 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.
Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————
- discussion archive
- Monday October 20, 2003 at 12:44 am
P M, I agree with you. I am wondering, did you find anything else that could have been damaging from his account.
Dan B
Canada - Monday October 20, 2003 at 12:53 am
On Milan Milanovic:"...Finally, it is impossible to find out anything about Milan Milanovic, former main negotiator and signatory of the Erdut agreement, except that even before ink dried, he had packed his things and moved to Belgrade with his family. This should not surprise anybody. The main mentor in the field of these three and those similar to them in the region - police colonel general and once commander of Serb territorial defence of eastern Slavonia, Radovan Stojicic Badza - was killed at a restaurant table downtown Belgrade. "
If my research is correct, he is now a DOS councilman, and its editor-in-chief Milan Milanovic. This is only if it is correct.
Dan B
Canada - Monday October 20, 2003 at 3:38 am
Dan B. and PM,How do you figure that Milan Milanovic did any damage to Milosevic's defense?
What did his testimony establish that caused damage? As far as I could see he established very little. He had opinions, but opinions don't matter unless you can back them up with facts and Milanovic didn't. You could have the opinion that the world is flat, but that dosen't make it true, it's just an opinion, and that's all Milanovic had.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Monday October 20, 2003 at 9:31 am
Mr. Taylor you write that “A few days before ‘Bloody Sunday’ members of the Parachute Regiment were blown up by a bomb in a pub local to Londonderry.” It has come to light that the Royal Constabulary knew that this was going to take place but did nothing to warn the regiment. What is your take on that????Now that Alia Isetbegovich has departed this world for the Valhalla in order to meet his 72 virgins will they build a statue for him to replace the monument to Gavrilo Princip???? Tudjman dies after treatment for cancer in USA while Alia dies due to complication after a fall, I wonder how they will explain it when they kill Milosevic?
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Monday October 20, 2003 at 9:48 am
THE SCENE WAS RIGGED AT RACAK IN JANUARY, 1999Although apparently recognizing that the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and the conflicts which it brought about form a complex process which cannot be exhaustively dealt with by way of mere 'criminal trial', the ICTY Chief Prosecutor, mrs. del Ponte, from the very beginning expected the Tribunal to write the "most bloody and hearthbreaking chapter" of this history (1).
While foretelling that the 'trial' against mr. Milosevic would by itself make history mrs. del Ponte probably did not expect any significant contribution from the accused - whom she prepared to bring before the world as 'the true culprit'.
The trial, she stated in her opening address on 12th February, 2002, would "evoke the tragic fate of thousands of Milosevic's countless victims', - and the Chief Prosecutor did not hesitate to establish beforehand her chosen culprit's fundamental motivation either:
"Milosevic did nothing," she concluded, "but pursue his ambition!"
Thus the Chief Prosecutor was accusing the former President of the F.R. of Yugoslavia, who stood up for his country and is still doing so from a jail at The Hague, for having been motivated exclusively by a search, his quest for power. Added mrs. del Ponte:
"And personal power at that!"
Having both victims and intent dutyfully identified, towards the closure of the Prosecution's case, her repeatedly prolonged case, we, the world public once again face the points she was citing from Baron d'Estournelles de Constant (who wrote a report of the previous 'Balkan Wars' at the beginning of the 20th Century). Did the Baron's conclusions on 'the real culprits' actually set the scene for the matters tried so far in the present case, - or do we maybe need to judge the facts for ourselves?
Did mr. Milosevic mislead public opinion, inciting his country and, consequently, other countries into war, involving deportation and murder? And why would he do that?
Frankly in the rear-view mirror I see the Prosecution getting off on the wrong foot already by mrs. del Ponte's opening address meant to clarify the issues in the case; and mr. Nice, her deputy, was cementing the utter falseness of this 'trial' by his suggestion that the famous speech by the Serbian President at Kosovo Polje on 28 June, 1989 would imply that war was "not being excluded even at that stage" - some ten years in advance (2).
And the Prosecution took a decisive count if not before then on 12th June, 2002 when the American ambassador William Walker, a former head of the OSCE's Kosovo Verification Mission who sounded the alarm stirring NATO's concern and causing its armed intervention, had to admit that he saw no blood on the ground or around the wounds of the supposed victims of the 'massacre at Racak' (3):
"It looks very much like what I saw," William Walker admitted, when during cross-examination he was confronted with a series of photographs from the proposed hill side scene of the crime, "but these are only a few photographs out of the thousands of photographs that were taken that day. And I can assure the Court that in many of the photographs there is blood, as I described it..."
"Please," mr. Milosevic responded, acting in his own defense, "This particular photograph, just like you have a big door revolving on a small hinge, this photograph shows that the whole scene has been rigged."
(1) Opening address, 12th February, 2002. Trial Transcripts pp. 2-11
(2) Opening speech by mr. Nice, 12th February, 2002. Trial Transcripts, pp. 26-27
(3) JURIST Posting by Godfred Louis-Jensen. July 16, 2003 at 10:17 am.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Monday October 20, 2003 at 10:23 am
Walter Trkla, - honestly!Although Odin's Hall is said to be so large that 960 comrade-in-arms may leave each of its 640 gateways at a time, shoulder by shoulder, the premises of Valhal are strictly for Vikings only (the word is Nordic, Old Norse really for the 'Hall of the Dead').
These days there may not even be 'mjød' (the local brew) for everyone! And I suggest that mr. Izetbegovic would search in vain for 72 virgins on those premises.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Monday October 20, 2003 at 10:23 am
Walter Trkla, - honestly!Although Odin's Hall is said to be so large that 960 comrade-in-arms may leave each of its 640 gateways at a time, shoulder by shoulder, the premises of Valhal are strictly for Vikings only (the word is Nordic, Old Norse really for the 'Hall of the Dead').
These days there may not even be 'mjød' (the local brew) for everyone! And I suggest that mr. Izetbegovic would search in vain for 72 virgins on those premises.
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K - Monday October 20, 2003 at 10:55 am
Mr. Louis-Jensen, the Vikings have been known to rape plunder and pillage in the Balkans so Izetbegovich could be a descendant or a Norse of a different color?? If the Nordic Tribes can open their jails to the Balkan rabble the gate keepers at Valhala will make an exception for Izet, virgins or no virgins, since I am sure he will have difficulty finding any in Bosnia to bring with him. By the way I used Valhala since I forgot the name for the Muslim Hall for dead Jihadists.
Walter Trkla
kamloops BC
Canada - Monday October 20, 2003 at 12:30 pm
That would be Val-Allah.
Dennis Revell
Etats-malheureusement-Unis - Monday October 20, 2003 at 12:33 pm
Oops. correction?
D R
E-m-U - Monday October 20, 2003 at 12:35 pm
Darn it
D R
E-m-U - Monday October 20, 2003 at 12:50 pm
WalterA review of ‘Sunday’ and ‘Bloody Sunday’: two TV films commemorating the Derry Massacre.
Both films show the Paras seeking vengeance for soldiers killed by the IRA, regardless of what their officers may have intended.
The IRA had murdered at least 24 British soldiers during the previous year.
I cannot find any information that the RUC did not forewarn the army of possible IRA attacks. The review above may give you some leads. However what you describe is certainly possible. When security forces of any nationality are faced with terror they take whatever measures they deem necessary to protect themselves: legitimate or otherwise. It is up to a properly constituted world court to deal with these problems hopefully sometime in the not too distant future. Sadly this farce being played out at the ICTY, the trial of Milosevic, reduces this possibility.
As Dennis points out these contradictory positions by the British government in facing down nationalist inspired terror by the IRA in Northern Ireland and supporting nationalist inspired terror by the KLA in Kosovo are incompatible.
And here’s another incompatibility: While Milosevic is being held to account for such actions in Kosovo no one has ever suggested that the British government be held responsible for paramilitary operations in Northern Ireland: Even though there is evidence of collusion by both the RUC and army intelligence in Britain.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Monday October 20, 2003 at 1:03 pm
Val-Allah ... ? No? ;-)
D R
E-m-U - Monday October 20, 2003 at 1:47 pm
Yes: very good DennisBut not your best
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Monday October 20, 2003 at 1:50 pm
... but ... it was my ... quickest ...;-)
D R
EmU (not darnunder) - Monday October 20, 2003 at 7:14 pm
Tudjman died of cancer. Izetbegovic fell down the stairs. I guess the next major event is that Slobo will be killed by Izetbegovic falling on top of him. Now that's a plausibility too considering how things are going and the bull being spun.As for the 72 virgins, Izetbegovic would do well to change his company from the WHORES he's been keeping with down here... Madeline, Tony, Bill, Gerhard, Jacques et al. I guess for every whore on earth there must be a corresponding virgin in ValAllah.
What damage did Milanovic do to Milosevic? Zilch! Most of his evidence was personal opinion. Then again, when all the luminaries like Rupert Smith, Paddy Ashdown etc combine with "luminaries" such as Milanovic, and their PERSONAL OPINIONS become "fact", Mr May will no doubt latch on to this and proclaim that SO MANY INTERNATIONAL LUMINARIES CANNOT BE WRONG! Presto... That's evidence! Note how Mr May is not interested in any of the opinions Milosevic presents from various journalists and politicians independent of YU. Merely "personal views and opinions"! So that's NOT evidence.
The winners write their own scripts. I wonder how one breaks their pens and pencils?
David
Oztral;ia - Monday October 20, 2003 at 7:23 pm
Further on the 72 virgins... Not many of those left. On the basis of the "free", "independent", "democratic", "Western" and "honourable" media, I have it on good authority that the number has been reduced to -72 virgins by virtue of the fact that the Serbs raped most of them in Bosnia.Maybe the Pope can restore their "blessed" status to them before he too falls down the stairs and the smoke starts rising? Still, they won't last long with the likes of Pacelli, Stepinac, Draganovic et al in their blessed presence.
David
Oztralia - Monday October 20, 2003 at 7:39 pm
As promised, Del Ponte has indicted FOUR more Albanian war criminals: JNA generals Nebojša Pavkoviæ and Vladimir Lazareviæ, and police generals Vlastimir Ðorðeviæ and Sreten Lukiæ.Makes you wonder when she's going to start indicting some Serbs for a change!
At the rate Del Ponte is going the whole population of Serbia will be at the Hague before she's finished.
Come to think of it, the whole of Serbia seems to have become a little like the Hague... with aspirations for becoming Guantanamo if the DOS sycophants lose their thrones or the NWO lackeys hold onto theirs.
David
Oztralia - Monday October 20, 2003 at 7:42 pm
SO MANY LUMINRIES CAN NOT BE WRONG¡. That's the only thing left for the ICTY , and this thesis puts the whole world on the premise that "10 million flies can't be wrong lets eat shit"
M P
Rep de Panama - Monday October 20, 2003 at 8:16 pm
MP Panama"Bon appetit" to Mr May et al.
David
Oztralia - Monday October 20, 2003 at 8:29 pm
"Shitkickers of the World Unite!"A parole for the New-NWO. Now that could be something worth fighting for on a global scale. (Only NON-corporatist members invited! Professional politicians, affirmed spin doctors and media publicists can p'off).
David
Oztralia - Monday October 20, 2003 at 8:32 pm
Carla Carla¡¡ Do you really think that you're going to make us mad with your low estrogen decisions? , wrong again , can't you do something intelligent even by mistake? , you are so pathetic I have started to feel sorry for you I have mixed feelings now it makes me wonder if you are going "cookoo" because of a lack of estrogen or this "opera buffa" is taking its toll and slowly but surely you're becoming more and more mentaly handicaped. Rinuncia cara¡, la vita e bella , metti un calcio al mondo e diventa felice¡¡. Un Bacio Ciao¡
M P
Rep de Panama - Monday October 20, 2003 at 10:37 pm
Now, with this latest idictment the world and the Serbian people must realize that Milosevic is defending them all in the Hague. They are accusing the whole people, the whole government. It is simply unbelievable. Time to wake up.
Dan B
Canada - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 3:06 am
Who'd 'a' thought it. Tony Bliar does have a heart, after all. According to his doctors anyway; unless he's got them to lie on his behalf as well.The English trickie-dickie has a dickie-ticker. Hope he doesn't die from it. Well, not too fast anyway. Like, real slow.
Dennis Revell
E-m-U - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 1:24 pm
Spot the difference: Kosovo and IraqMeanwhile in New York, the human-rights organization Human Rights Watch says it has confirmed 20 civilian deaths under questionable circumstances in Baghdad since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, and has received credible reports of dozens more.
Reporters and Iraqi witnesses said the paratroopers raked the area with return fire. They detained at least nine Iraqis, residents said.
The bodies of the two civilians killed in yesterday's attack - an Iraqi and a Syrian truck driver - were taken to Fallujah General Hospital. The Associated Press saw that one of them, Iraqi Nazem Baji, had a gunshot wound in the back of his head and his hands were tied in front of him with plastic bands similar to those used by the U.S. military when they arrest suspects.
"They [Americans] raided the house, shot him first in the leg, tied his hands and then shot him in the head," said the victim's brother, Dira'a Baji. Baji said his brother was the only male in the house when the Americans came but that several women relatives were present and described what happened.
The U.S. military press office referred AP to the 82nd Airborne press office. An e-mail request for comment was forwarded, but no reply was received.
Milosevic is accused, among other things, of failing to court marshal soldiers who committed atrocities although there is evidence that this did happen. But where are any courts marshal for the atrocities committed by Blair’s coalition forces in Iraq let alone those of the KLA in Kosovo?
But the above is not the difference: Blair and Bush chose war in Iraq whereas the war in Kosovo was forced on Milosevic by the KLA backed by Blair and Co.
Given these discrepancies what I wonder is legally trained Blair’s understanding of justice?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 2:30 pm
Today at the Hague:http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg102103.htm
Tomorrow should be interesting, I have a good feeling about Ms. Gajic-Glisic's cross-examination.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 3:40 pm
Andy: just one correction in your report, and also possibly a reason why you couldn't find the info you searched on google. Gatsko is really spelled Gacko.
P M
USA - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 6:16 pm
Andy Gacko is a small town on the road (Dubrovnik, Trbinje, Bileca, Gacko Foca Sarajevo). Like other towns in this region it sits on the edge of a polje (flat farmland). A polje is a flat depression caused by a collapsed cavern common in karst regions in Herzegovina and Dalmatia. North of Gacko are high mountains used as summer pasture by farmers from Bileca and Gacko municipalities. Other than agriculture Gacko has a coal mine.Gacko was an administrative center during the Ottoman Empire. There is an old ‘kula’ or Turkish fortress in Gacko.
During WWII Gacko was a center of Muslim Ustasa activity. Some 20 kilometers south of Gacko there is a ‘jama’ a karst pit into which the Gacko Muslims threw some one hundred and fifty Serb civilians. These Serbian men, women and children came from villages between Gacko and Bileca.
During the recent fighting the Muslim men armed themselves as did the Serbs. The Muslim center of activity was in and around the old Turkish fortress. I understand that some WWII scores were settled by the local population.
Walter Trkla
Kamloops BC
Canada - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 7:02 pm
Interesting article on strategy to get Milosevic transferred to the Hague:http://www.msnbc.com/news/621297.asp
Peter Varavejke
Belgium - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 8:09 pm
Moderator The lines are 20 inches wide. Its like reading a banner.Please make them fit on the screen Thanks
Vasile Ianos
NJ - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 8:52 pm
Dobrila Gajiæ Glišiæ was another damaging witness. She testified that Milosevic was continuosly informed on the war crimes in Croatia, as well as the activities of Seselj and Arkan. She also refuted Captain Dragan, saying that he had been a memember of the DB of Serbia and that he was employed/hired by Jovica Stanisic. She also reported that Milosevic ordered the Serbian Defense Minister Tomislava Simovic to create a unit of 1200 men. She says that her information does not come first hand, but rather from what Tomislava Simoviæ told her. The prosecution announced that he will appear as a witness in the weeks to come. Her account started with a thank you to Mr. Milosevic for helping her stay alive as an editor for The Komunist. "I believe that I am alive today because of him and I would like to thank him for that." She added that she found herself later in a confrontation with Milosevic. The main message is that Milosevic ordered the organizing of volunteers that were sent into Croatia. Hopefully, the cross examination will be helpful in establishing the REAL facts as this witness may have something else to say, since like Andy pointed out, she was cut off on numerous occasions. But overall, she has done more damage to Milosevic and none to the prosecution so far (except for not being able to identify and verify the phone conversations).
Dan B
Canada - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 10:24 pm
"Dobrila Gajiæ Glišiæ was another damaging witness."
"She says that her information does not come first hand, but rather from what Tomislava Simoviæ told her."
Dan B, I do not want to call you names.
ivko rig
Brave
New World - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 10:35 pm
She did state on numerous occasions that she has first hand knowledge. I just think a little balance is needed. It cannot be that all the witnesses are demolised by the Defense. She if any of all the witnesses has done some damage. As for your sugestion to call me names, I have contributed to this forum greatly and have written numoerous opinions on many witnesses. I believe, after watching the whole session of this woman that she has said much that was detrumental. In order to judge her account as a whole we should wait for the cross examination. I would add that Mr. Simovic will come. The witness also added that she was responsible for the collecting of money for the vounteers, so she does have first hand knowledge. It is not to say that what Milosevic did is wrong, but rather that this witness contradicted him and it remains if Simovic will do the same. As for what she said or heard, if you have been following the 'trial' you should be well aware that the trial chamber does indeed even accept, unlike normal courts, third hand hearsay. I am glad you refrained yourself from calling someone names. I hope you will watch this witnesses account before doing so.
Dan B
Canada - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 10:36 pm
A question to the more intelligent ones here?What is the purpose of bringing Dobrila Gajic Glisic to the Holy Office. Could it be that the hideous ones wanted to do some damege to what their own "witness", Tomislav Simovic, is going to say?
ivko rig
The Blind
United - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 10:53 pm
An answer to those that watch the trial, The purpose is that she is testifiying as a prosecution witness. If she is going to damage Simovic's account, then why would the prosecutor call Simovic. This witness has written a book, like Andy stated in his research, Mrs. Dobrila Gajic-Glisic's (ex-chief-of-cabinet of the Serbian Defense Minister) memoirs were presented to the public by the "NIN" weekly magazine. Mrs. Gajic-Glisic's message was quite clear: General Simovic and other advocates for a "Serbian army" are honest people who were tripped up by certain JNA officers; all the responsibility for the "paramilitary formations" went to the SK-PJ, because the senile retired generals have not only armed Serbs throughout Croatia, but also kept updated files on the matter. The most important information revealed is that regarding the intended talks between General Veljko Kadijevic and Mr. Slobodan Milosevic concerning the "President's assumption of supreme command" (beginning of December 1991). The talks were never held. I find it hard to believe that some people here completely refuse that a witness can do any damage to the Defense. This witness had done so far, and the main part, as to how this plays itself out, depends on the cross examination and the appearance of Mr. Simovic. Tomislav Simovic was also a possible indictee. According to this witness, General Tomislav Simovic who as Serbia's defence minister participated in conspiracy by forming and equipping Serbian volunteer units which perpetrated crimes cited in the indictment. Now, what could happen, since you pointed this out, is that Mr. Simovic could very well say that this is not the case, but he has not come to testify and we have to deal with what is given to us.
Dan B
Canada - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 11:43 pm
Dan B, My intention was not to exclude you from " "the more intelligent ones here", as you can see from our post times.However, I am still refraining myself from calling you names for what you say: "As for what she said or heard, if you have been following the 'trial' you should be well aware that the trial chamber does indeed even accept, unlike normal courts, third hand hearsay."
No, Dan B, it cannot be damaging to Milosevic. It is just some more human rot in disguise of justice which has no capabilities of doing any damage to Milosevic; it is just the opposite: every single moment he spends in The Hague adds to his heroism. Not for what he did while he was free but for what he is doing now. My view comes out of the three stages in which I have seen Slobodan Milosevic differently:
- 1987: He reacted to upsurging nationalisms all around in the way that was not acceptable to me at the time. I did not like him.
- 1988-2000: Every idiot I knew whether adored him or hated him. The emotions he was attracting, be they positive or negative, made me cautios. I neither liked him nor disliked anymore.
- 2001 to this day: I see him as A HERO OF HUMAN DIGNITY. They could bring thousends of people to say he is guilty of this or that because they heard from someone that it was so and I will not change my opinion (because "I love myself and celebrate myself and what I assume you shall assume"). I will not change my opinion concerning his HEROISM even if there appears some evidence that he is not that innocent (be it in what ever way). Not for my stubborness, but because I have seen so much evidence for human slimeness opposing him that I think, to put it in politically correct language, it would be inappropriate to speak about his guilt until we have done away with the slime ("for every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you").
ivko rig
Still
Hope - Tuesday October 21, 2003 at 11:55 pm
"he has not come to testify and we have to deal with what is given to us"The diction of the above made me ask you: Did you go to the same school with Mr. May?
ivko rig
USW - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 12:05 am
I am glad that we are not calling each other names. I completely agree with what you have wrotten about Milosevic. What I was refering to is not the heroism of his, but the legal stance of his in the court. I don't think you should change your opinion of his heroism, and I would call it heroism as well. What is happening in the Hague is the worst form of justice-if you can even call it justice. I think that any person who willingly participates in this mockery is part of the machinery which has brought us the destruction of Yugoslavia. But then I also believe that the so-called trial has a legal aspect. In my opinion, Milosevic should be freed for several reasons. i)False indictment ii)no evidence iii)political court, bias, etc etc I do not think Milosevic is guilty! BECAUSE helping ur brothers and sisters is not a crime! Some accuse him of breaking up Yugoslavia, others of keeping it together, some of helping the Krajina Serbs, some of not helping them. When I wrote the small analysis, I was referring to the legal point of view one would have (absent the illegaility of the tribunal).
Dan B
Canada - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 12:07 am
Correction 1: SHe has come to testify, instead of HE. I am not in the same school, but that is 'irrelevant'. What is relevant, is that we have a witness who is either knowlingly lying or purposly damaging Milosevic and getting something in return.
Dan B
Canada - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 12:36 am
Dan B,The reason I am refraining from calling you names is exactly the following statement of yours: "But then I also believe that the so-called trial has a legal aspect." The legality of DER PROZES has been successfully repudiated here many times. But I am sure we both want to support the idea of international justice. Where we disagree is that you believe that the shamefull developments in The Hague, and around, are a step towards that justice, and I believe they are thousends miles away from it. Further, by accepting any kind of legality of this human shame in The Hague you do damage to the very cause of that same justice we would like to prevail.
P.S. As far as I know Serbs, they call you names without meaning any harm. They have never, in their history, been capable of political correctness for which I respect them. (Sometimes, nevertheless, I think I am wrong when I see what is going on in Serbia of today.
ivko rig
USW - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 12:48 am
I refuse to define what you believe, which is why I have to stated what I think it is you believe. I do not define your beliefs and it is not for me to do so. Nowhere in my statements have I indicated that the trial is a step towards international justice, you assumed it. So Mr. Rig what would you have us do? Ignore the witnesses and their legal aruments in terms of legailty? Are we supposed to fight the charges or remain still and play dead?
Dan B
Canada - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 6:52 am
Dan B and all othersI would never do something like taking part in this forum if I thought we should ignore anything in this mockery of justice. On the contrary: we have to be very careful about every single detail in this "WORK OF ART".
Why work of art?
I hope we do not have to go into the intricacies of what a work of art is. For our purposes it will suffice if we accept the definiton of the ancients which roughly goes something like this: a work of art is mimesis: imitation (copy, representation) of (a part of) a/the reality. Let's take Mona Lisa as an example: there is an image of a smiling lady in the countryside. If it was only for what it shows it would be boring after watching it a few minutes (if you are not in love with someone who looks like her or the contryside resembles your place of birth). There must be something else, something we should see eventhough it cannot be seen by our material eyes, some man-made reality. (Otherwise we wouldn't have so many different interpretations). And we all know full well that Leonardo did not want to realistically depict that piece of countryside or that face but to make us believe something concerning some reality about which he had and wanted something to say.
So (our purpose is not to speak about art), there are three essential elements: a reality, the artist, and his representation of the reality.
If we want to successfully compare the show trial (ah?) with a work of art we have to define the essential elements in it which substantiate the comparison:
A reality: the Balkan wars,
The artist: those who created them,
The representation of the reality: media representation of the wars and now "the trial".
If the comparison is OK:
What shouldn't we do?
We must never forget the essential difference between Mona Lisa and The Show Trial in The Hague: the artist in Mona Lisa case worked with a canvas, brushes and paints and the artists in the The Show Trial in The Hague case are working with blood, sweat and tears.
We must never forget: while it is open whether Leonardo should have been bound by the truthful representation our artists must be, and they are swearing to their gods that they are.
What should we do?
Fight against artistic approach in real human relationships (Peter Taylor is doing it fine, by exposing Tony as an "actor", for example). Or, when you follow The Show Trial in The Hague you should see it for what it is and do the same things you are doing in a gallery, which is to say: if you want to see the meaning of a detail in relationship to other details in a painting you should first try to find out why it was put there by the artist (or artists in our case). Or else, whatever you think is appropriate to make DER PROZES more interesting to wider public in order for them to find out that this variant of DER PROZES is not as meaningless or meaningful, as it seems to be seen by most of them, but that it is notably purposeful.
Dan B
By accepting that any one "witness" in The Show Trial in The Hague can do any kind of damage to Milosevic you let yourself be duped by Rudder Finn and by those who pay him.
And will never be able to appreciate a real work of art. ;-)
ivko rig
Unfortunatly
United Slime of the World - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 7:12 am
Gajic-Glisic hasn't produced ANY evidence! Everything she claims is that she was told so and so by so and so, namely Simovic in most cases. Granted that May might want to make use of such "gossip"-"hearsay", but the fact is that it remains just that! Hearsay!
Hearsay is not legally evidence, not in the British system or any other system of justice that professes any credibility. Now if we were the Nazis or the Soviets, we could buy such crap. But we're not, are we?
The troika knows that and since there is no jury and they are professional judges, they are happy to allow such crap because they are capable of giving proper weight to such "evidence", presumably without being "polluted" by it.
Nice says he's not going to call Simovic, or at least he indicated that he never claimed he would. Wouldn't you think that he'd want to hear everything Glisic has to say from Simovic himself? Wouldn't you think May and Robinson and Kwon would rather hear from Simovic directly? Next question is for May to ask Nice why he didn't call Simovic, or if he is going to call Simovic and get the story from the horse's mouth! Is Simovic dead and can't be called? I don't think so.
Whatever the case, unless Simovic is called and he corroborates Glisic, Glisic's "evidence" is worth ZILCH.
In any event, the formal orders and documents indicate that the Serbian defence DID make efforts to eliminate the "paramilitary" formations which went as volunteers. Unless of course Milosevic was supposed to personally get a gun and chase them around and arrest them.
David
Oztralia - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 7:32 am
Are the Serb people still asleep or have they not quite figured out what the indictment of another 4 Serbian generals is about? Of all the former YU republics, only SERBIA has so many leading people on trial. The others have NO leading figures on trial!Presto, EVERYTHING is Serbia's fault! Everything amounts to war crimes mostly by Serbia! Even though Serbia was the only republic which WASN"T at war.
David
Oztralia - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 7:45 am
Come to think of it, IT"S A DISGRACE that the Serbian people and the Serbian state as a whole are not providing ANY assistance to any of the accused. Shame, shame!
David
Oztralia - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 7:50 am
David: the current Serbian regime clearly does not represent the people. Please don't blame the grumbling people for the machinations of this collaborationist regime. 95% of the population disagrees with and hates them.Re: indictment, that's why this whole thing is so sinister - people who had a marginal role in the Croatian and Bosnian wars are being indicted while those who were really involved have either been allowed to die (Tudjman, Izetbegovic), are still in power (Western leaders), are in hiding (Karadzic, Mladic), or have been granted protection by this runaway court-on-wheels (Babic).
P M
USA - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 7:51 am
I should add Mesic as one still in power - the Croatian nationalist Lite.
P M
USA - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 8:20 am
B92 states this "Tužilaštvo je najavilo da æe se kao jedan od narednih svedoka u sudnici pojaviti i sam general Tomislav Simoviæ. " The translation of this is that the "prosecution accounced that in one of the coming days, General Simovic himself will appear as a witness."
Dan B
Canada - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 9:10 am
P.M. and Walter,Thank you for correcting me and giving me the proper spelling for Gacko. The spelling "Gatsko" appeared in a few articles and that is howcome I thought it was spelled that way. I will correct my article.
As for Ms. Gajic-Glisic I didn't see that there was any real damage done.
Everything she said was contained in her book or had already been published in NIN. It was all public information.
There really isn't any dispute that during the few months (late '91 to early '92) that she was testifying about that the Republic of Serbia trained volunteers, provided logistical support for them, and sent them to serve in units of the JNA and the T.O.
I really can't see what the problem here is. The JNA and the T.O. were the legal armed force of the SFRY. Serbia was a republic within the SFRY, so what could possibly be wrong with Serbia assisting the legal armed forces of the internationally recognised federal state that it was a part of?
As for this business about some so-called "Serbian Army" it is all a mute point because no such army ever existed.
I don't think that any damage was done to the defense.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 11:05 am
Old warrant, eh . . .
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 12:21 pm
A bunch of HypocritesHypocrite: A person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold. Source: WordNet, 1997 Princeton University
Hypocrite: Commonly used to characterize a person who is habitually insincere and false, especially one who makes professions of goodness when his aims are selfish and his life corrupt. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996
Blair, Cook, Robertson, Short, Clinton Albright, Rubin, Goldstone, Arbour, del Ponte … This is what they had to say about the Serb security forces fighting KLA led Islamic terror in Kosovo. Writing about his attack on the Serbs for fighting Islamic terror by the KLA in Kosovo Blair claimed to be on a “moral crusade”. Let Blair speak for all of them who uttered similar comments:
“Racak was important because it was a gross act. It was an indication that Milosevic was prepared to use methods of ethnic cleansing … There was a sense of shock as a result of that, at the barbarity of it … it was pivotal … But the ethnic cleansing was stopped and was reversed.”
It is incontrovertible that Racak was a battle between Serb security forces and a well armed Islamic terrorist KLA who had a stronghold in that town from which it launched murderous attacks.
In contrast we have Britain’s ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre of unarmed civil rights marchers and thirty years of whitewash to make it go away.
In their own fights against Islamic terror the Serb’s attackers perform a volte face: “shock and awe” is now “the right thing to do”.
In Iraq not one of Blair’s coalition forces has been called to account for the many atrocities reported by HRW. One notable atrocity being coalition forces opening fire on a crowd of protestors in Fallujah on 29 April and the following day on a crowd protesting the first atrocity. Consequently 15 were killed and 90 wounded.
In Palestine F16 fighter bombers, tanks and Apache gunships fire missiles into homes and crowded streets: the action completed yesterday alone killing 14 and injuring more than a hundred mainly civilians including women and children.
So much for the coalition of the willing and its protestations of Serbia’s disproportionate response to Islamic terror.
So where are they all now these once vocal opponents of “gross acts” such as Racak, those shocked “at the barbarity of it”: those so appalled by “ethnic cleansing” real or imaginary that it justified them in dropping cluster bombs on innocent Serb civilians. Their silence on the real “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo the result of Islamic terror by the KLA is deafening and their action to oppose it perverted into supporting this terror?
A Blair statement as he launched his attack upon the Serbs in March 1999:
Justice is all that those poor people, driven from their homes in their thousands in Kosovo, are asking for, the chance to live free from fear. We have in our power the means to help them secure justice and we have a duty to see that justice is now done.
That was then this is now. Blair, like all the rest of his Nato gangsters and their associates, now acts like the famous three monkeys over Kosovo: He hears no evil, sees no evil and speaks not of the evil of the KLA. The quarter of a million of Kosovo’s minority populations that he helped the KLA to “ethnically cleanse” can rot in Hell. His fine preaching on “duty” and “justice” for all “those poor people, driven from their homes in their thousands in Kosovo, - asking for, the chance to live free from fear “ are now most inconvenient and long forgotten. All that remains is to discover Blair’s ‘selfish aims’ and ‘how corrupt has been his life’. One clue to his corruption is his lie that “ethnic cleansing (in Kosovo) was stopped and was reversed”.
The ICTY court set up by Blair and his gang to try Milosevic, whose presiding judge is a New Labour associate of Blair, cannot be by definition a court of true justice for their use of the word ‘justice’ like the court itself is revealed above as a mask to cover their own crimes against the Serbian people.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 1:13 pm
Peter Taylor: I am afraid I don't think Blair's a hypocrite on Kosovo. I think that he, unlike many other Western leaders, is so batty and hysterical (just look at him give an interview, he bounces in his seat when giving a response), that he actually believed that bombing the hell out of Serbia was a humanitarian act. Whether he was similarly idiotic when it comes to Iraq, and forged his way to a war as a result, or whether the entire operation was the machination of a crafty scumbag - I think we can't be sure about that.
P M
USA - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 1:45 pm
David in Oztralia said:
Are the Serb people still asleep or have they not quite figured out what the indictment of another 4 Serbian generals is about? Of all the former YU republics, only SERBIA has so many leading people on trial. The others have NO leading figures on trial!The article below shows how sinister and pathetic the whole thing is. Add in that we know the Serbs OFFERED to help the NWO in Afghanistan ...!!!
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3212106.stmSerb fury at war crimes charges The Serbian Government and the war crimes tribunal were involved in angry exchanges on Tuesday over demands for the extradition of four war crimes suspects, including Serbia's current head of public security. Belgrade officials insisted there would be no early move to arrest or extradite the four generals, named on Monday in a war crimes indictment from The Hague tribunal.
Prime Minister Zoran Zivkovic said the indictments violated an informal agreement between the court and Belgrade.
This is a drastic violation of an agreement... No fast action, arrests or extraditions can be expected from us Zoran Zivkovic Serbian Prime Minister But The Hague insisted the four men - including deputy interior minister Sreten Lukic and former Yugoslav army chief General Nebojsa Pavkovic - must be handed over.
"When the tension dies down and the dust settles, they will see they have no option but to proceed and apprehend these men," said deputy prosecutor Graham Blewitt.
The war crimes charges against them include murder, persecution, deportation and inhumane treatment of ethnic Albanians.
The Serbian Government is preparing for a confidence vote and said the timing of the indictments showed a "lack of understanding" of the current situation by chief war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte.
The Story continues
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3212106.stm
Nikole J
Canada - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 2:19 pm
PMBlair's decision to attack Serbia may have been "batty" but that was not my point.
Is it not an act of monumental hypocrisy to state:
Justice is all that those poor people, driven from their homes in their thousands in Kosovo, are asking for, the chance to live free from fear. We have in our power the means to help them secure justice and we have a duty to see that justice is now done.
And then to do absolutely nothing effective over a period of four and a half years to remendy the situation of the quarter of a million people people "ethnically cleansed" from Kosovo by actions of the KLA?
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 2:21 pm
Today at the Hague Tribunalhttp://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg102203.htm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 4:19 pm
At first, having watched the examination in chief, the prosecutor managed to twist the words and evidence of this witness on numerous occasions. To start of with the conclusion, this witness was another witness for the Defense. First it was Captain Dragan, then to some degree General Vasiljevic, Zoran Lilic and now Dobrila Gajiæ Glišiæ. In her emotional testimony, it was proven again that Slobodan Milosevic was once again fighting for peace and not the destruction of Yugoslavia. In the continuation of her account, Ms. Gajic-Glisic was chef de cabinet to General Tomislav Simovic, Serbian Minister of Defense from September 26 to December 12, 1991. With his cross examination, the ‘accused’ managed to, once again, take another prosecution witness and sway them to his complete favour. Yesterday, Mr. Nice managed to get the witness to say several things that benefited the prosecution, by not giving her enough time and space to explain herself and her answers in a broader fashion, which in the end would not result in the same benefit for the prosecutor. But today, when Milosevic got his chance to examine this witness he has managed to largely de-sharpen the accusations of the ‘other side’ by letting the other witness explain herself. The dramatic testimony started with when Milosevic asked the witness about the atrocities the Croatian Army committed against the Serbs in Krajina and other parts of Croatia.“It was horrible” Ms. Gajic-Glisic repeated twice and through tears. When Franjo Tudjman came, Serbs where cleaned from their homes, they were fleeing with only one plastic bag, they lost their love ones and still do not know what happened to them. I received photographs of massacred Serbs who were burned and some were even so graphic that their feet, legs, arms and other parts were cut off and placed in their mouths.”
Milosevic proceeded to ask the witness some more questions, as it was clearly visible that this witness was about, like many others, to tell the truth.
“General Simovic insisted that Serbia was for peace and he mentioned the massacres of the Croatians against the Serbs, which were now repeating themselves. This is in relation to WWII?” “Yes, that is correct.”
Then came the shocker to Mr. Nice.
“The goal of the JNA was not to create a ‘Great Serbia’, but to protect the Serbian people from a new genocide?” “Yes, thousands of young were surrounded in their barracks, without electricity, water or food and surrounding them were women in black who were singing as a sign of protest.” (These women were asking the Army to save the soldiers from the Croatians and to bring them back home, but the JNA could not do so, since the Croatian army surrounded the barracks. In one case, they shut off the water and filled the water system with gasoline.)
Despite addressing Milosevic as "Comrade President," Ms. Gajic-Glisic on some parts of her story was not willing to budge, but this was only the case of the Serbian-Military law, which was never created or voted or tabled or ever passes ( I think you get the point).
Another positive part was that the witness agreed that Milosevic begged, emphasis on begged and not controlled, Simovic to fly over Vukovar, which highly damaged the prosecutors argument of command responsibility.
“She also agreed with her former president that the JNA had to intervene because the Ustasha were threatening genocide against the Serbs. She added that Serbia was threatened with attack -- and, in fact, Sid was attacked from across the border with Croatia. On one point, she told the Court that political party volunteers operated outside the system. In other words, Serbian authorities and Milosevic had no control over Dusan Silni and other paramilitaries who went to Croatia on their own and were blamed for atrocities. The other point concerned Goran Hadzic, who eventually became President of the Serb Autonomous Region of the SBWS. Her testimony that Milosevic didn't even know him when the SBWS sent him to negotiations in The Hague contrasts with testimony of prior witnesses who claimed Milosevic pretty much controlled events in SBWS, including informal selection of its leaders.”
This witness ended with a story of how she met a businessman who was a close friend of Ronald Regan and how there was/is a plan to destroy Yugoslavia and demonize the Serbs. Her manuscript was confiscated. Overall, this witness had evidence, but it was second hand evidence and hearsay. It remains to be seen if Mr. Simovic will come to testify for either side.
Dan B
Canada - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 7:31 pm
Gee whiz! The other side isn't doing too well with these "senior insider" witnesses. :-) Or is Slobo stil "mesmerizing" EVERY single one of them with his presence to tell the truth. LOL .
Another sleepless night for Mr Nice. Mr May must be squirming because the evidence is that "THERE IS NO CASE TO ANSWER". How on earth is he ever going to justify a GUILTY verdict on the basis of the farce so far? He'll look like the buffoon that he is. Unless of course they can get some witnesses in a real hurry... but that's going to be rather expensive at this point.
BTW: It turns out that May should prohibit Nice from presenting witnesses who have NOTHING BUT HEARSAY as evidence. Now that's a waste of time, Mr May! Call the source witnesses, not the story tellers who heard things from Matthew... who heard from Mark... who heard from Luke... who heard from John! Or is everything the Prosecution presents supposed to be Gospel or something?
David
Oztralia - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 9:18 pm
When 20 month ago the prosecution in their opening statement found it important and necessary to bring in the notorious speech delivered on KOSOVO POLE i smiled............ i went to E.C (i believe ) and read it again - real "good" then i started laughing............ - I was sure that at least 2 of honorable judges will be intrigued enough go to their hotel get on Internet find that "inflammatory" , "nationalistic" dribble in its original version, read it - maybe twice or trice if necessary come back next morning and simply dismiss the case...............- Well 150 or so witnesses later 147 of which were clearly testifying for the DEFENSE Carla shows up on the board and promises with the help of DOS bring some real heavy weights......... points out that SM defense fond money is running out and they won't be able to bribe the officials and mount that vigorous cross-examination which clearly is "illegal defense".............- Everybody practically ignores HER , because besides couple of Ritas there was never any opposition on the board............- Oh ! ......and she didn't post under her own name...........
- 3 month to prepare his defence is plenty for S Milosovich.......... - All he has to do is put on hi witness list 7 big names - in other words ask to "bring in the clowns" ........... - Get rejection on all 7 and say :-"DOBRO"......... - Wait till the opening of the defense phase and on that morning after all that shit of ALL rise! - say :- DOBRO! - You Heard all the witnesses, assume you read all 500.000pages of their testimony, - you went trough the transcripts of the prosecution phase.......... I tried to call a few witnesses myself for the balance but appears the ones who pay the piper can't afford it...........
- Remember that "inflammatory" " nationalistic" speech the prosecution mentioned in their opening statement at the beginning of all this ? - Here are 3 pages of the speech and here are 115 pages of misquotes ,distortion and pure propaganda with some out of context quotes and references to that speech............ - Read it and if each of you has the IQ over 100......... - Read IT ! -BECAUSE the prosecution clearly didn't they just read some from those 115 pages or heard something before they took the assignment........... - Read IT because you claim that we are here to find the truth and serve the JUSTICE! - And next week after you're done reading and maybe able to put 2 and 2 together and we are on the same page I will make my closing statement.........-DOBRO!?
vytas abrutis
phila
PA usa - Wednesday October 22, 2003 at 11:47 pm
Carla has lost her marbles¡¡¡ Carla has gone cookoo¡¡¡ Carla has gone bananas¡¡¡ Carla what ever you try to put together will end up like "a big door revolving on a small hinge" keep that in mind , RICORDALO SEMPRE¡¡¡. Moja Karla jel si li popizdila¡ Un Bacio CIAO .
M P
ReP de Panama . On Our Centenary, Salud¡¡