecutor added that there had been other Kosovo indictments n the past but that witnesses had withdrawn after first agreeing to testify.
www.b92.net
WoW three Kosovo indictments...I'll bet these witnesses withdraw their statements too.
Simon Joseph
Amman Valley
UK- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 1:00 pm
Maybe I should really start working for the prosecution, as Vytas suggested. Even if I believed that Milosevic should be convicted, I would find it infuriating that Nice is now acting as if it were he that had something to hide. If the trial is supposed to rewrite history, it won't succeed as long so much of it takes place behind closed doors. All that remains for later history-writing is the indictment, which especially in case of Milosevic's Croatia and Bosnia indictment, is unsurpassed as to the level of muddled thinking. I am afraid that if you leave the smuggling part away, nobody is going to buy this version of history. On the other hand, if you include the smuggling part, this tribunal has nothing to do with the matter, because it was not set up to deal with economic crimes. Oh what dilemma the prosecution now has!"Aid and abet" is a nasty charge, because it sounds as if you could be implicated just by being associated with the wrong persons. However, it doesn't seem to be just that simple. Some kind of real connection must exist with "aiding and abetting" and an actual crime. Maybe it was for this purpose that the prosecution wanted to produce bits of Milosevic's intercepted telephone conversation. One form of "aiding and abetting" is words!
Maybe the prosecution is just playing those dumb games again. It wants to produce evidence that it knows in advance will be rejected as inadmissible. The effect is psychological: the prosecution's beautiful case is demolished by these bureaucratic formal rules. By the way, I don't know what happened to the tapes. In Krstic trial the intercepted messages were ruled inadmissible, so I don't see why not in this trial. Of course, the prosecution knows the rules, but it wants to give us the impression that it knows more that it gives away.
Vytas conveyed to us the idea that the only way to break such a political trial is to make a mockery of it. But I would contend that the bottomline of what Vytas was saying was still the same: let him save his ass. Methods may vary from neat legal defense to such flamboyant performance as Milosevic is giving, but the objective is the same: saving one's ass. However, in Milosevic's case a political defense has its pitfalls. Everyone notices that he really knows how to work the system. So the idea that people get is that he must have really pulled the strings in that Yugoslav system of his as well. Most people would not equate KGB with the ICTY but with the Milosevic-led Yugoslavia. We may idealize Milosevic as a rebel, but those who are really intent on seeing him nailed may argue that this is another indication that no matter what the system, Milosevic turns it into his own personal gain.
Just for the annals. Today the tribunal unsealed the indictments of three Bosnian Serbs: Drago Nikolic, Vujadin Popovic and Ljubisa Beara. Maybe this is all the hype of new indictments comes down to. We were speculating on the indictment of Seselj. Maybe the prosecution has some reason to keep him unindicted. The talk about new indictments was deliberately designed to think Seselj may be next, especially after the pre-election investigation. The prosecution sure knows to divulge more than it knows. And to redeem all those expectations we are now treated the three unknown Bosnian Serbs. These guys were participants in the "joint criminal enterprise". Rather than flesh out the idea behind the joint criminal enterprise, these indictments rather weaken it. If it really was a smuggling ring, these new indictments certainly don't give that impression.
By the way, compare the effect of the participation in the joint criminal enterprise in case of these three men to the indictment of Milosevic. In Popovic indictment, ｧ 16 it says: "...the Prosecutor does not intend to suggest that the accused necessarily physically and personally perpetrated any of the crimes charged". In the indictment of Milosevic the word necessarily is left out: "the Prosecutor does not intend to suggest that the accused physically committed any of the crimes charged personally". The point is the participation in the joint criminal enterprise. But how can this be called "individual (or "direct") criminal responsibility" as the heading suggests?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 1:27 pm
Jari, there is a fundamental difference between the ICTY and the other cases you have or Vytas have mentionned.
Dimitrov was tried in German Criminal court, charged by a regular German prosecutor according to the Criminal Code in force at the time.
Vytas, was charged according the laws, no matter how unjust or repressive, laws of the Soviet State of the time and these laws and courts were never designed especially for Vytas or Dimitrov, they were the functioning courts of an established legal system.
The ICTY, we all know well by now has no legal ground in charging any one for any crime, let alone charging for crimes to badly cover up the political trial this farce is all about. Any one from any planet of the galaxy can see how the Serbian nation as a whole is on trial, hence the Serbian "C" witnesses and if the nation is guilty her leader goes along with it: that is in essence the strategy of the prosecutor.
A court designed to break up the spirit of a nation (Serbia) which has been un-justly treated by NATO and what is behind NATO.
All this talk about reconcilation, need to face the past, is psychological war-fare to link to historical situations outside of Yugoslavia and that in my opinion they don't apply at this stage to Yugoslavia and certainly not to Serbia.
Lets reconstruct Yugoslavia to its original form and then perhaps we can talk about reconcilation, or looking at it in a different way: would it have been fair if the ANL had been destroyed by the apartheid white government to talk about reconcilation ?
The only way this illegal ICTY could exonerate itself is by leting all charged people go free and disolving itself reffering its authority to the legal and justice grounded International Court of Justice!
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 1:31 pm
Correction, sorry.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 9:24 pm
Let's explore further the Prosecution's method of "testimony strengthening".Another protected Serb from CRO (pardon me - protected witness C-060) appeared the other day, to defy Nice's less than nice statement-souping-up. The witness' educated, cool voice, his constant referring to "legality", "democracy", "means of protest other than violence" told me he wanted to distinguish himself from Serbian peasantry in CRO, who took up arms trying to avoid annihilation.
But even such a reformed Serb couldn't help being increasingly annoyed with Nice's panting insistence on non-existent incriminating details, so much so that he started to calmly correct the most vulgar fabrications (Nice: "You said that local Serb forces were subordinated to the Army Corps from Banja Luka?" C-060: "I have to remind you that I have never said they were subordinated, but that they had some occasional contacts." Nice: "Err... The balance of the Paragraph 18 we will have to deal with at the private session."
What really blew the top with this witness was a brazen falsification in his statement, obviously made by the Prosecution. Milosevic cross-examined, establishing step by step that at the general elections in CRO in 1991 the local Serbs voted en masse for the Croat reformed-Communist party of the current Prime Minister Racan, but neo-Nazi HDZ of Tudjman won, constitutional changes, official threats, dismissals and violence against the Serbs started and only then they organized their national party SDS, lead by the moderate Dr Jovan Raskovic, who always advocated peaceful solutions and negotiations with the CRO Govt. The first Convention of SDS was held and they discussed the cultural autonomy for the Serbs. And then Milosevic dropped the bomb: "Describing this Convention, you said, and I quote: 'In other words, they have gathered into some kind of a gang.'"
C-060 protested that Milosevic is insinuating something; but he answered he was just reading the statement. The witness said that he "never said anything like that, or ever used such a word. Besides, I have signed my statement in the English version (?!)."
Nice got restless, at first couldn't find the English version, then he did, and detected the word "mob" (which means "rulja" in Serbian); but in the Serbian version the word used was "banda" (which means "gang" in English).
Semantics aside, the point is that the witness never used any of these words or this particular sentence. How desperate the Prosecution must be to stoop to this. I would say pretty desperate, because almost all this witness had to say during his examination-in-chief was limited to pointing out the various towns and municipalities in Western Slavonia on the map, which took so long that O-Kwon got restless and said: "Mr Nice, the witness here is helping us in geography; when will he talk about events?"
During cross-examination, another interesting spark flew. The witness and Milosevic jointly established the facts around the arrest of 30 Serbian policemen in Pakrac (Western Slavonia) in March 1991, for refusing to wear re-imposed Ustashe insignia on their caps (red-chequered coat of arms). C-060 said their protest should have been different, more democratic, they should have address the authorities with some written complaint, and not to flatly refuse to wear caps thus adorned. Milosevic was interested whether the witness was aware how many thousands of Serbs had such insignia in front of their eyes as the very last image of their lives, together with the Ustashe knife. The witness angrily replied: "I know this better than you do!" Milosevic said: "I know that you know this better than I do; therefore, do you consider their gesture was just a whim or was their protest justified?" C-060: "I am a legalist, in favour of democratic solutions; they should have protested differently in order to attain their rights." Milosevic: "Why do you use the pronoun "their" when speaking of the rights of the Serbs from Croatia? Aren't you also a Serb from Croatia?" C-060: "Sure, of course... I meant to say our rights..."
Speaking of democratic solutions and complaining to authorities, here's my two pennies worth:
In early 1980s we went to visit my in-laws on our way back from the summer holidays at the Adriatic coast. They were peasants living in Lika (a part of CRO not far from Knin). We enjoyed immensely taking part in hay-gathering and mountain- climbing and in the evening, instead of watching TV, these people had a barbaric habit of talking to each other. There I heard about grandpa Jovo, who lived in 3 different states without even leaving his courtyard (Austro-Hungarian Empire; Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; Kingdom of Yugoslavia), always being an obedient citizen, paying his taxes and getting moderately rich. Then, in 1941 came NDH (Independent State of Croatia), run by Pavelic as a gift from German Nazis. Grandpa Jovo thought to himself: "I have managed to endure the other three, how bad this new state of Croats could be? I'll manage through this one, too." But the next month some riff-raff from a nearby Croatian village "dressed up" (meaning: they became Ustashe in uniform and armed) took away one whole herd of his sheep before his very eyes. Grumbling about trash that always comes afloat, he went to the next town to complain to the authorities. He was arrested on the spot and executed the next day, together with the large group of Serbs who came upon the official order to be converted into Catholicism.
What amazed me in hearing this was the feeling that grandpa Jovo did not leave this house to go and complain 40 years ago, but yesterday. What amazed me was the certainty of these people that Croatia, given the chance, would do the same things again.
Btw, my older in-laws from Lika are now in Belgrade and younger ones in Sydney, Australia.
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 9:27 pm
MILOSEVIC'S "TRIAL" AND THE QUESTION OF IMMUNITYSlobodan Milosevic as a former head of state should enjoy immunity. - Zoran Lilic, also former head of Yugoslavia, enjoys immunity from giving evidence Without precedence It is a "sacred" rule (ius cogens) of international law, as old as international law itself, that former heads of state enjoy absolute immunity and inviolability with regard to their functions in the capacity of being heads of state. Slobodan Milosevic is a former head of state (Yugoslavia) and, thus, under general international law enjoys immunity and inviolability with regard to his acts in that capacity. But, as it is known, there is a provision in the Statute of the illegal ICTY (thus the Statute also being illegal) (Article 7) which says: "The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment". Now, even if we take this provision as a true reflection of the rule of contemporary international law (which in my opinion it is not, see below), the illegality of the ICTY and its statute makes it pointless. But, the most important is a recent decision of the ICJ, which to some extent clears muddy waters of the question of immunity and inviolability in contemporary international law.The decision of the International Court of Justice of February 14, 2002. In the case Congo v. Belgium the ICJ by thirteen votes to three found that under international law the incumbent minister for foreign affairs enjoys the immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability. By implication it is even more valid for heads of state.As a former head of state, Mr. Milosevic enjoys under international law immunity and inviolability. Although since Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals it is often denied to the former heads of state, the International Court of Justice on February 14, 2002, in the case Congo v. Belgium in fact reaffirmed the ancient rule.Reaffirming the rule, he Court then lists certain circumstances under which these rules to not apply, one of them being criminal proceeding before certain international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction, such as ICC, "and ICTY"!! What I'm objecting to is listing by the Court the ICTY as a regular international criminal court, which it is not. The only legal and legitimate international criminal court we have is nascent ICC. But, still, the provisions of article 27 paragraph 2 of its statute cause doubts about immunity and inviolability under international law. One thing is certain: without immunity and inviolability to a certain degree normal international relations, normal communication between subjects of international law - first of all States - is impossible. It is known that all known civilizations and cultures, even among most primitive tribes, those concepts existed when they were trying to solve the problems of common interests, such as war and peace, borders, waters etc.So, kidnapping of Mr.Milosevic on orders from the ICTY, his detention in dungeons of Sheveningen and his "trial" are the greatest violations of human rights in modern history.Vienna accords When I categorically maintain that former heads of state enjoy absolute immunity and inviolability with regard to their acts in official capacity I have in mind also customary rules of international law and, as far as I know, hitherto unchallenged if we do not regard the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials as comprehensive precedents. There are also three recent decisions one US, one French and one Belgian - which affirm this ancient rule before their national courts.Now, we see, illegal so-called ICTY, under the authority of the Security Council of the UN, "creates" "new law". But, having in mind that Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations which are universally accepted and ratified by almost all states in the world! recognize immunity, during the function and after, not only to diplomats but also to members of administrative and technical staff then the decision of the Security Council to strip the former heads of state of their immunity, which is older then international law itself (it was recognized in ancient Greece and Rome; even in primitive tribal societies!) is silly and utterly irresponsible. It introduced the chaos in international relations! The great humanitarians already started to chase even a Henry Kissinger If the fifteen bureaucrats sitting in the Security Council fancy that they can do whatever they wish, including to make international law upside down, then the "accused" before the ICTY Mr. Slobodan Milosevic has every right to call as witnesses all the heads of state, former and present, with whom he was dealing during the bloody dismemberment of the Yugoslav federation which was planned, instigated, ordered, financed and committed by them in close cooperation with the domestic secessionists and criminals. And charge them. The ICTY must, on the request of Mr. Milosevic, issue subpoenas to all those criminals to be not only witnesses but the accused too in front of their creation the ICTY.Immunity from giving evidenceAll said above about the immunity and inviolability of Slobodan Milosevic as a former head of state is, of course, mutatis mutandis, valid for Zoran Lilic, also former head of state of Yugoslavia. Since he appeared recently in the witness box of the so-called ICTY in The Hague and did not claim immunity, it seems that it never crossed his mind that he, under international law, is not obliged to give evidence, to testify, in court, because he, as a former head of state of Yugoslavia, enjoys absolute immunity with respect to all acts performed in the exercise of his functions as a head of state. Under the subpoena of the ICTY he was, as a matter of fact, forcefully taken on the territory of Yugoslavia to The Hague by ICTY's officials to give evidence in the "trial" of Slobodan Milosevic there, and, thus, his inviolability was also violated by both the Yugoslav authorities (for not protecting him) and ICTY's officials. Also, ICTY's judge, the Korean O-Gon Kvon, who signed the subpoena, had no right to do it; the learned judge thus committed crime against international law.Dr. Milan Tepavac,Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Milan Tepavac
Belgrade
Yugoslavia- Tuesday October 22, 2002 at 10:04 pm
Gogol; The only way to beat this illegal court is to have them laughed out of existance. What we need is a cartoonist to picture May and DelPonte,in glatiator garb, cowering in the corner of the ring with Slobo standing tall,with witnesses strewn about. The caption would read,"Blood Sport gone Wrong"Published, an attention getter like that would do more for his cause than an army of lawyers.
I wish I could draw.
Pertti Lindroos
Quesnel
BC Canada- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 12:21 am
nice story, Ms. Martinovic.My grandfather was from Lika, his name was Mane.
Drasko Jovanovic
USA- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 3:08 am
It seems Nice now knows just as well as everybody else that Milosevic is unbeatable in the cross-examination. So Nice introduces some new features, like the partly secret sessions (if I understood correctly). That seems to be his new strategy: he has done it before. I really don't know if this strategy is lawful (or actually I know it is not). It seems the closed sessions are motivated by the "protection of interests of justice", but that seems to be the last thing they are good for. First and foremost these games played by the prosecution violate the defendant's right to a fair and public trial, which is engraved in the Statute itself.So the bottomline is: How long can Milosevic go with his cross-examining savvy alone? The prosecution may be desperate to resort to anything, and then it doesn't seem to matter if these measures accord with the Statute or not. It is Milosevic's persuasive cross-examination that is now under fire.
Dr Tepavac brought up interesting points. One could defend Art. 7(2) by the maxim lex specialis derogat legi generali: a special law derogates a general law. On th other hand, one could counter that by appealing to the subsequent ICJ case law, which should take precedence over the ICTY Statute on account of the rule lex posterior derogat legi priori: a later law derogates an earlier law.
But the ICJ seems to have anticipated this by recognizing the special status of the ICTY. I don't know what kind of Latin maxim then applies. Maybe it is to the effect that an earlier special law derogates from a later general law. But on the other hand, ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN and as such takes precedence over the ICTY. Maybe the maxim is now: an inferior earlier special law derogates from a later superior general law.
But all this is counterproductive. I guess the idea of this legal world order was that the law would be same to all in all parts of the world. But that is just contrary to what is now happening. In order to be legal, the system has to meet three requirements that have been recognized in the German (and Dutch!) legal theory: 1) Rechtseinheit, 2) Rechtsgleichheit, and 3) Rechtssicherheit. The first refers to the unity of law: there should be no such maverick courts as ICTY is now. The second refers to the equality before law: if you prosecute one person for a crime, you must prosecute another person who has commmitted the same crime. The third refers to legal security. One should know (or be able to know) in advance what the law is and not find out after the trial has started. The ICTY violates this on two levels: first it changes its Statute and Rules as need arises, and second its Statute in itself has prescribed the law after the acts have been committed.
As to Milosevic's individual responsibility. He is said to be a dictator, who oppressed his people. It is indeed interesting that, consequently, Yugoslavia was a "failed state"! And even if knows says it outright, the Serb nation are to blame too. They had elected Milosevic. So they were supposedly responsible for the fact that Milosevic trampled on their rights to the extent that the whole idea of a Yugoslav state became bankrupt. I guess that there are more than one circular reasonings in that conclusion. And it is against this conclusion that another circular reasoning is perpetrated: thus it is obvious that Milosevic had "official and/or effective control" over everything that happened in Yugoslavia. So the crimes that were committed are his responsibility.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 7:02 am
Peter taylor is there a URL for the OHCHR Kosovo Report October 2002?Many thanks.
Mira Mira
UK- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 7:56 am
Jari,I don't think sanctions busting per ser is on CdP's list, but the network of contacts that must (at least in her mind) lead to Milosevic and would give insights and 'intelligence' that could lead the ICTY to further evidence against him.
We know the ICTY technique - slap as many counts of 'crimes' as possible to exert maximum pressure for extradtion, and then drop the 'lesser' crimes. Come to think of it, they got this horribly wrong with Plavsic, a truely sensational story of the ICTY butt saving. Maybe the the ICTY should have a glue donation campaign as most of their charges fail to stick! ;)
Milosevic gave up some of his power to protect the Serbs, i.e. the idea of sanctions if strictly adhered to, is to make life intolerable enough for the civilian population to in one way or another, replace its elected leaders - even if this would lead to them 'cutting off their nose despite their faces'.
My thoughts are that while Milosevic did assert the most power, there were limits and those limits were most obvious in Bosnia. The ICTY wants to prove that the Bosnian Serbs were puppets on Milosevic's string, i.e. he managed 'events' over there enough to get some mud to stick. Of course, the lack of action against the IRA by successive Irish governments is not comparable.
I think it might be good for Milosevic to point out the lack of sanctions against Croatia and the way that the Foreign Office tried to shut up the British Army when it 'discovered' ethinic cleasing by the Croatians. I expect the judges to keep a tight reign on such information when it comes out and will be dismissed as 'not relevant to the charges'.
BTW, Mirko 'honest and concise' Klarin from IWPR is based about 20 mins. from where I work. I wish the Yugos would fund an office here in Brussels to disseminate information on the frequent contradictions/ changes of rules etc. to the Media - SORROS/EU/etc. funded IWPR is still the first port of call for the journos unfortunately. Maybe a sensationalist/tabliod style daily news letter on the ICTY would be a good idea.
Alexei Gorbulski
Brussels
Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium ;)- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 12:28 pm
Vera and Gogol pointed out most important thing:there was enough wars and "clashes of civilizations";we need peace and understanding between civilizations.Trkla,how can you allow Ruder-Finn Radical and Andre-baczi to spit on Kostunica and to say that Milosevic(Montenegrin) is better than all of Serbs.Gentlemen would never call a lady hyena.I can only imagine how would they call Mrs Albright.
Vera,I don't need any help from Croat's dougter.How would you translate Jari in Serbian?"Furious"?
Mr Trkla I owe you some explanation.You have automaticaly become my M-A brother when Radical called me so.Trust me it's not so bad to be stupid because maybe I know that,maybe I'm st... .I believe that you know how patient Serbs are and how interested to listen bad things about themselves.Yugoslavia could be patched up next week with little propaganda in Serbia ,but we who live here can also say something.YU was the best solution for all nations.Our people is tragically divided in Bosnia.Don't worry I'm aware of that.I agree about "village mentality" when you mean desintegration,but it can be easily mixed with false theory of "war between village and city" (amoral architect B.Bogdanovic)."Village" are Milosevic,Serbian Church, Academy and history.Kosovo myth has the same meaning as "better grave than slave".Ustasha from Sidney can't understand that.Since my family is from Lika I'd like him to explain few things.Mr Trkla I'd like to discuss with you "Impossibility of new YU".That Gandhi man is naive too.
Gogol who cheated you that Kostunica has anything to do with G17.G17 attacks K. that he is Seselj who sais that K. is spit of Djindjic.All of his enemies use just two tipes of story. K. is honest and opposes wild transition.
Finally,who would believe G17 if not "Finlandia"vodka Helsinki Slobist?Kosta said once or twice that our brothers are temporarily separated(borders will be soft in future Europe).Scandal.On the other side,in BH Federation and Croatia they want to change Dayton every day. Furio Naiveainen I'll answer all your uninteligent questions.
milan masic
serbia- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 1:50 pm
Well, I don't know and I wish I could tell the diference between Labus and Kostunica, Labus wants reforms quickly la russe chock therapy and Kostunica wants to go slow: one likes to rape and the other wants to seduce, but the net result is very much the same for Wall Street.
There was an interesting day in court today.
The witness apearance was delayed, it was said yesterday he was a convict serving a sentenced and judge May (NATO) said "he is being fetched", well while they waited for him today Mr. Kay (NATO) bewigged and very anglais presented his objection to the coming protected witness, a 92 bis witness with a 10 pages statement and two large, bulky binders containing 75 documents. Mr. Kay (NATO) told the court these documents were related to the indictement, were part of the prosecution's case against Mr. Milosevic and it is unthinkable under 92 bis all this could be cross-examined thrue the witness, it was just impossible. Judge May (NATO) pretended to be smart, by saying he did not see the point made since documents have their value by what they are, for what they say. Judge Robinson (OCCUPIED) sided with Mr. Kay (NATO) in that the documents as Mr. Kay (NATO) had said were political and added they were of historical value precisely adding weight to the prosecution's case.
Judge May (NATO) wanted examples and Mr. Kay (NATO) wass taking aghast by the pressing tone of the request and by the time he was ready to answer judge May (NATO) was saying he could understand in a "national case, under national law, perhaps these documents will not have made it to....but in cases like this (again!) it is permissible to..."here we have again an example of the revolutionary character of this court, ultra national and therefor breaking with the norm!
The prisoner, the witness had arrived and waited after hearing Mr. Milosevices arguments: he was in agreement with Mr. Kay (NATO) and reiterated his old standing objections to using the 92 bis rule to introduce evidence and give testimony because in fact it allowed for much evidence to be disclosed without being cross-examined or challenged, in fact it was a "trick for the other side to effectively limit his defense."
Before starting his cros-examination he objected to the close session procedure saying "it has become routine Mr. May (NATO) and . . ." ----"I am cuting this objection off Mr. Milosevic, you know we have the duty to protect the witnesses and this does not cause any prejudice against you, you know that, (more revolutionary stuff) it is not the public that is trying you but this court!" to be followed by " of course an open court is the basic principle of justice but etc. etc." and then, naughty May (NATO) said: "We will deduct the time wasted by this argument from your time available for the cross-examination", then the screen went dark for a close session.
Hours later short before the end of the day Mr. Nice (NATO) had his counter arguement, I did not hear it all but he said "we have to depart from the old ways in modern times, use the advantage of technology (more revolutionary methods) these documents were there for the benefit of the court, inform them and in no way were influencial in the behaviour of the players (!), they could save time . . " prompting judge Kwon (OCCUPIED) to ask " . . .is it time that the prosecution is concerned with?" No, it wasn't time exactly, it was everything and nothing, political historical documents had to be accepted by the court, it must be accepted, harsh words, etc. Mr. Kay (NATO) insisted and impatiently judge May (NATO) asked for a compromise, he said echoing Mr. Nice (NATO) they had to end with the old practices where every word had to be challenged and demanded from Mr. Kay (NATO) a list of the documents he objected, a list he would provide first thing Tuesday, the court not being in session until then.
Gogol Charlemagne
Conn. USA- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 2:43 pm
Gogol, you are right about the differences between Mr. Kostunica and Mr. Labus (rape versus seduction). The difference is mostly in the stile of leadership i.e. there is no difference for the Wall Street. Contrary to the propaganda Mr. Kostunica is as reformist as Mr. Labus. He does not want to give in every time when USA/NATO ask Serbia to dance to the tune. Mr. Labus is great dancer just provide music from Washington and he will dance. Mr. Kostunica is presented to the West as a nationalist but he is not he is just a patriot. Mr. Kostunica personally proposed Mr. Labus for the position of the vice president responsible the economic issues since his a great expert in economy. From my point of view Mr. Labus made bad choice when decided to take side with Mr. Djindjic few years ago.
Pera Bora
Canada- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 7:15 pm
Carla del Ponte paid us a visit the other day, and there was due coverage in our press, but somewhat different than on previous occasions.Here's the example of yesterday's POLITIKA, our most respectable daily. There was a three-column article on page 2, serious as appropriate, relating the story of her meeting with our puppet Foreign Affairs Minister Svilanovic, her dissatisfaction with our co-operation, her threats to tell on us to the UN... And right in the middle of the article there was an inbox titled: "A Suitor for del Ponte". In two long sentences, perfectly deadpan,POLITIKA tells how a man appeared in front of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, gave his full name to the journalists waiting around and explained how he intends to marry Carla, how he brought "gifts for his chosen one": a photograph of Njegos (legendary poet, ruler and archbishop), "so that she may become wise as the great poet", and a wreath of garlic "to exorcize devils from her".
What a relief to realize that people stopped waiting for her here with large groups of bereaved refugees from Kosovo, demanding that she finally prosecutes someone from KLA. Instead of appealing to her for justice, people just ridiculed her now and that is precisely what she deserves.
And what a pleasure to see the serious POLITIKA mocking the great Chief Prosecutress!
Vera Martinovic
Belgrade
Yugoslavia- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 7:28 pm
MiraAn abstract of the UN OHCHR Kosovo Report October 2002 is available at URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/decani/message/70754
As you may see this abstract gives a URL for the full report namely:
http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2002/coe-kos-16oct.pdf
However you will need the Acrobat Reader program to read this file.
I repeat here two of the passages on Missing persons:
55. 溺issing persons are an urgent issue in Kosovo. The ICRC has documented the names of some 3700 persons that have gone missing in Kosovo, of which approximately 2750 are ethnic Albanian and 850 Serb, with the remainder belonging to other minorities. This painful matter affects all the communities involved and is a concern that they all have a keen interest in seeing resolved. Indeed, one cannot start building peace in the minds of people who await news of their beloved, as long as they are tortured in their hearts and in their minds by such unbearable uncertainty. To put an end to this situation is of the utmost urgency.
58. 鉄ensitive to these concerns, the SRSG created a new Office on Missing Persons and Forensics in June this year, with the instruction to carry out the exhumation of all the remaining identified gravesites (some 270) by the end of the year. The full scale of the office痴 tasks, however, is easily told in figures: since 1999, some 4600 bodies have been exhumed, of which only 2100 have been identified. 2500 remain, therefore, to be DNA tested, leaving a further 1200 still to be located and exhumed. Whilst the full resolution of all these cases will undoubtedly take some time, it is of the utmost importance that progress should begin, and be seen, to be made.
Examining these figures and assigning the unknowns in the proportion of the 3,700 missing we may conclude that some 5,000 Kosovars were abducted and murdered: And some 3,300 of the minorities including loyal Kosovars were abducted and murdered by the KLA. If as is possible the number still missing has been exaggerated by some 1,000 and the 270 remaining graves are found to contain just 270 bodies then the relative figures would be some 4,250 and 3,050 respectively.
As the report indicates speculation should not be needed: The silence of the authorities in the face of the real concerns of the missing persons attains a level of severity which can only be categorised as inhuman treatment.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 7:53 pm
Vera: Pertti here, with hope. If your media is comming around to my way of thinking please ask them to pen the jist of my recent post; Blood Sport gone Wrong. A political trial deserves some laughs.Media, ignoring the trial is Slobo's worst enemy.
Pertti Lindroos
Quesnel
BC. Canada- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 10:39 pm
Well hello all you party poopers!!!Hello my fellow Lican, Milan. Maybe one day we will meet there and share a sljivovica. sooner, rather than later.First things first...I kind of find it rather disheartening that if anyone criticizes Serbian history/nationality/ethnicity/ identity..etc......they are considered a fascist, or in my case an ustasa. I for one do not defend Croatian history; I used to, but I realise how futile it is. Especially against the teachings of the so-called "fathers" of the nation, such as the smarmy Ante Starcevic and putrid Ante Pavelic.How about whenever I criticize Serb psyche again....i criticize croatian psyche too (if that makes you all feel better). the point i have been trying to make, is that the way people have thought in the past has lead to terrible actions...agreed???so that now....if the past continues to be brought up, and used as a tool for highlighting the differences....there will be less chance for peace in the future.everytime somebody says something about one thing.....for example....Vukovar, there is always a defense.We know what happened in Vukovar..., i don't care if nobody is punished for this...but shouldn't there be an admittance that what occured there was wrong.just as croatians should agree, as I do, that "oluje" was both excessive and wrong in its goals and eventual conclusion.i see my criticizm as constructive...because the aim is to higlight possibilty for peace, not to demonize. it shouldn't draw a negative response from others...it merely wishes to raise other possibilities to the discussion. Also, Milan....of course I don't understand what Yugoslavia was like...I don't pretend to..and never have...and I don't appreciate being called an Ustasa...I find it extremely offensive. lastly....my point about Yugoslavia is....well everybody may have been happy....yes that could be true....and ....it may have been the best solution for the people's there.......(at least while Tito was in power)but the thing is....it obviously wasn't.My argument has been all along that... the conditions which brought about an environment for an active push for secession were suddenly brought to the fore, by a number of factors.- not only were croatians pushing for it....throughout the socialist state of Yugoslavia's history (at least in some form..eg, terrorism, politics..through the diaspora. - the slovenians suddenly were as well, and this gave the croatian politicians some support. - the serbian leadership under milosevic was emphasing a stronger and more united Serbian expression, thoughout Yugoslavia...(and if you doubt this ...just read the speech he made at Kosovo polje in 1989..in which he specifically pointed out the importance of Serbian Unity)- the collapse of communism gave greater urgency for political change.now....i don't say this was the best thing to do...but it happened. MY FINAL POINT IS.....Croatians by and large wanted to be independant..., judging by Milan's and some of Milosevic's comments...the Serbs thought Yugoslavia was pretty good as it was...., therefore, there was always going to be a difference of opinion. What the Serbs feared..the Croats wanted. What the Croats did not want, the Serbs enjoyed.Why is there a notion that Yugoslavia was a peaceful and harmonious society?....when at the very root of its foundations there is this common difference in ethinc philosophy?????The Serbs were not willing to become Croats and vice versa....the ethnic distinction has stayed strong for "centuries", as is always repeated. Therefore, my conclusion is that Yugoslavia.....as it was.....could not have stayed. Other political opportunities for peace could have been, and I wish, had been taken up.....however the power of the leaders involved was too important, for petty concessions to be made. Yours peacefully...Ivan
Ivan Kokotovic
Sydney
Australia- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 10:39 pm
Well hello all you party poopers!!!Hello my fellow Lican, Milan. Maybe one day we will meet there and share a sljivovica. sooner, rather than later.First things first...I kind of find it rather disheartening that if anyone criticizes Serbian history/nationality/ethnicity/ identity..etc......they are considered a fascist, or in my case an ustasa. I for one do not defend Croatian history; I used to, but I realise how futile it is. Especially against the teachings of the so-called "fathers" of the nation, such as the smarmy Ante Starcevic and putrid Ante Pavelic.How about whenever I criticize Serb psyche again....i criticize croatian psyche too (if that makes you all feel better). the point i have been trying to make, is that the way people have thought in the past has lead to terrible actions...agreed???so that now....if the past continues to be brought up, and used as a tool for highlighting the differences....there will be less chance for peace in the future.everytime somebody says something about one thing.....for example....Vukovar, there is always a defense.We know what happened in Vukovar..., i don't care if nobody is punished for this...but shouldn't there be an admittance that what occured there was wrong.just as croatians should agree, as I do, that "oluje" was both excessive and wrong in its goals and eventual conclusion.i see my criticizm as constructive...because the aim is to higlight possibilty for peace, not to demonize. it shouldn't draw a negative response from others...it merely wishes to raise other possibilities to the discussion. Also, Milan....of course I don't understand what Yugoslavia was like...I don't pretend to..and never have...and I don't appreciate being called an Ustasa...I find it extremely offensive. lastly....my point about Yugoslavia is....well everybody may have been happy....yes that could be true....and ....it may have been the best solution for the people's there.......(at least while Tito was in power)but the thing is....it obviously wasn't.My argument has been all along that... the conditions which brought about an environment for an active push for secession were suddenly brought to the fore, by a number of factors.- not only were croatians pushing for it....throughout the socialist state of Yugoslavia's history (at least in some form..eg, terrorism, politics..through the diaspora. - the slovenians suddenly were as well, and this gave the croatian politicians some support. - the serbian leadership under milosevic was emphasing a stronger and more united Serbian expression, thoughout Yugoslavia...(and if you doubt this ...just read the speech he made at Kosovo polje in 1989..in which he specifically pointed out the importance of Serbian Unity)- the collapse of communism gave greater urgency for political change.now....i don't say this was the best thing to do...but it happened. MY FINAL POINT IS.....Croatians by and large wanted to be independant..., judging by Milan's and some of Milosevic's comments...the Serbs thought Yugoslavia was pretty good as it was...., therefore, there was always going to be a difference of opinion. What the Serbs feared..the Croats wanted. What the Croats did not want, the Serbs enjoyed.Why is there a notion that Yugoslavia was a peaceful and harmonious society?....when at the very root of its foundations there is this common difference in ethinc philosophy?????The Serbs were not willing to become Croats and vice versa....the ethnic distinction has stayed strong for "centuries", as is always repeated. Therefore, my conclusion is that Yugoslavia.....as it was.....could not have stayed. Other political opportunities for peace could have been, and I wish, had been taken up.....however the power of the leaders involved was too important, for petty concessions to be made. Yours peacefully...Ivan
Ivan Kokotovic
Sydney
Australia- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 11:16 pm
Jari said: "Dr Tepavac brought up interesting points. One could defend Art. 7(2) by the maxim lex specialis derogat legi generali..."Speaking about ICTY and its statute one must first ask himself: are they legal or illegal? If they are illegal than the above reasoning - otherwise correct - concerning the Art.7(2) is pointless. That is my point: both the ICTY and its statute are illegal. The Security Council had no authority under the Charter of the UN to establish international criminal courts and, even less, formulate substantive norms of international criminal law. The "law" in articles 2-5 of the statute of the ICTY is the "law" only in the heads of those who decided to establish a "court" for the Serbs in order to finish the genocide against them, and at the same time to shield the true culprits who masterminded, instigated, organized, financed, helped, participated in the bloody dismemberment of Yugoslavia and Serbian people. The "norms" in articles 2-5 do not exist in international law independently of national legislations. Only through national legislations it is the law. Criminal Code of Yugoslavia - Chapter XVI titled "Crimes against humanity and international law" - contains the most modern and progressive crimes which is now best known by the expression "International Humanitarian Law" (IHL). Everyone of sound mind knows that the Security Council is not a legislative body, but only a POLITICAL body. But it is not only illegality which invalidates the ICTY and its statute: it is even more the immorality of their creators: among the "crimes" listed in the statute you will not find the crime of AGGRESSION or the CRIME AGAINST THE PEACE, the crimes which DO exist in international criminal law since Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, crimes which destroyed the Serbian nation and its state. Claude Jorda, present president of the ICTY, was, at the Sorbonne, asked by students WHY is it so?! He embarrassingly replied to the effect that the Security Council - wished so!This brings us to the unavoidable and urgent problem before it is too late: of the need of legal control of the decisions of the Security Council. Its resolution 827 - establishing ICTY and adopting its statute - is maybe the best example of the arbitrariness and ultra vires despotism. Even the former president of the International Court of Justice Algerian Mohammed Bedjaoui, when writing a book on the need of the control of the SC's decisions mentions that resolution.M. Tepavac,Belgrade, Yugoslavia
Milan Tepavac
Belgrade
Yugoslavia- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 11:44 pm
Vera, You brought up your grand-fathers experience from WWII. My uncle Ilija was killed in WWII as well, and they found his fingers severed from his hand, tortured by Chetniks apparently..., he was an Ustasa soldier. He also had no option but to join the Ustasa, as it was a Fascist state there was also conscription. My other uncle Marko too would have been an Ustasa soldier, however in an interesting showdown in Zagreb, my uncle, who had just signed on to work in a Nazi work camp (after my grandfather, who did not agree with the Ustasa, told him to), was approached aggressively by some Ustasa soldiers who asked why he wasn't in uniform...my uncle and grandfather were saved quite a lot of grief by a Nazi general, who was in charge of signing up workers, and who recognised my uncle from earlier in the day. He managed to tell the Ustasa that my uncle was now working for the Nazis and that they couldn't touch him.My uncle was also in Dresden during the bombing and he told me that when they came out of a bunker...there was nothing but rubble, everything had been burntand bombed.These stories from WWII, explain my uncle's fear of Nazis, Ustasa, Chetniks and of RAF bombers.Also...I believe the Ustasa insignia was a 'U'. The Sahovica predates Ustasa by at least about 1,000 years.Am I proud of being Croatian? Yes-----------------------------------Am I ashamed of people who call themselves Croats yet who believe the Ustasa was a clean and worthy regime? Not only am I ashamed, I would renounce my heritage if such a regime surfaced again.----------------------------------- Do I like poking fun at hardliners?Yes, because there is always an advantage of looking at possibilities for peace, and taking a more lighthearted view to anyone.-----------------------------------Funnily enough...all the relatives I met who were from Lika in the 1980s were both very well entrenched in the Communist ideals..were very comfortable in their lives, they had nice houses, they had friendly Croat, Serb and Muslim neighbours, they told my father to take down the picture of Ante Pavelic in our house, at least while they stayed there. Yet also funnily enough....they all agreed with my father that they would rather live in an independent Croatia, than in Yugoslavia.ahem...no Vera...not a neo-Nazi fascist statethey wanted to live in an independent Croatia.get my drift???
Ivan Kokotovic
Sydney
Australia- Wednesday October 23, 2002 at 11:45 pm
Vera, You brought up your grand-fathers experience from WWII. My uncle Ilija was killed in WWII as well, and they found his fingers severed from his hand, tortured by Chetniks apparently..., he was an Ustasa soldier. He also had no option but to join the Ustasa, as it was a Fascist state there was also conscription. My other uncle Marko too would have been an Ustasa soldier, however in an interesting showdown in Zagreb, my uncle, who had just signed on to work in a Nazi work camp (after my grandfather, who did not agree with the Ustasa, told him to), was approached aggressively by some Ustasa soldiers who asked why he wasn't in uniform...my uncle and grandfather were saved quite a lot of grief by a Nazi general, who was in charge of signing up workers, and who recognised my uncle from earlier in the day. He managed to tell the Ustasa that my uncle was now working for the Nazis and that they couldn't touch him.My uncle was also in Dresden during the bombing and he told me that when they came out of a bunker...there was nothing but rubble, everything had been burntand bombed.These stories from WWII, explain my uncle's fear of Nazis, Ustasa, Chetniks and of RAF bombers.Also...I believe the Ustasa insignia was a 'U'. The Sahovica predates Ustasa by at least about 1,000 years.Am I proud of being Croatian? Yes-----------------------------------Am I ashamed of people who call themselves Croats yet who believe the Ustasa was a clean and worthy regime? Not only am I ashamed, I would renounce my heritage if such a regime surfaced again.----------------------------------- Do I like poking fun at hardliners?Yes, because there is always an advantage of looking at possibilities for peace, and taking a more lighthearted view to anyone.-----------------------------------Funnily enough...all the relatives I met who were from Lika in the 1980s were both very well entrenched in the Communist ideals..were very comfortable in their lives, they had nice houses, they had friendly Croat, Serb and Muslim neighbours, they told my father to take down the picture of Ante Pavelic in our house, at least while they stayed there. Yet also funnily enough....they all agreed with my father that they would rather live in an independent Croatia, than in Yugoslavia.ahem...no Vera...not a neo-Nazi fascist statethey wanted to live in an independent Croatia.get my drift???
Ivan Kokotovic
Sydney
Australia - Thursday October 17, 2002 at 11:15 am